In light of sweeping actions across the federal government, simply put — the vibes are off at the Federal Communications Commission. I would say someone should call Andy Cohen to request that he bring the cameras down to 45 L Street but as an NBCUniversal company, would Bravo be denied access to the building because of… diversity, equity, and inclusion?
Bravo camera crews aside, it must be said that the coveted seat of the Chair of the FCC used to be — and should still be — reserved for those who engage in robust, meaningful policy debates about how to make communication available “so far as possible, to all the people of the United States.” It now appears that this seat is reserved for those who auditioned for years to hold an apple, peach, or whatever your preferred Real Housewives opening scene prop may be by pandering to the “main character.” An FCC Chair who spends most of his time cooking up controversies rather than solving real communications disparities should hold a tomato for being a purveyor of waste, fraud, and abuse.
Doing the Most While Doing the Least
Four months into his chairmanship, Brendan Carr has been using his seat to weaponize the FCC for political purposes. On his first day as FCC Chair, he acquiesced to his boss’s Executive Order, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, by abruptly ending all “DEI efforts” at the FCC and alleged that the agency was previously “promoting invidious forms of discrimination.” I’m going to let y’all sit with that for a second because sometimes you just need to pause and process.
Over the last several weeks, Carr has sent dog whistles to Disney/ABC, Verizon, Comcast/NBCUniversal, and other companies looking to the FCC to approve their merger proposals. He purposefully misinterprets civil rights laws and says that the mere existence of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and policies are discriminatory.
As Carr well knows, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives were created to ensure that the most talented people from all communities have an opportunity to be seen, included, and hired. These initiatives exist so this country can work to better meet its mission. At the end of the day, Carr’s intellectual dishonesty is bewildering. Naturally, I have some questions: Is Carr fine with inherently discriminatory structures and institutions? Does Carr resent that there has been any semblance of progress towards racial equity? Does Carr believe that the existence of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives discriminate against white people even when they benefit from these initiatives including those who are veterans, people with disabilities, rural communities, and women? I’m asking questions to gain some clarity because Carr’s claims thus far have been unfounded and illegitimate and these “investigations” that attempt to paint diversity, equity, and inclusion practices as “invidious forms of discrimination” are a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.
Additionally, Carr, like his boss, is engaged in the same overreach practices he accused the Biden administration of, such as when the FCC issued rules in November 2023 to prevent and eliminate digital discrimination, as directed by Congress. Carr described those rules as the agency’s attempt to “micromanage” and “control” the communications sector through an “intrusive new regime.” Carr’s statements on digital discrimination rules align perfectly with his 2025 leadership agenda. He could star in another That’s So Raven reboot (assuming it would not be banned as a “DEI” television series) for his ability to predict the future. It appears he soft-launched his agenda when he said the digital discrimination rules were “motivated by an ideology of government control that is not compatible with the fundamental precepts of free market capitalism.” Glass houses, my friends.
Since Public Knowledge believes that facts still matter, let’s dive into the data that illustrates existing disparities in the communications sector. In January 2025, the FCC’s Seventh Report on Ownership of Broadcast Stations found the following:
- Women held a majority ownership interest in 10% of commercial broadcast stations, while men held a majority ownership interest in 59% of commercial broadcast stations.
- White persons held a majority ownership interest in 74% of commercial broadcast stations, while persons belonging to racial minority groups held a majority ownership interest in 5% of commercial broadcast stations.
- Hispanic/Latino persons held a majority ownership interest in 6% of commercial broadcast stations while non-Hispanic/Latino persons held a majority ownership interest in 72% of commercial broadcast stations.
- Women held a majority ownership interest in 17% of noncommercial broadcast stations, while men held a majority ownership interest in 77% of noncommercial broadcast stations.
- White persons held a majority ownership interest in 95% of noncommercial broadcast stations, while persons belonging to racial minority groups held a majority ownership interest in 4% of noncommercial broadcast stations.
- Hispanic/Latino persons held a majority ownership interest in 3% of noncommercial broadcast stations, while non-Hispanic/Latino persons held a majority ownership interest in 96% of noncommercial broadcast stations.
Enjoy the data while you can because the data will likely no longer be collected since this administration is clicking delete faster than you can restart your computer.
Let me present a school-aged hypothetical situation: Let’s say that Johnny’s family has run an apple orchard for generations called Johnny Family & Co. and they have generations of wealth and market dominance. Sally has worked on Johnny’s farm for years and has created a new apple that is the perfect level of sweetness and even resists pests. It is clear that Sally would be a talented apple orchard owner herself since she knows the business in and out but she has never been able to access the capital necessary to run an orchard. One day, Johnny and Sally’s rural county establishes a program that enables people like Sally, who do not come from a generation of apple orchard owners, to buy one acre of land which empowers them to carry out innovative methods of apple farming that enhance competition, fulfill consumer needs, and produce great apples. As we evaluate the grand scheme of apple ownership, would you say Johnny Family & Co. is being discriminated against because their family only owns 99% of apple orchard land instead of owning the full 100% monopoly?
Because when reviewing dismal media ownership statistics (and to be clear there is a lot of data in the communications sector that point to disparities in this space) and comparing that to the FCC’s recent actions around diversity, equity, and inclusion, it’s clear that Carr’s math is not mathing.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the communications space are central to the Federal Communications Commission’s mission. While the FCC does not regulate content, it is the role of the agency to ensure that some limited licenses are allocated in a way that ensures the whole public is served. Further, broadcasting, a public good, is meant to serve the interests of viewers and listeners and 100% of the programming should not be oriented toward 58% of the population. A robust communications ecosystem is a critical function of a democratic society and it must be one in which all can participate whether that be through an affordable, reliable, broadband connection, as a news director at a local television station, or as an entrepreneur working to enter the digital marketplace.
And while we’re rewinding the tape, let’s talk about some recent history of hypocrisy.
FCC Chair Carr has spent time at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), institutions that were established in response to racial discrimination, like Jackson State University and Virginia State University promoting workforce training programs in the telecommunications sector. In 2023, ahead of an event with the Wireless Infrastructure Association, Carr said, “The training being offered at Virginia State University and other technical schools across the country also provides students with a pathway to rewarding careers and good-paying jobs that can benefit their families and communities.” So does Carr agree that the telecommunications sector should be diverse in order to achieve our connectivity goals and that HBCU students and graduates should be included in this effort?
Policy is personal for those of us working tirelessly to ensure that all communities can thrive. I refuse to accept that our policymakers in Washington should advance only by preserving power and wealth for white, male billionaires while communities of color, poor communities, communities with disabilities, and other marginalized groups are disproportionately impacted and erased. And as a Black Latina woman, I also refuse to stand by and watch the FCC, an agency that determines whether our communications ecosystem thrives or deteriorates, become the backdrop for what feels like a season of The Real Housewives of L Street.
Oh, and one more thing. That can’t be who I think it is supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion again:
