History Says Trump Meddling At FCC Unlikely

American Presidents — indeed, nearly all the world’s politicians for just about forever —  have battled the media. Reporters worldwide always say they have to “speak truth to power.”

“They’re prejudiced and pursuing their own personal agenda,” the politicians typically say in response. But this time seems different, doesn’t it? 

President Trump seems to follow the Mayor Rudy Giuliani “zero defect” approach on everything, doesn’t he? No media report is too minor or obscure but that it cannot be addressed immediately —  especially if the president regards it as “unfair” or “dishonest.”

Write something Mr. Trump dislikes and tweets will almost instantly appear. Night or day, weekends, federal holidays. Anytime, right?  And, in fairness, it’s not just the reporters. The President didn’t like how Press Secretary Sean Spicer appeared in his Jos. A. Bank “two-for-one” grey pinstripe suit the Saturday before last, for instance. He didn’t like the fellow’s tie, either. Well, shortly thereafter Mr. Spicer appeared, dressed much more to the president’s liking.

So, what’s the likelihood federal regulatory agencies such as the FCC will now do something? Will the FCC take up its long-retired cudgels and pound the electronic media over the head?

When President Nixon complained about “instant analysis” of his speeches by TV personalities, FCC Chairman Dean Burch in 1970 did next to nothing.

When the Nixon Administration’s “Drug Czar” complained about “drug-oriented song lyrics,” Chairman Burch had the FCC’s public affairs office issue a statement. But the agency declined to provide examples of this insidious program content. For all the “dynamic tension” of the Nixon period, nothing really happened to the press or broadcasters, did it?

The “mainstream media” made belittling President Ford a fulltime job. The Washington Post claimed his Secret Service code name was “Bozo.” There were endless stories about his clumsiness. If Donald Trump’s staff thinks they’re being treated unfairly, they ought to go back and look at how the media dealt with President Ford.

President Jimmy Carter probably got the worst press coverage in recent years. The Washington Post famously published a photo of Carter after jogging —  and, looking as if he was about to collapse.

On the front page of the paper for three-plus years, the Post always ran a story that began: “Carter Administration Splits Over [fill in the blank].” Post Publisher Katharine Graham evidently wanted to convince the paper’s readers that Mr. Carter was basically incompetent, and his “team,” mass confusion.” She was especially peeved by Carter’s Southern accent. 

All the newspapers and TV networks reported when President Carter backed down in the face of a swamp rabbit “attack,” near “Miss Lilian’s pond house” in Plains, Ga. They belittled Carter, his staff —  remember Hamilton Jordan (pr: Jerdan) and the “amaretto and cream” incident? Then, of course, there was the Tehran embassy hostage crisis. Carter was pummeled over that every day.

But Carter’s FCC chairman, Charlie Ferris, stayed clear of this “evolving story.” There’s also no indication that Mr. Carter ever suggested the FCC “do something.” 

Similarly, Chairmen Fowler and Patrick stayed well clear of the media’s stern treatment of President Reagan. When OMB declared ketchup a school lunch program vegetable, or Stockman ratted out his boss to The Washington Post, the regulators stayed on the sidelines.

Mrs. Graham had convinced herself the Nixon Administration was after her TV stations, especially after hearing Attorney General Mitchell talk about teats and wringers. The reality, however, was that the publisher and the FCC lived in parallel, separate universes.

The Clinton Administration seems to blame all its problems on Matt Drudge, Judge Starr and a media prepared to “blow everything out of proportion,” without reporting “all the good Bill Clinton has done.”

Mrs. Clinton was also obsessed with that “vast right-wing conspiracy,” remember? Of course, the media benefitted greatly as a result of the navy blue Gap dress-Impeachment experience. For several years, all reporters had to do was crank out another “Bill Clinton” story. 

Most “coastal media” personalities are “left of center” at a minimum. Thus, President Obama was very much “our guy.” And, the media also cut him much slack to avoid criticizing a minority. 

Still, like President Clinton’s staff, the Obama staff seemed concerned that the media wasn’t “giving him credit for all his accomplishments.”

But did FCC Chairmen Genachowski or Wheeler ever voice a view on President Obama’s press treatment? Not that we ever saw or read. Once again, there was a disconnect between what the president and White House staff were doing and what the regulators were doing.

So what about now? Think anyone at the Trump White House will ask Chairman Pai to “put a little stick around,” as Prime Minister Francis Urquhart in the real House of Cards often said? Do reporters have to worry about “Mattie’s fate?”

That DNC staffer mysteriously killed last summer? Or, all those folks associated with the Clintons who encountered problems (our printer, by the way, always cites the Clinton enemy who allegedly committed suicide by shooting himself twice in the head!).

Well, it’s highly unlikely the Trump White House will contact the FCC in any regard. And, will the FCC take steps anyway to apply and enforce their various rules? Probably not. The FCC rules for broadcasters used to be pretty strict. They fined stations for failing to label “file footage,” for instance. Or broadcasting news that they knew was incorrect. “Rigging the news” was one of the worst offenses back then. But now? It’s likely to be ignored, isn’t it?

We think the Trump White House and FCC will follow historical tradition and remain “two ships passing in the dark” and having virtually no contact.

Robinson is a communications attorney and former FCC official. A longer version of this article appeared in his weekly e-newsletter, Telecommunications Policy Review.