FCC licensees are subject to licensing. Not journalists who work for them.
Suppose a journalist wants to say something which violates FCC rules, and does so. If the FCC pulls the license from the licensee, the fact that the journalist isn't the licensee would be moot, wouldn't it?Suppose you want to publish a newspaper. Do you apply for a license, or do you just buy the printing press and have at it? Now suppose you want to be a broadcast journalist. Do you just broadcast, or are you limited to trying to work for someone who has a license?
If you want to publish a newspaper you just do it; if you want to be a broadcast journalist you have to have the government's OK - directly or vicariously. It's silly to claim that broadcast journalism is "the press," "the freedom" of which shall not be "abridged."
It all traces back to the "objective journalism" con. Only if you accept the conceit that The New York Times et al are objective - an assumption which the intent of the First Amendment makes entirely irrelevant in law - would promotion by the government of the perspective of The New York Times by government-licensed broadcasters obviously be in the public interest.
But someone just might be churlish enough to point out that even if you think that the rules of journalism determine journalism's "story selection," those rules have no constitutional standing whatsoever. Those rules are merely commercial - following those rules (e.g., "if it bleeds it leads") tends to enable the newspaper or broadcaster to attract attention and thus to be able to profitably sell newspapers and/or advertising. "If it bleeds it leads" simply counsels sensationalism; it has nothing to say about (for example) dedicating a lot of space/time to Osama ben Laden before 9/11/01.
Thanks to First Amendment freedom, we-the-people had the ability to learn a good deal about OBL even before 911. But to find OBL given his proper due before 911, you would have had to have read a nonfiction book on the subject, or perhaps a feature in Reader's Digest. Certainly not a tabloid newspaper featuring salacious material. "Objective" journalism which purports to be "the first draft of history" is a self-important humbug.
Dedication of "the public airwaves" to journalism is not in the public interest. Admittedly it interests the public, but that is not the same as forwarding "the public interest."