November 2, 2023 • 26 mins
At 330 Market Street in Philadelphia, Fox Television Stations-owned WTXF “FOX 29” is a prominent fixture in the Old City, with a home just steps away from Independence Mall. It remains a highly popular over-the-air station in a market where it competes against owned-and-operated stations from CBS, ABC and NBC. But, if it were up to the Media and Democracy Project, FOX Television Stations would lose the station’s license.
Why? Preston Padden, the former outspoken FOX executive who in recent months has teamed up with MAD, joins RBR+TVBR Editor-in-Chief Adam R Jacobson for an exclusive 30-minute conversation that offers his views on why FOX shouldn’t be permitted to continue owning WTXF — something FOX through its attorneys at Covington & Burlington argues "would upend decades of established Commission precedent, put the Commission in a position fundamentally incompatible with the First Amendment, and threaten to deprive viewers in Philadelphia of a station that serves its community exceptionally well.”
Padden and Jacobson chatted for 30 minutes, and this conversation can be heard in the latest InFOCUS Podcast, presented by dot.FM
Why? Preston Padden, the former outspoken FOX executive who in recent months has teamed up with MAD, joins RBR+TVBR Editor-in-Chief Adam R Jacobson for an exclusive 30-minute conversation that offers his views on why FOX shouldn’t be permitted to continue owning WTXF — something FOX through its attorneys at Covington & Burlington argues "would upend decades of established Commission precedent, put the Commission in a position fundamentally incompatible with the First Amendment, and threaten to deprive viewers in Philadelphia of a station that serves its community exceptionally well.”
Padden and Jacobson chatted for 30 minutes, and this conversation can be heard in the latest InFOCUS Podcast, presented by dot.FM
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:02):
This is the RBR TVBR in Focuspodcast. Here's your host, Radio and
Television Business Report Editor in Chief AdamR. Jacobson. Hello and welcome to
the podcast, which is presented bydot fm streaming social podcaster broadcast. To
get a dot fm domain name,beheading over to get dot fm today and
(00:23):
today we are pleased to be speakingwith Preston Patten, the former outspoken Fox
executive who in recent months has teamedup with an advocacy group named the Media
and Democracy Project in asking the FCCto deny the license renewal of a Fox
Television stations pretty in Philadelphia WTXF Foxtwenty nine. We have a lot of
(00:44):
questions to ask mister Patten about howhe got involved with this organization, what
the root of the petition's purpose isin front of the commission, and why
the group is singling out this particularstation serving the Cradle Liberty and all of
the Delaware Valley. It is greatto welcome you to the podcast, Preston.
Thank you very much. Adam delightedto be speaking with you. At
three point thirty Market Street, WTXFFox twenty nine is a prominent fixture in
(01:11):
the Old City of Philadelphia, witha home just steps away from Independence Mall.
It remains a highly popular over theair station and a market work competes
against owned and operated stations from CBS, ABC and NBC. But if it
were up to the Media and DemocracyProject, Fox Television Stations would lose the
station's license. Presten, can youbriefly share the number one reason why Fox
(01:34):
shouldn't be permitted to continue owning WTXF. Yes. First of all, the
license renewal applicant is the Murdoch andFox Corporation. Fox is trying mightily to
make it seem like Fox Television Stationsis an entity unrelated to Fox Corporation,
(01:57):
but in fact, Fox Corporation ownsone hundred percent of Fox Television Stations,
and the Murdochs have absolute voting controlof Fox Corporation. So the renewal applicant
is the Murdox and Fox Corporation.And never in the history of the FCC
(02:19):
has it been confronted with an applicantfor renewal of a broadcast license who only
recently had been found by a courtof law to have repeatedly and knowingly presented
false news. And that is thecase with respect to the Murdox and Fox
(02:42):
corporations, the renewal applicant here,and you know, the Communications Act requires
license renewal applicants to demonstrate appropriate characterto be a public interest trustee of the
public airwaves. And I can't thinkof anything more inconsistent with the required character
(03:07):
than having repeatedly and knowingly presented falsenews to the American people, lied to
the American people. Until now,the FCC has really taken an approach to
that it does not regulate content,but broadcasting falsehoods could indeed be construed as
(03:29):
something the Commission is empowered to prevent. You've talked about false news, You've
mentioned inappropriate character. Is there anypast instance you are aware of where a
licensee has been stripped of station ownershipbecause of what it has broadcast? Or
is this something new and unique thatyou and the media and democracy projects seek
to accomplish. It is not newand unique at all. First of all,
(03:53):
this case is not about speech.This case is about the actions of
the license renewal applicant, the Murdochsand Fox corporations, and their decision to
repeatedly present news they knew was false. They knew it, but they did
(04:15):
it to avoid losing viewers and advertisingrevenues. So it is their actions in
that regard which are inconsistent with thecharacter required of a broadcast licensee. Secondly,
there is a line of cases,there's nothing unique about this, a
(04:38):
line of cases in which the FCChas denied the renewal of a license based
on actions of the licensee that shockedthe conscience. I'll give you an example.
There was a radio station that conducteda contest and they changed the rules,
(05:00):
and because of the changed rules,a listener who participated in the contest
died, and the FCC took awaytheir license because their actions quote shocked the
conscience. And in this case,we have Fox Corporation, which lied to
(05:23):
the American people about the twenty twentyelection, promoted attendance in Washington on January
sixth, contributed to the ransacking ofthe capitol and the attacks on and death
of police officers. And the connectionis so clear that January sixth defendants are
(05:48):
pleading not guilty by virtue of andI quote their legal pleadings Fox itis quote.
In other words, they're not guiltyof ransacking the capitol and killing police
officers because they believed what was beingsaid to them by Fox, and I
(06:11):
can't think of anything more in linewith the line of cases involving the principle
of actions that shocked the country.Preston, this is the first time we've
heard anyone associate this situation with thatof Entercom's kdnd FM one OHO seven point
(06:31):
ninety end in Sacramento, the radiostation that you're referencing, had a contest
called hold your Wii for a Wei, something such as that a person died.
Are you suggesting that there was aperhaps death or anything so significant that
(06:51):
was fueled by this particular station inPhiladelphia or Fox News channel, Because when
a contest results in a death,I'm not so sure that that can be
equated to quote shocking the conscience,which is what you say is being done
in this instance. Well, it'snot me drawing a connection. It's the
(07:12):
legal papers filed by the January sixthdefendants who draw the direct connection between what
they were told on Fox News andwhat they did on January sixth. They
call it Fox idems at Preston,it's well, and yes, by the
(07:33):
way, the Entercom case, theholder we case, is cited in multiple
of our pleadings. And there's onething I want to add. It's not
just the Media and Democracy Project.Never in the history of the FCC has
(07:57):
it been confronted with such anguished andcredentialed group of licensed challengers. That includes,
of course the Median Democracy Project,Grassroots Citizens organization of four thousand voters,
but it also includes a former Republicanchairman of the FCC who filed his
(08:20):
own petition that these Fox licenses shouldbe denied, a former Democratic commissioner of
the FCC, a former president ofthe Public Broadcasting Service, a conservative longtime
Republican editor of Murdoch's own magazine,The Weekly Standard, the founding president of
(08:43):
Murdoch's own broadcast network, Fox BroadcastingCompany, Murdoch's former lead outside lawyer,
and his former lead lobbyist. Me. All of these highly credentialed people have
come before the FCC and said,this is a unique case. It's never
(09:07):
happened to before, and you mustdesignate the Philadelphia station license for a hearing.
And if I might, I'll explainwhy the focus on the Philadelphia station,
Yes, because I because I dohave to ask as well established that
a lot of the argument is basedon content produced and distributed by Fox News
(09:31):
Channel, which is a cable televisionnetwork. Right that is the subject of
intentional distortion of coverage of the twentytwenty US presidential election, which has been
stated multiple times. So why areyou singling out a broadcast TV station in
Philadelphia? Why not ask the FCCthe strip Fox of every one of its
(09:52):
broadcast licenses. I think our audiencereally wants to know why you're going after
this one TV station's license. Okay, Fox owns twenty nine TV stations,
and the FCC licenses have a termof eight years, and they renew in
rolling regional trunches across the country,and the Philadelphia station was the own And
(10:20):
there's a deadline for when a stationfiles for renewal of its license. The
FCC sets a deadline for anybody whowants to file a petition to deny.
The Philadelphia station was the only Foxstation against whom a petition to deny was
(10:41):
timely and in the initial So that'swhy the Philadelphia station and in the initial
mad petition. Footnote number one notesthat there are nine other Fox stations that
have license renews pending, but thedeadline for a formal petition to deny had
(11:05):
passed, so the Media and DemocracyProject asked that their petition against the Philadelphia
station be considered an informal objection againstthose other nine Fox stations that had pending
license renewal applications. And as faras the fact that the conduct we're specifically
(11:33):
pointing to is the repeated and knowingpresentation of false news on Fox News Channel,
I want to point out three thingsto you. First, Murdoch and
Fox is the renewal applicant. Andin previous cases, in including a case
(11:54):
brought by an organization called Crew againstanother five station and then the RKO case,
and in other cases, the FCChas explicitly stated that in its review
of a broadcast licensed renewal applicants characterthat review is not limited to actions at
(12:18):
the broadcast stations, but includes therenewal applicants actions in other respects, in
this case knowingly repeatedly presenting false newsthat contributed to the insurrection on January sixth.
Second, WTFX airs Fox News Sundayevery week at a program that is
(12:48):
produced by the Fox News Channel righton WTFX. And Third, WTFX incorporates
into its local newscasts reports from nationaland international news seeds sent to WTFX by
Fox News Channel. So there isample, ample basis for the FCC to
(13:13):
designate this station's license renewal for ahearing. And I want to add that
you know step one is designating thestation's license for a hearing so that the
FCC can appropriately investigate the facts.That could result in a finding by the
(13:39):
FCC that they think Fox is justfine and they grant the renewal, or
it could result in a finding thatthey think Fox's behavior is inconsistent with the
character requirement of the Communications Act andthey deny the renewal application. Or it
(14:00):
could resolve in a middle ground,as it did in the case of the
Sinclair broadcast stations, where their licenseswere designated for a hearing and it was
resolved by a negotiated consent decree betweenthe FCC and Sinclair designed to modify Sinclair's
(14:24):
behavior. So all we're seeking isstep one. Please designate this license for
hearing so that the FCC can appropriatelyinvestigate the facts. Preston in a twenty
nine page filing submitted in Washington onbehalf of Fox by legal counsel Matthew Delnero
and John Cobb of Covington and BurleyLT's Washington office, Fox urged the Commission
(14:50):
to dismiss the petition to deny fileby Matt and grant the license renewal for
WTXF without delay. In particular,the attorney's state the following quote granting Mad's
request to order an evidentially or ahearing into Fox twenty nine Philadelphia's license renewal
application. What up? In decadesof established commission president put the Commission in
(15:13):
a position fundamentally incompatible with the FirstAmendment and threatened to deprive viewers in Philadelphia
of a station that serves its communityexceptionally. Well, what are your thoughts
on this assessment? From the attorneysat Covington and Berlin With respect, the
quote you just read is nonsense.The FCC has held hearings on many other
(15:39):
station license renewal applications. There's nothingupsetting years of tradition here. As I
indicate, we talked about the Intercomcase. The FCC took away the licenses
of RKO General, a major whichwas a major market radio and television licensee,
(16:03):
and the replication of their licenses hadabsolutely nothing to do with specific programming
on their stations. It had todo with bad behavior at their tire companies
and misrepresentations to the FCC. Andwhat Fox is trying to do two things.
(16:29):
They're trying to avoid a hearing becausethey're afraid of what might happen in
a hearing, and they're desperately tryingto avoid producing the documents that we have
requested they have produced. They've alreadyproduced these documents in four shareholder lawsuits brought
(16:52):
against Fox and the board based ontheir presentation of false news. And they've
produced documents in the Dominion Voting Machinelitigation case and in the Smartmatic voting machine
case. Those documents are plainly relevantto the grounds we have presented for designating
(17:22):
a hearing here, plainly relevant.They've already been gathered, they've already been
digitized and put on discs. Theycould be easily presented. But Fox is
desperately afraid of what would happen ifthe FCC could see these documents, and
(17:44):
that was the reason for the filingthat you just cited. Preston, I
have to ask, because you mentionedDominion Smartmatic. You're talking about January sixth,
twenty twenty one. We know thatthere are people out there that are
going to call this a political witchwith no legs whatsoever. These are the
same people that are in Arizona tryingto determine that there is indeed election fraud
(18:07):
going on. How do you combatall of the noise out there and those
people that would say this is justsome liberal that's trying to bad mouth a
group of people for doing something thatyou know is really nothing in the grand
scheme of things. I'm so gladyou asked that question. This is as
(18:32):
far as you could get from anya political crusade. As I mentioned,
the petitioners include very conservative Republican formerchairman of the FCC, a very conservative
Republican editor of Murdoch's own magazine.I was a staunch Republican for fifty years.
(18:56):
In fact, we met with theFCC Media Bureau a couple of weeks
ago. There were eight of usthere, and six of the eight were
Republicans. So it's impossible to arguethat this is some left wing Democrat jihad
when six of the eight petitioners areRepublicans. And I want to also add
(19:22):
that this is not personal. Iworked for mister Murdoch. I loved mister
Murdoch. I still love mister Murdoch, and I was very proud of the
work we did in building a fourthfree over the air broadcast network for America.
(19:42):
I was one hundred percent convinced thatwas in the best interests of the
country and democracy. But I'm appalledby what, in my opinion, is
the damage being done to our countrytree by Fox News Channel. And many
(20:06):
of the other petitioners feel the sameway. They had long associations that they
cherished with mister Murdoch, and thiswas a very hard decision for all of
us to decide to file these petitions. But it came down to choosing between
(20:26):
our personal loyalty to mister Murdoch andour concern, as I said, about
the damage that, in our opinion, Fox News Channel is doing to America,
dividing Americans against each other and causingmillions of people to believe a ridiculous
(20:47):
falsehood that the twenty twenty election wasstolen from Donald Trump. Sixty courts have
said that's not true, his ownattorney general has that's not true, his
own campaign staff told him that wasnot true. And now we learn that
his own chief of staff has toldhim that was not true. So this
(21:14):
is not political and it's not personal. Before we wrap up the podcast,
I just have a final question foryou now, Preston. Should the FCC
decline to block the license re yearrole for WTXF, what is next for
you and for MAD with respect toits mission statement and other objectives? You
know, I it's a good question. I don't have an answer for you.
(21:38):
We are focused at the moment onthe proceeding in front of the FCC.
We think we've presented very strong evidence. As I said, never before
in their history have they had anapplicant come before them who was found to
present false news and say, pleaserenew my broadcast license. It almost sounds
(22:04):
like a joke. I mean,can you imagine Walter Cronkite or Peter Jennings
or Huntley and Brinkley night after nightknowingly intentionally presenting false news to the American
people. It's unthinkable and it's completelyout of character with the character required of
(22:30):
a broadcast licensee. Do you believethat there is a lack of difference in
today's news environment between a commentator anda program that is opinion based rather than
a straight news program. And whenwe're looking specifically at Fox, where does
Sean Hannity fit in and where doesa newscast fit in? And is that
(22:52):
something that the FCC should at leastbe taking into consideration. Fox made a
disastrous legal decision in not settling thedominion case before Dominion got discovery and got
all of the internal texts and emailsthat we did. But because of all
those internal texts and emails, weknow that the Fox executives and the Fox
(23:22):
on air talent knew that what theywere saying was false. They knew it
was false. They discussed that amongthemselves and they But you're not answering the
question what talent are we talking about? Are we talking about news anchors or
are we talking about commentators? Becausetherein lies the very question of what news
programming is to the American viewer today. Are you singling out a gut field?
(23:48):
Are you singling out a news anchoror reporter? Well, I think
Fox tends to blur the distinction.I think that Brett Baer would tell you
he's a reporter, and his emailsshow that he knew things he was saying
were false, and Sean Hannity knewthings he was saying was false, and
(24:12):
mister Murdoch, in his deposition,acknowledged that his on air talent wasn't merely
repeating allegations made by others. Heacknowledged that they indorsed this false narrative of
(24:32):
the big lie. Curious if you'realso looking at some radio companies or radio
programming suppliers, because I would thinkthat in addition to Fox, there might
be some radio stations or again syndicatedprograms that could be doing the same thing
of what you were saying Fox hasdone. I'm sure what you just said
(24:56):
is true, but I'm doing whatI'm doing because I helped establish mister Murdoch
and Fox as a force in Americantelevision, and I was proud of that.
But when I saw what Fox NewsChannel was doing to America, I
(25:17):
felt I had a responsibility to dosomething about it, and that's why I'm
focused on Fox. Well, wethank you Preston Patten for speaking with us
today. Unfortunately we're at a timeI'm sure there's a lot more to discuss,
and perhaps we can do that infuture weeks. And with that again,
thank you for taking time today tospeak with us. Thank you very
(25:40):
much. Adam, I've enjoyed it, and that is again Preston Patten,
a former executive vice president of governmentRelations for the Walt Disney Company, and
prior to that, served as presidentof the ABC Television Network. Before that,
he held executive roles at Fox,including that of Senior vice president for
Affiliates, and most recently, heserved as a chief strategist for the lp
(26:02):
TV Broadcasters Association. Mister Patten joinsus from Boulder, Colorado today, and
with that we thank you for listeningto this radio and television business report and
focused podcast. It was presented bydot fm, streaming social podcast broadcast.
Get a dot fm domain name byheading over to get dot fm today
This is the RBR TVBR in Focuspodcast. Here's your host, Radio and
Television Business Report Editor in Chief AdamR. Jacobson. Hello and welcome to
the podcast, which is presented bydot fm streaming social podcaster broadcast. To
get a dot fm domain name,beheading over to get dot fm today and
(00:23):
today we are pleased to be speakingwith Preston Patten, the former outspoken Fox
executive who in recent months has teamedup with an advocacy group named the Media
and Democracy Project in asking the FCCto deny the license renewal of a Fox
Television stations pretty in Philadelphia WTXF Foxtwenty nine. We have a lot of
(00:44):
questions to ask mister Patten about howhe got involved with this organization, what
the root of the petition's purpose isin front of the commission, and why
the group is singling out this particularstation serving the Cradle Liberty and all of
the Delaware Valley. It is greatto welcome you to the podcast, Preston.
Thank you very much. Adam delightedto be speaking with you. At
three point thirty Market Street, WTXFFox twenty nine is a prominent fixture in
(01:11):
the Old City of Philadelphia, witha home just steps away from Independence Mall.
It remains a highly popular over theair station and a market work competes
against owned and operated stations from CBS, ABC and NBC. But if it
were up to the Media and DemocracyProject, Fox Television Stations would lose the
station's license. Presten, can youbriefly share the number one reason why Fox
(01:34):
shouldn't be permitted to continue owning WTXF. Yes. First of all, the
license renewal applicant is the Murdoch andFox Corporation. Fox is trying mightily to
make it seem like Fox Television Stationsis an entity unrelated to Fox Corporation,
(01:57):
but in fact, Fox Corporation ownsone hundred percent of Fox Television Stations,
and the Murdochs have absolute voting controlof Fox Corporation. So the renewal applicant
is the Murdox and Fox Corporation.And never in the history of the FCC
(02:19):
has it been confronted with an applicantfor renewal of a broadcast license who only
recently had been found by a courtof law to have repeatedly and knowingly presented
false news. And that is thecase with respect to the Murdox and Fox
(02:42):
corporations, the renewal applicant here,and you know, the Communications Act requires
license renewal applicants to demonstrate appropriate characterto be a public interest trustee of the
public airwaves. And I can't thinkof anything more inconsistent with the required character
(03:07):
than having repeatedly and knowingly presented falsenews to the American people, lied to
the American people. Until now,the FCC has really taken an approach to
that it does not regulate content,but broadcasting falsehoods could indeed be construed as
(03:29):
something the Commission is empowered to prevent. You've talked about false news, You've
mentioned inappropriate character. Is there anypast instance you are aware of where a
licensee has been stripped of station ownershipbecause of what it has broadcast? Or
is this something new and unique thatyou and the media and democracy projects seek
to accomplish. It is not newand unique at all. First of all,
(03:53):
this case is not about speech.This case is about the actions of
the license renewal applicant, the Murdochsand Fox corporations, and their decision to
repeatedly present news they knew was false. They knew it, but they did
(04:15):
it to avoid losing viewers and advertisingrevenues. So it is their actions in
that regard which are inconsistent with thecharacter required of a broadcast licensee. Secondly,
there is a line of cases,there's nothing unique about this, a
(04:38):
line of cases in which the FCChas denied the renewal of a license based
on actions of the licensee that shockedthe conscience. I'll give you an example.
There was a radio station that conducteda contest and they changed the rules,
(05:00):
and because of the changed rules,a listener who participated in the contest
died, and the FCC took awaytheir license because their actions quote shocked the
conscience. And in this case,we have Fox Corporation, which lied to
(05:23):
the American people about the twenty twentyelection, promoted attendance in Washington on January
sixth, contributed to the ransacking ofthe capitol and the attacks on and death
of police officers. And the connectionis so clear that January sixth defendants are
(05:48):
pleading not guilty by virtue of andI quote their legal pleadings Fox itis quote.
In other words, they're not guiltyof ransacking the capitol and killing police
officers because they believed what was beingsaid to them by Fox, and I
(06:11):
can't think of anything more in linewith the line of cases involving the principle
of actions that shocked the country.Preston, this is the first time we've
heard anyone associate this situation with thatof Entercom's kdnd FM one OHO seven point
(06:31):
ninety end in Sacramento, the radiostation that you're referencing, had a contest
called hold your Wii for a Wei, something such as that a person died.
Are you suggesting that there was aperhaps death or anything so significant that
(06:51):
was fueled by this particular station inPhiladelphia or Fox News channel, Because when
a contest results in a death,I'm not so sure that that can be
equated to quote shocking the conscience,which is what you say is being done
in this instance. Well, it'snot me drawing a connection. It's the
(07:12):
legal papers filed by the January sixthdefendants who draw the direct connection between what
they were told on Fox News andwhat they did on January sixth. They
call it Fox idems at Preston,it's well, and yes, by the
(07:33):
way, the Entercom case, theholder we case, is cited in multiple
of our pleadings. And there's onething I want to add. It's not
just the Media and Democracy Project.Never in the history of the FCC has
(07:57):
it been confronted with such anguished andcredentialed group of licensed challengers. That includes,
of course the Median Democracy Project,Grassroots Citizens organization of four thousand voters,
but it also includes a former Republicanchairman of the FCC who filed his
(08:20):
own petition that these Fox licenses shouldbe denied, a former Democratic commissioner of
the FCC, a former president ofthe Public Broadcasting Service, a conservative longtime
Republican editor of Murdoch's own magazine,The Weekly Standard, the founding president of
(08:43):
Murdoch's own broadcast network, Fox BroadcastingCompany, Murdoch's former lead outside lawyer,
and his former lead lobbyist. Me. All of these highly credentialed people have
come before the FCC and said,this is a unique case. It's never
(09:07):
happened to before, and you mustdesignate the Philadelphia station license for a hearing.
And if I might, I'll explainwhy the focus on the Philadelphia station,
Yes, because I because I dohave to ask as well established that
a lot of the argument is basedon content produced and distributed by Fox News
(09:31):
Channel, which is a cable televisionnetwork. Right that is the subject of
intentional distortion of coverage of the twentytwenty US presidential election, which has been
stated multiple times. So why areyou singling out a broadcast TV station in
Philadelphia? Why not ask the FCCthe strip Fox of every one of its
(09:52):
broadcast licenses. I think our audiencereally wants to know why you're going after
this one TV station's license. Okay, Fox owns twenty nine TV stations,
and the FCC licenses have a termof eight years, and they renew in
rolling regional trunches across the country,and the Philadelphia station was the own And
(10:20):
there's a deadline for when a stationfiles for renewal of its license. The
FCC sets a deadline for anybody whowants to file a petition to deny.
The Philadelphia station was the only Foxstation against whom a petition to deny was
(10:41):
timely and in the initial So that'swhy the Philadelphia station and in the initial
mad petition. Footnote number one notesthat there are nine other Fox stations that
have license renews pending, but thedeadline for a formal petition to deny had
(11:05):
passed, so the Media and DemocracyProject asked that their petition against the Philadelphia
station be considered an informal objection againstthose other nine Fox stations that had pending
license renewal applications. And as faras the fact that the conduct we're specifically
(11:33):
pointing to is the repeated and knowingpresentation of false news on Fox News Channel,
I want to point out three thingsto you. First, Murdoch and
Fox is the renewal applicant. Andin previous cases, in including a case
(11:54):
brought by an organization called Crew againstanother five station and then the RKO case,
and in other cases, the FCChas explicitly stated that in its review
of a broadcast licensed renewal applicants characterthat review is not limited to actions at
(12:18):
the broadcast stations, but includes therenewal applicants actions in other respects, in
this case knowingly repeatedly presenting false newsthat contributed to the insurrection on January sixth.
Second, WTFX airs Fox News Sundayevery week at a program that is
(12:48):
produced by the Fox News Channel righton WTFX. And Third, WTFX incorporates
into its local newscasts reports from nationaland international news seeds sent to WTFX by
Fox News Channel. So there isample, ample basis for the FCC to
(13:13):
designate this station's license renewal for ahearing. And I want to add that
you know step one is designating thestation's license for a hearing so that the
FCC can appropriately investigate the facts.That could result in a finding by the
(13:39):
FCC that they think Fox is justfine and they grant the renewal, or
it could result in a finding thatthey think Fox's behavior is inconsistent with the
character requirement of the Communications Act andthey deny the renewal application. Or it
(14:00):
could resolve in a middle ground,as it did in the case of the
Sinclair broadcast stations, where their licenseswere designated for a hearing and it was
resolved by a negotiated consent decree betweenthe FCC and Sinclair designed to modify Sinclair's
(14:24):
behavior. So all we're seeking isstep one. Please designate this license for
hearing so that the FCC can appropriatelyinvestigate the facts. Preston in a twenty
nine page filing submitted in Washington onbehalf of Fox by legal counsel Matthew Delnero
and John Cobb of Covington and BurleyLT's Washington office, Fox urged the Commission
(14:50):
to dismiss the petition to deny fileby Matt and grant the license renewal for
WTXF without delay. In particular,the attorney's state the following quote granting Mad's
request to order an evidentially or ahearing into Fox twenty nine Philadelphia's license renewal
application. What up? In decadesof established commission president put the Commission in
(15:13):
a position fundamentally incompatible with the FirstAmendment and threatened to deprive viewers in Philadelphia
of a station that serves its communityexceptionally. Well, what are your thoughts
on this assessment? From the attorneysat Covington and Berlin With respect, the
quote you just read is nonsense.The FCC has held hearings on many other
(15:39):
station license renewal applications. There's nothingupsetting years of tradition here. As I
indicate, we talked about the Intercomcase. The FCC took away the licenses
of RKO General, a major whichwas a major market radio and television licensee,
(16:03):
and the replication of their licenses hadabsolutely nothing to do with specific programming
on their stations. It had todo with bad behavior at their tire companies
and misrepresentations to the FCC. Andwhat Fox is trying to do two things.
(16:29):
They're trying to avoid a hearing becausethey're afraid of what might happen in
a hearing, and they're desperately tryingto avoid producing the documents that we have
requested they have produced. They've alreadyproduced these documents in four shareholder lawsuits brought
(16:52):
against Fox and the board based ontheir presentation of false news. And they've
produced documents in the Dominion Voting Machinelitigation case and in the Smartmatic voting machine
case. Those documents are plainly relevantto the grounds we have presented for designating
(17:22):
a hearing here, plainly relevant.They've already been gathered, they've already been
digitized and put on discs. Theycould be easily presented. But Fox is
desperately afraid of what would happen ifthe FCC could see these documents, and
(17:44):
that was the reason for the filingthat you just cited. Preston, I
have to ask, because you mentionedDominion Smartmatic. You're talking about January sixth,
twenty twenty one. We know thatthere are people out there that are
going to call this a political witchwith no legs whatsoever. These are the
same people that are in Arizona tryingto determine that there is indeed election fraud
(18:07):
going on. How do you combatall of the noise out there and those
people that would say this is justsome liberal that's trying to bad mouth a
group of people for doing something thatyou know is really nothing in the grand
scheme of things. I'm so gladyou asked that question. This is as
(18:32):
far as you could get from anya political crusade. As I mentioned,
the petitioners include very conservative Republican formerchairman of the FCC, a very conservative
Republican editor of Murdoch's own magazine.I was a staunch Republican for fifty years.
(18:56):
In fact, we met with theFCC Media Bureau a couple of weeks
ago. There were eight of usthere, and six of the eight were
Republicans. So it's impossible to arguethat this is some left wing Democrat jihad
when six of the eight petitioners areRepublicans. And I want to also add
(19:22):
that this is not personal. Iworked for mister Murdoch. I loved mister
Murdoch. I still love mister Murdoch, and I was very proud of the
work we did in building a fourthfree over the air broadcast network for America.
(19:42):
I was one hundred percent convinced thatwas in the best interests of the
country and democracy. But I'm appalledby what, in my opinion, is
the damage being done to our countrytree by Fox News Channel. And many
(20:06):
of the other petitioners feel the sameway. They had long associations that they
cherished with mister Murdoch, and thiswas a very hard decision for all of
us to decide to file these petitions. But it came down to choosing between
(20:26):
our personal loyalty to mister Murdoch andour concern, as I said, about
the damage that, in our opinion, Fox News Channel is doing to America,
dividing Americans against each other and causingmillions of people to believe a ridiculous
(20:47):
falsehood that the twenty twenty election wasstolen from Donald Trump. Sixty courts have
said that's not true, his ownattorney general has that's not true, his
own campaign staff told him that wasnot true. And now we learn that
his own chief of staff has toldhim that was not true. So this
(21:14):
is not political and it's not personal. Before we wrap up the podcast,
I just have a final question foryou now, Preston. Should the FCC
decline to block the license re yearrole for WTXF, what is next for
you and for MAD with respect toits mission statement and other objectives? You
know, I it's a good question. I don't have an answer for you.
(21:38):
We are focused at the moment onthe proceeding in front of the FCC.
We think we've presented very strong evidence. As I said, never before
in their history have they had anapplicant come before them who was found to
present false news and say, pleaserenew my broadcast license. It almost sounds
(22:04):
like a joke. I mean,can you imagine Walter Cronkite or Peter Jennings
or Huntley and Brinkley night after nightknowingly intentionally presenting false news to the American
people. It's unthinkable and it's completelyout of character with the character required of
(22:30):
a broadcast licensee. Do you believethat there is a lack of difference in
today's news environment between a commentator anda program that is opinion based rather than
a straight news program. And whenwe're looking specifically at Fox, where does
Sean Hannity fit in and where doesa newscast fit in? And is that
(22:52):
something that the FCC should at leastbe taking into consideration. Fox made a
disastrous legal decision in not settling thedominion case before Dominion got discovery and got
all of the internal texts and emailsthat we did. But because of all
those internal texts and emails, weknow that the Fox executives and the Fox
(23:22):
on air talent knew that what theywere saying was false. They knew it
was false. They discussed that amongthemselves and they But you're not answering the
question what talent are we talking about? Are we talking about news anchors or
are we talking about commentators? Becausetherein lies the very question of what news
programming is to the American viewer today. Are you singling out a gut field?
(23:48):
Are you singling out a news anchoror reporter? Well, I think
Fox tends to blur the distinction.I think that Brett Baer would tell you
he's a reporter, and his emailsshow that he knew things he was saying
were false, and Sean Hannity knewthings he was saying was false, and
(24:12):
mister Murdoch, in his deposition,acknowledged that his on air talent wasn't merely
repeating allegations made by others. Heacknowledged that they indorsed this false narrative of
(24:32):
the big lie. Curious if you'realso looking at some radio companies or radio
programming suppliers, because I would thinkthat in addition to Fox, there might
be some radio stations or again syndicatedprograms that could be doing the same thing
of what you were saying Fox hasdone. I'm sure what you just said
(24:56):
is true, but I'm doing whatI'm doing because I helped establish mister Murdoch
and Fox as a force in Americantelevision, and I was proud of that.
But when I saw what Fox NewsChannel was doing to America, I
(25:17):
felt I had a responsibility to dosomething about it, and that's why I'm
focused on Fox. Well, wethank you Preston Patten for speaking with us
today. Unfortunately we're at a timeI'm sure there's a lot more to discuss,
and perhaps we can do that infuture weeks. And with that again,
thank you for taking time today tospeak with us. Thank you very
(25:40):
much. Adam, I've enjoyed it, and that is again Preston Patten,
a former executive vice president of governmentRelations for the Walt Disney Company, and
prior to that, served as presidentof the ABC Television Network. Before that,
he held executive roles at Fox,including that of Senior vice president for
Affiliates, and most recently, heserved as a chief strategist for the lp
(26:02):
TV Broadcasters Association. Mister Patten joinsus from Boulder, Colorado today, and
with that we thank you for listeningto this radio and television business report and
focused podcast. It was presented bydot fm, streaming social podcast broadcast.
Get a dot fm domain name byheading over to get dot fm today
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.