Exclusive | FCC should scrap ABC's TV licenses, media watchdog says, alleging partisan bias 74%

By Taylor Herzlich0%

6/30/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 51.9% saturation with 247 hits. Analysis detected 1,700 faulty-reasoning hits from 476 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.5% and a BS Rank of 74% (5,872 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.20% of the article peer group.

A conservative media watchdog is urging the Federal Communications Commission not to renew ABC’s licenses, accusing the broadcaster of partisan bias as its lucrative TV rights are up in the air. 
The Media Research Center, or MRC, accused ABC of electioneering, refusing to cover critical issues, excusing political violence and spreading misinformation in a Monday filing obtained by The Post. 
“We finally have an FCC willing to hold Disney and ABC accountable. 
Broadcast licenses are a privilege, not an entitlement. 
In exchange for free use of the public airwaves, broadcasters agree to serve the public interest,” MRC President David Bozell told The Post. 
“If ABC wants to operate like a partisan cable network, it should give up the benefits reserved for broadcast licensees. 
No one is above the law, and ABC should not have its broadcast licenses renewed.” 
The FCC has been reviewing eight of Disney’s broadcast licenses  including ABC channels in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago  after Chairman Brendan Carr initiated a renewal process a year early, accusing the network of failing to cooperate with a probe into its DEI policies. 
ABC has blasted the early license review, saying it serves “no legitimate purpose” and is an “effort to suppress speech under the guise of bureaucratic process.” 
It also launched a campaign urging ABC News viewers to support its broadcast license renewals and sign a petition stating that “The View” qualifies as a news interview program, amid a separate FCC investigation into the daytime talk show. 
The MRC also slammed ABC on the issue of political violence, referencing controversial comments made by Kimmel after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. 
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” the late-night host said during his Sept. 15 show’s opening monologue. 
The FCC launched its review of ABC’s licenses in the midst of a heated feud between Trump and Kimmel, after Kimmel joked that First Lady Melania Trump had a “glow like an expectant widow” following two assassination attempts on the president. 
The MRC also accused ABC of inaccurate reporting, referencing anchor George Stephanopoulos' on-air assertion that Trump had been found liable of raping writer E. 
Jean Carroll. 
The network paid $16 million to settle defamation claims from the president, who was found liable of sexual abuse and defamation, not rape. 
The MRC said that ABC released a 17-minute interview with Jussie Smollett, the hate crime hoaxer who claimed he was attacked by men in MAGA hats, and then issued just 22 seconds of coverage when Smollett’s story was debunked. 
ABC did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.4%Taylor Herzlich: 11.2%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias25.4%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.2%Taylor Herzlich: 7.4%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic21.2%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 21.8%Taylor Herzlich: 23.9%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect21.8%This article: 1.7%Taylor Herzlich: 0.4%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion1.7%This article: 9.9%Taylor Herzlich: 2.5%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias9.9%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 51.9%Taylor Herzlich: 22.4%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias51.9%This article: 5.5%Taylor Herzlich: 1.4%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Taylor Herzlich: 10.2%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias10.7%This article: 4.4%Taylor Herzlich: 3.8%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.7%Taylor Herzlich: 4.8%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias10.7%This article: 9.9%Taylor Herzlich: 2.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect9.9%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Taylor Herzlich: 6.1%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem10.7%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 1.1%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.8%Taylor Herzlich: 1.2%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority4.8%This article: 4.2%Taylor Herzlich: 3.6%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma4.2%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.2%Taylor Herzlich: 14.4%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization13.2%This article: 9.5%Taylor Herzlich: 2.4%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring9.5%This article: 8.2%Taylor Herzlich: 2.0%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon8.2%This article: 22.7%Taylor Herzlich: 11.9%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion22.7%This article: 9.9%Taylor Herzlich: 3.1%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question9.9%This article: 18.5%Taylor Herzlich: 4.6%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.5%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.8%Taylor Herzlich: 1.2%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof4.8%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.6%Taylor Herzlich: 3.2%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal12.6%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.0%Taylor Herzlich: 3.0%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.8%Taylor Herzlich: 5.3%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote16.8%This article: 6.7%Taylor Herzlich: 3.4%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection6.7%This article: 13.9%Taylor Herzlich: 4.2%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice13.9%This article: 7.4%Taylor Herzlich: 1.8%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination7.4%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 2.7%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Herzlich: 5.5%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Taylor Herzlich: 2.0%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.2%

476 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers72%attributed speech132writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageMedia Research Center • 29 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Bozell • 12 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Bozell • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Bozell • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Bozell • 20 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Bozell • 15 words • 100.0% coverageFederal Communications Commission • 47 words • 0.0% coverageABC • 26 words • 0.0% coverageABC • 39 words • 100.0% coverageMedia Research Center • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 100.0% coverageFederal Communications Commission • 41 words • 100.0% coverageMedia Research Center • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMedia Research Center • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Media Research Center

100%flagged-word coverage
113 attributed words33% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Unattributed Quote-13.0 ptsWriter: 38.6%Media Research Center: 25.7%25.7%Biased Writer Voice-18.9 ptsWriter: 18.9%Media Research Center: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.