Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ... June 22, 2026
In the Matter of Bona Fide News And Equal Opportunities - MB Docket No. 26 – 124
COMMENTS OF SUE WILSON, MEDIA ACTION CENTER
RE: FCC’S MEDIA BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION BY DISNEY’S ABC ASKING THE FCC TO DECLARE THAT THE VIEW QUALIFIES AS A BONA FIDE NEWS INTERVIEW PROGRAM AND THUS IS EXEMPT FROM THE STATUTORY EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES REQUIREMENTS
The Federal Communications Commission is seeking comments on the definition of Bona Fide News and the Equal Opportunities Requirements of broadcasters. While this proceeding is specifically targeting ABC and its program The View, decisions made in this matter will by necessity clarify the responsibilities of virtually all broadcasters, but especially those which provide news and information/ opinion based programming on TV and Radio.
This comment is submitted with the request that others who value our publicly owned airwaves will reply with thoughts on bettering our system, not dismantling it or using it as a bludgeon against perceived enemies. Let us take this opportunity to work together to clean up Our Air.
June 22, 2026
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IS THE VIEW BONAFIDE NEWS?
1. Yes, “The View” is “Bona Fide News.” The 2002 FCC declared it so. … 3
2. No, “The View” is not “Bona Fide News.” The early FCC erred in this scheme. … 4
3. What matters is Equal Opportunities on Broadcast TV and Radio alike. … 5
IS THE VIEW BONAFIDE NEWS?
1. Yes, The View is “Bonafide News.” The 2002 FCC declared it so.
The 2002 FCC Mass Media Bureau issued a Declaratory Ruling conferring “Bona Fide News” status to The View. There is no reason that ABC would consider its aforegiven status as defunct.
Let us consider why we are discussing Bonafide News. This is less about “News” than it is about “Equal Opportunities” for candidates on broadcast TV and Radio programs which broadcast over our publicly owned airwaves.
From the Code of Federal Regulations: § 73.1941 Equal opportunities.
“Except as otherwise indicated in §73.1944, no station licensee is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any:
(1) Bona fide newscast;
(2) Bona fide news interview;
(3) Bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary); or
(4) On-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including, but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto) shall not be deemed to be use of broadcasting station. (section 315(a) of the Communications Act.)
(b) Uses. As used in this section and §73.1942, the term “use” means a candidate appearance (including by voice or picture) that is not exempt under paragraphs 73.1941 (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.
(c) Timing of request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the licensee within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred: Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.
(d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the licensee or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.
(e) Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.
Note that this code mentions “candidate(s)” fifteen times. This is clearly intended to protect our political process. Note also that the first part applies to paid advertising; a broadcast station cannot sell airtime to one candidate and deny selling a competing candidate airtime.
The FCC then created carve-outs for candidates’ appearances on its stations’ news programming.
The rest of this provision deals with making certain that candidates for public office are treated equally and fairly on our publicly owned airwaves. The issue of “Bona Fide News” is secondary to the Equal Opportunities afforded to all candidates for public office. This should be a priority not only for the FCC for all radio and TV broadcasters.
Have we seen violations, possibly purposeful violations, of this rule? One could easily question the 2024 booking of Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live just days prior to the Presidential election as a violation. But even if so, NBC quickly responded to then Presidential Candidate Donald Trump with an Equal Opportunity.
That said, as the FCC once conferred “The View” with Bona Fide News status, it should not be punished for a perceived violation of the Equal Time Rules.
2. No, “The View” is not “Bonafide News.” The early FCC erred in developing this scheme
Here is the problem: what exactly is “Bonafide News”? The term is not well defined in the original Equal Opportunities code.
When I produced a regularly scheduled nightly one hour news program, one of my News Directors explained that if a candidate for President came through town and our news crews went to cover the story, we were “Bonafide News,” and so didn’t have to worry that we had to provide equal time coverage to others. That made sense to me.
So let’s look at a story which dominated nightly news programs in April 2026. A California gubernatorial candidate garnered more headlines than any of his opponents when allegations of sexual misconduct by Congressman Eric Swalwell dominated ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC news coverage, as well as on radio news (and every print medium.) Did any of his opponents complain and demand “Equal Opportunities” for such coverage? Of course not. That’s “Bonafide News.” We all know it.
But the way the current rules are written, the FCC classifies programs as “Bonafide News” on a case by case basis. When the “Tonight Show with Jay Leno” featured then California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who was running for re-election) as a guest, the FCC agreed with NBC that Schwarzenegger was newsworthy, and so NBC didn’t have to provide an Equal Opportunity for his political opponent Phil Angelides. Well sure, Arnold was the movie star Governor everybody wanted to see. But what does it mean for democracy when selected candidates are featured to boost ratings while other viable candidates are denied? That’s entertainment! But is that really bonafide news? We all know the answer is no.
But if every time a broadcaster has to run to the FCC get permission to have a candidate on our airwaves, it makes having any interviews virtually impossible. This is exacerbated when any broadcaster may wish to interview a candidate or two or five in an election like California’s recent 50+ candidate “jungle primary” without having to provide airtime for them all.
A conversation needs to occur to discuss modern day options for Equal Opportunities on our air. Perhaps guidelines that any candidate polling at 15% or more would qualify for an opportunity? Perhaps there are better ideas.
But let’s start working on them now. It is time for the FCC to revisit and rewrite these Equal Opportunity rules to fairly serve broadcasters, political candidates, and the public’s need for diverse and accurate information.
3. What matters is Equal Opportunities on ALL Radio and TV broadcasts
There has been some suggestion by the FCC that radio programs like Mark Levin Show, The Glenn Beck Show, The Guy Benson Show, and others which feature show hosts’ preferred candidates are somehow exempt from Broadcast Equal Opportunities rules.
Since 1996, Talk Radio has been dominated by Pro-Republican voices. A petition to deny submitted by Media Action Center in reveals the extent of that in one local market. Other studies have shown this to be the case. The FCC has traditionally ignored such information.
It is possible that since Radio broadcasters have gotten away with this for so long, TV broadcasters now feel they should level the playing field.
But this is not a game. These rules, on the very small slice of media real estate that We the People own, our airwaves, are intended to provide a fair public square where everyone gets their say and all viable candidates can be heard.
Let us all be careful here to bear in mind the rights of We the People in the sacred space of the broadcast airwaves we all own.
Let none of us use these rules as a political bludgeon against any political persuasions.
Let us all work together to improve these rules for the benefit of our Democracy.
Respectfully submitted,
Sue Wilson
Director, Media Action Center
MAC Bona Fide News and Equal Opportunity Comment to the FCC
FCC Guidance on Bonafide News and its Relationship to its 2014 Decision on Zapple
January 24, 2026
On January 21, 2026 the Federal Communications Commission provided "Guidance on Political Equal Opportunities Requirement for Broadcast Television Stations." (See https://www.fcc.gov/document/bureau-provides-guidance-political-equal-opportunities-requirement .)
In this document, the FCC states
"Importantly, the FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption.[1] Moreover, a program that is motivated by partisan purposes, for example, would not be entitled to an exemption under longstanding FCC precedent."
Also: " Concerns have been raised that the industry has taken the Media Bureau’s 2006 staff-level decision to mean that the interview portion of all arguably similar entertainment programs—whether late night or daytime—are exempted from the section 315 equal opportunities requirement under a bona fide news exemption. This is not the case. As noted above, these decisions are fact specific and the exemptions are limited to the program that was the subject of the request."
We note that this guidance is Television specific and that the broadcast radio spectrum is not part of this discussion. Still, any rules pertaining to TV must also govern radio.
In 2012, our Media Action Center team in Wisconsin filed a Petition to deny the broadcast licenses of Clear Channel's WISN radio and Journal Communications' WTMJ Radio for providing hundreds of minutes of free airtime to surrogates promoting Scott Walker, but less than ten minutes over two weeks to supporters of his opponent Tom Barrett.
In 2014, the Media Bureau of the FCC denied our Petition, stating in part,
While MAC purports to make Zapple Doctrine (and First Amendment) claims, we find that its real complaints relate to the Station’s programming choices.9 It is well established, however, that the Commission cannot exercise any power of censorship over broadcast stations with respect to content-based programming decisions.10 A licensee has broad discretion – based on its right to free speech – to choose the programming that it believes serves the needs and interests of the members of its audience.11
We will intervene in programming matters only if a licensee abuses that discretion or where federal
statutes direct us to do so.12 After full review, we have determined that further Commission action is not
warranted here. MAC has not shown that the licensee committed violations of the Act, the Commission’s
rules, or otherwise abused its discretion in determining the programming it believes serves the needs of its
audience.13
It appears there is to be one set of rules for Late Night Television but another for Talk Radio, which garners more than 100 million political listeners. We also note they have current concerns about an earlier staff level decision from the Media Bureau.
Concerns have been raised that the industry has taken the Media Bureau’s 2006 staff-level
decision to mean that the interview portion of all arguably similar entertainment programs—
whether late night or daytime—are exempted from the section 315 equal opportunities
requirement under a bona fide news exemption. This is not the case.
Should anyone want to take a second look, all relevant documents are posted on the right hand side of this blog.
[1] Notably, “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” is no longer airing, as Jay Leno left the show. As discussed in Angelides, Mr. Leno’s relationship to then-Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger was a significant factor in both the complaint and the Media Bureau analysis. See id.
2022 Quadrennial Regulatory Review - Comment re: Keeping Broadcasting Local
December 17, 2025
MB Docket No. 22-459
***note: this Comment was filed timely but fails to appear on the FCC website.
COMMENTS OF SUE WILSON, MEDIA ACTION CENTER
I. Local Broadcasting Must Remain Local ……………………………………. 2
II. Studies are Necessary. But How? ………………………………………………. 3
III. The Supreme Court and Data …………………………………………………. 5
MB Docket No. 22-459
***note: this Comment was filed timely but fails to appear on the FCC website.
I. Local Broadcasting Must Remain Local
In this Quadrennial Review, the Commission “… currently seeks comment on the policy goals of competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity and whether there are new ways to think about or define these goals and how best to balance them.”
Let us begin by remembering that all broadcasters are licensed to serve our local communities. Providing national news and entertainment is the role of the networks, not local licensed affiliates. Local TV and Radio stations should always put their local communities first, and this Comment will focus on that priority.
As to the question of “viewpoint diversity”, opinions are not really the purview of TV stations (except for balancing viewpoints in local News production.) National Talk Radio dominates
local stations everywhere and skews toward Conservative views.1 There has been very little local Talk Radio produced in decades, and this should be something the Commission looks into when considering “viewpoint diversity.”
In terms of the policy goal of “localism”, the Commission here has asked response to questions about the need for licensees to air national media. The simple answer is local licensees have no
such responsibilities. The Networks ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC all provide national news programming to their affiliates. (FOX offers local affiliates national news stories which may be used in local newscasts at the discretion of its local news producers.)
Due to technological advances, it is very easy today to find national news at our fingertips. Beyond national broadcast network news programs, Cable news, Associated Press, newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post, large scale bloggers and others all offer plentiful reports about national and international events.
Meanwhile, too many local areas are turning into news deserts as local newspapers are folding.2 Again, all broadcasters are licensed to serve our local communities, so providing local news content should be the top priority of us all as we continue through this Comment period.
The Commission also asks about “…the importance of broadcast media for public safety purposes during times of emergency…” …“iHeart points out that AM radio broadcasters play an important role in disseminating national emergency announcements. Along these lines, should we consider
the continued existence of a nationwide broadcast infrastructure, and its importance for national security purposes, as a policy goal?”
1 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-structural-imbalance-of-political-talk-radio/
2 https://www.medill.northwestern.edu/news/2024/medill-report-shows-local-news-deserts-expanding.html
3 https://www.kcra.com/article/timeline-look-back-northern-californias-disastrous-flooding-
1997/386140103
Luckily, we as a nation have not experienced such a need since 9/11. But even then we all watched reports emanating from the affected areas of New York City, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania. Those reports emanated from local areas but were covered by nationally affiliated journalists. In essence, outside of Washington DC political and judicial stories, there really is no such thing as national news reporting.
Local licensees affiliated with national networks already serve the public interest in national reporting. A national emergency network is already in place. Even local Radio broadcasters disseminating national emergency announcements would obtain that information from national sources, unless the emergency occurred in their own backyards.
So we ask the Commission to simply drop the idea of national reporting on the local level.Instead, broadcasters licensed to serve our local communities need to focus their reporting resources on local news reporting. Only local reporters can provide live coverage of hurricanes, flooding, blizzards, forest fires and the like. Radio’s technology is simple compared to Television; theoretically, emergency broadcasts could be best served by robust local radio teams.
Yet in our local Sacramento media market we have found TV does a better job.
The last time our local community of Sacramento experienced a widespread disaster was in January 1997 when heavy rains and levee failures fostered widespread flooding.3 iHeart Radio (then Clear Channel) did a very good job Monday through Friday during its daypart hours. In the evening and weekends, they had little to no news about our local emergency. The community
largely turned to TV, which did a better job. KCRA-TV provided us 24 hour emergency newsreporting. (Talk about “serving the public interest.” It is small wonder that viewers rewardKCRA even with the highest ratings in our area.)
II. Studies are Necessary. But How?
We are delighted the Commission is asking for specific examples of local need and seeks comment on “how to measure localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition.”
As discussed earlier, local news production is the top priority for virtually every town and city across the United States. So let us use that as the metric for “local need.”
Let us begin with what can happen if one broadcast company may license up to four stations in a given Designated Market Area (DMA.) MAC has identified and written about a potential problem with this approach in earlier Comments to the Commission and in an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court.4 We have identified a pattern where one broadcaster licensing or controlling three to four stations in a given DMA is reproducing the exact same news stories on all their 4
stations.
4 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-
1231/166343/20210114155632239_Sue%20Wilson%20Main%20Document%20E%20FILE%20
update.pdf
We have provided evidence obtained online showing stations duplicating the same news stories on their multiple stations' websites from huge groups to small. However, the question is whether what stations report online accurately represents what stations are doing over our air.
So how exactly do we measure that? The problem is such data is difficult to mine. There is no simple method of acquiring information about programming in hundreds of local stations in more than 200 distinct markets.
We have spoken with many academics who believe they can conduct this research online. MAC disagrees, but is open to be proven wrong. We believe that to be of any value, local data must be collected on a local DMA by local DMA station by station basis. This is no simple task.
In order to determine how well station groups are – or are not – serving local need, we must physically look at a station group’s news reporting over a 24 hour time period to determine if they are producing diverse products of genuine value to the communities they serve, or whether they are just taking up spectrum better allocated to another operator.
MAC has been testing an approach. We selected a mid-size TV market and recorded every news program produced by a single licensee for its three separate stations over a 24 hour period on a Digital Video Recorder (DVR) for further analysis. Once recorded, the process of analysis is relatively simple, but requires someone with training in news production to understand the
various types of stories they are witnessing so they may properly document the results.
As we analyzed news program after news program, we documented how many stories were exactly the same across the three stations, how many were changed slightly, how many were new. We compared the difference between the noon news on one channel and the 5 o’clock news on another and more. (This was a licensee which was clearly using economies of scale to produce a volume of local news within their DMAs.)
We do not have a large enough sample to release at this time, but the results were surprising. Certainly many of the stories were exactly the same from one station to another. But the volume of news production in this test was so large that fresh stories did appear, and the quality of the reporting was very good with evenly balanced viewpoints. They also had live weather reports on
all programs excepting the overnight hours.
What we witnessed was a station group proving that they could run three different stations in a market and still serve the local need of the public. (There is also another dominant station in the same market which provides competition in local news.)
But is that the case everywhere? We doubt it. And bad actors need to be called out. The only way to know is to collect the data.
So Media Action Center is asking all interested parties, from broadcasters to academics to fellow
public interest groups to the Commission itself to join us in thinking how such data could be
obtained. We will present a few ideas, and hope we can all come up with a way. Perhaps someone has a method to look at every news program produced within a particular market without flying in to conduct research in Everytown USA. We hope to engage in discussion with you all in the Reply period.
One idea is to follow the model the Television Academy has used to determine Emmy nominees. They typically request any station which wishes to be considered for a local news Emmy Award to submit an aircheck of its local news program airing on a specified date.
What if, on a rotating basis tied to licensing deadlines, stations would be required to send in a 24 hour day of airchecks of all news programs for a particular date? This would create the foundation for someone (the FCC itself, a public interest group like MAC, an academic study, etc.) to conduct detailed studies without the burden of having to travel to Everytown USA.
III. The Supreme Court and Data
At this point, the Commission is probably thinking that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the FCC does not have to provide its own data research.
Still, it is important to point out SCOTUS itself questioned why there is so little data.
This question came up in 2021 during oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the Federal
Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project.
Justice Stephen Breyer to Prometheus Counsel Ruthanne Deutsch:5
(Transcript)
JUSTICE BREYER: Now why in heaven's name did you not, or groups that support you, given the tremendous number of people who I'm happy are interested in this -- why aren't there some studies or something? There are 10,000 law professors and economicsprofessors who look for studies to do. Why isn't there something?
MS. DEUTSCH: Well, there is something on this issue which they ignored, even as theycited one --
JUSTICE BREYER: Okay.
MS. DEUTSCH: The Free Press study.
JUSTICE BREYER: Free Press.
MS. DEUTSCH: Why did they ignore it or?
JUSTICE BREYER: Okay, that's – the free. Is there anything other than that?
MS. DEUTSCH: Yes.
JUSTICE BREYER: What?
MS. DEUTSCH: They have their own study that's titled "Whose Spectrum Is It
Anyway" that was cited in comments in -- in the 2014 further notice of proposed –
JUSTICE BREYER: Okay. Okay, I'll look at those.
5 https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts12/oral_argument_audio/25296
The Supreme Court determined that the Federal Communications Commission had sparse data from which to make determinations, but that statute did not require the agency to delve deeper.6
Wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh,
“In assessing the effects of the rule changes on minority and female ownership, the FCC did not have perfect empirical or statistical data. But that is not unusual in day-to-day agency decision making within the Executive Branch. The APA imposes no general obligation on agencies to conduct or commission their own empirical or statistical studies. And nothing in the Telecommunications Act requires the FCC to conduct such studies before exercising its discretion under Section 202(h). In light of the sparse record on minority and female ownership and the FCC’s findings with respect to competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity, the Court cannot say that the agency’s decision to repeal or modify the ownership rules fell outside the zone of reasonableness for purposes of the APA.”
“The APA imposes no general obligation on agencies to conduct or commission their own empirical or statistical studies. And nothing in the Telecommunications Act requires the FCC to conduct such studies before exercising its discretion under Section 202(h).”
We note that the Court did not say the FCC and other agencies could not conduct or fund studies, only that it is not so required. Perhaps, given the very high stakes in this proceeding, this may be something the Commission would consider. Perhaps broadcasters themselves could contribute to independent studies. Perhaps Academics will see the importance and prioritize such studies. We are the ones we have been waiting for.
The stakes here are so very high. Once the Commission sets new rules, truly the fate of local broadcasting, of local news, and even of local communities themselves hang in the balance.
Let us all get it right.
Respectfully submitted,
Sue Wilson
Media Action Center
6 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-123
COMMENT TO FCC TO DISALLOW ONE BROADCASTER FROM REACHING 80% OF NAT'L TV VIEWERS
August 22, 2025
BROADCAST MEDIA OWNERSHIP
Most people hearing those three little words yawn. They don’t know that big broadcast companies like Sinclair and Nexstar own TV stations. They just know what shows they enjoy, where they find their favorite sports, and who they trust for local news and weather. But most people don’t fully understand that legally, We the People own the airwaves and broadcasters must obtain licenses to broadcast locally over our air. As condition of being awarded one of those rare licenses is the requirement that those broadcasting into local communities must serve the “public interest, convenience and necessity.” This is not just theory; this is embedded in Communications Law dating back to the dawn of broadcast technology and most recently updated in 1996.
...the FCC appears poised to ignore the Law and take matters into its own hands to allow all or most of our local TV stations to be operated by one or two players regularly sanctioned by the FCC itself, Nexstar or Sinclair Broadcasting. (Nexstar and Tegna have already announced their merger deal; Sinclair has signaled it intends to make a yet higher offer to Tegna shareholders. ) According to the Poynter Institute,
“If it does go through, the Nexstar-Tegna merger would create a broadcasting giant. The combined company would own 265 stations in 44 states and the District of Columbia, with a footprint in 132 of the country’s 210 designated market areas, the standard unit Nielsen uses to measure TV audiences. That includes nine of the top 10 markets, 41 of the top 50, 62 of the top 75 and 82 of the top 100.But the number that matters most is that Nexstar’s reach would grow to 80% of U.S. television households — more than double the FCC’s current 39% cap.”
FULL DOCUMENT FILED at the FCC HERE:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/108222107909908
FCC Plan Could Turn YOUR Local TV News into Propaganda - PLEASE Act Now!
August 14, 2025
The Media Action Center is partnering with the Media and Democracy Coalition to make a pivotal Comment to the Federal Communications Commission. Within days, the FCC is likely to change local News on TV into radio-style propaganda.
Will you please help? Watch and ACT!
FTC Request for Public Comments Regarding Technology Platform Censorship
May 21, 2025
In the Matter of:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Request for Public Comments Regarding Technology Platform Censorship
Docket number FTC-2025-0023
Good FTC Commissioners,
Am I being shadow banned on the social media platform X? Maybe. Let’s examine the evidence.
First, I am not a social media influencer. I currently have 2,069 followers on X, roughly the same as I had on Twitter for years. While it was Twitter, I enjoyed many exchanges with others, and often had my posts retweeted. I mainly post about issues of media policy and disinformation, and my point of view differs from that of current X owner Elon Musk. But having lived through fire evacuations, I also post an evacuation checklist whenever a major fire breaks out. Those posts gained the most traction.
Since Twitter became X, the personal exchanges went away, and I get very few retweets, even when asking whether people can see my posts. Is it shadowbanning? Perhaps it’s just their new algorithm. How would I know? I only know that the eyeballs on my evacuation checklist posts used to be high but have dwindled down to very few.
Please see
my posts from July 2022 compared to similar posts I have been making in recent
days:
JULY 2022:
MAY 2025:
As the Commissioners can see, the number of public views on these similar posts changed dramatically after Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Does that mean X is shadow banning my posts?
I can just say I see posts from many people on X complaining about just that.
Thank you for taking up this critically important issue.
Sincerely,
Sue Wilson
Media Action Center