Trump Floats Stripping Networks Critical of Him of Their Broadcast Licenses
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
politico.comOtherstory
heatednegative
Debate
80/100
Free SpeechMedia RegulationTrump Administration
Key topics
Free Speech
Media Regulation
Trump Administration
Trump suggests revoking broadcast licenses of networks critical of him, sparking concerns about civil liberties and media freedom, with commenters weighing in on the potential consequences and constitutional implications.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Moderate engagementFirst comment
2m
Peak period
8
0-1h
Avg / period
3.3
Comment distribution13 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 13 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 18, 2025 at 4:13 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 18, 2025 at 4:15 PM EDT
2m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
8 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 18, 2025 at 7:34 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45294410Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 3:53:09 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
> He added: “When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that’s all they do — that license, they’re not allowed to do that. They’re an arm of the Democrat Party.”
On the one hand, it sounds like a massive violation of civil liberties to revoke licenses based on journalistic criticism. On the other hand, if there is one-sided coverage, when does that cross the line into something resembling campaign financing, where the rules are different? And leaving out licensed situations like TV, what about online journalism. Is there some strict test that separates journalism from election spending?
I believe Washington Post did do 1 (one) Trump's Age Problem, as did the Philadelphia Inquirer. I acknowledge the coverage wasn't precisely 100% anti-Biden.
Now that we know Trump started with false premises, we have to ask why? We also have an obligation to point out the falsehoods politely.
While I don't think they actually do that, if they did it would be legal. Before 1987, when Republicans successfully got the fairness doctrine revoked, it wouldn't have been.
Truth? You seem to act like the only consequences of fraud, sexual assault and associating with pedophiles is the detriment to one's identity.
Have you considered that there are victims to crimes like fraud, rape and pedophilia? That, perhaps, the perpetrators aren't victims in this scenario?
Maybe the facts support on side more than the other, anyway.
Related Trump FCC chair wants to revoke broadcast licenses–the 1A might stop him (9 months ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42451557
Few heeded Trump's call to challenge TV licenses (2017) https://web.archive.org/web/20171019082700/http://www.washin... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15507866)
3 more comments available on Hacker News