Daniel Suhr, a local conservative lawyer, at right, is emerging as a rising star in the media bias wars. He initiated his first media complaint in September 2024. Since then, he’s become an even more important figure, helping to lead conservative efforts to take on what they consider to be biased or misleading coverage from the big three news networks. His organization is at the forefront of that fight and other challenges to negative media narratives. Brendan Carr, one of their best allies on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is always there for them.
Suhr’s legal advocacy career was just beginning after she graduated with her law degree in 2008. He spent several years managing the Federalist Society’s law school chapters before joining the administration of Scott Walker, the former Republican governor of Wisconsin. His political and legal background gives him the platform to challenge the things that worry him as far as media practices go.
Over the past few months, Suhr has been forced to file repeated complaints against these large networks, namely ABC, CBS and NBC. In 2017, he really put his money where his mouth was and filed a complaint with the FCC. This action wasn’t just about how ABC covered that Presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. He claimed that the network showed favoritism throughout the debate. Now Suhr trained his fire at CBS. He filed a complaint over the cutting up of a 60 Minutes interview with then Vice President Harris. Rather than simply complaining, his actions forced CBS to make the full, unedited transcript and video library from that interview public. This decision was a groundbreaking response to such complaints.
This follows Suhr’s complaint against NBC after Kamala Harris’s pre-election appearance on Saturday Night Live. In these allegations, he sharply demands all kinds of accountability from the networks. This goes above and beyond conditions attached to the FCC’s approval of Paramount’s merger with Skydance Media. Most notably, he demanded the appointment of an ombudsman to field complaints of bias at CBS News.
Even though the primary relief he sought in his original complaint against CBS—summary judgment—was granted months ago, the case is still lingering on the docket. Robert Corn-Revere, a prominent media regulation attorney, said he’s doubtful Suhr’s complaint will remain alive much longer.
“There is no reason whatsoever for these proceedings to still be open and there was never a basis for them to be open in the first place.” – Robert Corn-Revere
Corn-Revere commented that each of the dismissals adopted by the FCC were obviously rooted in existing legal precedent.
“The dismissals by the FCC were so obviously correct under established precedent that I became a little curious about who would be dumb enough to file these things.” – Robert Corn-Revere
Suhr’s determination is a testament to his conviction that journalistic integrity and objectivity are nonnegotiable in news reporting. He aims to make clear that his work is not just about punishing certain networks. Instead, he insists on building the cause for journalistic integrity among all of us.
“We just want journalists to be better journalists.” – Daniel Suhr
His approach has received both praise and sharp criticism from the media community. Gigi Sohn, a former FCC official, acknowledged Suhr’s articulate nature but raised questions about his rapid emergence as an influential figure in media regulation.
“When you talk to him, he seems like a very reasonable, very articulate, smart guy.” – Gigi Sohn
She placed the unwinding oddities of Suhr’s relationship with Carr in a context that needs more discussion.
“It’s just kind of curious that this person has come out of nowhere and is so active and is so tied with the chair. I think it raises questions that should be answered.” – Gigi Sohn
Belying the potential criticisms is the fact that Suhr has earned high marks from many of his critics for his legal brilliance. Patrick Hughes, an ally within conservative circles, described him as an exceptional lawyer who is performing admirably in his role.
“He’s a terrific person and a fabulous lawyer and he’s doing a great job.” – Patrick Hughes
Suhr’s handiwork shines a light on a bigger and ongoing campaign from conservatives to punish media organizations for coverage they find unfavorable. Beyond his complaints, his accusations opened the floodgates for lively debate about bias. They resulted in tangible changes in how some networks treat sensitive content.
Suhr reiterated that the FCC’s order on Paramount’s pledge to cease any false reporting is an enormously important achievement. This important ruling represents a huge step forward both for accountability in the news media.
“The commission’s order said that Paramount committed to news that was ‘fair, unbiased, and fact-based.’ I think those are great words. I would love to see all of our news be fair, unbiased and fact-based. I think that articulation of the standard is in many ways the fruition of what started with the one complaint.” – Daniel Suhr
As Suhr continues to navigate this complex landscape of media regulation and accountability, his actions will likely influence ongoing discussions about press fairness and bias. His rise from relative obscurity to prominence underscores a growing movement among conservatives to challenge established narratives and demand greater responsibility from news organizations.