Connect with us

Business

How ‘The View’ Landed at the Center of a Free Speech Battle

Published

on

How ‘The View’ Landed at the Center of a Free Speech Battle

President Trump’s wide-ranging campaign to punish his perceived media critics has come for newspapers like The Wall Street Journal, The Des Moines Register and The New York Times; broadcast outlets like the BBC, NBC News and CBS News; and the late-night hosts Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert.

But now it is bearing down on a new opponent, one that remains politically potent and has a storied place in Mr. Trump’s oeuvre of media grudge matches — the long-running ABC daytime talk show, “The View.”

The Federal Communications Commission has been quietly investigating the program for months, looking into whether “The View” violated old federal rules requiring equal airtime to rival political candidates. The inquiry could also feed into the agency’s wider review of whether ABC should be allowed to continue to own some of the country’s most important local television stations.

The clash between ABC and the Trump administration could lead to a protracted, high-stakes legal battle over free expression. The network asserts that the F.C.C. action could have “a chilling effect on First Amendment-protected free speech on the eve of the 2026 elections” and affect which political guests — if any — talk shows will book.

The central role of “The View” is testament to the enduring influence of an old-fashioned broadcast television program that the ABC anchor Barbara Walters started 29 years ago, describing it “as a kaffeeklatsch with more caffeine.” People in both parties say the show continues to hold significant political power — even as streaming, podcasts and social media take up more attention.

Advertisement

“The View” draws 2.7 million viewers a day, more or less the audience it has had for a decade, according to Nielsen.

“It would be easy for our side to say, ‘Who watches that junk?’” said Tim Graham, a senior leader of the Media Research Center, a conservative group that has long been critical of the show. “But the answer is: Many people.”

Representatives for “The View” declined to comment, or to set up interviews with the hosts or anyone involved in the production.

Ms. Walters’s intention, as she said on the premiere episode in 1997, was to make the show destination viewing for a broad swath of women “of different generations, backgrounds and views.” The show’s panel has long included a conservative presence to balance the progressivism of its longstanding hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg.

Mr. Trump, who was good friends with Ms. Walters, used to be a regular guest, once seeing the show as a great platform to promote himself, his business and his family. During a March 2006 appearance, Mr. Trump, sitting next to Ivanka Trump, notoriously mused, “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” (“Who are you, Woody Allen?” Ms. Behar blurted, sending Mr. Trump into a fit of laughter.)

Advertisement

Weeks later, Melania Trump gave the show her first interview after the birth of her son, Barron, revealing details about the delivery (“very, very easy”) and informing viewers that Mr. Trump had elected to stay out of the delivery room. Sometimes Mr. and Mrs. Trump even appeared together: In 2010, they made a joint appearance when Mrs. Trump promoted her QVC jewelry line.

But “The View” also set the scene for a foundational Trump feud — with the former host Rosie O’Donnell, starting in 2006. She called him a “snake-oil salesman”; he called her “a slob” and worse.

The final break in the relationship between the show and Mr. Trump came shortly after he entered politics. He clashed with Ms. Goldberg over his description of Mexicans as “rapists” in 2015, and he declined invitations from “The View” thereafter. He made 18 appearances in all.

The hosts became more critical of Mr. Trump over the past decade, and he attacked them back. The two Republicans on the panel — a first-term Trump spokeswoman, Alyssa Farah Griffin, and the longtime strategist Ana Navarro — are frequent Trump critics. And the anti-Trump critics are even tougher.

“It is unbelievable to me,” Sunny Hostin, a host, said this week, “that there are still people — despite the fact that they don’t have health care, despite the fact that the Department of Education has been gutted, despite the fact that they can’t afford to buy eggs — they are still with their guy.”

Advertisement

Conservatives accuse the show of interviewing mostly Democrats. This spring, the Media Research Center released a report titled, “The View Kicks Off Midterm Year With 27 Liberal Guests to 1 Republican.” (The study included celebrities in its tally.)

In its filing with the F.C.C., ABC noted that guest appearances did not reflect the full range of invitations. The network said the show had invited numerous Trump allies over the past two seasons, including Vice President JD Vance, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Senator Lindsey Graham, Elon Musk and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — all of whom declined.

ABC’s lawyers said bookings were “based on newsworthiness, anticipated audience interest and their potential to ‘make news’ on the show.”

The administration has escalated its attacks over the past year. In July, it released a statement rooting for the show’s cancellation, after Ms. Behar compared Mr. Trump unfavorably with former President Barack Obama.

The seriousness of the F.C.C.’s inquiry into “The View” came to light when ABC responded forcefully to it this week. The agency is looking into whether the show was improperly operating outside longstanding broadcast rules requiring entertainment programs to provide equal airtime to candidates for the same office.

Advertisement

ABC’s lawyers noted that “The View” had received a news exemption from the agency in 2002 and that the exemption had not been challenged in the 24 years since.

Their response, which became public on Friday, accused the F.C.C. of violating the network’s First Amendment rights and indicated that they were prepared to take the case as far as the Supreme Court.

The network maintains that the mix of its guests should not be the government’s concern. “Of course, government officials are free to express their own views about ‘The View,’” ABC’s lawyers said in the filing. “But they cannot utilize the coercive powers of the state to punish viewpoints with which they disagree.”

The show has long been under a political microscope, not only because of what its hosts say but also because of the makeup of its audience.

The two highest-rated media markets for “The View,” according to Nielsen, are Philadelphia and the Flint-Saginaw-Bay City market in Michigan’s industrial corridor — both in swing states. The show also draws strong audiences in Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Chicago and New York, Nielsen said, as well as in West Palm Beach, Fla.; Kansas City, Mo.; and Hartford, Conn.

Advertisement

That audience is made up of a prime voting demographic; two-thirds of its viewers are 65 or older, and nearly 90 percent are over the age of 50. Seventy percent are women. And 60 percent of its viewers are white and a quarter are Black, according to Nielsen.

“Women are one of the most important swing segments of the electorate,” said Daniel Suhr of the Center for American Rights, the conservative legal group that in March urged the F.C.C. to deny “The View” an exemption from the equal-airtime rules as a “bona fide” news program.

Having hosts who “constantly bash the president and the party” on a show that draws such swing voters, Mr. Suhr said, “has a real effect on our politics.”

Lis Smith, a Democratic strategist who has long seen “The View” as an important stop on any major candidate’s campaign schedule, said she thought conservatives were mainly picking on the show to whip up the faithful against a favorite media target. But, she added, “The View” does have its uses for Democrats.

“They reach a large audience of women, and Democrats need women to turn out to vote to win,” she said.

Advertisement

Business

Landmark downtown apartment tower faces foreclosure

Published

on

Landmark downtown apartment tower faces foreclosure

A landmarked downtown Los Angeles apartment building designed by famed Los Angeles architect John Parkinson is on the market as its owners face foreclosure.

Residences in the Metropolitan, a 10-story tower built in 1913, are nearly filled with tenants but its ground floor retail spaces on Broadway and 5th Street are unoccupied, as are other street-level stores in downtown’s Historic Core.

The historic building was once considered one of the best in the city and is owned by the Fallas family, which operated a chain of value-priced clothing stores based in Gardena including one called Fallas Paredes in the Metropolitan.

Fallas-Paredes at 449 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90013.

(Google Maps)

Advertisement

Around 2011, Michael Fallas, who once worked in family’s downtown store as a stock boy, converted the upstairs floors from offices to apartments while continuing to operate Fallas Paredes. The store closed more than five years ago in the wake of a 2018 filing by its parent company for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Earlier this month in state Superior Court, a special servicer representing Fallas’ lender asked for a judicial foreclosure of the property, alleging that Fallas had stopped making payments on a $32 million loan dating to 2017. After leasing the property for years, Fallas bought the building in the 1990s.

Fallas didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The location of the Metropolitan where the buildings stands was hailed in a Times story in 1912, saying “it is regarded by many realty men as the most valuable piece of real estate in Los Angeles.”

Advertisement

The building today is recognized as a city historic-cultural monument because “Broadway became the commercial center of the Southland, a title it retained until well after World War II,” with its development, the city said. One of the architects who designed the Metropolitan in the Beaux-Arts style was John Parkinson, who is credited with designing such well-known local structures as City Hall, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and Union Station.

Notable tenants in the Metropolitan have included the Los Angeles Public Library, Owl Drug Co., variety store J.J. Newberry and real estate company Janns Investment Co., which sold the land where UCLA is built and developed Westwood Village, among other Los Angeles neighborhoods.

In recent years, the buildings around the Metropolitan have struggled to keep retail tenants after a spurt of residential conversions of historic buildings starting in the early 2000s brought commerce to the neighborhood. Many downtown businesses have struggled since the pandemic reduced occupancy in offices downtown and reduced the flow of visitors.

“The lack of bodies on the street is generally hurting downtown, and that’s one of the reasons that has building has problems,” said downtown real estate broker Hal Bastian, who lives in the Historic Core.

There are close to 1,000 residential units in historic buildings at the intersection of Broadway and 5th Street, Bastian said, but all the ground floor stores are closed. Drug stores there suffered substantial losses from shoplifting he said, and now, “our challenge on Broadway is leasing.”

Advertisement

The 88 apartments in the Metropolitan are 91% rented, according to a listing for the property by the Zacuto Group, which also touts its roof deck with pool, fitness center and barbecue grills. No sale price is set.

Continue Reading

Business

January 2025 wildfire victims seek tougher penalties against State Farm over claims handling

Published

on

January 2025 wildfire victims seek tougher penalties against State Farm over claims handling

A fire survivors’ group announced Thursday it was seeking tougher penalties against State Farm over its handling of January 2025 wildfire claims.

The Every Fire Survivor’s Network said it was petitioning to join a state enforcement action announced this year against the company to make sure the case results in meaningful changes at California’s largest home insurer.

“We’re seeking a systematic review of all their claims and penalties calibrated to the actual scale of the harm — and we’re seeking the payouts that families are owed,” said Joy Chen, executive director of the group, at a Pacific Palisades news conference joined by victims of the fires.

The Department of Insurance in May filed an administrative action against State Farm General — the subsidiary of the giant Bloomington, Ill., insurer that handles California home insurance — after completing a “market conduct” exam.

Advertisement

The Jan. 7, 2025, fire damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

State Farm has received more January 2025 claims than any other insurer — more than 13,700 auto and homeowners claims as of May 4, with payouts totaling $5.7 billion, according to the company.

The market conduct exam looked at 220 sample claims filed by the victims and found 398 violations of state law in about half of them.

Among other alleged violations, it found that the company failed in numerous cases to pursue a “thorough, fair and objective investigation” into claims, failed to come to “prompt, fair, and equitable settlements” and made settlement offers that were “unreasonably low.”

In announcing the action, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara called the company’s claims handling “unacceptable” and said his department was taking “decisive action to hold them accountable.”

Advertisement

The state is seeking a “cease and desist” order to stop the insurer from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices.

It also has threatened to suspend State Farm’s license over the alleged violations, which each carry a penalty of up to $5,000 — or twice that figure if found to be willful. That could amount to a penalty of $2 million or more.

The threat to actually suspend State Farm’s license and its authority to write policies has been viewed skeptically by some, given its roughly 20% market share of the state’s home insurance market.

The company, which had an opportunity to include its responses in the exam report, denied fault in some cases and admitted fault in others. It often blamed problems on individual adjusters and denied systemic issues with its claims handling.

The petition filed by the wildfire survivor’s group criticizes the sample size of the market conduct exam as too small to capture all the alleged deficiencies in State Farm’s claims handling, which it claims are a “general business practice” of the company.

Advertisement

The group is seeking to conduct discovery, cross examine witnesses, present testimony from fire victims and bring more that 1,600 firsthand policyholder statements regarding State Farm’s practices into evidence, according to the petition.

It also wants State Farm to reopen cases in which claimants were paid too little, and it is seeking to participate in settlement discussions in order to increase any penalty State Farm would pay.

It calculated that a $2-million penalty would amount to a minute fraction of the assets of the State Farm Group.

“I submit to you that doesn’t defer bad conduct, it just allows you to continue to do it,” said Michelle Meyers, an attorney for Every Fire Survivor’s Network, at the news conference.

Consumer Watchdog, which has been a harsh critic of State Farm, also is providing legal support for victims’ effort.

Advertisement

Sevag Sarkissian, a spokesperson for State Farm, said the company was aware of the petition.

“We recognize that many wildfire survivors, including those that are State Farm General policyholders, continue to face difficult recovery challenges,” he said. “Our focus remains on helping customers recover.”

Michael Soller, a spokesperson for Lara, said the department is “acting with urgency to assist wildfire survivors in their ongoing recovery by investigating formal complaints filed by survivors and conducting the expedited market conduct exam that led to this enforcement action.”

He added that the department’s position is the state’s Administrative Procedure Act does not contemplate the commissioner or department staff authorizing intervention requests in the case.

He said that would be a hearing officer’s or administrative law judge’s decision when one is assigned to the case.

Advertisement

Meyers acknowledged the request was novel but said her reading of the law is that Lara can make the decision because no judge is yet assigned.

In response to the criticism, State Farm pledged earlier this year to improve its claims handling, including by providing single points of contact and improved communication so there are “fewer handoffs, fewer repeated explanations, and seamless support.”

It also named a new vice president of customer relations for State Farm General.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Uber, California lawyers say deal reached to avert dueling ballot initiative showdown

Published

on

Uber, California lawyers say deal reached to avert dueling ballot initiative showdown

The state’s trial attorneys and Uber say they have reached a last-minute deal to scrap their dueling ballot measures and avert what was gearing up to be one of most expensive battles of the November election.

The deal, which comes a day after both measures qualified for the November ballot, has Uber agreeing to bulk up safety measures, while the trial attorneys will limit how much they can claim for lien-based medical treatment of victims who get in Uber or Lyft accidents, according to spokespeople for both sides of the campaign.

“Both sides agree: Californians deserve a system that’s safe, fair, and accountable,” read a joint statement from Uber and the Consumer Attorneys of California, a powerful attorney trade group. “This agreement protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures.”

The agreement, finalized Thursday, means the ride-share giant will kill its ballot measure to cap how much attorneys can earn in vehicle collision cases and limit medical damages to rates based on insurance. Uber has argued that the costs for medical treatment done on a lien, which allows doctors to get paid from a cut of the plaintiff’s payout, far exceed what it would cost if the victim had used their own insurance.

In return, the Consumer Attorneys of California will cancel its competing ballot measure that sought to increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger is sexually assaulted by a driver. The measure followed an investigation by the New York Times into sexual assault by drivers.

Advertisement

Both sides had poured tens of millions into the campaigns, plastering billboards across Los Angeles.

Lawyers claimed the fight had turned existential with the measure threatening to decimate the profit margin of many personal injury cases and leave drivers with small or thorny cases unable to find an attorney willing to take their case.

Spokespeople say the deal is predicated on their agreement being codified into a bill within the next week. Otherwise, they said, each side will move forward with its ballot measure.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending