Gunfight at the AM Corral

Gunfight at the AM Corral

There’s a bill moving through Congress that could determine whether AM radio survives the next decade. And there’s a station in Los Angeles whose numbers may be telling us whether that even matters anymore. The AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act [https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2026/05/articles/this-week-in-regulation-for-broadcasters-may-18-2026-to-may-22-2026/] has been kicking around Capitol Hill for three years — introduced, stalled, reintroduced, stalled again. Last month, the House Energy and Commerce Committee folded its language into the pending surface transportation reauthorization bill, which improves its odds of becoming law this year. The NAB called it essential for public safety. The Consumer Technology Association called it a cost-raising innovation killer. Place your bets. The emergency broadcasting argument is the strongest card AM’s supporters hold. When Superstorm Sandy hit the East Coast, people didn’t reach for apps; they reached for AM radio. During the L.A. wildfires, the same story. There’s something about a 50,000-watt clear-channel signal that cuts through when cell towers go dark and streaming buffers. But when your ratings argument gets wobbly, you lean on public safety. Here’s Exhibit A: KNX. On May 11th, KNX News moved back to solely being heard on the 1070 AM signal, surrendering the 97.1 FM simulcast it had held since December 2021. That FM signal now carries sports. KNX goes back to being what it was for a century — an AM station. I worked there. It was a big deal for us when that FM signal went live. Yes, AM has reach, but FM has relevance, and these days, relevance is more important. KNX picked up a lot of listeners who didn’t care about AM or didn’t like it because of the sound quality. But I also know what an AM signal can do. On a clear night, 1070 reaches half the continent. In Los Angeles traffic, it’s the station on a million presets. But presets are set by people who remember setting them. The question is whether anyone new is setting them. Even in cars that still have AM radio, the AM dial is an afterthought. And that’s even if someone takes the time to bypass the CarPlay or Android Auto app and go directly to the car’s audio settings. In April — its final full month simulcasting on both AM and FM — KNX held a 4.1 share. In May, that number dropped to 3.5. That’s a 15 percent decline, measured over a survey period that captured only nine days of the new reality. Nine days isn't enough to call a trend, but it's enough to make you nervous. Now zoom out. Who is actually listening to AM radio in cars in 2026? The honest answer is: older drivers, rural communities, and people in emergencies. That's millions of Americans who depend on the format in ways streaming can't touch. The AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act has the support of farm broadcasting organizations and agricultural groups for this reason. In a tornado warning in rural Kansas, you aren’t asking Alexa. But here’s the tension the legislation’s supporters don’t want to talk about: the drivers most likely to need AM in a crisis are the least likely to be buying the new EVs from which it’s being stripped. And the buyers of those new EVs will never notice it's gone. What's really being settled here isn't technical standards. It's a gunfight at the AM corral — over whose listeners count, whose emergencies matter, and whether a medium that once defined mass communication deserves a legislative life preserver or a graceful exit. Momentum is building for the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act, and it may well pass. But momentum in Congress and momentum in the marketplace are two different things. KNX’s May numbers will tell us something. June will tell us more. By the time this legislation gets to a floor vote, we may already have our answer — not from a committee hearing, but from a ratings book. If AM radio goes, FM becomes the afterthought. How much longer can it last once half the dial goes dark? Speaking of radio, the new Archer & Feldman podcast drops Monday morning on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. Bob Butler (KCBS, SAG-AFTRA) joins us to talk about what the Paramount/WBD merger means for California workers and for journalism. We’re also talking about how much longer radio news can survive. Subscribe to the YouTube channel here [https://www.youtube.com/@ArcherFeldman]. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.therobarcher.com/subscribe [https://www.therobarcher.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

A Post-News World

People say they want impartial news. They say they value facts, accuracy, and reporting that isn't driven by ideology. Then they get their news from social media, influencers, partisan outlets, podcasts, and increasingly, AI. The latest Reuters Institute Digital News Report reveals a growing contradiction: audiences continue to trust traditional journalism more than online creators, yet they're consuming less of it every year. In this episode, veteran broadcaster and journalist Rob Archer examines the widening gap between what people say they want from news and what they actually choose to consume. Why are audiences abandoning the very institutions they claim to value? Why are trust levels continuing to fall? And what happens when algorithms become the primary gatekeepers of information? Drawing on decades of experience in radio programming and newsrooms, Rob explores the psychology behind news consumption, the rise of the post-news environment, and why misinformation flourishes when familiarity becomes more important than verification. Sources include the 2026 Reuters Institute Digital News Report and recent research on trust, misinformation, social media, and digital news habits. For more articles, podcasts, and commentary, visit Archer's Line at TheRobArcher.com [http://TheRobArcher.com]. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.therobarcher.com/subscribe [https://www.therobarcher.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

ABC’s Fight Could Redefine Press Freedom

ABC’s legal battle with the FCC may become one of the most important press freedom cases in decades. Because the outcome could determine whether government agencies can use regulatory power to pressure news organizations over speech they don’t like. For years, press freedom battles in America have usually involved direct government action: attempts to block publication, force disclosure of sources, or punish journalists for reporting. Courts have developed extensive First Amendment protections against them. The dispute between ABC and the FCC is different. It centers on an important question: Can the government use regulatory authority to create pressure that stops short of outright censorship but still influences editorial decisions? ABC says no. The company has accused FCC Chairman Brendan Carr of attempting to overturn decades of communications law and using agency authority in ways that threaten constitutionally protected speech. The network has also described parts of the FCC’s actions as unlawful, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The threat to press freedom may no longer come from explicit censorship. It may come from government officials using licensing, investigations, enforcement actions, and regulatory reviews to create consequences for unfavorable coverage. The government is essentially saying, “We can’t tell you what not to say, but we can make it expensive and painful for you if you say something we don’t like.” A newsroom doesn’t need to receive a formal order to stop reporting. Editors don’t need a government censor sitting in the building. If executives believe certain stories, interviews, or commentary could trigger investigations, licensing challenges, or regulatory headaches, the pressure can influence decisions before a single article is written or a broadcast airs. The Supreme Court has long recognized this principle. Government actions that chill speech can raise serious First Amendment concerns even when no direct prohibition exists. Carr has argued that programs like The View shouldn’t get exemptions from equal-time requirements that have applied to news and public affairs programming. At the same time, the FCC has accelerated review of ABC’s local station licenses while investigating issues related to Disney’s DEI policies. The agency has launched similar DEI investigations involving other broadcasters, including NBC and CBS. ABC argues the investigations, license reviews, and challenges to longstanding broadcast exemptions aren’t isolated actions. Critics see them as part of an effort to pressure media companies whose coverage the administration dislikes. That is where the case moves beyond ABC. Unlike newspapers, podcasts, websites, and streaming services, broadcasters depend on federal licenses. That has always created tension between government oversight and editorial independence. For decades, courts, regulators, and broadcasters operated under an understanding that licensing authority shouldn’t become a tool for influencing content. ABC is now asking whether those protections still exist. If the company prevails, the result could extend far beyond its own stations. A strong court ruling could establish clearer constitutional limits on how federal agencies interact with news organizations. It could make it more difficult for future administrations—Republican or Democratic—to use investigations, licensing reviews, or regulatory threats in ways that could influence editorial decisions. In effect, the courts could modernize press freedom protections for an era in which pressure is often indirect rather than explicit. Such a ruling wouldn’t eliminate government oversight of broadcasters. The FCC would still regulate technical operations, licensing requirements, ownership rules, and other matters within its authority. What it could do is draw a brighter constitutional line between legitimate regulation and government actions that risk influencing protected speech. Many of the press freedom cases that shaped modern journalism involved direct attempts to block publication or punish reporting. Today's disputes often involve pressure applied through regulation rather than outright censorship. The Constitution’s protections may need to evolve to meet that reality. The case could help determine whether press freedom means freedom from direct censorship alone. Or freedom from government pressure designed to produce the same result. I don't have a license that the government can threaten. What I have is you. If you’d like to help keep Archer’s Line independent, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.therobarcher.com/subscribe [https://www.therobarcher.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

A Bipartisan Effort to Stop Government Bullying of the Media

Sens. Ted Cruz and Ron Wyden don’t agree on much. But they do agree that government officials shouldn’t be able to pressure private companies into suppressing speech. The two senators have introduced the Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression Act — better known as the JAWBONE Act. [https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/JAWBONE-One-Pager-FINAL.pdf] The bill would create new legal remedies for people who believe government agencies or employees tried to coerce companies into censoring protected speech. Under the proposal, people could sue government officials for so-called “jawboning” even if the effort to suppress speech ultimately failed. Plaintiffs could seek monetary damages and attorney fees. The bill would also require agencies, including Brendan Carr’s FCC, to provide Congress with certain communications involving requests to remove or restrict speech. Cruz and Wyden come at the issue from different directions. Republican Ted Cruz, playing to his base, argues the Biden administration pressured social media companies to silence people questioning vaccine mandates and election integrity. Democrat Ron Wyden argues the Trump administration has used government power to pressure television networks and media companies over programming and editorial decisions. And you might recall that Cruz publicly defended Jimmy Kimmel against government pressure last year, despite being no fan of the late-night host. “Jawboning isn’t partisan, and it isn’t new,” Wyden said. “The JAWBONE Act would provide Americans with the ability to sue when the government illegally coerces censorship and create transparency around government requests to censor speech.” The term “jawboning” refers to government officials using pressure, threats, or regulatory leverage to push private companies into restricting speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. Supporters of the bill say those cases can be difficult to prove because communications often happen behind closed doors, and lawsuits can become moot when administrations change or officials leave office. That may be getting harder for government officials to hide. These pressure campaigns are playing out in public more and more, with politicians and regulators making their demands in front of cameras, in press releases, and on social media. I’d argue that it’s been blatant. You can see it plain as day in Trump’s social media feed. The bill would apply to efforts aimed at broadcasters, social media platforms, AI companies, and other communications services. Supporters say it would give Americans a clearer path to challenge government pressure campaigns and hold officials accountable. “Holding the government accountable and giving Americans the tools to fight back is essential,” Cruz said. “The JAWBONE Act ensures the First Amendment is protected, not undermined.” If the bill passes, I highly doubt President Trump will sign it. He’s been quite gleeful on social media about the end of Stephen Colbert’s show — taking personal credit for getting Colbert off the air — and often takes aim at Jimmy Kimmel. Not to mention his frequent attacks on journalists and news organizations, including outlets that generally support him when he decides they haven’t been sufficiently loyal. And passing Congress is no sure thing. But if it somehow becomes law, things could get interesting. If media companies, broadcasters, or even former employees believe government officials crossed the line from criticism into coercion, they’ll have a new legal tool available to test that claim in court. And I’d watch every minute of those hearings. And now, a personal request. I write and produce Archer’s Line without advertisers and without having to answer to a corporation. I’d like to keep it that way. That’s why I’m asking you to become a paid subscriber and support my work. If that’s not in the cards right now, leaving a comment and sharing the article are also big help. It makes the algorithm gods smile down upon me. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.therobarcher.com/subscribe [https://www.therobarcher.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Journalism's Job Isn't To Pretend. Where's the Evidence of Election Rigging?

President Trump says the Los Angeles and California elections were rigged. Spencer Pratt lost. Therefore, according to Trump and many of his supporters, something must have gone wrong. There is just one problem. Nobody has produced any evidence. Journalists are often accused of bias when they point out that a claim is unsupported. But saying there is no evidence for a claim isn’t bias. It’s reporting. The media’s responsibility isn’t to act as a referee between two sides of an argument. The media’s responsibility is to determine what the facts are and report them accurately. You know the illustration: One guy says it’s raining outside, the other one says it’s not. The reporter’s job isn’t to say, “Well, different viewpoints, and we’ll have to leave it there.” It’s her job to look out the window and report if it’s raining or not. The standard doesn’t change because the person making the accusation happens to be the President of the United States. California election officials have publicly explained how the vote was conducted. Ballots were counted under established procedures. The results are certified through the same systems that have been used repeatedly in previous elections. Voting tabulations change as more votes are counted. In California, the mail-in ballots aren’t counted until after the same-day votes. That’s why there are delays in how the state reports vote totals. Naturally, same-day tallies would show Spencer Pratt with a healthy number, since Republicans, especially the MAGA variety, have been trained to never vote by mail-in ballot (even though Trump does). Whereas Democrats, especially in this very, very blue city, tend to vote by mail. Add to that that state law says people can mail in ballots up to election day, so long as they’re postmarked by then. That means late mail-ins can take up to a week to get to the vote counters. People are free to dislike our system. They’re free to argue that California’s election laws should be changed. Those are legitimate political debates. But what’s not legitimate is alleging criminal conduct without proof. Even some of the defenses being offered have become almost comical. House Speaker Mike Johnson recently suggested the alleged fraud is so sophisticated and “diabolical” that it cannot be proven. A claim that can’t be proven because the evidence supposedly can’t be found isn’t evidence. It’s the absence of evidence dressed up as an explanation. That certainly wouldn’t fly in any court in a free society. The argument would be laughed out of the room. Yet millions of Americans hear versions of these claims every day, and that creates another challenge for journalism. The audience no longer shares a common information system. Many Trump supporters consume media that reinforces election fraud narratives. More and more, Americans occupy separate realities constructed by different information sources. That doesn’t relieve journalists of their responsibility. In some ways, it makes that responsibility more important. The fact that a portion of the audience may never see accurate reporting isn’t an excuse to stop producing it. The role of journalism isn’t to tell people what they want to hear. It’s to establish what is known, what is unknown, and what can be proven. At the moment, the facts are straightforward. Trump claims the election was rigged. His supporters amplify the claim. No evidence has been presented. Those are the facts. The last time millions of Americans were told an election had been stolen without evidence, some of them eventually acted on that belief. January 6 happened because enough people became convinced that evidence was unnecessary. That may be the most dangerous lesson of all. When citizens are taught that belief matters more than proof, facts become optional. Once facts become optional, democracy becomes fragile. The idea that fair elections are only the ones where your side wins, and that losing somehow "proves" the election was stolen — that leads to what we saw that day. The media can’t force people to accept reality. But it can continue doing its job. It can continue demanding evidence. It can continue reporting what is true. Even if it means the president throws down his microphone, stomps on it, and walks out of the interview. And news media can continue refusing to pretend that unsupported allegations deserve the same weight as documented facts. That is journalism. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. If this article resonates with you, please share it with others. And if you’d like to support Archer’s Line, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Independent journalism only works when readers support it directly. Your subscription helps me continue doing this work without corporate interference, political pressure, or advertisers deciding which questions are safe to ask. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.therobarcher.com/subscribe [https://www.therobarcher.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]