The Clock May Be Ticking for Bari Weiss at CBS

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]

The Cost of Losing the People Who Know Things

Institutions die long before they collapse. This may be happening to journalism right now. The first symptom is the departure of the people who know things. The veteran reporter who can spot a fabricated source in five minutes. The military officer who understands logistics because he’s spent twenty years moving troops and supplies. The career civil servant who remembers why a rule exists because she was there when the last disaster happened. These people rarely become famous. They’re often expensive, sometimes stubborn, and frequently irritating to management. They ask difficult questions. They challenge assumptions. They remember mistakes everyone else would rather forget. They are also the reason institutions work. When organizations begin valuing loyalty more than expertise, these are usually the first people to go. Archer's 🏹 Line is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, become a subscriber. History is littered with examples. In the late 1930s, Stalin purged the Soviet military because he feared they could be a threat to his power. Thousands of officers were arrested, imprisoned, or executed. Experienced commanders disappeared. Political reliability became more important than military competence. Then Hitler invaded. The German army crossed the Soviet border in June 1941 and delivered one of the most devastating military defeats in history. Entire Soviet armies were surrounded and destroyed. Millions of soldiers were killed or captured. The laws of war proved indifferent to political loyalty. Stalin eventually learned that lesson the hard way. The Soviet Union survived because experienced military leaders were promoted, restored, or empowered. Talent became difficult to ignore when survival depended on it. The same principle applies far beyond the battlefield. Every profession develops expertise through accumulated experience. A good reporter learns how people lie. They learn it after thousands of interviews. They learn which sources consistently exaggerate. Which politicians evade questions. Which public records offices hide information. Which statistics deserve another look. They learn what doesn’t smell right. When a veteran reporter says something feels wrong, the explanation is often invisible. They may not immediately know why. The only answer may sound like something from an old movie: “I’ve got a gut feeling.” Years of experience are processing information beneath the surface. Call it intuition. Call it instinct. It’s really experience. The same is true in government. A career employee at a public agency may know where previous administrations failed. They may remember which policies produced unintended consequences. They may recognize a problem that appears new only because everyone who encountered it before has retired. Their value becomes obvious after they’re gone. The modern economy has spent decades treating expertise as a cost center. Lay off senior employees. Replace them with cheaper workers. Offer buyouts. And the spreadsheets do improve. For a while. But then a crisis arrives. A pandemic. A war. A natural disaster. A financial meltdown. Suddenly everyone starts looking for the people who used to know how to handle those situations. News organizations are experiencing this problem in real time. Across television, radio, newspapers, and digital media, veteran journalists have been shown the door. Some were pushed out by shrinking budgets. Others by corporate mergers. Others because executives decided experience costs too much. Some were fired because they stood up for their principles. The danger for journalism is that audiences often can’t see the difference until it’s too late. The invisible assets are often the difference between journalism and content. Every institution eventually encounters reality. And reality doesn’t care about political loyalty. It doesn’t care about corporate talking points. It doesn’t care about management theories. It cares whether the people making decisions know what they are doing. The kind of knowledge that comes from experience. Cut off experience, cut off knowledge, and you're left with a newsroom that can't find the truth, a government that can't manage a crisis, and an army that can't win a war. 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]

We'll Remember Who Stood Where

The audience remembers. That’s the problem facing CBS News, Paramount, and a growing list of media companies, universities, law firms, and corporations that spent the Trump years discovering new ways to surrender. One day, Donald Trump will leave the stage. I do not think MAGA survives it, given how strongly it revolves around a single personality. Sooner or later, every political movement dies. History is littered with movements that once seemed permanent. The harder question is what comes afterward. 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]