FCC Investigating Audacy Over News Report on ICE

The Audacy investigation is the latest in a surge of FCC media probes in Carr’s first weeks in office, including a news distortion proceeding on CBS (see 2502050063), inquiries about PBS and NPR underwriting, an examination of radio payola allegations, and a letter warning ABC that the agency would scrutinize its affiliate contracts. “The FCC will hold broadcasters accountable for complying with their public interest obligations," Carr told Fox. An FCC investigation of broadcasters for reporting on law enforcement operations is “unprecedented,” said Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and a former FCC chief counsel.

In the Jan. 26 KCBS broadcast, a journalist, citing information from the San Jose mayor and a volunteer rapid response network that protects immigrants, gave details of an ongoing ICE operation, including the location, make and model of vehicles involved in it. Fox has reported that there was gang activity in the area at the time. "I want to express my thanks and appreciation to [Department of Homeland Security] and ICE agents," Carr said in a post on X. “These law enforcement professionals are honorably serving this country and carrying out vital missions. Their safety is paramount.” Audacy declined to comment, and the NAB and FCC didn’t immediately respond to our inquiries.

Like the subjects of other FCC investigations of broadcasters since Carr became chair -- CBS, NPR, PBS -- Audacy has been a frequent subject of condemnation by right-wing media. That targeting started after Audacy’s bankruptcy proceedings led to a fund associated with George Soros purchasing a controlling interest in the company. Soros, who backs many left-leaning entities, is a frequent target of conservatives. As a commissioner, Carr voted against an FCC waiver for Audacy connected to the restructuring, condemning it as a “Soros-shortcut.” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said last month the FCC should revisit that waiver (see 2501220042). “Why is George Soros doxxing civil servants??” said Nathan Leamer, a former aide to Chairman Ajit Pai, in a post on X this week. Carr “is absolutely correct to protect our law enforcement officers,” Leamer added.

Journalism outlets have a First Amendment right to report on the public activities of law enforcement and even to photograph them in public places, Corn-Revere noted. Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, echoed that point: “There is no law against identifying undercover officers. Any such law would be unconstitutional.” The public interest standard that Carr cited “has historically been interpreted very narrowly,” Stern said. “The government does not get to decide what is in the public's interest to know. Journalists are entitled to document law enforcement operations.” It is “very obvious that Mr. Carr is selectively enforcing his own interpretation of FCC regulations against outlets that his boss has a grudge against,” he said.

“I don’t think this is a case that necessarily stretches the bounds of [FCC] authority if it stays tied to potentially illegal conduct," said American Action Forum’s Jeffrey Westling. “The FCC is investigating the broadcaster for airing information that could make it more difficult for federal agents to enforce the law or even put the agents at jeopardy by airing their locations, which could violate state and federal laws relating to aiding and abetting individuals avoiding law enforcement.” It will be “critical to keep an eye on this investigation so that it remains focused on potential illegal conduct and not simply punishing stations for providing resources to its community,” he said

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. told reporters Tuesday that Carr is “crossing a line that the FCC shouldn't cross in terms of the questions which he is now asking the networks and PBS.” Markey said he thinks Carr has already “reached a conclusion” about what those investigations will find about broadcasters’ practices, “which is going to create a chilling effect in terms of the First Amendment expression of the news outlets.” These “threats to broadcasters are dangerous, chilling, and an attempted dagger to the heart for any semblance of a free press and a functioning democracy,” said Matt Wood, Free Press vice president-policy.

The public interest standard doesn't refer to the “public interest of American citizens only,” said Fletcher Heald broadcast attorney Frank Montero, who represents Hispanic broadcasters. Broadcasters have an obligation to serve their audience, he said. “There is this sort of tradition, certainly with Spanish radio, of putting the word out to their audience when immigration is on the prowl and making them aware of that situation,” Montero said. “The FCC gives the broadcaster an amazing amount of discretion to determine what is in the public interest.”