President Trump issued an executive order on Monday aimed at preserving the traditional television slot for the annual Army-Navy football game, a move widely seen as a favor to broadcasting giant CBS and its owner, Larry Ellison. The order directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to consider reviewing the “public interest obligations” of broadcasters, potentially to ensure the game remains a nationally televised event without competition from the expanding College Football Playoff schedule. The timing and focus of the order have raised questions, particularly given the ongoing global conflicts and domestic economic concerns.
The directive comes as the college football landscape undergoes significant change. The College Football Playoff is expanding to 12 teams in 2024, creating more games that could potentially compete for viewership with the traditionally protected December date of the Army-Navy game. CBS Sports currently holds the exclusive broadcast rights to “America’s Game,” as it’s often called, and Ellison, a prominent Trump donor, stands to benefit from maintaining that exclusive window. The executive order attempts to frame the issue as one of national importance, arguing that scheduling conflicts “weaken the national focus on our Military Service Academies and detract from a morale-building event of vital interest to the Department of War.”
Though, legal experts suggest the order carries little practical weight. As the Novel York Times noted, Trump’s ability to influence the scheduling decisions of private sports organizations is limited. The executive order isn’t legally enforceable and relies on the FCC, under the leadership of Chairman Brendan Carr, to take action. Carr has a history of aggressively pursuing conservative media priorities, and has recently been criticized for what some describe as politically motivated interventions.
The FCC Chairman is now tasked with examining whether existing broadcast licenses should be interpreted to prioritize the Army-Navy game. According to the order, Carr “shall consider reviewing the public interest obligations of broadcast licensees to determine whether those obligations would require that the Army-Navy Game remain a national service event.” This echoes Carr’s past actions, including inquiries into television networks over comedic content critical of Republicans, as reported by Techdirt.
A Pattern of Intervention and a Question of Influence
Brendan Carr has become known for a proactive, and often controversial, approach to regulating broadcast media. He has previously threatened broadcasters over content he deemed unfavorable to the Republican party, raising concerns about potential censorship and political interference. Carr’s actions have included inquiries into Sinclair Broadcast Group’s decision to pull Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show from its stations and scrutiny of other programs that did not align with conservative viewpoints. This pattern of intervention raises questions about the impartiality of the FCC under his leadership.
The timing of this executive order, coupled with Carr’s history, has led to speculation about the influence of Ellison and his financial support of Trump. Although the New York Times, the Associated Press, and even CBS News itself initially reported on the order without explicitly mentioning Ellison’s connection, the potential conflict of interest is becoming increasingly apparent. Ellison, through CBS, directly benefits from maintaining the Army-Navy game’s exclusive broadcast slot, and the executive order appears designed to protect that position.
The Shifting Landscape of Television Viewership
The focus on protecting a broadcast television slot likewise seems increasingly out of step with the broader media landscape. Broadcast television viewership has been steadily declining for years, with just 20% of all TV viewing occurring over-the-air in 2023, an all-time low. More viewers are turning to streaming services and cable television, where many of the expanding College Football Playoff games are already being broadcast. This raises questions about the effectiveness of attempting to preserve a specific time slot on a platform that is losing relevance.
The ratings for the earlier rounds of the College Football Playoff games, broadcast on ESPN/Disney/ABC, have reportedly been strong, even exceeding those of some traditional broadcast programs. This competition is what appears to have prompted the intervention, but the focus on protecting CBS’s exclusive slot feels increasingly anachronistic in a fragmented media environment.
Corporate Media’s Role in the Narrative
The initial coverage of the executive order by major news outlets has been criticized for omitting key details, particularly the connection between Ellison and Trump. The New York Times, the Associated Press, and CBS News all reported on the order, emphasizing themes of patriotism and tradition, but largely failed to highlight the potential conflict of interest. This omission, as noted by Techdirt, reflects a broader trend of corporate media presenting information in a way that avoids challenging powerful interests.
This lack of critical analysis contributes to what some observers describe as a “pseudo-journalistic simulacrum” – a presentation of news that resembles journalism but lacks the depth and scrutiny necessary to inform the public effectively. The focus on surface-level narratives, rather than investigating the underlying motivations and potential consequences, undermines the role of the press as a watchdog.
What’s Next?
The immediate impact of the executive order is likely to be minimal. As legal experts have pointed out, it lacks the force of law and relies on the FCC to take action. Chairman Carr is expected to initiate a review of broadcast license obligations, but the outcome of that review is uncertain. It’s likely to face legal challenges if it attempts to unduly restrict the scheduling decisions of other broadcasters.
The next step will be to watch how the FCC responds to the President’s directive. Any proposed rule changes or enforcement actions will be subject to public comment and potential legal challenges. The situation will also be closely monitored by media organizations and advocacy groups concerned about the potential for political interference in broadcasting. Updates on the FCC’s review can be found on the FCC’s website: https://www.fcc.gov/.
This situation underscores the complex interplay between politics, media ownership, and regulatory power. While the executive order may not have a significant practical effect, it serves as a reminder of the potential for those in power to use their influence to benefit their allies and shape the narrative to their advantage.
What are your thoughts on the President’s executive order? Share your comments below, and please share this article with your network.
