Are Local TV Stations Broadcasting in the Public Interest?

-first published in Substack blog “The “Last Editor” on March 18, 2026

You probably saw over the weekend that Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr threatened stations with the loss of their broadcast licenses for running “fake news.” He posted the following, in part, on Twitter/X: “Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions - also known as the fake news - have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.” This post seems to have been prompted by an earlier Donald Trump post complaining about coverage (hilariously, about newspaper reporting) of the war he started with Iran. While Trump probably has no idea how the FCC licensing process works—he thinks the networks are somehow licensed by the FCC—Carr knows. He’s paying lip service to his boss with a threat that has no teeth. But that’s not what I’m writing about today.

I want to explore what “the public interest” means and how well we in the television news profession are serving it.

This has nothing to do with playing political games over legitimate critical reporting on public policy. Instead, I have some thoughts about what “the public interest” really means and how we’re NOT serving it in as meaningful a way as we could. Don’t get me wrong—I don’t think any stations should lose their licenses over the criticisms I’m about to level. But we should be having these discussions every day about the need to double down on our public interest obligation.

First, it’s worth reviewing from where this idea of serving in the public interest comes. Regulation of the fledgling broadcast industry in the United States started due to the sinking of the Titanic. Read up on that elsewhere if you didn’t already know that (it’s fascinating), but the point is that the Radio Act of 1912 began the practice of issuing radio licenses for broadcast. Spectrum was plentiful then and there was no thought of ever having to deny or revoke a license until the airwaves started to get crowded. With the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934 (which still governs local television broadcast today), Congress began the practice of renewing licenses to maintain order on the airwaves. Throughout the Communications Act, the phrase “serves the public interest, convenience, and necessity” is repeated over and over again. That is the standard that remains for local broadcast license renewal.

In terms of what “the public interest” means in this context, Congress specifically did not define it at the time—and it has defied a single definition ever since.

Courts have been of little help, often ruling that no set definition of the phrase would serve its purpose. I’ll define it the way I think we should apply it and then use it as a yardstick against which to measure our current practices. First, what “public interest” is not. It is NOT that in which the public is interested, otherwise defined by Merriam-Webster as “a feeling that accompanies or causes special attention to something or someone.” If that were the case, we’d just fill the airwaves with the broadcast versions of clickbait and call it a day. The more apt definition of the word “interest” is perhaps the simplest one, “importance.” Our responsibility is to cover matters of importance that affect our viewers, focusing on consequential things that govern and influence their lives.

We do well on some matters of the public interest, three of which particularly stand out.

First is our coverage of severe weather and its threats. While weather apps on our phones are sufficient to tell us the highs, lows and when it will rain, when weather becomes life threatening, there is still no substitute for a qualified meteorologist on a local TV station tracking the storm and giving specific warnings for those in its path. The benefit of having someone who knows the local area, knows how weather can affect it and has the skill to relay that information calmly and completely is the very definition of operating in the public interest. Investigative reporting is another example of how we are serving the public interest well. Local stations do some of the most impactful investigative reporting anywhere, typically using the medium well to uncover corruption and wrongdoing and get some real results. Finally, local stations have decades of commitment to community service, leading efforts to help local charities, better their communities and use the power of their reach to highlight the needs of their broadcast areas.

But there’s a lot we do that doesn’t serve the public interest as well as we could.

The top of the list has to be the heavy levels of advertising most local newscasts now carry. I understand that this is the business model with which we are burdened, but I can’t count the number of times I’ve been in a hotel watching a local newscast only to get two minutes of news between breaks of four minutes each. As advertising revenue gets harder to capture—particularly in non-election years—stations are loading up their newscasts to try to keep revenue at sustaining levels. I get that. But there must be a better way. At the birth of local news, sponsor logos were often seen mounted on the set or even the anchor’s jacket. They were ever-present and effective—and didn’t take away time from the news hole. A return to that sort of advertising and a look at other sponsorship displays that don’t take away from news time would be a great direction for the business.

Our morning shows are another place where we’re failing the public interest on many fronts. Weather and traffic in the morning address the public need well, giving viewers valuable information to use in the day ahead. But much of the news content consists of stories that happened the previous day (people already know those stories), national and international news breaking overnight (not part of our local mission and easily available on our phones) or live shots in front of closed buildings to preview the day ahead (wasted resources to go live where nothing is happening). Morning newscasts should be entirely about what’s to come in the day ahead, with detailed stories on what issues are at stake on the day’s news agenda rather than live shots in the dark with few details. To manage this, it will take a change in the assignment process with reporters dedicated to putting together content for morning shows that looks ahead in a detailed way. We know people don’t sit and watch in the morning, being always on the run getting ready for work and school. But we can still deliver short, fact-filled stories to catch them before they leave home.

Beyond the mornings, much of our content during the entire news day is meant to lure people into watching more, rather than informing them on important matters in the public interest.

Two of the biggest offenders on which I often like to focus are crime coverage and sports coverage. Crime coverage has plagued local news at too high a level for the three-plus decades, driven by how easy it is to cover and the illusion that it looks important, even though most of the drug and drug-related violent crime we cover has no impact on our viewers. Likewise, sports coverage—particularly when it falls outside the sports segment—drains away precious resources that could be used for more important stories. Go to any market that has a professional or college team headed for the playoffs. It will be hard to find any content in the newscast that doesn’t have to do with Team X heading to the Super Bowl or the Final Four. Add to those two categories too many entertainment stories or the broadcast version of clickbait stories (“Coming up, find out who President Trump is suing now…”), neither of which serve the local public interest. All of this content is easy to create and air, but takes way from resources that could be aimed toward more essential content.

These criticisms are not to say the FCC should start revoking licenses. We need to police ourselves to do a better job of giving our communities what they need. Some would argue, I’m sure, that crime, sports and entertainment drive viewers to the newscasts. I would argue the rise in this content has driven people away. Smart viewers in the suburbs know a downtown drug arrest has no impact whatsoever on their lives. They see too much of this sort of reporting and realize the newscasts are not worth their time anymore. The same goes for a morning show with too much stale content and too many meaningless live shots. We really do know best what is important to an audience and what content will drive viewers to their TVs. But our natural urge to produce content in the public interest has been drowned out by too much noise from consultants, sales departments, flash-in-the-pan trends and more.

I’ve always been uncomfortable that broadcasters are the only journalists licensed by the government. We’re seeing the reasons to object to that sort of regulation now as Trump and Carr make threats against broadcasters because those in power are unhappy with legitimate news coverage. But it’s the system under which we must work and the language we must follow. We should be doing more to serve in the public interest—not in fear of Donald Trump and not just because it’s in federal law—but because we still have a common purpose to provide this service that remains free for all to receive.