A Monitor in the Newsroom: Why the CBS "Bias Ombudsman" Sets a Dangerous First
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr says a “bias monitor” will be embedded at CBS. It’s a move without precedent—and with serious First Amendment implications.
UPDATE: According to Snopes, the “bias monitor” ombudsman will not report to President Trump, but instead will report to the president of the new network, Jeff Shell. What still has not been clarified is who will appoint the ombudsman, the company or the FCC.
The original article is below.
In a development drawing sharp scrutiny from media watchdogs and constitutional scholars, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has confirmed that a “bias ombudsman” will be installed at CBS as part of the merger deal between Skydance Media and Paramount Global.
Carr’s own words have escalated concerns. While the official filings say the monitor will report to the president of Paramount, Carr told multiple outlets the person will “report directly to the president”—referring, he later implied, to the U.S. president.
“One of the things they’re going to have to do is put in an ombudsman in place for two years… so basically a bias monitor that will report directly to the president,” Carr said, in a quote picked up by Techdirt.
The move, tied to government approval of the Skydance acquisition, would represent an unprecedented breach of the firewall between press and state. Even during moments of national crisis—World War I, the McCarthy era, the post-9/11 years—U.S. authorities have never embedded monitors inside a newsroom with a mandate to oversee or influence editorial decisions.
The First Amendment Problem
The First Amendment’s protection of a free press is clear: the government may not control, direct, or interfere with the editorial decisions of journalists. The courts have long held that even indirect attempts to influence press coverage, such as licensing threats or funding pressure, can cross constitutional lines.
This, according to dissenting FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, is something more serious. She warned the bias monitor provision represents “never-before-seen controls over newsroom decisions and editorial judgment, in direct violation of the First Amendment” (Reuters).
The “monitor” isn’t just symbolic. In public descriptions, it will have real access and the power to raise questions about news coverage and internal decisions. It’s not yet clear what enforcement mechanism exists, if any, but the mere presence of a political overseer changes the equation. Even if the monitor is technically a private hire, the language used by Carr—especially linking it to government bias concerns—suggests political compliance is the real goal.
Historical Context: A Break With the Past
The U.S. government has pushed back on media narratives before. But it has always operated outside the newsroom. Some examples:
World War I – Committee on Public Information (CPI): The Wilson administration distributed pro-war material to newspapers, but no one was embedded inside editorial meetings.
McCarthy Era: Investigators pressured publishers and broadcasters, and some careers were destroyed, but there were no formal “monitors” watching content in real time.
Nixon’s White House: The infamous enemies list included journalists and media executives. Retaliation was private, but there was no official role inside newsrooms.
The Trump Administration (First Term): Sharp rhetoric, bans on access, and calls for license revocation targeted unfavorable coverage. But again, no one was assigned to supervise the press from within.
In each of these examples, pressure came from the outside. The Carr-backed ombudsman, by contrast, is being placed inside the newsroom, with a defined oversight role.
The Deal: What Skydance Agreed To
To secure FCC approval of the merger, Skydance and Paramount reportedly agreed to the following:
Eliminate all existing DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) programs.
Hire an independent ombudsman to monitor editorial “bias” for a two-year period.
Submit to ongoing review tied to content neutrality, under the FCC’s “public interest” authority.
Carr and his allies have argued this is a necessary correction to perceived liberal leanings in the media. Critics say it opens the door to government-controlled journalism by other means.
The Slippery Slope
What happens if this model spreads? Could future mergers involving media companies be conditioned on similar ideological concessions? Could other networks—CNN, NBC, even Fox—be subjected to “bias reviews” based on who holds power in Washington?
If the precedent holds, nothing stops future administrations from embedding their own monitors or conditioning licenses on the elimination of perspectives they find unfavorable. The constitutional firewall would be functionally gone, even if never formally legislated away.
Final Thought
There is no modern precedent for what the FCC is now endorsing at CBS. Not during war. Not during economic collapse. Not during civil unrest.
The idea of government-approved monitors watching over newsrooms is something associated with authoritarian regimes, not a free democracy.
If the First Amendment means anything at all, it means the government doesn’t get to decide what’s biased, or who gets to watch the watchers.