The Truth About Defunding Fake News and Woke Media w/ FCC Commissioner Simington
On today’s episode of Human Events Daily, Jack Posobiec is joined by the FCC Commissioner, Nate Simington for a deep dive into the funding and defunding of PBS and NPR. What is the difference between a Network and a Broadcaster, and what can you do to make sure, woke programming never crosses your airways! Poso and Commissioner Simington also breakdown the the lawsuit against CBS over the infamous Kamala Harris interview and some alternate ways to hold fake news giants accountable. Also, you ...
And we're going to get them a beautiful flight back to where they came from.
And they have a period of time.
And if they make it, we're going to work with them so that maybe someday, with a little work, they can come back in if they're good people, if they're the kind of people that we want in our company, industrious people that could love our country.
And if they're not, they won't.
But it will give them a path to coming back into the country.
If they miss that limit, they're going to be taken out of our country.
And they will never get a path to come back in.
And it'll be a much tougher process.
And it's called self-deportation.
And by doing that, you know, you're talking about so many millions of people.
By doing that, we have, by the way, we've taken out thousands of terrorists, drug lords.
What we've done is amazing.
And as you're Tom Homan.
And Kristi and Um have done an incredible job.
They really have done an incredible job.
But it's a hard job.
So we're going to have a self-deportation where they deport themselves out of our country.
And we'll work with them.
And we're going to try.
And if we think they're good, if they have, you know, the people we want in our country, they're going to come back into our country.
We'll give them a little easier route.
But if they don't work, and if we take them out after the date...
Then they're never coming back.
That's the least of the problems that they're gonna have.
Yeah, please.
What's your expectation for your meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister tomorrow?
I don't know.
He's coming to see me.
I'm not sure what he wants to see me about, but I guess he wants to make a deal.
Everybody does.
They all want to make a deal because we have something that they all want.
We have something that they all want.
China wants to make a deal very badly.
You see what's happening to China.
China's being decimated, and I don't want that to happen.
But they have to make a fair deal.
We were losing hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
We were losing five, think of it, on our trade policies with Biden.
We're losing five billion dollars a day.
I think Josh, as a great businessman, would not let that happen too long, right?
How many groups could lose five billion a day?
If you lose five billion one day, that's the end of that company, right?
You're fired.
He says, you're fired.
Get out of here.
So we essentially did that.
And we have it down to a very low number.
We're doing really well.
Really well.
Yeah.
How did you decide to reopen Alcatraz?
Can you walk us through that decision?
Did I say what?
To reopen Alcatraz.
How will you use it?
How did you come up with the idea?
Well, I guess I was supposed to be a movie maker.
We started with the movie making and we'll end.
I mean, it represents something very strong, very powerful in terms of law and order.
Our country needs law and order.
Alcatraz is, I would say, the ultimate, right?
Alcatraz, Sing Sing, and Alcatraz, the movies.
But it's right now a museum, believe it or not.
A lot of people go there.
It housed the most violent criminals in the world, and nobody ever escaped.
One person almost got there, but they, as you know, the story, they found his clothing rather badly ripped up.
And it was a lot of shark bites, a lot of problems.
Nobody's ever escaped from Alcatraz and just represented something strong having to do with law and order.
We need law and order in this country.
And so we're going to look at it.
Some of the people up here are going to be working very hard on that.
And we had a little conversation.
I think it's going to be very interesting.
We'll see if we can bring it back in large form, add a lot.
But I think it represents something.
Right now it's a big hulk that's sitting there rusting and rotting.
Very...
You look at it, it's sort of...
You saw that picture that was put out.
It's sort of amazing.
But it sort of represents something that's both horrible and beautiful and strong and miserable, weak.
It's got a lot of qualities that are interesting.
And I think they make a point.
Okay, are you guys okay?
I want to just say that it's such an honor to be up here with my friends because this is a group of People that have done an amazing job.
And all we can do, Muriel and I, is give them the greatest sight there is, I think, that I've ever seen for something like this.
And I did very well in the real estate business.
I think this is the greatest sight there is anywhere in the world for exactly what you guys are doing.
And we'll work with you.
We've got a lot of work to do to get it going.
But we'll work with you and we'll try and make the dream come true.
And I want to thank you all very much for being here.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
We're going to help the people of Gaza get some food.
People are starving, and we're going to help them get some food.
A lot of people are making it very, very bad.
If you look, Hamas is making it impossible because they're taking everything that's brought in.
But we're going to help the people of Gaza because they're being treated very badly by Hamas.
Thank you very much.
Big tech has been canceling conservative voices.
Former Facebook employees admit Facebook routinely suppresses conservative views.
President Donald Trump is going to the courts to fight for your First Amendment rights.
I will never stop fighting to defend constitutional rights.
Follow Real America's Voice on Getter and join like-minded patriots to win the battle over cancel culture.
Real America's Voice is a news platform dedicated to keeping people informed.
The Chinese Communist Party, these guys are gangsters.
They're global gangsters.
Headlines from here in the U.S. and around the globe.
And the reality.
So Lori Lightfoot lost her.
Nothing will stand in our way.
And our golden age has just begun.
This is Human Events with Jack Posobo.
Now it's time for everyone to understand what America First truly means.
Welcome to the second American Revolution.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily here live from a cloudy Washington, D.C. Today is May 5th, 2025, Anno Domini.
We are here on an incredible, auspicious occasion going into what's shaping up to be a fantastically huge week for world.
President Trump just finishing up a press conference there, impromptu press conference, as he does in the Oval Office.
I want to welcome in all of our listeners on the Salem Radio Network in Hour 3 of Charlie Kirk, as well as everyone watching along on Real America's Voice.
And by the way, huge shout-out to the Rumble live chat as well as the Getter live chat.
We don't always give you guys as much love, but it's always here right from the bottom.
Of my heart.
The email, of course, if you want to send your comments, questions, concerns, complaints.
1776 at humanevents.com.
1776 at humanevents.com.
Huge guest.
He was honestly just the you guys just said you wanted him so much more.
This is Human Events with Jack Posobo.
Now it's time for everyone to understand what America First truly means.
Welcome to the second American Revolution.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily here live from a cloudy Washington, D.C. Today is May 5th, 2025.
Anno, Dominique.
We are here on an incredible, auspicious occasion going into what's shaping up to be a fantastically huge week for world.
President Trump just finishing up a press conference there, impromptu press conference, as he does in the Oval Office.
I want to welcome in all of our listeners on the Salem Radio Network in Hour 3 of Charlie Kirk, as well as everyone watching along on Real America's Voice.
And by the way, huge shout out to the Rumble live chat, as well as the Getter live chat.
We don't always give you guys as much love, but it's always here, right on the bottom.
The email, of course, if you want to send your comments, questions, concerns, complaints, 1776 at humanevents.com, 1776 at humanevents.com.
Huge guest.
He was honestly just, you guys just said you wanted him so much more on the program, so we said, fine, we'll bring him on just on the other day on the program.
Folks, it's FCC Commissioner Nate Symington, and we are now pronouncing his name correctly.
Nate, Commissioner, how are you?
Doing great, Jack.
Always a pleasure.
Hope you're well.
Thank you.
I am very well.
And it's a great week, and it's shaping up to be an even bigger one.
One of the things that I wanted to have you on, and we ended up having an impromptu discussion last week about tariffs and shipbuilding and all sorts of things, but one of the big pieces last week that had still been on the chopping block and really gotten a lot of press were these questions regarding NPR and PBS.
Now, I remember, I believe it was back in March.
Where the hearings were held on the House side regarding this and these questions of bias, these questions of taking a political side, ideological editorial selection based on, you know, partisanship and of course questions about things like COVID, the BLM situation in cities, which I would consider, and I think most people would consider riots, were totally glossed over.
And then meanwhile, things like Hunter Biden's laptop, also in 2020, had actually NPR officials coming out and saying that this was not a real story.
President Trump has called for the defunding of these operations.
Where does all of this stand, and what would the FCC's role in something like that be?
Yeah, it's a question of the moment, isn't it?
Because things have progressed since we last talked.
You know, that NPR building that you were showing there on the stream, that's just across the street from the FCC.
So if you're visiting one, you know, then you can drop by and visit the other.
Sort of a funny coincidence how it works.
It's the distinction between a network and a broadcaster that's, I think, really fundamental to how we understand the role of the First Amendment in all of this.
The United States notably has never really had a state broadcaster the same as was the norm in most other countries.
If you talk to people from...
From Canada or you talk to people from the UK, very culturally similar countries in some ways, they're still surprised when they drive across the United States and find small radio stations all over the place with independent programming.
The model that we developed in the United States is very much based upon private broadcasting because it's based upon the idea of editorial independence.
With a broadcaster, their First Amendment protections are limited only by the exclusionary principle, that when you broadcast, you're restricting other people from broadcasting on that frequency at that location.
So we do have some very light regulations around speech that come around that, but it's not content-based regulations.
We don't come in and say what your editorial position has to be.
That's very different from a state ministry of radio or a state broadcaster deciding what the party line is and then using the public's money to promote that perspective.
Now, with NPR and CBS, we're dealing with a network question as much as a broadcaster question, because neither one of them is a station ownership group.
Instead, the model is that you have community-owned stations or non-profit stations, and content comes to them from one of these publicly funded networks.
And in fact, if you ever used to watch PBS, I did growing up, although that was a cable channel in Canada.
PBS Retro all the time in the house.
It wasn't really big when I was a kid, but man, I gotta say, the Kratz brothers, Wild Kratz, Kratz Preachers, and Zubumafu, those guys, they're just doing top-notch work, and it's just not like the new stuff you see out there.
That's absolutely true.
And I mean, programs like Nova, I mean, I have a lot of fond memories of that kind of thing.
When you watch that, you see very often that there's a production credit for a particular station that was the production partner.
And in fact, what you'll see is that there was a particular station that would have hired someone like, for example, Mr. Rogers and made an agreement with him.
And then they would have distributed it through the public broadcasting network to other member stations that would have picked up the programming.
So in that case, you've got the network, so to speak, acting as a coordinator, but it's the actual broadcasters that are FCC licensees.
So there's this nexus.
Is the local originator of programming, assuming there is one, it might just be network source programming, but is the local originator of programming acting in the public interest?
Are they acting consistent with their license terms?
If it's the network taking a party line and pushing that content out, then the question becomes a little different because the network isn't a regulated entity in the same way.
That's why if you have a problem with it as a member of the public, your recourse is really more to their funding source, which is what we're seeing here with the federal government's actions, than it is to anyone's license.
I think part of the conceptual confusion that makes it so difficult for the public to get comfortable with this idea that you can have this extremely Party-line partisan and biased programming that nonetheless purports to be public programming.
Really, what that is is a statement that this programming that I feel is partisan or that some member of the public feels is partisan or biased or distorted or incomplete is originating with a network that they are, in a sense, paying for or partially paying for.
I think that's the point at which the public feels...
That they can say, well, this isn't the CBC.
This isn't the BBC.
I don't feel the need to contribute my tax dollars to an editorial organ that is going to denigrate me and that is going to present an incomplete version of the news.
We're very far from the Crafts Brothers or from NOVA or from a station that's oriented towards a just-the-facts-mam approach to presenting the radio and, you know, I'm sorry, the meteorology information and current events.
Once it becomes an editorial...
I think at that point, the public's entitled to say, well, who's in charge here and why are they getting my money?
That's what we're seeing.
And this is just for my own notification.
It's not necessarily that NPR or PBS are getting the money directly.
You're saying it's the network of distribution that potentially gets this taxpayer dollars and then their content is just shared through that network?
Yeah, exactly.
So there are different funding sources playing into all of these broadcasters.
As we've seen from Doge, sometimes money goes through many hands before it winds up in the control of some particular body that's going to spend it operationally.
Of course, with PBS, we all know that some of their funding also comes from viewers like you, as they like to say.
And some stations really are primarily community-funded enterprises.
That subscribe to the network because that's what the community wants.
It's freedom of speech like any other.
If you want to consume that kind of thing, that's your freedom too.
But the real question is who's paying for it and why are we paying for it and has it been captured by a relatively small and inbred clique of people who have a particular view about this, intellectually inbred view of this, and who are using the good name of the United States government to launder what is really just their Well, I think that's exactly right.
So we're coming up on a break right now.
We're also, by the way, on the Salem Radio Network coast to coast.
So, of course, appreciating the irony of here we are discussing this while on rival radio stations.
But at the same time, it's very important.
It's extremely important for people to understand where their taxpayer dollars are going and what their taxpayer dollars are supporting.
That's the entire point of Doge.
And the fact that this has been left Basically, on autopilot for so many years is exactly the reason that President Trump, Elon Musk, and so many others were put into place so that whatever dollar, every single cent that is being spent by the U.S. government is being done so for the betterment of the quality of life of the American people.
This is Jack Posobiec coming to you live here at Human Events Daily on Real Markers Voice and Salem Radio Network.
Quick break.
Right back.
Today, you know, you talk about influencers.
These are influencers.
And they're friends of mine.
Jack Posobiec.
Where's Jack?
Jack.
He's got a great job.
All right, Jack Posobiec, we are back live here.
Human Events Daily.
You want to welcome also the Charlie Kirk 3rd Hour Salem Radio.
Network, folks.
President Trump has always put America first, securing our borders, strengthening our economy, and standing up to global elites who'd rather see us fall.
And just like Trump is fighting to protect America's future, you should be fighting, too, to protect your financial future.
While others are distracted, gold is quietly making history, hitting record highs, moving part of our savings into real, physical assets like gold and silver that doesn't depend on Wall Street is a smart move.
Thinking about protecting your retirement is not enough.
Taking action is.
Roll over part of your IRA, 401k, TSP, or make a direct purchase of gold and silver today and enjoy the peace of mind that comes with it.
I trust my partners at Allegiance Gold to make that process simple and secure for you.
Call them now at 844-577-POSO.
That's 844-577-7676.
Or visit protectwithposo.com.
That's 844-577-POSO.
844-577-7676.
Or protectwithposo.com and get a free gold coin on qualified investment.
America is worth protecting, and so is everything you've worked for.
We're on with Commissioner Nate Symington of the FCC, and he's walking us through the complex ways in which PBS and NPR actually fund.
People think they get direct government funding.
That's not how it works.
And so this is something where, and Commissioner, thank you again so much for your time and being on the show.
And I'm sure you can imagine that pretty much everyone in conservative media has been blasted by NPR.
This show host is definitely one of them.
But we've got an email in here from Dan in Rochester, and I want to read it.
He says, I love Commissioner Symington on the show.
But I don't understand how woke programming sneaks into the news and sneaks onto my kids' TV.
I know Trump wants this to end, but I'm worried they'll find a loophole, fight, fight, fight.
So what would you say to Dan in Rochester?
Well, first of all, is that Rochester, New York, Rochester, Minnesota?
I ask because I got married in Rochester, New York.
Got a lot of fond memories of that place.
I will have to double-check.
On here it just says Rochester.
Well, yeah, I guess we only wrote Rochester in the email, so we don't really have a way to dig it out.
No worries.
So as far as woke programming coming into kids' shows, just coming into the airwaves generally, you know, it's a tough situation because editorial independence in media...
Is First Amendment protected?
And while some of this is very obnoxious, the flip side of it is that in the United States, there's always been independent conservative media that has a real chance to function.
I mean, all the way back in the 60s when JFK was going after the independent conservative talk radio stations.
In many ways, the idea of having forced media balance is something that we've experimented with and we've been burned by it.
So under President Reagan, his FCC chair, Mark Fowler, managed to finally get rid of the so-called fairness doctrine in, I believe, '87.
And that had been a thorn in the side of conservative media for a long time because the balance requirement that it contained It tended to be used in a one-sided fashion.
That is, it would be what we would consider a liberal point of view that was laundered as more of a neutral point of view.
And then conservatives were forced to allow right of response, etc., from the liberal side, leading to overall...
So this is an uncomfortable situation for everyone.
Obviously, the Fairness Doctrine is long dead.
That's close to 40 years in the rearview mirror.
And effects to revive it, tellingly, always come from the left or from the Democratic Party.
And so, you know, that tells you what the legacy is and what it was like when we tried to mandate it.
It's not conservative media that wants to have a balanced requirement brought back.
So where does that put a responsible father trying to deal with the question of woke content in children's media?
I guess I would say that that is why it's important to turn, if that's your choice, to a conservative media ecosystem.
And it raises larger questions.
Why is it that it's been so much easier to make a career?
In liberal media or in media containing a liberal point of view or liberal message, it's larger questions of cultural orientation ultimately that have left the liberal point of view as the default point of view that is editorial independence protected.
So I guess my short answer is I think conservative media is in a healthier place than it's been before, but if you feel that the mainstream media is giving your children messages that are inappropriate, then...
It's very hard for the government to step in within the constraints of the Constitution, which we welcome.
It's very hard for the government to step in and enforce balance.
Speaking of constraints on radio and TV, we do have one of those coming up with another quick break.
But that being said, for those stations with licenses, perhaps there's some funding questions that can be done there, as President Trump is talking about.
We'll be right back here.
Jack Posobiec.
quick break.
And Jack, where is Jack?
Where is Jack?
Where is he?
Jack, I want to see you.
Great job, Jack.
Thank you.
What a job you do.
You know, we have an incredible thing.
We're always talking about the fake news and the bad, but we have guys, and these are the guys who should be getting Pulisic.
All right, Jack Posobiec, we're back here.
Human Events, Real America's Voice, and Hour 3, Charlie Kirk.
Folks, I got a question for you.
Did you know that over 80% of the U.S. meat industry is controlled by just four companies?
Or the fact, and we've talked about it a long time on this show, that China controls the largest portion of the U.S. meat industry?
Let me tell you something.
Americans, especially in these days, want to know where their food comes from.
We don't want to be reliant on a foreign country for the food that we put on our family's tables.
That's exactly what Trump's tariff policy is all about, bringing businesses back to Americans and American farms all across the country.
That's why Human Events has partnered with Moink.
The business is simple.
Moink's meat comes from animals raised outdoors, where a pig is free to be a pig.
You pick the meat you want, and it's delivered right to your door.
Let me tell you something.
My wife, Tanya Tay, she loves this service.
Moink's farmers are given an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, and they deliver exactly what you want at prices you can actually afford.
Born, raised, and harvested right here in the United States of America.
So support American Family Farms and join the Moink movement today at moinkbox.com slash poso right now.
And this is the new deal.
Free wings for life when you join.
The best wings you'll ever taste for free, but this is a limited time only.
Spelled M-O-I-N-K, box.com slash poso.
That's moinkbox.com slash poso.
We just got our latest moinkbox in right before Easter, and I got to tell you, that thing was gone within a couple of nights in my house because we got me and we got two growing boys, and you're going to love it just as much as we do.
And you know something, dear, a little secret?
Tanya Tay loves it, too.
Moinkbox.com.
We're back on with FCC Commissioner Nate Simington.
We're talking about these questions and really heady issues about public funding for broadcasting, but also the importance of the First Amendment.
And, Commissioner, I guess the question that I would have to ask then that a lot of people are coming in with, there's always sort of this talk about, you know, there's this, I think, belief that the FCC can just...
Pull licenses, or we're pulling your license, or pulling your license, and I'm sure there's a bit more of a process to it than that.
But when President Trump is saying that he wants the funding to be cut off to these organizations, and I get that it's indirect funding, what tools are in the toolbox to get to the point where I think where President Trump wants the American taxpayer dollars not going to these left-wing causes?
Yeah, well, there are definitely sources of direct funding that you can directly reach, and that's obviously...
That's obviously within the discretion of the executive branch, unless Congress has specifically told the president that he can't.
That's not the case here.
So as far as direct funding, that's relatively easy to touch.
As far as indirect funding, that's, again, that's a really interesting question, because as we are seeing, there are huge networks of indirect funding that pour from one place to another place.
And, you know, we've, the news says, I haven't looked into it myself, but the news was saying that there was a Colossal slush fund discovered by Doge recently that had been spent on wildly discretionary things, just on parties.
Until you understand the source of funding for these organizations and have traced it all the way up the chain, you don't really know what the tax contribution is.
On the other hand, I want to put some cold water on it, just to the extent that...
If people are supporting a community-supported TV station and that is paying up to a network and the network programming is what those people want to get, then that is First Amendment protected too.
And that means as much as anything that we have to build up alternative media voluntarily.
Much as you're doing right at this moment, right?
And this is, I think, part of why this White House has been so open to alternative media, to influencers, to podcasters, and to other people who are outside the mainstream structures that have grown up over this time.
Those mainstream structures are encrusted partly culturally and partly financially with legacy sources of left-wing points of view that are probably pretty far to the left of the American public.
The solution...
As they say, the solution to bad speech is more speech.
And the other side of it is that there's nothing that goes away so fast as a marginalized news organization.
It doesn't have to be political marginalization.
A lot of local newspapers just died for lack of interest.
They were sort of killed off by Craigslist because they were being kept afloat by the classifieds.
And then when someone provided classifieds on a cheaper basis that was online, that was the end of it.
If it can happen to them, it can happen to anyone.
It just took a single strike in the 60s to kill the International Herald Tribune.
Sometimes it's just a matter of people walking away and saying, I want to support them indirectly.
I actually got started in radio in Philadelphia at the intern level and doing sales and stuff.
When you see the margins and the budgets at some of this, it is...
Very tight.
And so, you know, you pull some source of funding and it immediately pops off.
However, I've got to ask, so, and we've got to get into it because I saw that you had written on this and 60 Minutes had the former vice president on recently with a clip talking about it.
And so we're going to get into the, I want to shift gears a little bit from PBS to CBS.
Guys, let's play that clip of Kamala Harris on CBS 60 Minutes.
But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.
Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.
We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.
So, Commissioner, obviously this has gone ten times viral online.
It's the content of a lawsuit.
What are the issues here from your perspective and the issues going forward for really just our country from the President's perspective?
Absolutely.
So, you know how I was talking about the importance of editorial independence?
And in a broadcast production context, obviously you're going to leave something on the cutting room floor.
No one airs all the footage that they shoot unless it's a live show.
That said, there's a longstanding FCC practice that while we don't scrutinize the truth of what's said on TV, we do scrutinize the honesty of the presentation of facts on TV.
So this is an important distinction.
Here's how I'd like to frame it.
If a presidential candidate, for example, were to say, the sun will rise in the West before I sign that bill.
Then that's one statement.
If you cut it so it's just him saying the sun will rise in the West, then he sounds nuts, right?
Obviously, that's a misleading presentation, even though it's also an accurate presentation.
So the mere fact of a major political figure saying something makes it inherently newsworthy.
And if you just honestly cover it, then there's no way to go wrong.
However...
If you take someone's answer and you distort it, you make it confusing, you make it the opposite of what they said or totally different from what they said, then you are no longer actually engaged in reporting.
You're splicing things together to create an interview that never happened.
So the FCC has a long-standing concept that the airwaves are a public trust, they belong to the American people, and you have to use them if you have a broadcasting license in the public interest.
So if a broadcaster participates in creating A distorted record of a newsworthy event, then they could possibly be within FCC's concept of broadcast news distortion.
This was invented back, I think, in the 60s.
When some broadcasters staged misleading automotive accidents using crash test dummies and such in order to make cars look more dangerous than they really were.
Obviously, the auto company sued and that's where we get this doctrine from.
But we haven't had a case on this in about 30 years because usually when people complain about it, they complain about the statements being made rather than the means of presentation by the broadcaster.
What I think is very interesting about this...
Is that the complaint that we got on this topic highlighted that specific point, that it was the broadcaster's presentation of remarks that actually happened that was misleading.
And that's why there is, at least in potential, broadcaster liability here.
That's why there's a case.
And, you know, by the way, I want to give a shout out to the great Maze Moore who put that all together and I think just really created so much of a firestorm to be able to show point by point all of these changes and alterations that were made.
You had a piece up in the National Pulse as well as co-authored with Gavin Wax about one Yeah, Jack, so the economics of how broadcasters, networks...
Cable channels, cable systems all work together are very obscure to the public, even to people who really follow media.
In fact, they're sometimes even obscure to the FCC because they're not necessarily reported to us.
And there might be even non-disclosure provisions so that the broadcasters, the ones that we regulate, can't tell us about them.
But what I've learned...
Through looking around is that the amount of fees that some broadcasters have to pay up to the networks in order to remain affiliated with those networks and continue carrying their content has sharply, sharply increased the last few years.
Not all networks have adopted this practice, and not all networks have increased these affiliation fees by the same amount.
But in some cases, the affiliation fees have become so high that broadcasters are now facing horribly unpalatable choices.
In that case, the network may well stand up a rival station in their own town and beat them in their own market.
Or on the other hand, do they choose to pay those fees and thus spend so much money on it that they lose the ability to provide meaningful journalism programming and even meteorology?
Increasingly, that's the impossible choice that some broadcasters are finding themselves in.
So I proposed that the FCC should step in and cap these reverse...
Retrans or affiliation fees.
And in order to ensure that the journalistic obligations that come with a broadcasting license are actually capable economically of being fulfilled.
It's not enough for us to require local coverage.
At a certain point, we're asking people to make bricks without straw, to make local coverage without the financial resources to do it.
And in my mind, if that is the last local journalistic institution left standing, then we have a particularly heightened interest.
The public interest becomes even more acute in making sure that those economics work for the broadcasters.
I think this is great.
I think this is exactly what you need.
It's economic pressure that needs to get put on them, and the stations can do this.
It can all be enforced.
And again, it's to correct the behavior.
It's not to change anyone's opinion, anyone's ideas, but it is to correct the behavior.
Commissioner, thank you so much for joining us once again here on Human Events.
Jack, it's always a blast.
Great to see you.
God bless.
Jack Posobiec here.
This is Human Events Daily on the Salem Radio Network and Real America Voice.
We'll be right back after a quick break.
Jack is a great guy.
He's written a fantastic book.
Everybody's talking about it.
Go get it.
And he's been my friend right from the beginning of this whole beautiful event.
And we're going to turn it around and make our country great.
Amen.
Cardinals in the Vatican City are sizing each other up ahead of the vote to pick the next pope.
And while there are no official candidates just yet, a few names are emerging as the top contender.
Fox News' Alex Hogan has more from London.
As cardinals continue the mourning process for Pope Francis, they're also planning for the conclave, where they'll choose his replacement.
And as the princes of the church get to know one another, a number of frontrunners are emerging.
The supporters of Francis and his reforms are said to be backing two candidates.
Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, the head of the Italian bishops, who was chosen by the late pope as an ambassador of peace for Ukraine.
And Cardinal Luis Tagle of the Philippines, known as the Pope Francis of Asia.
Meanwhile, more conservatives appear to be coalescing around Cardinal Peter Erdo of Budapest.
Thank you.
When I'm working long hours, I'm always listening to Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
All right, Jack Posobiec back live here, Human Events Daily.
Real America's Voice and the Salem Radio Network.
For you guys listening on Salem, though, that is not a blurry vision or out of focus.
It's a little bit rainy, a little bit cloudy in Washington, D.C., so we've got our shot of the White House up, but it's got some rain on it there.
So we'll be working on that very soon.
It very well may be, though, that there are some liberal tears that are affecting it because they see what a great job President Trump is doing in the White House.
They just can't help themselves.
No, but folks, we've been looking at, I just saw this clip of President Trump over the break, and he said it so quickly, they came up and they said, Oh, you know, what did you think of the—over the weekend, there was this ridiculous kind of fake controversy over President Trump posting an image—I thought it was hilarious—of himself as the pope.
So the conclave is going to be starting Wednesday in St. Peter's Basilica, the Sistine Chapel itself, which is being turned into a Faraday cage.
And, of course, the selection of the next pope is imminent.
The cardinals have all arrived, 133 electors.
And we know that many cardinals, of course, have begun the process of seeing who will vie for the candidate to be the next vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome itself.
And so all eyes are on Rome.
So sure, Trump posts this, you know, a meme, of course, himself as Pope, throwing himself in.
There were some questions about eligibility.
I'm going to say the question, however, however, it only states You just have to be baptized as Catholic.
You do not have to actually be a priest, something not everyone knows.
So I've said, perhaps, Stephen K. Bannon, you know, why not, perhaps?
But President Trump also pointing out, you know, all he would have to do is find a Catholic priest to baptize him, and he would be good to go.
I believe there's an AI image now showing President Trump with a super soaker of holy water.
I hadn't seen that before.
To bless the crowds.
And then he was also, instead of the loaves and fishes, he was giving out the french fries and Big Macs.
So, look, you know, it's obviously a joke.
They ask him about it.
There's a reporter who asks him about it in the Oval Office while he's giving a press briefing earlier today.
And he said, no, what's the matter?
You can't take a joke?
You can't take a joke?
I mean, it's ridiculous the things.
That people try to come up with.
By the way, and you want to talk about the anti-Catholic joke?
Well, that would be the former president of the United States, Joe Biden, being the quote-unquote first, you know, or second Catholic president and sitting there and then sending his FBI after the traditional Latin mass goers or going after people who were praying the rosary a little bit too hard or going after people who are praying.
Just praying in a pro-life manner outside of an abortion clinic, these death carousels.
Where they're killing babies every single day, and you've got people praying out there, religious women, saying they wanted to stop, and he had his FBI rounding them up with the DOJ and Merrick Garland.
But no, but Joe Biden's a good Catholic.
Remember, Joe Biden's a good Catholic.
Who cares about all those Catholics he rounded up?
Who cares about all those Catholics that he went after when he was infiltrating their masses, when they were putting FBI agents undercover while they were checking to see who's praying the rosary a little bit too much?
Which beads are more worn out than others?
Yeah, keep an eye on that guy.
That's what we had going on under Joe Biden as our Catholic president.
No, that was the joke.
Okay, that was the joke.
That was offensive.
And Kamala Harris and so many others making horrific remarks about Catholics time and time again.
And so we bear no, no observances whatsoever.
To any of that.
And that's why they lost, by the way.
And it isn't just because of losing the Catholic vote, which they did in swing states like Pennsylvania, where my brother and I were going up and down the highways and byways to every single Latin mass that we could find.
We even went to a Polish mass and many, many, of course, just the English masses, wherever we could find Catholics in Pennsylvania.
So many people did this in Michigan.
So many people did this in Wisconsin as well.
And it's really come out that this has been one of the major swings.
In the 2024 election.
So, the choice of the next pope, it's going to be huge.
I'll put it this way.
The progressives, they have the largest block right now.
It's kind of like the speaker election, so the cardinals elect one of their own.
But they don't have enough votes on their own.
They need some conservatives, so conservatives can block.
Looks like we could be seeing a compromise.
Deals are in the air.
Deals are being rejected.
Health rumors and all sorts of stuff are coming out.
We'll have more on that tomorrow.
Because this is going to be hot, and in fact, it's hot already.
One of the biggest stories in the world.
St. Peter's Basilica.
Control.
The fight for the control of the Vatican.
I'm Jack Posobiec.
Ladies and gentlemen, as always, you have my permission.
