Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioner Nathan Simington said his priority is making sure the public was not misled after an accusation of "significant and intentional news distortion" in a formal complaint regarding the "60 Minutes" interview last week with Vice President Kamala Harris.
"This complaint might come before the commission for adjudication," Simington told Fox News Digital.
CBS News has taken heat in recent days for airing two different answers to the same question in its "60 Minutes" interview last week with the Democratic nominee. Harris was mocked by conservatives when footage of her offering a lengthy "word salad" was aired by CBS' "Face the Nation" to promote the "60 Minutes" sit-down, when Bill Whitaker asked why it seemed like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t listening to the U.S.
However, the vice president’s lengthy answer didn’t make the version that aired on Monday night on "60 Minutes" and a shorter Harris answer to the same question was shown instead. The Center for American Rights, also known as CAR, argued that the discrepancies "amount to deliberate news distortion — a violation of FCC rules governing broadcasters' public interest obligations" and formally complained to the FCC on Wednesday.
CBS ACCUSED OF 'SIGNIFICANT AND INTENTIONAL NEWS DISTORTION' IN FCC COMPLAINT OVER '60 MINUTES' EDIT
Simington walked Fox News Digital through the process that could land CBS in hot water, although it’s unlikely the network will be punished.
"The commission acts on complaints about distortion, not complaints about editorial positions. And so, what this claim is alleging is that an act of distortion took place. And so, if you look at the FCC statute -- Section 326 of our statute says that the commission doesn't have the power of censorship over broadcast signals and the commission has generally summarized its own position as saying that we need documentary evidence of deliberate distortion that would be sufficiently strong to require an inquiry," Simington said.
"And in fact, in a prior proceeding on this matter, we gave the example of substituting a yes answer to one question or a no answer to an entirely different question," he continued. "So, the Commission has certainly contemplated the possibility of distortionary reporting taking place via splicing. That's one reason I don't think that this complaint is facially ridiculous, and it would not be inappropriate for the commission to take it up."
Simington, who was appointed by former President Trump in 2020 and confirmed by the Senate, explained that "the United States is a little bit unique among the industrialized democracies" because it doesn’t have a media regulator with general power to say what can be said or written. Instead, the United States has the First Amendment that offers broad protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
CBS ‘60 MINUTES’ AIRS TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS FROM VP HARRIS TO THE SAME QUESTION
However, when it comes to television, the FCC’s view is that the airwaves are a "public trust" and any broadcasting over those airwaves is an exclusion of other parties from broadcasting over those airwaves on that frequency, so the government has a "heightened interest in the content of speech" when it occupies the airwaves that others cannot.
Simington, who is one of two Republicans among five FCC commissioners, said the "FCC will never be an arbiter of the truth of earnestly presented political speech, even if most Americans think it's false," but if the network’s licensee goes out of its way to alter reporting in a way that shows bad conscience or deliberate dishonesty, the "abuse of public trust" will be examined.
The licensee named in the complaint is WCBS TV in New York, which is not an "affiliate," but actually owned and operated by CBS Corporation. FCC insiders believe the complaint was filed against WCBS because it is owned by CBS itself, whereas other CBS affiliates across America may not have been aware of any intentional distortion if it occurred.
"The reason that we care about news distortion at all at the FCC and the reason that we're willing to explore this possibility, even conceptually, given the strong First Amendment protections for broadcasters' speech, is precisely because of this concern that we don't want the public to be misled," Simington said.
"I think everyone agrees that deliberately misleading the public is a bad idea. And if there's some possibility that that's what took place here, then obviously we should all be upset because people go to the news in order to learn about things that they would never be able to learn about themselves," Simington continued. "In other words, going to the news is an act of extending trust. Now, the thing about trust is that once it's lost, it's very difficult to regain."
Essentially, it all comes down to whether the licensee – in this case, WCBS TV in New York – participated in, or acquiesced in, a pattern of news distortion. Then the allegation has to be deemed substantial and deliberately intended to mislead or slant the news.
"And in all of these cases, I don't think it would be wrong at all for the Commission to reach the conclusion that this matter is something that we should look into further," Simington said.
CBS NEWS IN TURMOIL AS MULTIPLE CONTROVERSIES ERUPT AT THE NETWORK
Simington said that if a licensee ordered an interview to be edited in a misleading fashion to deliberately promote a particular political candidate, it could possibly breach the news distortion threshold. However, the actions of a rogue employee wouldn’t rise to that level.
"The licensee would have to have had participated in or at least had knowledge of and acquiesced to this distortionary act. But if that happens, then, well, there's a conduct standard for holding a license. And if you are habitually misrepresenting information to the public or engaging in other inappropriate behavior by a licensee, then you may wind up in trouble," he said, such as a fine or conditions upon a license renewal.
CBS News did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
CBS News has not offered an on-the-record explanation or responded to requests to release the unedited video of the Harris interview.
The Center for American Rights describes itself as a "nonprofit, public interest law firm dedicated to protecting Americans’ most fundamental, constitutional rights," according to its website.
