Brendan Carr, a Trump-appointed FCC commissioner, is stirring the pot with questions about the perceived lack of religious content on YouTube TV. He’s essentially asking why God isn’t getting more screen time, framing the issue as potential discrimination against faith-based programming. This inquiry stems from a complaint lodged by Great American Media, a company alleging that YouTube TV refuses to carry its cable networks, most notably the Great American Family channel.
Carr’s letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai and YouTube CEO Neal Mohan seeks clarification on YouTube TV’s policies regarding faith-based content. He appears puzzled by the platform’s apparent reluctance to include Great American Family, emphasizing its rapid growth within the cable television landscape and its existing partnerships with other major providers like Comcast, Cox, Hulu, FuboTV, and DirecTV. Carr poses the seemingly innocent question of why YouTube TV wouldn’t want to broadcast "good, old-fashioned American programming" such as "Farm Kings" or "Celebrity Motorhomes."
However, the situation is more nuanced than Carr’s questioning suggests. A neutral observer might conclude that YouTube TV has simply assessed the market and determined that adding Great American Family wouldn’t significantly benefit its bottom line. After all, Great American Family is a relatively niche operation known primarily for producing made-for-TV movies that could be described as a blend of Hallmark sentimentality and born-again Christian themes. The potential audience overlap with YouTube TV’s existing subscriber base might be deemed insufficient to justify the cost of adding the channel.
Carr, however, suspects a more sinister motive. He raises concerns that YouTube TV might be marginalizing faith-based and family-friendly content, implying a bias against religious viewpoints. Furthermore, he argues that by excluding channels like Great American Family, YouTube TV could be hindering public discourse and stifling diverse perspectives. He draws a parallel to instances where tech companies have allegedly silenced individuals for expressing their opinions in the "digital town square," suggesting that YouTube TV’s decision could be part of a broader pattern of censorship.
This line of reasoning is likely to be met with skepticism. Critics might argue that Carr is overstating the importance of a single channel’s availability on a streaming platform and that the issue is primarily a business decision rather than a matter of religious freedom. Furthermore, some may view Carr’s actions as a form of political pressure, intended to appease conservative constituencies and promote a specific cultural agenda.
Another lens through which to view this situation is the potential for "favor-trading." Great American Media is co-owned by Bill Abbott, a figure closely aligned with former President Donald Trump. Abbott has publicly supported Trump, spoken at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), and even invoked Trump’s 2024 presidential election victory to promote his own programming, claiming that it demonstrates a demand for content that champions "faith, family, and country." Additionally, the son of Great American Media’s other owner, Tom Hicks, played a significant role in Trump’s 2016 campaign, serving as the National Finance Co-Chairman and the Texas chair for Trump’s America First Super PAC.
These connections raise questions about whether Carr’s advocacy for Great American Media is solely motivated by concerns about religious discrimination or whether it is influenced by political considerations and a desire to support allies of the former president. The timing of Carr’s inquiry, coupled with the close ties between Great American Media’s ownership and the Trump administration, fuels suspicion that the FCC’s involvement might be a form of quid pro quo.
The entire episode raises fundamental questions about the role of government regulation in the media landscape. While it is legitimate to ensure that media platforms do not engage in discriminatory practices, it is also important to avoid heavy-handed intervention that could stifle innovation, limit consumer choice, and prioritize certain viewpoints over others. Striking the right balance between promoting diversity and protecting freedom of expression is a complex challenge that requires careful consideration.
Ultimately, the question of whether YouTube TV should carry Great American Family is a matter of business judgment, market demand, and content strategy. While religious groups and conservative commentators are free to advocate for the inclusion of faith-based programming, it is ultimately up to YouTube TV to decide what content to offer its subscribers. The FCC’s role should be limited to ensuring that YouTube TV complies with applicable laws and regulations, rather than dictating its programming decisions based on subjective notions of "good" or "American" content.
Finally, it’s worth pondering the broader implications of this debate. As the article humorously suggests, if God truly wanted his message to reach a wider audience, he possesses far more potent tools than access to an over-the-top streaming platform. From divine inspiration to acts of nature, God has a track record of communicating directly with humanity in ways that transcend the limitations of technology. The idea that God needs Brendan Carr to advocate for his representation on YouTube TV seems almost absurd, given the divine being’s purported omnipotence and omnipresence. The situation highlights the often-comical disconnect between the human desire to control and manipulate media narratives and the vast, unknowable forces that shape our world.
