Disney and ABC Sue FCC in Federal Court, Seeking to Halt Early Review of Eight Station Licenses
The complaint, filed August 18 in Washington, D.C., asks a judge to stop an FCC proceeding the companies call retaliation; FCC Chairman Brendan Carr calls the suit meritless and says the review concerns hiring practices and broadcast conduct.
A Joke, a Day, and a License
Eight ABC television stations were not due for renewal until sometime between 2028 and 2031[1]. In April 2026, the Federal Communications Commission ordered an early review of all eight anyway[1]. The FCC hasn't done anything like this in more than 50 years[6].
That timing sits next to another fact nobody disputes. On April 23, 2026, Jimmy Kimmel aired a joke describing Melania Trump as having "a glow like an expectant widow[16]." Four days later, after an armed man disrupted the White House Correspondents' Dinner, President Trump publicly called for Disney and ABC to fire Kimmel[16][17]. The FCC opened its early station review about a day after that[1].
Both of those things are true. Whether the second caused the first is now a question for a federal judge. On August 18, 2026, Disney, ABC, and the eight stations sued the FCC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, case number 26-cv-2902[8]. They're asking for an emergency order to stop the review before it goes any further[8].
The Case Nobody Can Fully Prove
Disney's lawsuit names the FCC itself, Chairman Brendan Carr, and Commissioners Olivia Trusty and Anna Gomez[8]. It asks for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction[8]. The legal claim is a First Amendment retaliation claim: the argument that the government punished a company for what it broadcast.
Retaliation claims are hard to prove, because they depend on proving why someone acted, not just what they did. Carr has an answer ready. In a May 29, 2026 interview on CNBC, he said the review was about Disney's diversity, equity and inclusion hiring practices and was "not tied to First Amendment matters[3]." He has also said broadcasters must serve "the public interest," which he defines as no news distortion, no hoaxes, and no "invidious" DEI discrimination[10].
Disney's complaint doesn't have a smoking gun that proves otherwise. What it has is a pattern. The complaint says the administration "has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts[6]." It points to the timing, the 50-year gap since any similar early review, and a separate FCC inquiry into ABC's daytime show "The View" that reopened around the same period[5][6][12].
The ACLU has filed a public-records request seeking the FCC's internal documents on how the early review started, in an apparent effort to find more direct evidence either way[19]. Until something like that surfaces, both sides are arguing from timing and stated intent, not from an admission.
Why a Talk Show Became a Legal Battleground
A broadcast license is government permission to use the public airwaves, and it comes up for renewal about every eight years[11]. Renewals are almost always routine. That's what makes the threat of a real review powerful on its own, whether or not the FCC ever pulls a license[11][20].
Layered onto that is a separate fight over "The View." Federal rules require that if a station gives airtime to one candidate for office, it has to offer equal time to that candidate's opponents. There's an exemption for "bona fide news" programs, like debates or interview shows, because forcing real journalism to balance airtime would gut it.
The FCC's Media Bureau put out a notice on May 22, 2026 asking whether "The View" counts as bona fide news, and said it had seen no evidence any current daytime or late-night talk show qualifies for the exemption[12]. If "The View" doesn't qualify, ABC would have to offer equal time whenever the show hosts a political candidate. Carr has said a show doesn't qualify "if their decisions are based on partisan purposes[12]." ABC has defended the show's news status, and the comment period on the question closed July 6, 2026[12].
Two conservative advocacy groups, the Media Research Center and the Center for American Rights, have filed formal petitions asking the FCC to deny the license renewals outright[14]. The Media Research Center's petition cites "continued and sustained abuse of the licenses" and alleges ABC promoted misinformation and tried to improperly influence elections[14]. The Center for American Rights points to Disney's hiring programs for women and people of color as evidence of discrimination, and separately alleges the company "cozies up to the Communist Chinese Party[14]."
Two Regulators, One Chair
Carr's framing treats a license as a conditional grant, not a right the company owns. On that view, the FCC isn't punishing ABC's viewpoints. It's enforcing two rules that apply to every licensee: no deliberate news distortion, and no discrimination in hiring[10].
Carr calls the lawsuit "meritless" and argues ABC is trying to dodge scrutiny that every other station accepts[9]. He has built much of his chairmanship around the idea that legacy networks got decades of light regulatory touch they didn't earn, and that the FCC's public-interest powers should be used again[10].
That argument has real institutional opposition, and not only from the left. A bipartisan group of former FCC chairs and senior officials filed a statement in July 2026 calling the early review "an assault on free speech disguised as regulatory process" and "a grave violation of both the Communications Act and the Constitution[13]." Commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat on the current FCC, has publicly objected, and Republican Senator John Kennedy has separately raised First Amendment concerns about the review[22].
Disney's stakes go beyond eight stations. ABC reaches most American homes through roughly 230 affiliate stations Disney doesn't own[25]. Those affiliates hold their own licenses, and pressure on the eight Disney-owned stations is a signal to every one of them. ABC's July filing to the FCC said the public comment record actually ran heavily in favor of renewal, including from conservative and free-market groups like Americans for Tax Reform[21].
How the Story Gets Told Depends on Where You Read It
Coverage of the lawsuit split along familiar lines. Fox News put Disney's "retaliatory campaign" language in scare quotes and gave Carr's public-interest defense heavy space, while its separate coverage of the Kimmel joke described it in detail alongside the correspondents' dinner incident[4][16]. CNN's headline referred to "Trump's FCC," language that treats the agency as an extension of the president — precisely the question the lawsuit is trying to settle[5]. Al Jazeera placed the case inside a broader global press-freedom narrative, quoting an advocacy group's line about an "endless campaign of intimidation," while giving little space to the FCC's stated legal grounds or to the separate question of whether a district court can even hear this case before the FCC finishes its own process[6][7].
NPR's coverage was comparatively balanced, running a follow-up piece built around Carr's rebuttal that the suit was "without merit[2]." The FCC's cheapest path to winning may not even require defending Carr's motives. Challenges to FCC actions normally go to a federal appeals court after the agency finishes acting, not to a district judge mid-proceeding, and the agency could simply argue the lawsuit was filed too early[8].
What Hasn't Changed, and What Has
As of now, nothing concrete has moved. No license has been revoked, shortened, or conditioned. Jimmy Kimmel is still on the air. The comment period on "The View" closed weeks ago, and the two competing petitions, one from conservative media-accountability groups and one from a bipartisan group of former officials, both sit in the FCC's record[12][13][14].
What has changed, whatever a court eventually decides, is a fact every network's lawyers can now see plainly: a monologue can be followed within about a day by a federal licensing action, whether or not any court ever finds the two connected. That is the fact the lawsuit is trying to test, and it's the fact the FCC says had nothing to do with the joke at all[1][3].
Summary
The Walt Disney Company and its ABC network sued the Federal Communications Commission on August 18, 2026[1]. The suit was filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C., and lists the case number 26-cv-2902[8]. It names the FCC, Chairman Brendan Carr, and Commissioners Olivia Trusty and Anna Gomez[8]. Disney and ABC asked a judge for an emergency order to stop an FCC proceeding that is reviewing the licenses of eight television stations ABC owns[8][18]. Those licenses were not due to be renewed until sometime between 2028 and 2031[1]. In April 2026, Carr ordered the review to start years early[1].
A broadcast license is the government permission a TV station needs to use public airwaves. Every eight years, the station has to show the FCC it has served "the public interest." Almost all renewals are routine paperwork. The FCC has not forced an early renewal like this in more than 50 years[6]. That is why ABC calls the proceeding an "existential threat" — the license is the station's right to exist[20].
The two sides disagree about why the review started. Disney and ABC say the reason is the content of ABC's broadcasts. Their complaint says the administration "has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts"[6]. They point to timing: the FCC opened the review roughly a day after President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump publicly attacked ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over an April 23 joke calling her an "expectant widow"[16][17]. Carr says that is wrong. In a May 29, 2026 CNBC interview, he said the review was about Disney's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) hiring practices and was "not tied to First Amendment matters"[3]. He has called the lawsuit "meritless"[9].
The fight is broader than the eight stations. The FCC is separately asking whether ABC's daytime show "The View" counts as a real news program under the "equal time" rule — a decades-old requirement that a station giving airtime to one candidate for office must offer equal opportunities to their opponents, unless the program falls under an exemption for bona fide news coverage[12]. If "The View" doesn't qualify for that exemption, ABC could face equal-time obligations any time the show hosts a candidate, which is why Carr's questioning of its news status and ABC's defense of it both carry real regulatory weight[12]. Two conservative groups — the Media Research Center and the Center for American Rights — have filed petitions asking the FCC to deny the ABC renewals outright, citing what they call sustained bias in ABC's coverage[14]. On the other side, a bipartisan group of former FCC chairs and senior officials filed a statement calling the proceeding "an assault on free speech disguised as regulatory process"[13]. The single sharpest point of genuine dispute: whether a government regulator's stated, lawful-sounding grounds can be set aside by a court because of when and after what the regulator acted.
The Event
On August 18, 2026, The Walt Disney Company, ABC, and the eight ABC-owned stations filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, docketed as 26-cv-2902[8]. The complaint names the FCC, Chairman Brendan Carr, and Commissioners Olivia Trusty and Anna Gomez, and asks for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to halt the early license renewal proceeding[8]. The FCC opened that proceeding in April 2026, years ahead of the stations' scheduled renewal dates of 2028 through 2031[1]. Carr said in a phone interview that he believed the suit was "a meritless case"[1][9].
Undisputed Facts
- Disney, ABC, and the eight ABC-owned stations filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on August 18, 2026, case 26-cv-2902[8].
- FCC Chairman Brendan Carr ordered an early renewal review of all eight ABC-owned stations in April 2026; their licenses had been set to expire between 2028 and 2031[1].
- The eight stations are in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Fresno, Houston, and Durham, North Carolina[14].
- Jimmy Kimmel aired a skit on April 23, 2026 describing Melania Trump as having "a glow like an expectant widow"; the White House Correspondents' Dinner two days later was disrupted by an armed man at a Secret Service checkpoint, and on April 27 President Trump publicly called for Disney and ABC to fire Kimmel[16][17].
- In a May 29, 2026 CNBC interview, Carr said the FCC's focus was Disney's DEI practices and that the early renewal was not tied to First Amendment matters[3].
- The FCC Media Bureau issued a public notice on May 22, 2026 seeking comment on whether "The View" qualifies as a bona fide news interview program exempt from the equal-time rule; comments were due June 22 and replies July 6[12].
- The Media Research Center and the Center for American Rights each filed petitions asking the FCC to deny renewal of the eight ABC licenses[14].
- A bipartisan group of former FCC chairs and former senior FCC officials filed a statement in July 2026 calling the early review "an assault on free speech disguised as regulatory process"[13].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- A license is leverage, and both sides know it
- Broadcast licenses are renewed roughly every eight years and are almost never denied. That makes the threat, not the outcome, the operative tool. The FCC does not have to revoke anything to change how a newsroom behaves; a live proceeding is enough[11][20].
- The affiliate chain multiplies the pressure
- Disney owns eight stations but reaches most of the country through about 230 affiliates it does not own[25]. Those affiliates hold their own licenses and have their own owners. Pressure on the network is felt by every one of them, which is why an FCC review of eight stations matters far beyond eight markets.
- Motive is nearly impossible to prove, and both sides built for that
- First Amendment retaliation claims turn on why an official acted. Carr has put a content-neutral reason on the record from the start — DEI hiring and news distortion[3][10]. ABC has built its case on timing and pattern rather than on any admission[6]. The ACLU's records request is an attempt to find the missing direct evidence[19].
- The courthouse door is itself contested
- Challenges to FCC decisions normally go to a federal appeals court after the agency acts, not to a district judge in the middle of a proceeding. Disney asked the district court for emergency relief and also sought a hearing before the D.C. Circuit[8]. The FCC's cheapest win is procedural — arguing the case is premature — without ever defending its motives.
Material realityEight ABC-owned stations in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Fresno, Houston and Durham are in a renewal proceeding that would not otherwise have begun until 2028 at the earliest[1][14]. That proceeding is real and running regardless of what anyone calls it. Two conservative groups have filed petitions to deny; a bipartisan group of former FCC chairs has filed against the review; comment periods on "The View" closed on July 6[12][13][14]. Jimmy Kimmel remains on the air. No license has been revoked, shortened, or conditioned. What has changed is the cost of a joke: every network lawyer in the country now knows that a monologue can be followed within about a day by a licensing action, whether or not a court ever says the two were connected.
Narrative as a weaponThree groups are actively shaping how this reads. Disney wants you to see a sequence — joke, presidential demand, FCC action — and conclude that the stated reasons are cover; its complaint is written for the public as much as for the judge. Carr wants you to see two ordinary regulatory questions, hiring discrimination and news distortion, and conclude that a powerful company is claiming special immunity because it is a broadcaster. Conservative petitioners want you to see the license as a public trust ABC has abused, making the FCC the referee rather than the aggressor. Press-freedom groups and former officials of both parties want you to look past this network entirely and ask what the precedent does when the next chairman dislikes a different one. The honest thing to say is that the timing is documented and striking, the FCC's stated grounds are on the record and not facially about content, and no court has yet weighed either.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asTheir case is not mainly about DEI or about Kimmel. It is about a rule they say is older than the dispute: a government agency may not use a licensing power as a punishment for speech. ABC argues the stations plainly meet the renewal standard, so the only thing the early review can accomplish is fear[21]. That is the point of the phrase "existential threat" — a station that might lose its license starts second-guessing its newsroom long before any ruling[20]. They also argue the pattern is the evidence: an early renewal not used in over 50 years, a reopened equal-time question the FCC decided in ABC's favor two decades ago, and each step landing right after presidential anger[5][6]. Their strongest analogy is a tax auditor who only audits critics. Each audit may be legal on its face. The pattern is still retaliation[6].
WhyDisney wants the proceeding stopped before it can be used as leverage in future deals, and wants a court ruling that limits what a future FCC chair of either party can do to a network's licenses[8].
Impact on themThe eight owned stations are only part of ABC's reach; the network gets to most American homes through roughly 230 affiliate stations Disney does not own, and those affiliates hold licenses of their own[25]. A regulator willing to squeeze the eight can pressure the affiliates too. Disney also has ongoing business before the FCC and other agencies, so the litigation carries a cost even if it wins.
Frames it asCarr's position is that a broadcast license is not property and not a right — it is a temporary grant to use a public resource, given on condition of serving the public interest. In his words, that "means you can't run news distortions, broadcast hoax. You can't be engaging in this invidious form of DEI discrimination"[10]. On his account, the FCC is not punishing viewpoints; it is enforcing two long-standing, content-neutral rules. One is the ban on deliberately distorting the news. The other is federal anti-discrimination law, which he says Disney's race- and gender-conscious hiring programs violate[3][10]. On the equal-time question, his argument is that the exemption for "bona fide news" exists so real journalism is not burdened — and that a show which books one Senate candidate for friendly conversation is doing campaigning, not journalism[12]. He has said publicly that shows do not qualify as bona fide news "if their decisions are based on partisan purposes"[12]. He calls the suit meritless and says ABC is trying to escape scrutiny every other licensee accepts[9].
WhyCarr has built his chairmanship on the argument that legacy networks got decades of light-touch treatment they did not earn, and that the FCC's dormant public-interest tools should be used again[10][28]. A court win would confirm that authority; simply running the proceeding already shifts network behavior.
Impact on themAn injunction against him would be a public defeat and could freeze other pending network matters. A win would establish that timing alone does not make an inquiry unconstitutional — a precedent useful to any future chair.
Frames it asThey argue the free-speech alarm is upside down. In their telling, ABC has spent years using a government-granted license to shape elections, and the petition-to-deny process is the only formal channel viewers have to object[14]. The Media Research Center's petition cites "continued and sustained abuse of the licenses" and alleges ABC promoted misinformation and improperly sought to influence national elections[14]. The Center for American Rights argues ABC is ignoring long-standing Commission precedent, points to Disney hiring programs targeted at women and people of color as evidence of race and sex discrimination, and separately alleges the company "cozies up to the Communist Chinese Party"[14]. Their crux: if the public-interest standard means anything at all, it must be enforceable against the biggest broadcaster, not just the smallest.
WhyBoth groups exist to change network coverage. A license proceeding gives their complaints a docket number and a deadline, which press releases never do.
Impact on themTheir petitions are now part of the record the FCC and the court will look at. If the court blocks the proceeding, their filings go nowhere; if it does not, they have a live path to a hearing.
Frames it asTheir argument is institutional, not partisan. Former FCC chairs and senior officials from both parties filed a statement calling the early review "an assault on free speech disguised as regulatory process" and a "grave violation of both the Communications Act and the Constitution"[13]. Their point is that the harm happens before any decision: the process itself is the penalty, because no broadcaster can afford to gamble a license. The Freedom of the Press Foundation's Seth Stern said it was "about time for someone to take Brendan Carr and his FCC to court"[6]. The ACLU filed a public-records request seeking the FCC's internal documents on how the early review began[19]. Notably, the concern is not only from the left: Commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat, has publicly objected, and Senator John Kennedy, a Republican, has raised First Amendment questions about the review[22]. ABC's own July filing said the record of public comments ran overwhelmingly in favor of renewal, including from conservative and free-market groups such as Americans for Tax Reform[21].
WhyThey want a judicial rule that survives the current administration — one that binds a future FCC chair who dislikes a different network.
Impact on themThey have no direct stake in Disney's revenue. Their stake is precedent: whichever way this comes out will be cited the next time any regulator eyes any broadcaster.
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.8
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPR | U.S. public radio, center-left | 3 | "ABC and Disney sue FCC, alleging First Amendment violations" and a follow-up centered on Carr calling the suit "without merit" | Uses "alleging," which is neutral, and ran a second-day story built around Carr's rebuttal — unusually symmetric here. The lean shows in emphasis: the 50-year gap and the Kimmel sequence anchor the story, and NPR is itself a broadcaster with a stake in FCC power, which it does not flag prominently. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 4 | "Disney sues FCC over 'retaliatory campaign' against ABC, seeks to block early renewal proceedings" | Puts Disney's central claim inside quotation marks, which signals the phrase is the company's characterization rather than a finding. Gives Carr's public-interest and DEI defense substantial room. Its separate coverage of the Kimmel joke describes it in detail near the correspondents' dinner shooting, which foregrounds the offense and backgrounds the April timing that ABC's complaint turns on. |
| Reason | U.S. libertarian | 4 | "Disney Sues FCC for 'Retaliatory' Investigation of ABC" | Sides with Disney on the speech question while being hostile to Disney generally — a useful cross-pressure. Its framing treats broadcast licensing itself as the underlying problem, which lets it skip the harder question of what the public-interest standard should mean if it stays on the books. |
| CNN | U.S. left-of-center | 5 | "Disney sues Trump's FCC over 'retaliatory campaign' against ABC" | The possessive "Trump's FCC" does editorial work in three words: it treats the agency as an arm of the president, which is exactly the contested question in the case. The Kimmel timeline leads; Carr's stated DEI grounds appear lower and mostly as a claim to be doubted. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 5 | "Disney sues US regulator, claiming political retaliation over ABC stations" | "Claiming" is properly attributed, but the piece slots the case into a running global press-freedom narrative and quotes an advocacy group calling the FCC's conduct an "endless campaign of intimidation." The FCC's legal defenses — the public-interest standard, the discrimination inquiry, the jurisdictional question — get little space. |
| The New Republic | U.S. left | 8 | "Disney Sues Trump's FCC for Retaliation Over Jimmy Kimmel Joke" | States retaliation as the reason for the suit rather than as the allegation in it, and reduces the whole proceeding to one joke. Carr's stated grounds are treated as not worth reporting. |
References
- ABC and Disney sue FCC, alleging First Amendment violations — NPR · U.S. public radio; federally chartered, member- and grant-funded; center-left news framing
- FCC head Brendan Carr says Disney free speech lawsuit is 'without merit' — NPR · U.S. public radio; center-left news framing
- First on CNBC: Transcript: FCC Chairman Brendan Carr Speaks with CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" — CNBC · U.S. business news, owned by Comcast/NBCUniversal — a direct competitor of Disney and itself an FCC licensee
- Disney sues FCC over 'retaliatory campaign' against ABC, seeks to block early renewal proceedings — Fox News · U.S. right; owned by Fox Corp, itself a broadcast licensee regulated by the FCC
- Disney sues Trump's FCC over 'retaliatory campaign' against ABC — CNN · U.S. left-of-center; owned by Warner Bros. Discovery, a Disney competitor
- Disney sues US regulator, claiming political retaliation over ABC stations — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded international broadcaster
- ABC News says FCC is carrying out intimidation campaign to shape coverage — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded international broadcaster
- Disney's ABC Files First Amendment Lawsuit Against the FCC — TV Tech · U.S. broadcast-industry trade publication; audience is station owners and engineers
- Carr Calls ABC Suit 'Meritless' — TV Tech · U.S. broadcast-industry trade publication
- FCC chairman defends actions against ABC, says broadcasters must operate 'in the public interest' — Las Vegas Sun · U.S. regional daily, editorially center-left; carrying wire reporting
- ABC Stations Are Undergoing Early FCC License Review. Here's What You Need to Know — Freedom Forum · U.S. First Amendment advocacy nonprofit, founded with Gannett funding; pro-press-freedom orientation
- FCC Seeks Comment on Whether ABC's The View Qualifies as a Bona Fide News Interview Program — Wiley Rein LLP · U.S. law firm client alert; the firm represents broadcast and telecom clients before the FCC
- Former FCC Chairs Call Review Of ABC Licenses 'An Assault On Free Speech' — Deadline · U.S. entertainment-industry trade; sympathetic to Hollywood studios and networks
- MRC Petitions FCC to Deny ABC's License Renewals — Media Research Center · U.S. conservative media-criticism nonprofit; a party filing against ABC in this proceeding
- ABC Asks FCC to Reject Petitions to Deny TV License Renewals — Variety · U.S. entertainment-industry trade
- Jimmy Kimmel calls Melania Trump an 'expectant widow' in dinner parody — Fox News · U.S. right
- Trump calls on ABC to fire Kimmel after he joked Melania was an 'expectant widow' — CNN · U.S. left-of-center
- Disney and ABC sue FCC, seeking to stop early license renewal process — NBC News · U.S. center-left; owned by Comcast/NBCUniversal, a Disney competitor and FCC licensee
- ACLU Demands FCC Release Records About ABC Early License Renewal — Variety · U.S. entertainment-industry trade, reporting on an ACLU filing; the ACLU is a civil-liberties litigation group, historically left-of-center on speech-and-state cases
- ABC sues FCC over challenge to its broadcast licenses, saying actions present 'existential threat' — The Boston Globe · U.S. regional daily, editorially center-left editorial page
- ABC Says FCC's Review Of Licenses Is Part Of 'Retaliation Campaign' — Deadline · U.S. entertainment-industry trade
- Carr faces new questions on ABC license review as Kennedy raises First Amendment concerns — NewscastStudio · U.S. broadcast-industry trade publication
- Disney Sues FCC for 'Retaliatory' Investigation of ABC — Reason · U.S. libertarian; published by the Reason Foundation, funded by libertarian donors
- Disney Sues Trump's FCC for Retaliation Over Jimmy Kimmel Joke — The New Republic · U.S. left / progressive opinion-driven magazine
- Disney Sued the FCC Over Eight Licenses. ABC Reaches America Through 230 It Doesn't Own — Business Model Analyst · Independent business-analysis site; commercial/analytical framing, no declared political orientation
- First Colbert, now The View: Trump's FCC opens equal time investigation into political chat show — Fortune · U.S. business magazine, center; business-audience framing
- ABC sues FCC over challenge to broadcast licenses — PBS · U.S. public broadcaster; member- and grant-funded, center to center-left
- Jimmy Kimmel's suspension shows power of FCC's Brendan Carr — NPR · U.S. public radio; center-left news framing