Press Glosses Over Fact Trump’s FCC Pick Will Decimate Consumer Protection, Media Consolidation Limits

We noted earlier this week how Trump had unsurprisingly picked Brendan Carr to head the FCC. We also pointed out how Carr's policies" are utterly indistinguishable from the interests of unpopular telecom and media giants like Comcast and AT&T. He's going to demolish whatever's left of the FCC's consumer protection standards and media consolidation limits, and he's not going to be subtle about it.

Carr is the dictionary definition of regulatory capture." He's going to deliver the final killing blow to net neutrality (if the Trump-stacked courts don't get to it first). He's also going to take a hatchet to the FCC's recentinquiry into shitty broadband usage caps, efforts to stop broadband redlining" (read: racism in fiber deployment),good faith efforts to help the poor afford broadband, and efforts to stop your cable, phone, wireless, or broadband provider fromripping you off with shitty fees.

But as I dug through the mainstream reporting on Carr's appointment, very few outlets seemed interested in making any of that clear to readers. The New York Times and Washington Post, for example, kept the focus largely on Carr's animosity toward big tech" companies for their censorship of Conservatives" (read: doing the absolute bare minimum to thwart racist assholes and right wing propaganda on the internet).

The fact that Carr's primary function at the FCC will be to coddle unpopular telecom and media giants in about thirty different ways barely warrants a mention. Over at the Cox Communications owned Atlanta Journal Constitution (whose owners will benefit from a Carr appointment in several different ways), Carr's appointment is framed like this:

We're a decade into Trumpism, and major outlets are still putting false claims unchallenged in headlines. Why do you think that is, exactly? Readers told me the Atlanta Journal Constitution just reprinted the already soft WAPO story on Carr's appointment, but cut off much of the second half where consumer groups illustrate that the headline they chose is demonstrably false.

Most of the rest of the mainstream coverage wasn't much better. Fox News, of course, chose to focus on the exciting new racist potential of the Carr pick, but they screwed up the sub-headline to make it sound like he actually supports diversity and inclusion initiatives:

USAToday parrots claims that Carr is fighting for free speech," but can't be bothered to mention that that (1) isn't fucking true, and (2) that his primary role will be to gut consumer protections like net neutrality. Reuters similarly can't be bothered to mention the risk Carr poses to consumer protection. In Politico, Carr's looming assault on telecom consumer protection warrants one sad paragraph.

I'm sure there was some selective editing at play, but several major telecom and media consumer rights folks went out of their way to help media outlets highlight how Carr is a nice guy" (see, in order, NPR, CNN, NYT), which I'm sure will be helpful as he happily demolishes twenty-five years of consumer advocacy policy work and threatens media giants for criticizing authoritarian leadership:

If the public doesn't sense adequate alarm from experts whose entire careers have been in consumer and media market protection, they're not going to be alarmed. I understand the desire for some civility, but this is not an ordinary administration. These are fascists who are going to steadily disassemble the entirety of federal consumer protection and corporate oversight over drinks and giggles.

Meanwhile, yes, Carr's mindless authoritarian animosity to big tech" is absolutely worth discussing, as are his threats to pull the broadcast licenses of companies that criticize Trump (even though that will be no easy feat, even with a Trump-stocked court and muted FCC authority). But his primary goal at the FCC will be to be as errand boy to historically unpopular media and telecom giants, and downplaying (or ignoring) that fact does Carr and his industry buddies no shortage of favors.

Meanwhile if you thought mainstream press coverage during this last election season was feckless, authoritarian-normalizing mush, you ain't seen nothin' yet.