Eshoo, McNerney Defend Inquiry on MVPDs Carrying Disinformation

House Commerce ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington and many other Republicans invoked the letters. “In all my time on this committee, there has never been a more obvious direct attack on the First Amendment,” McMorris Rodgers said. “Do you think Republican members of Congress agree with all of the content in media outlets? No. Have we sent TV companies threatening letters to stop carrying certain channels? No.” If Commerce Democrats were “interested in a meaningful dialogue, you would not schedule a hyperpartisan hearing to shame and blame," she said. "You certainly would not send letters pressuring private companies to block conservative media outlets.”

The letters imply that MVPDs “should stop carrying certain news content,” said House Communications ranking member Bob Latta of Ohio. Disinformation and conspiracy theories are “serious issues” Communications “should be examining” in a bipartisan way, but the Democrats’ intent in the hearing was “to fan the flames of silencing certain viewpoints in America by trying to suppress and censor speech, a concept that has a potential to destroy our democracy.” Lawmakers “are embarking down a dangerous path of using this committee to attack the foundation of fact and further diminish trust in journalism,” he said.

McMorris Rodgers, Latta and 11 other House Commerce Republicans wrote acting FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel asking she “publicly express your opposition to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine immediately.” They want Rosenworcel to “denounce the recent attacks on the First Amendment by House Democrats and provide us a written response outlining in detail the steps you will take to uphold your prior commitments to free speech and a free press and how you intend to protect these principles.” The FCC is “reviewing” the letter, a spokesperson said.

George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley criticized the letters during the hearing, saying lawmakers’ questions can have the same “chilling” effect as direct government pressure. “Making a statement and putting a question mark at the end of it doesn’t change the import of the statement,” he said. Turley noted the letter singled out conservative outlets when media across the political spectrum have spread misinformation. Free State Foundation President Randolph May condemned the correspondence.

Eshoo and McNerney defended the queries during the hearing. Eshoo noted she and McNerney had the Congressional Research Service evaluate them, and the office told her “they see no First Amendment red flags,” despite what Republicans “insisted.” There’s “a problem in this country” with disinformation, Eshoo said. “It’s a large one” and “a sticky wicket” with the First Amendment’s free speech rights. Eshoo said she and McNerney were justified in asking MVPDs “strong, important questions” about their carriage of the conservative outlets given those companies’ role in spreading disinformation.

Eshoo criticized Republicans for circulating “a lot of misinformation” about the lawmakers’ intent, noting it resulted in a “much larger audience” for the virtual panel. McNerney characterized the missives as “questions to understand how disinformation spreads and the role of various companies in enabling its spread. While social media undoubtedly plays a major role in enabling disinformation ecosystems, traditional media outlets should not escape scrutiny and accountability.”

House Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone of New Jersey and other Democrats generally didn't directly reference the Eshoo-McNerney letters. Lobbyists said Democrats' statements emphasizing their commitment to protecting the First Amendment were aimed at deflecting GOP criticism. “We’re all staunch defenders of the First Amendment,” which “prohibits us from passing laws that inappropriately limit speech, even when it is controversial or overly partisan,” Pallone said. “That does not mean that we should ignore the spread of misinformation.”

“Putting a spotlight on the issue and having an open dialogue is exactly what the Founding Fathers envisioned, because it may help us solve a very dangerous problem,” Pallone said. “We must ask uncomfortable questions,” including “whether these media outlets … have an incentive to air extreme conspiratorial programming or content.” Widespread disinformation about the 2020 presidential election “helped fan the flames” that led to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, and misinformation about the pandemic “exacerbated” threats to “the American people’s physical, emotional and economic health,” he said.

“When truth becomes a commodity to be traded upon for profit, and facts and consequences don’t matter to those who report them, our democracy is undermined,” said Communications Chairman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania. “It is the responsibility of this subcommittee to hold these institutions to a higher standard.” Doyle, like other Democrats, focused his questions on ways the media can internally quell the spread of disinformation.

Former CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien urged news organizations to “hold themselves to a higher standard,” in part by refusing to book guests on TV shows “who are spreading misinformation” and lies. “I am advocating for good journalism,” she said. The media should “cover the fact that lies and propaganda are being disseminated, but do not book people to lie on your show.”

Rep. Darren Soto of Florida was a Democratic outlier, asking whether the FCC should consider “beefing up” its Spanish-language staff to enforce existing rules barring broadcasters from “knowingly” disseminating “false information that will cause substantial public harm.” He cited a “huge Spanish-language misinformation campaign” in Florida that cast blame on Antifa and the Black Lives Matter movement for the insurrection. Stronger FCC enforcement could be a “proper” way “we could pursue making sure that we have some truth in broadcasting” while striking a “balance” with free speech rights, Soto said.

That’s “not a workable avenue,” Turley said. A push for such enforcement would get quickly conflated with concerns about media regulation. He opposed any attempt to resurrect the fairness doctrine.