Media Action Center is a nonprofit group of concerned residents throughout the United States led by former Emmy-winning broadcaster turned media democracy advocate Sue Wilson. We successfully influence policy at the Federal Communications Commission and at local US TV and Radio stations to ensure We the People are truly served by Our publicly owned airwaves. MAC joined Frequency Forward in filing a Motion to Intervene in ABC/Disney v FCC to ensure viewers, who own the Public Airwaves and whose rights are paramount, has a seat at the table. MAC also joined a current Petition to Deny the broadcast licenses of DISNEY ABC at the FCC. In 2017, MAC forced Entercom to give up its $13.5 million license to KDND for killing a woman in a radio water drinking stunt. That same year MAC empowered local listeners across the country to take Alex Jones off their local radio dials. In 2000, we informed the Supreme Court in FCC v Prometheus Radio that multiple local TV stations with one corporate owner merely duplicate news stories on all its stations; a similar methodology is currently being used in legal cases trying to prevent the Nexstar/TEGNA merger.

Find full journalistic coverage of all this plus Sinclair Broadcasting's shell game and other public interest media issues at SueWilsonReports.com. See also Wilson's documentary "Broadcast Blues" which is more relevant today than when it premiered in 2009. Broadcast Blues.

Judge Alikahn Delivers Partial Victory for Media Action Center/Frequency Forward in Disney/ABC v FCC Case

 October 6, 2026

Yesterday, Judge Loren L. Alikhan delivered Media Action Center and Frequency Forward a partial victory in its effort to maintain a public presence in the lawsuit between ABC and its federal regulator the Federal Communications Commission over First Amendment rights. 

MAC and FF were trying to intervene in the case so the Public, which owns the TV airwaves, would have a seat at the table should the parties make a backroom "Consent Decree" deal that harms the Public Interest (say should ABC give up the Jimmy Kimmel show to curry favor with the FCC to protect its licensing.)

The judge disallowed MAC/ FF's motion to intervene at this stage. However, she provided a remedy for MAC and FF to proceed in the future: should ABC and the FCC reach a deal which interferes with MAC/FF's Public Interest objectives, she would reconsider our motion to intervene in this proceeding.

Says MAC Director Sue Wilson, "This is truly a win for the public. If Disney/ABC in resolving its litigation with the FCC makes a backroom deal which interferes with the public’s interest in this matter, we are laying in wait to hang our own sword of Damocles over their heads."

Frequency Forward and Media Action Center Brief FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez on Fight to Protect ABC Viewers

    September 21, 2026 

Groups also Move to Oppose FCC's Effort to Dismiss Disney's Federal Lawsuit

 Washington, D.C.

Frequency Forward and the Media Action Center met with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Anna Gomez and members of her staff last week to brief the Commissioner on the groups' legal strategy to protect ABC viewers' First Amendment rights in Chairman Brendan Carr's unconstitutional assault on the freedom of the press.

The public interest groups explained that their Petition to Deny is designed to make the American public formal parties to the FCC proceeding, provide procedural rights otherwise unavailable to informal commenters, and to force transparency in the ongoing broadcast license fight. Both FF-MAC reiterated its strong support for Disney's challenge, arguing that viewers have a constitutionally protected right to receive news, information, and programming free from government intimidation.

The meeting on September 16 was noticed in an ex parte letter filed in the FCC Media Bureau Docket No. 26-131 and included representatives from both organizations. Commissioner Gomez was joined by Deena Shetler, Chief of Staff and Legal Advisor, and Jonathan Uriarte, Strategic Communications and Policy Advisor.

Last week, Frequency Forward, the Media Action Center, and individual ABC viewers from across the country also opposed the FCC's attempt to have Disney's lawsuit dismissed in Federal Court. The groups' filing argues that the FCC's early license-renewal process has already harmed viewers' First Amendment rights and that allowing the Commission's pretextual and retaliatory Investigation to continue could leave ABC's licenses in limbo for years.

The opposition argues that "the process is the punishment" and warns that, absent court intervention, "ABC will continue to self-censor." From the FF-MAC opposition:

If permitted to continue, the investigation and hearing will go on for years, turning the regulatory process itself into the punishment. The purpose of this proceeding is not to gather information, but to threaten punishment for Disney's temerity to criticize Trump and his policies, thereby constraining ABC and other broadcasters from any future revelations that might cast the administration in a negative light. The FCC's investigation is not just about Disney or ABC per se, nor does it have anything to do with EEO rules. The FCC's action is part of a larger attack on the First Amendment and the Constitutional rights of media outlets and the public that relies on those media outlets to keep them informed.

Even if the FCC is unable to revoke the Plaintiffs' licenses, early renewal combined with a lengthy hearing and a still lengthier FCC review process, will place Disney's licenses in limbo for many years. Thus, either Plaintiffs' licenses will be revoked, or the Trump administration will muzzle Disney for the foreseeable future. A win-win for the administration, but a terrible loss for democracy and the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech.

                                                                    more... 

CANDIDATE ACTION! Learn How to get EQUAL TIME On Radio or TV!

ARE YOU A CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE? 

No matter what political party you belong to, if any local or national TV or Radio program has any of your opponents on as a guest, YOU are legally entitled to Equal Time under Section 315(a) of the Communications Act and Section 73.1931 of the Federal Communications Rules.  Please find details here. 

WHAT TO DO:

Simply contact the TV or Radio station which aired another candidate and tell them you want Equal Time. ***You only have seven days from the original appearance to do so!***

If you are unsure whether a local radio or TV station has aired an opponent, research their public files. You should find a link at the bottom of the station's website. Navigate to "Political Files." You should find all political candidate appearances there.  

IF you know that a candidate did make an appearance but it is not listed in the political file, that station is breaking the LAW! 

IF the station refuses to provide you Equal Time, that station is breaking the LAW! 

Press Reports on Frequency Forward - Media Action Center Motion to Intervene in ABC/ Disney Case against FCC

 
September 9, 2026
 
 

 August 24, 2026

  • Law360: Advocacy Groups Seek To Join ABC's Case Against FCC (8/24)
  • TheDesk: Groups seek to join Disney’s lawsuit against FCC over ABC licenses (8/24)
  • The Wrap: Disney-FCC Lawsuit: Media Watchdogs Seek to Enter First Amendment Case (8/24)
  • Radio & Television Business Report: Public Interest Groups Seek To Join ABC In FCC Fight (8/24)
  • Editor & Publisher: Public interest groups seek to intervene in Disney FCC lawsuit on behalf of ABC viewers (8/24)
  • Communications Daily: Public Interest Groups Seek to Intervene in Disney's Early Renewal Suit (8/24) 
  • Frequency Forward and MAC File to Intervene in ABC/Disney Lawsuit against the FCC

     

     August 24, 2026

     

    Motion Argues Viewers’ First Amendment Rights Must Be Represented in Legal Fight 

    Over ABC Broadcast Licenses

     

    Today, Frequency Forward and the Media Action Center, along with viewers of ABC stations across the country, filed a Motion to Intervene as plaintiffs in Disney and ABC’s lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The groups seek to ensure viewers' First Amendment rights are represented in American Broadcasting Companies v. FCC (Case No. 1:26-cv-2902) and to guarantee the American public has a seat at the table.


    The groups support Disney’s efforts to fight back against the FCC and Chairman Brendan Carr’s unconstitutional assault on the freedom of the press. As Disney argued in its lawsuit, “the ultimate injury here is not to the station or its parent company… it is to the public.” The motion seeks to protect ABC viewers' constitutionally protected right to receive news, information, and programming free from government intimidation.


    “The public airwaves belong to We the People, not to Disney, the ABC stations that it owns, or its shareholders,” said Sue Wilson, founder of the Media Action Center. “We have already taken steps through the  FCC’s process to block backroom deals should Disney’s corporate interest and the public interest diverge. Joining Disney’s lawsuit to fight back against government intimidation and censorship gives viewers a voice in the process and makes clear that their First Amendment rights cannot be negotiated away behind closed doors.”


    Disney and ABC filed suit against the FCC on August 18, alleging that Chairman Brendan Carr and the Commission have waged a retaliatory campaign against the company because of programming and editorial decisions disfavored by the Trump administration. The lawsuit outlines how the administration’s unlawful actions have already forced changes in the newsrooms and programming. The FF-MAC motion argues that those actions have harmed viewers' First Amendment rights and require immediate judicial relief. 


    “As Disney makes clear in its lawsuit, the FCC’s censorship campaign is not just harming ABC; it is harming ABC viewers,” said Art Belendiuk, legal counsel for the petitioners. “Every day, the stations face a choice between exercising independent editorial judgment at the risk of losing their licenses or capitulating to the Trump Administration. That pressure is already affecting newsroom and programming decisions, and is why we are fighting to intervene on behalf of viewers to protect their First Amendment right to the uncensored and fair programming and reporting they have enjoyed for years.” 


    Frequency Forward, the Media Action Center, and ABC viewers previously filed a Petition to Deny in the FCC’s ABC early license renewal proceeding to protect viewers’ rights and preserve a path for public participation. The groups' motion continues that effort in federal court.


    The FCC Doesn't Own ABC's Airwaves - You Do. Fight For Them!

    August 26, 2026 

    Published by Editor and Publisher Magazine 

     

    “Rules? Rules? The FCC don’t need no stinkin’ rules! No First Amendment! No Judges!” That’s paraphrasing the Federal Communications Commission’s Chairman Brendan Carr who is turning the FCC into the Federal Commission of Chaos.

    Chairman Carr’s latest travesty: hiding information that his lone administrative law judge, Jane Halprin, who was expected to hear the bogus ABC licensing case, quietly resigned May 30.  

    ... read more

    Media Action Center/ Frequency Forward "Petition to Deny" Moves to Block Backroom FCC-Disney Settlement Over ABC Licenses

                                                                                                                                           June 26, 2026 

    Petition to Deny Seeks to Protect Viewers’ First Amendment Rights, Force Transparency in Disney/ABC Broadcast License Battle

    In the fight over the license renewals of eight Disney-owned ABC television stations, the Media Action Center and Frequency Forward today filed a Petition to Deny at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The petition demands that the FCC grant Disney’s renewal applications immediately, but warns that if Disney agrees to restrict its speech or editorial independence to secure those renewals, the groups will seek license revocation. By filing a Petition to Deny, petitioners become parties to the proceedings, can shine a spotlight on any negotiations, and have standing to appeal FCC decisions in court.

    "Time and time again, We the People have witnessed the FCC pretend to protect our public interest in broadcasting, but then go behind closed doors to make secret deals which harm us instead,” said Sue Wilson, Director of the Media Action Center. “This time, when our very Democracy is at stake, we are filing a Petition to Deny to become formal parties to this anti-First Amendment proceeding and defend the public interest from the weaponization of the FCC. This time, the FCC must address our arguments so Disney, ABC, and the Commission have no opportunity to secretly negotiate away the people's rights to our publicly owned airwaves.”

    The petition is accompanied by declarations from viewers in the affected stations' broadcast markets to establish standing. By filing a Petition to Deny, the groups receive procedural rights that informal commenters lack and it preserves a pathway to challenge the FCC’s actions in court, if necessary.

    “Filing this petition is the difference between being a party to the case and merely filing an amicus brief,” said Art Belendiuk, legal counsel for the petitioners. “Comments can inform the FCC, but they do not compel the agency to act, nor do they guarantee the public a seat at the table. This unprecedented strategy is necessary because the FCC has taken the unprecedented step of threatening the integrity of the news by seeking to replace ABC’s journalistic judgment with an administration-friendly point of view.”

    By becoming a party to the proceeding, the petitioners are also guaranteed access to all communications between the parties and commit to making any communication not submitted in FCC Docket No. 26-131 available for public review.

    The eight stations named in the petition include: KFSN-TV in Fresno, KABC-TV in Los Angeles, KGO-TV in San Francisco, WLS-TV in Chicago, WABC-TV in New York, WTVD in Durham, WPVI-TV in Philadelphia, and KTRK-TV in Houston.

    The petition asks the FCC to grant Disney’s renewal applications immediately and without conditions, terminate any unconstitutional investigations, and stop using broadcast licensing as a tool to chill protected speech. But if Disney agrees to restrict its speech in any way through negotiations with the FCC, this petition is the public’s opportunity to seek accountability for the corporation’s decision to undermine viewers' constitutional rights.   Read the entire petition here .
     

     

    MAC Bona Fide News and Equal Opportunity Comment to the FCC

     Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ... June 22, 2026
     
    In the Matter of Bona Fide News And Equal Opportunities  -  MB Docket No. 26 – 124
     

    COMMENTS OF SUE WILSON, MEDIA ACTION CENTER 

    RE: FCC’S MEDIA BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION BY DISNEY’S ABC ASKING THE FCC TO DECLARE THAT THE VIEW QUALIFIES AS A BONA FIDE NEWS INTERVIEW PROGRAM AND THUS IS EXEMPT FROM THE STATUTORY EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES REQUIREMENTS


    The Federal Communications Commission is seeking comments on the definition of Bona Fide News and the Equal Opportunities Requirements of broadcasters. While this proceeding is specifically targeting ABC and its program The View, decisions made in this matter will by necessity clarify the responsibilities of virtually all broadcasters, but especially those which provide news and information/ opinion based programming on TV and Radio.

    This comment is submitted with the request that others who value our publicly owned airwaves will reply with thoughts on bettering our system, not dismantling it or using it as a bludgeon against perceived enemies. Let us take this opportunity to work together to clean up Our Air.

     
    June 22, 2026 
    TABLE OF CONTENTS


    IS THE VIEW BONAFIDE NEWS?


    1.  Yes, “The View” is “Bona Fide News.”  The 2002 FCC declared it so.                 …    3

    2.  No, “The View” is not “Bona Fide News.” The early FCC erred in this scheme.  …    4

    3.  What matters is Equal Opportunities on Broadcast TV and Radio alike.               …    5



    IS THE VIEW BONAFIDE NEWS?

    1.  Yes, The View is “Bonafide News.”  The 2002 FCC declared it so.

    The 2002 FCC Mass Media Bureau issued a Declaratory Ruling conferring “Bona Fide News” status to The View. There is no reason that ABC would consider its aforegiven status as defunct.  
    Let us consider why we are discussing Bonafide News. This is less about “News” than it is about “Equal Opportunities” for candidates on broadcast TV and Radio programs which broadcast over our publicly owned airwaves.

    From the Code of Federal Regulations: § 73.1941 Equal opportunities.
    “Except as otherwise indicated in §73.1944, no station licensee is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any: 

    (1) Bona fide newscast; 
    (2) Bona fide news interview; 
    (3) Bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary); or 
    (4) On-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including, but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto) shall not be deemed to be use of broadcasting station. (section 315(a) of the Communications Act.) 
    (b) Uses. As used in this section and §73.1942, the term “use” means a candidate appearance (including by voice or picture) that is not exempt under paragraphs 73.1941 (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.
    (c) Timing of request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the licensee within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred:  Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.
    (d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the licensee or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.
    (e) Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.
     

    Note that this code mentions “candidate(s)” fifteen times.  This is clearly intended to protect our political process. Note also that the first part applies to paid advertising; a broadcast station cannot sell airtime to one candidate and deny selling a competing candidate airtime.
    The FCC then created carve-outs for candidates’ appearances on its stations’ news programming. 

    The rest of this provision deals with making certain that candidates for public office are treated equally and fairly on our publicly owned airwaves. The issue of “Bona Fide News” is secondary to the Equal Opportunities afforded to all candidates for public office. This should be a priority not only for the FCC for all radio and TV broadcasters. 

    Have we seen violations, possibly purposeful violations, of this rule?  One could easily question the 2024 booking of Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live just days prior to the Presidential election as a violation. But even if so, NBC quickly responded to then Presidential Candidate Donald Trump with an Equal Opportunity. 

    That said, as the FCC once conferred “The View” with Bona Fide News status, it should not be punished for a perceived violation of the Equal Time Rules.



    2. No, “The View” is not “Bonafide News.”  The early FCC erred in developing this scheme

    Here is the problem: what exactly is “Bonafide News”? The term is not well defined in the original Equal Opportunities code.

    When I produced a regularly scheduled nightly one hour news program, one of my News Directors explained that if a candidate for President came through town and our news crews went to cover the story, we were “Bonafide News,” and so didn’t have to worry that we had to provide equal time coverage to others. That made sense to me. 

    So let’s look at a story which dominated nightly news programs in April 2026. A California gubernatorial candidate garnered more headlines than any of his opponents when allegations of sexual misconduct by Congressman Eric Swalwell dominated ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC news coverage, as well as on radio news (and every print medium.)  Did any of his opponents complain and demand “Equal Opportunities” for such coverage? Of course not. That’s “Bonafide News.” We all know it. 

    But the way the current rules are written, the FCC classifies programs as “Bonafide News” on a case by case basis. When the “Tonight Show with Jay Leno” featured then California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who was running for re-election) as a guest, the FCC agreed with NBC that Schwarzenegger was newsworthy, and so NBC didn’t have to provide an Equal Opportunity for his political opponent Phil Angelides. Well sure, Arnold was the movie star Governor everybody wanted to see. But what does it mean for democracy when selected candidates are featured to boost ratings while other viable candidates are denied? That’s entertainment! But is that really bonafide news? We all know the answer is no. 

    But if every time a broadcaster has to run to the FCC get permission to have a candidate on our airwaves, it makes having any interviews virtually impossible. This is exacerbated when any broadcaster may wish to interview a candidate or two or five in an election like California’s recent 50+ candidate “jungle primary” without having to provide airtime for them all. 
       
    A conversation needs to occur to discuss modern day options for Equal Opportunities on our air. Perhaps guidelines that any candidate polling at 15% or more would qualify for an opportunity? Perhaps there are better ideas. 

    But let’s start working on them now. It is time for the FCC to revisit and rewrite these Equal Opportunity rules to fairly serve broadcasters, political candidates, and the public’s need for diverse and accurate information.


    3. What matters is Equal Opportunities on ALL Radio and TV broadcasts

    There has been some suggestion by the FCC that radio programs like Mark Levin Show, The Glenn Beck Show, The Guy Benson Show, and others which feature show hosts’ preferred candidates are somehow exempt from Broadcast Equal Opportunities rules.
     
    Since 1996, Talk Radio has been dominated by Pro-Republican voices. A petition to deny submitted by Media Action Center in reveals the extent of that in one local market. Other studies have shown this to be the case. The FCC has traditionally ignored such information.
     
    It is possible that since Radio broadcasters have gotten away with this for so long, TV broadcasters now feel they should level the playing field.

    But this is not a game.  These rules, on the very small slice of media real estate that We the People own, our airwaves, are intended to provide a fair public square where everyone gets their say and all viable candidates can be heard. 

    Let us all be careful here to bear in mind the rights of We the People in the sacred space of the broadcast airwaves we all own. 

    Let none of us use these rules as a political bludgeon against any political persuasions. 
    Let us all work together to improve these rules for the benefit of our Democracy.


    Respectfully submitted,



    Sue Wilson
    Director, Media Action Center

    FCC Guidance on Bonafide News and its Relationship to its 2014 Decision on Zapple

     January 24, 2026

     

    On January 21, 2026 the Federal Communications Commission provided "Guidance on Political Equal Opportunities Requirement for Broadcast Television Stations." (See https://www.fcc.gov/document/bureau-provides-guidance-political-equal-opportunities-requirement .)

    In this document, the FCC states 

    "Importantly, the FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption.[1]  Moreover, a program that is motivated by partisan purposes, for example, would not be entitled to an exemption under longstanding FCC precedent."

    Also: " Concerns have been raised that the industry has taken the Media Bureau’s 2006 staff-level decision to mean that the interview portion of all arguably similar entertainment programs—whether late night or daytime—are exempted from the section 315 equal opportunities requirement under a bona fide news exemption.  This is not the case.  As noted above, these decisions are fact specific and the exemptions are limited to the program that was the subject of the request."

    We note that this guidance is Television specific and that the broadcast radio spectrum is not part of this discussion. Still, any rules pertaining to TV must also govern radio.

    In 2012, our Media Action Center team in Wisconsin filed a Petition to deny the broadcast licenses of Clear Channel's WISN radio and Journal Communications' WTMJ Radio for providing hundreds of minutes of free airtime to surrogates promoting Scott Walker, but less than ten minutes over two weeks to supporters of his opponent Tom Barrett. 

    In 2014,  the Media Bureau of the FCC denied our Petition, stating in part, 

    While MAC purports to make Zapple Doctrine (and First Amendment) claims, we find that its real complaints relate to the Station’s programming choices.9 It is well established, however, that the Commission cannot exercise any power of censorship over broadcast stations with respect to content-based programming decisions.10 A licensee has broad discretion – based on its right to free speech – to choose the programming that it believes serves the needs and interests of the members of its audience.11

    We will intervene in programming matters only if a licensee abuses that discretion or where federal
    statutes direct us to do so.12 After full review, we have determined that further Commission action is not
    warranted here. MAC has not shown that the licensee committed violations of the Act, the Commission’s
    rules, or otherwise abused its discretion in determining the programming it believes serves the needs of its
    audience.13

     

    It appears there is to be one set of rules for Late Night Television but another for Talk Radio, which garners more than 100 million political listeners. We also note they have current concerns about an earlier staff level decision from the Media Bureau.

    Concerns have been raised that the industry has taken the Media Bureau’s 2006 staff-level
    decision to mean that the interview portion of all arguably similar entertainment programs—
    whether late night or daytime—are exempted from the section 315 equal opportunities
    requirement under a bona fide news exemption. This is not the case. 

    Should anyone want to take a second look, all relevant documents are posted on the right hand side of this blog. 



    [1] Notably, “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” is no longer airing, as Jay Leno left the show.  As discussed in Angelides, Mr. Leno’s relationship to then-Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger was a significant factor in both the complaint and the Media Bureau analysis.  See id.