SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
corporate media
As Trump Threatens News Outlets, Experts More Concerned About Capitulation of Corporate Owners
"The commercial news media, which helped elevate Trump to power, have proven repeatedly that they are ill-equipped to withstand such pressures," warned one scholar.
Aug 25, 2025
As US President Donald Trump late on Sunday lashed out against the American media and threatened to pull broadcasting licenses from networks for their alleged "biased" coverage of him, media experts said the danger to the news media lies partially in corporate outlets' potential capitulation to the Trump administration.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, the president railed against NBC and ABC, which he called "two of the absolute worst and most biased networks anywhere in the world."
He then said the networks should "lose their licenses for their unfair coverage of Republicans and/or conservatives, but at a minimum, they should pay up BIG for having the privilege of using the most valuable airwaves anywhere at anytime!!!"
The president concluded his angry rant by declaring that "crooked 'journalism' should not be rewarded, it should be terminated!!!"
Trump did not point to any specifics regarding his claim that the networks' coverage of him is unfair, but asserted that they "give [him] 97% bad stories."
This is not the first time that Trump has called on the Federal Communications Commission to strip broadcasters' licenses for producing news he doesn't like, although so far no network has had its license revoked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Even so, some experts were alarmed at Trump's latest attacks, which they feared could lead to more capitulation from major media corporations similar to the $16 million settlement that CBS parent company Paramount agreed to earlier this summer, which stemmed from what experts called a meritless lawsuits over a "60 Minutes" interview with 2024 Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
Victor Pickard, professor of media policy and political economy at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication, described the president's angry rants as "yet more worrying signs that Trump knows no limits in exerting dictatorial power over our news media."
"The commercial news media, which helped elevate Trump to power, have proven repeatedly that they are ill-equipped to withstand such pressures since they typically privilege their profit motives over democratic needs," he said. "Some individual journalists have shown much courage despite Trump's attacks, but the corporate media institutions themselves too often capitulate."
Tim Karr, senior director of strategy and communications at Free Press, echoed Pickard's point about the media being responsible for the president's political rise, and he singled out NBC's decision to air Trump's reality TV show, "The Apprentice," which he said gave Americans the false impression that he was a "successful and decisive businessman."
He also expressed concerns that broadcasters would offer the president more concessions in an attempt to avoid retaliation.
"What should be more worrying to anyone who appreciates a free press is the degrees to which these massive media conglomerates are capitulating before the president," he said. "If we've learned anything about the media from the past eight months, it's that massive media companies are far too beholden to the political elite to speak truth to power."
He then accused the major networks of cowering before Trump despite having the First Amendment clearly on their side.
"NBC and ABC are protected under the First Amendment from the sort of government meddling proposed here by Trump—and enacted by his obsequious FCC chairman, Brendan Carr," he said. "The problem is that big media conglomerates like these two would rather cave to the president than stand up for their constitutional rights."
Keep ReadingShow Less
An Open Letter to Media Executives Regarding the Vast Undercount of Gaza Carnage
If you take the current Hamas figure of just over 62,000, you are telling the public that 97% of Gazans are still alive. This is lethally absurd.
Aug 16, 2025
August 15, 2025
New York Times:
Patrick Kingsley
Aaron Boxerman
Isabel Kershner
Adam Rasgon
Natan Odenheimer
Ronen Bergman
International Editor: Philip P. Pan
Washington Post:
Louisa Loveluck
Shira Rubin
Abbie Cheeseman
Miriam Berger
Gerry Shih
John Hudson
Associate Editor: Karen DeYoung
Wall Street Journal:
Foreign News Editor: James Hookway
The American Prospect:
Editor, David Dayen
Dropsite News:
Ryan Grim
Jeremy Scahill
The New Yorker:
Editor, David Remnick
You are some of the leading reporters and editors who have covered the Netanyahu genocidal mass murder and mayhem in Gaza. This important plea asserts that you all know better than to rely only on the extensive understatement of the deaths and serious injuries put forward by Hamas. You need to DO BETTER for your readers by digging deeper into the much higher estimates of deaths by experts in disaster casualties. Eye-witness accounts which do not support the Hamas undercount.
Both Hamas and Netanyahu, for different reasons, favor undercounts. Hamas, the governing entity in Gaza, keeps a strictly defined undercount of casualties from Israeli bombardments, does not count the large immediate secondary fatalities from the effects of Israeli blocking of food, water, medicine, healthcare, electricity, fuel, and medical supplies for what’s left of destroyed hospitals and clinics.
An official undercount from the Hamas Ministry of Health, whose fifteen counters are now themselves starving, temper accusations by the people of Gaza and its allies that Hamas has not protected them, even by sharing bomb shelters. Hamas badly underestimated the total savagery of the Israeli response to its October 7 attack through the mysteriously collapsed multi-tiered Israeli border security complex. Hamas fell into a lethal trap prompted by fears that a near deal between the U.S., Israel, and Gulf Arab states would sideline permanently the question of Palestine.
As sensitive journalists, you probably agree that the undercount is significant. As the Washington Post Foreign Affairs Editor, Karen DeYoung has often said, “…Independent media are not allowed by Israel to enter Gaza and the casualty counts are most certainly under-reported.”
In thousands of news articles, there is the same exact obligatory reference, to wit: “More than X number of Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since the war began according to the Hamas Ministry of Health.” That severe undercount becomes the reported casualty figure despite the Israeli unchallenged, daily demolition bombing of Gaza.
As a result, unlike other armed conflicts in the world, the vast undercount of fatalities and injuries in Gaza is a vastly underreported story. Coming to more accurate estimates would affect the intensity of the political, diplomatic, and civic pressures for a ceasefire. It would also prompt more strenuous calls for immediate humanitarian aid, an immediate ceasefire, and peace negotiations.
Start with common sense. Gaza had 2.3 million people before October 7, 2023, in a cramped area the geographical size of Philadelphia. The Gaza Strip has experienced the most intense, daily bombardment on civilians and civilian infrastructure since World War II. There are no army bases or airfields in Gaza, only an under-armed small guerrilla force hiding in tunnels facing a super-modern military backed by super-modern U.S. military weapons and other Biden/Trump assistance.
As of mid-April 2025, University of Bradford (U.K.) Emeritus Professors Paul Rogers, a specialist on aerial and artillery bomb devastation, described the level of destruction in totally besieged Gaza as the “equivalent of six Hiroshimas, but even more destructive” because many more of the bombs over Gaza drop over targeted locations – schools, apartment buildings, hospitals, clinics, markets, refugee encampments, roads, water mains, electricity circuits and even the agricultural areas to deny the people of Gaza from growing some of their own food. Starvation, death by uncontrolled fires, infections, and the thousands of babies born into the rubble each month spiral the daily accelerating toll.
Now, if you take the current Hamas figure of just over 62,000, you are telling the public that 97% of Gazans are still alive. This is lethally absurd. A more conservative figure is that over 500,000 Palestinians have been killed from Netanyahu’s non-stop Palestinian Holocaust (more than all the U.S. soldiers killed in WWII.) This means that an incredible about one-out-of-four Palestinians have been killed.
American doctors and other health workers back from Gaza say almost all the survivors are either sick, injured, or dying. Without insulin, medicines for cancer, asthma, and heart disease for many months, with no shelters, with dense/deadly air pollutants, from incessant bombings, their observations are not surprising.
So, reporters and editors, start working on casualty estimates that accurately reflect the realities, in addition to respecting the Palestinian dead and properly highlighting the Trump/Congress role in this slaughter. Imagine if you will, if the shoe were on the other foot; does anyone think such an undercount would be tolerated from the outset?
The State Department testified in late 2023 that their estimates were higher than Hamas, and the witness, an Assistant Secretary of State, was shut down from further disclosure. FOIA litigation, pending before the Biden and Trump State Departments, is confronting the usual stonewalling that this Department has long been conducting.
There are credible sources for you to pursue among universities, international relief organizations, and UN food and humanitarian agencies. Specialists (e.g., the University of Edinburgh’s Global Health Department, The Lancet, etc.), have spoken out or published reports on the undercount. Reporting on the work of these and other specialists will advance the public’s right to know.
Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, a Gaza hospital volunteer, has compiled many of these sources and can be reached through the website gazahealthcareletters.org. His writing for The New York Times and other established publications and electronic media is compelling and reflects the on-the-ground reality in Gaza. (See my lengthy interview with Dr. Sidhwa on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, to be released on August 16, 2025).
Thank you for considering the higher significance of your crucial profession,
Keep ReadingShow Less
Press Freedom Coalition to FCC: Don't Ditch Checks on Corporate Media Consolidation
The 16 groups urge the agency "to uphold its obligation to promote competition, localism, and diversity in the U.S. media."
Aug 05, 2025
A coalition of 16 civil liberties, press freedom, and labor groups this week urged U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to abandon any plans to loosen media ownership restrictions and warned against opening the floodgates to further corporate consolidation.
Public comments on the National Television Multiple Ownership Rule were due to the Federal Communications Commission by Monday—which is when the coalition wrote to the FCC about the 39% national audience reach cap for U.S. broadcast media conglomerates, and how more mergers could negatively impact "the independence of the nation's press and the vitality of its local journalism."
"In our experience, the past 30 years of media consolidation have not fostered a better environment for local news and information. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 radically changed the radio and television broadcasting marketplace, causing rapid consolidation of radio station ownership," the coalition detailed. "Since the 1996 act, lawmakers and regulators have further relaxed television ownership limits, spurring further waves of station consolidation, the full harms of which are being felt by local newsrooms and the communities they serve."
The coalition highlighted how this consolidation has spread "across the entire news media ecosystem, including newspapers, online news outlets, and even online platforms," and led to "newsroom layoffs and closures, and the related spread of 'news deserts' across the country."
"Over a similar period, the economic model for news production has been undercut by technology platforms owned by the likes of Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta, which have offered an advertising model for better targeting readers, listeners, and viewers, and attracted much of the advertising revenue that once funded local journalism," the coalition noted.
While "lobbyists working for large news media companies argue that further consolidation is the economic answer, giving them the size necessary to compete with Big Tech," the letter argues, "in fact, the opposite appears to be true."
We object."Handing even more control of the public airwaves to a handful of capitulating broadcast conglomerates undermines press freedom." - S. Derek TurnerOur statement: https://www.freepress.net/news/free-press-slams-trump-fccs-broadcast-ownership-proceeding-wildly-dangerous-democracy
[image or embed]
— Free Press (@freepress.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 12:58 PM
The letter points out that a recent analysis from Free Press—one of the groups that signed the letter—found a "pervasive pattern of editorial compromise and capitulation" at 35 of the largest media and tech companies in the United States, "as owners of massive media conglomerates seek to curry favor with political leadership."
That analysis—released last week alongside a Media Capitulation Index—makes clear that "the interests of wealthy media owners have become so inextricably entangled with government officials that they've limited their news operations' ability to act as checks against abuses of political power," according to the coalition.
In addition to warning about further consolidation and urging the FCC "to uphold its obligation to promote competition, localism, and diversity in the U.S. media," the coalition argued that the agency actually "lacks the authority to change the national audience reach cap," citing congressional action in 2004.
Along with Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron, the letter is signed by leaders at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians - Communications Workers of America, National Coalition Against Censorship, Local Independent Online News Publishers, Media Freedom Foundation, NewsGuild-CWA, Open Markets Institute, Park Center for Independent Media, Project Censored, Reporters Without Borders USA, Society of Professional Journalists, Tully Center for Free Speech, Whistleblower and Source Protection Program at ExposeFacts, and Writers Guild of America East and West.
Free Press also filed its own comments. In a related Tuesday statement, senior economic and policy adviser S. Derek Turner, who co-authored the filing, accused FCC Chair Brendan Carr of "placing a for-sale sign on the public airwaves and inviting media companies to monopolize the local news markets as long as they agree to display political fealty to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement."
"The price broadcast companies have to pay for consolidating further is bending the knee, and the line starts outside of the FCC chairman's office," said Turner. "Trump's autocratic demands seemingly have no bounds, and Carr apparently has no qualms about satisfying them. Carr's grossly partisan and deeply hypocritical water-carrying for Trump has already stained the agency, making it clear that this FCC is no longer independent, impartial, or fair."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular