Transcript:No one entity should control the truth, especially when they’re doing it to cover up the Epstein Files. The Federal Communications Commission was established in 1934 to regulate our airwaves (radio, broadcast television, wire, satellite, and cable), both at home and around the world.“Regulate” does a lot of heavy lifting there. From making sure sensitive government information about World War II didn’t get into the mainstream to keeping the airwaves swear-free, the FCC’s oversight has always determined what does and doesn’t get heard and seen. But it was never meant to regulate news broadcasts to help protect a president who’s committed unspeakable crimes against humanity. Their power was famously summed up in George Carlin’s classic “7 Dirty Words You Can’t Say on TV” bit. It’s still pretty much true, although broadcast TV has figured out plenty of ways to work around the restrictions, pushing the envelope as far as it can. Those of us who grew up in the pre-Internet era never could have imagined someone like Heritage Foundation stooge Brendan Carr being installed to control information via multiple corporate media mergers and acquisitions. Which is weird, because during Trump’s first administration, Carr still had a grasp on how the First Amendment works. Yeah, I wonder what’s changed in the last seven years? No one could have imagined anything like what we’re witnessing when President Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a massive overhaul of what was seen as an antiquated system. While it “aimed to eliminate monopolies in local telephone service, allowing competition and deregulation to reduce consumer costs,” it actually allowed corporations to own multiple radio and TV stations in multiple cities across the country. This led to mergers between corporations, enriching the already rich, who then got to decide what content went out over the frequencies they had bought. That’s why anyone listening to the radio in the mid-'90s suddenly started hearing a lot of the same music across the dials, no matter where they lived. More than one station in the same market could be playing the same playlists, dividing audiences while creating monopolies. The formerly powerful DJs who decided what made it onto the air were reduced to following corporate playlists packed with artists from labels with whom they had relationships. It was payola without it being exactly payola, when record label execs could still expense trips and send swag to radio stations to make sure their artists got extra airtime. This led to radio companies losing money and then merging, and why we now have iHeart Media, Audacy, and Cumulus dominating the corporate-owned frequencies, drowning out local and community stations, and homogenizing music to the point where it all becomes like an audible McDonald’s. No matter where you are in America, the radio will now sound the same instead of giving you a local vibe. Most significantly, it’s why right-wing talk radio exploded on the AM dial and still dominates it today. Those greedy guys at companies like Sinclair gobbled up those cheap little frequencies nobody wanted and flooded the airwaves with propaganda. The one liberal attempt to capture an audience in the same way . ah, Air America, you were so ahead of your time . was pushed out by the monopoly of what is now MAGA. In 1996, no one could have imagined a traitor would be placed in charge at CBS News. Bari Weiss has already killed stories on 60 Minutes and scorched the earth of the news division. Now she’s pulled the entire plus on CBS Radio. As a former alternative radio DJ, this topic is very close to my heart. I’m a GenX kid who grew up in New Jersey, and all of my earliest musical memories are tied to the New York radio stations. My first on-air gig was in 1993, when the music was still on CDs, and I recorded commercial spots on reel-to-reel, which I then physically cut with a razor blade to edit and then transfer to an 8-track cart to play on the air. By the time I landed my dream gig on KNRK (“94/7 Alternative Portland”) in Portland, Oregon, in 2004, radio was enjoying what would be its final glory years. Everything had been computerized by then, so a station could save tons of money by essentially being a jukebox without the need for humans to tell the audience what they just heard, and the concept of voicetracking (one person in one studio in one city being broadcast to multiple stations wherever the company owned frequencies) wasn’t too far off. During the five years I was on the air, I warned my bosses about the combination of iPods, Satellite Radio, and the internet demolishing any power terrestrial radio had left. I was sadly right about that, because no one cares about radio anymore the way I do. That’s why I was extra worried when I learned about what Project 2025 had planned for the FCC, as well as the Voice of America ( least KKKari Lake is being deregulated, shall we say). I spent a lot of 2024 screaming into the abyss (and directly at Brendan Carr on Twitter) about the dangers of Trump controlling the airwaves. I think you’ve all seen enough to know that “NosTARAdamus” was right about that, too. But all is not lost, thanks to Democrats. Oregon State AG Dan Rayfield is suing to block a merger that would leave my city, Portland, with three of our four major local stations owned by media companies that have caved to Trump. Seven other states also filed motions for temporary restraining orders a day after Brendan Carr’s compromised FCC approved Nexstar’s 6.2 billion dollars purchase of its rival, Tegna. And more states need to get in on this ASAP, because Trump’s control of the media needs to be not just stopped, but undone.Our Analysis:The Real Story Behind the ScandalThe article presents a complex interplay of regulatory decisions, corporate maneuvers, and political influences shaping the media landscape, particularly focusing on radio and television broadcasting. By dissecting the narrative, it's crucial to scrutinize the roles of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), corporate entities, and political figures to understand the distribution of institutional power, decision-making responsibilities, and whether the article misdirects blame.Institutional Power and Decision-MakingThe FCC's Role: Established in 1934, the FCC holds the institutional power to regulate the airwaves, which includes radio, broadcast television, wire, satellite, and cable communications. The agency's mandate has evolved over the decades, but its core function remains to manage the spectrum and ensure the airwaves serve the public interest. The article implicates the FCC in using its regulatory authority to potentially protect political figures and influence media ownership, which hints at an intersection between government oversight and corporate interests.Corporate Entities: The Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed by President Bill Clinton, aimed to deregulate the telecommunications industry to foster competition. Instead, it paved the way for significant consolidation within the industry, allowing companies to own multiple media outlets across different markets. This led to the homogenization of content, particularly in radio, and the rise of corporate giants like iHeart Media, Audacy, and Cumulus. These corporations hold substantial decision-making power over the content broadcasted to the public.Political Figures: The article mentions Brendan Carr, a commissioner of the FCC, and President Donald Trump, suggesting their influences have shaped FCC policies and decisions to benefit certain political agendas. The narrative implies that these figures have exploited their positions to manipulate media ownership and content, thereby exerting control over public discourse.Framing and ResponsibilityThe article's framing suggests that the FCC, under the influence of political figures and corporate interests, has strayed from its foundational principles. However, it's essential to differentiate between the institutional responsibilities of the FCC and the actions of corporations empowered by deregulatory policies.Institutional Power: The FCC possesses the regulatory authority over the airwaves but does not directly control content. Its decisions regarding media mergers and acquisitions do, however, influence the concentration of media ownership and, indirectly, the diversity of viewpoints and content available to the public.Decision-Making: The pivotal decisions that have shaped the current media landscape, such as the approval of mergers and acquisitions, involve both the FCC's regulatory approval and the strategic interests of corporate entities. Political figures may exert influence, but the ultimate decision-making lies within the combined framework of regulatory approval and corporate action.Misdirection of Responsibility: While the article points fingers at the FCC and political figures like Trump and Carr, it risks oversimplifying the issue. The transformation of the media landscape is the result of decades-long regulatory and corporate decisions. Blaming current political figures or the FCC alone overlooks the broader systemic issues stemming from deregulation and corporate consolidation.ConclusionThe narrative surrounding the control of the truth, as illustrated through the Epstein Files example, the consolidation of media ownership, and the purported protection of political figures, reveals a tangled web of regulatory oversight, corporate power, and political influence. While the FCC and political figures play significant roles, the crux of the issue lies in the broader systemic changes facilitated by deregulation and corporate consolidation. Criticisms should be directed not only at individual actors within this system but also at the underlying policies and economic forces that have allowed a few corporations and political interests to dominate the media landscape. Rejecting simple scapegoats requires a nuanced understanding of the interplay between regulation, corporate strategy, and political power.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com