Democrats' letter concentrating on Fox, Newsmax for misinformation sparks conflict throughout listening to


Democrats fended off accusations of partisan bias throughout a debate over disinformation within the media at a Home Power and Commerce listening to on Wednesday.

Reps. Anna EshooAnna Georges EshooHouse panel to dive into misinformation debate Hillicon Valley: Google lifting ban on political ads | DHS taking steps on cybersecurity | Controversy over TV ‘misinformation rumor mills’ House Democrats demand answers on TV ‘misinformation rumor mills’ MORE (D-Calif.) and Jerry McNerneyGerlad (Jerry) Mark McNerneyHouse panel to dive into misinformation debate Hillicon Valley: Google lifting ban on political ads | DHS taking steps on cybersecurity | Controversy over TV ‘misinformation rumor mills’ House Democrats demand answers on TV ‘misinformation rumor mills’ MORE (D-Calif.) despatched a letter to cable and streaming firms on Monday questioning their choices to host sure information networks. The letter linked content material aired on sure channels to the January 6 rebel on the Capitol.

“Misinformation on TV has led to our present polluted data atmosphere that radicalizes people to commit seditious acts and rejects public well being finest practices, amongst different points in our public discourse,” they wrote, singling out Newsmax, One America Information Community (OANN) and Fox Information for airing misinformation.


The letter drew fast backlash from Republicans, together with rating committee member Rep. Cathy McMorris RodgersCathy McMorris RodgersHouse Republicans urge Democrats to call hearing with tech CEOs Republicans rally to keep Cheney in power Hillicon Valley: Raimondo wades into 230 debate | Google cuts donations to election result deniers | House GOP unveils tech plan MORE (R-Wash.) who forged it as an effort to strain the businesses to dam the right-leaning retailers. 

“I need to be very clear, condemning the January sixth assault and upholding fact and information is a shared, bipartisan aim. However that isn’t what this listening to is about,” McMorris Rodgers mentioned. “If the bulk was eager about a significant dialogue, you wouldn’t schedule a hyper-partisan listening to to disgrace and blame. You definitely wouldn’t ship letters pressuring non-public firms to dam conservative media retailers,” she added.

Shortly earlier than the beginning of the listening to, the rating member despatched a letter urging performing Federal Communications Fee (FCC) Chairwoman Jessica RosenworcelJessica RosenworcelHillicon Valley: Google lifting ban on political ads | DHS taking steps on cybersecurity | Controversy over TV ‘misinformation rumor mills’ House Democrats urge Biden to make his pick for acting FCC chair permanent Biden administration drops lawsuit against California’s net neutrality law MORE to sentence Eshoo and McNerney’s letter. A spokesperson for the FCC didn’t reply for remark. 

Eshoo dismissed the criticism, noting that the letter merely asks firms to reply with detailed solutions over their choices on providing sure channels. 

“I’d like this to be understood, the concept that members asking questions violates the First Modification is totally absurd. It is our job to ask questions,” Eshoo mentioned. 

Eshoo and McNerney’s letter requested the businesses about their “moral rules” concerned in deciding which channels to hold and when to take motion in opposition to a channel. 


Fox Information and Newsmax pushed again on the accusations and defended their protection. 

“For particular person members of Congress to spotlight political speech they don’t like and demand cable distributors interact in viewpoint discrimination units a horrible precedent,” a Fox Information Media spokesperson mentioned in a press release. 

“Newsmax reported pretty and precisely on allegations and claims made by either side throughout the latest election contest,” the outlet mentioned in a press release. 

Regardless of the accusations, Democrats throughout the listening to didn’t voice assist for pulling any networks from airwaves or censoring the retailers.

The listening to Wednesday addressed related issues as specified by Eshoo and McNerney’s letters, with a broader concentrate on the unfold of disinformation by media retailers, together with false claims about election fraud that fueled the Jan. 6 rebel on the Capitol, in addition to misinformation concerning the coronavirus pandemic. 

Nonetheless, many GOP members joined McMorris Rodgers in condemning Eshoo and Mcnerney’s letter and accused their Democratic colleagues of unfairly specializing in the networks listed within the letter. 

“Let’s be constant in calling it out, not making an attempt to recommend disingenuously that it solely comes from one aspect of the political spectrum. Let’s be honest and acknowledge that we may all do a greater job encouraging the rhetoric to be toned down,” Home Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) mentioned. 

Kristin Urquiza, the co-founder of a gaggle referred to as Marked by COVID and a witness on the listening to, accused some media firms of being “complicit” in spreading disinformation concerning the coronavirus pandemic that she mentioned performed a task in her personal father dying from COVID-19. She mentioned certainly one of her father’s frequent information sources was Fox Information. 

“The media did not pull the set off however they drove the getaway automotive,” she mentioned. 

The opposite witnesses on the listening to, consultants in regulation and media, largely pushed again on Congress taking direct motion to manage information media, however they shared suggestions that might assist mitigate the unfold of the false data. 

“I feel that’s nothing that the Congress has to take care of. It’s information organizations themselves who ought to maintain themselves to this normal. It’s a journalistic normal,” mentioned Soledad O’Brien, a former CNN host and now host of the Hearst Tv political journal program “Matter of Truth with Soledad O’Brien.”

O’Brien pushed for information retailers to keep away from posing each story as “having two sides,” and to cease reserving “liars” that unfold false data. 


“Each perspective doesn’t deserve a platform,” she mentioned. “Media thrives on the open trade of concepts, however that doesn’t imply it’s important to ebook a neo-Nazi each time you ebook somebody who’s Jewish.” 

Emily Bell, the director of the Tow Middle for Digital Media at Columbia College, prompt backing efforts to spice up native information retailers. 

“I feel native media does an amazing job at maintaining folks accountable when there’s sufficient of it,” Bell mentioned. 

“The job right here is to consider among the incentive buildings and what we will do to positively regulate slightly than negatively regulate,” she added. “Reasonably than saying, ‘let’s ban sure quantities of speech,’ —  I do not assume anyone right here is in favor of that — how can we guarantee that that kind of journalism and people forms of techniques … are actually inspired.”

Jonathan Turley, a professor on the George Washington College Legislation Faculty and an opinion contributer at The Hill, additionally raised issues concerning the “blurring” of opinion and information content material on cable information channels within the night and the function the networks can play in creating dialogues.  

“Individuals are hooked on rage they usually’re utilizing that rage to attempt to silence others or blame others and it is ripping this nation aside,” he mentioned. “The media can play an important function in making an attempt to create a dialogue, and that is all of the media, the variety of media that we have now, and Congress can assist in that sense.” 


The committee will additional look at the unfold of misinformation and extremist content material because it pertains to social media platforms subsequent month when the CEOs of Google, Twitter and Fb are scheduled to testify earlier than the committee. 

That upcoming listening to will possible draw out the partisan debate over platform’s content material moderation practices.

Republicans have continued to challenge unsubstantiated claims that tech firms are censoring content material with an anti-conservative bias, whereas Democrats have largely pushed the businesses to take higher motion in opposition to misinformation and hate speech.