One Quick Question: What are the origins of the term ‘jawboning?’

During the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel, the term "jawboning" was used to describe Trump's pressure on ABC. We asked WWU Professor of Journalism Carolyn Nielsen about its origins, how jawboning has been used in the past, and the legal precedents — all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — behind it being viewed as illegal. 

Nielsen: "Jawboning is when the government pressures private entities, often through public speech or behind-the-scenes conversations, to take certain actions. It doesn’t have an agreed-upon origin story. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that it was first used in the 1940s to describe how the Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply used verbal threats to intimidate people into compliance. The Oxford dictionary traces the term’s first use to a 1969 Time magazine article about how President Lyndon Johnson called on industries not in increase prices or wages.  

In a First Amendment context, courts must decide if the government is merely offering a persuasive opinion, which is legal, or attempting to coerce, which is illegal. In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government coercion could have an unconstitutional chilling effect on free speech. The Bantam Books v. Sullivan case involved booksellers being pressured not to sell books a Rhode Island commission had identified as "objectionable" to minors. It stands as a precedent today.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the National Rifle Association in a jawboning case. It found that New York’s former superintendent of financial services had engaged in illegal jawboning by threatening regulatory scrutiny of banks and insurance companies who did business with the NRA. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her majority opinion, "[g]overnment officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors."  

The question arose again last month after Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr suggested ABC could suspend Kimmel because of Kimmel's comments about Charlie Kirk's death. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said on The Benny Show podcast. “These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or, you know, there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead,” he said.  

The FCC is an independent government agency that oversees broadcast licenses and holds regulatory authority over licensees, including ABC.  Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., asked Carr to appear before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over the FCC, to face questions about his statements. This week, Carr agreed to testify."

Frances Badgett covers the College of Humanities and Social Sciences and the College of Fine and Performing Arts Communications. Reach out to her with story ideas at badgetf@wwu.edu.