Progressive media fearmongering hits new low in Supreme Court case coverage
November 29, 2024
The progressive media’s bias continues to undermine accurate reporting. Take this headline from Gizmodo:
Supreme Court to Determine Whether Trump Voters Should Have Cheap Internet or Not
This is blatantly false. Their subhead doesn’t fare any better:
The court will seek to determine whether qualifying rural communities should receive federally funded internet access.
Again, not true. Meanwhile, Esquire adds its own misleading take:
Now the Extreme Right Is Coming After the New Deal.
This, too, is entirely inaccurate.
The case in question, Consumers’ Research v. FCC, has nothing to do with the New Deal, the TVA, rural electrification, or other historical programs. It is, however, about the role of the administrative state and who has the authority to impose taxes. Specifically, can Congress delegate the power to impose taxes to bureaucratic agencies like the FCC? Or must Congress explicitly define and approve such taxes through legislation?
The case stems from the FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF), which collects fees to subsidize rural internet and telecommunications projects. The question before the court is whether such funding mechanisms, created without direct Congressional authorization, are constitutional. The outcome could redefine the limits of bureaucratic power.
Despite this, progressive outlets frame the case in alarmist terms. Gizmodo and Esquire suggest it’s about dismantling rural internet or attacking the legacy of the New Deal. These narratives ignore the actual issue: whether unelected agencies can effectively levy taxes without Congressional oversight. If the Supreme Court rules against the FCC, Congress could still fund rural internet by passing a law specifically authorizing the tax. The existence of such services isn’t under threat—only the process by which they’re funded.
Progressives’ real concern lies in the broader implications of this case. If the court curtails the power of the administrative state—especially following the rollback of Chevron Deference—it would shift decision-making back to Congress and, by extension, to voters. This threatens progressive agendas that rely on expansive bureaucratic authority, often bypassing direct democratic input.
At Accuracy in Media, our focus is just that: accuracy. By sensationalizing this case, outlets like Gizmodo and Esquire obscure its core issue. This isn’t about ending cheap internet or dismantling historic programs. It’s about a fundamental question of governance: should taxation and spending decisions rest with Congress, or with unelected bureaucrats?
By misrepresenting the facts, these outlets perpetuate fear rather than fostering informed debate. Accurate reporting matters, and in this case, the progressive media has failed that standard.