

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Media consolidation and deal approvals are now explicitly a way for President Trump to further consolidate his dictatorial power," said a filing by Free Press, which is suing the FCC.
A press freedom group says it plans to take the GOP-controlled Federal Communications Commission to court after it voted along party lines on Thursday to enact a rule that could allow a small number of media conglomerates to consolidate even more control over local news stations.
In a 2-1 vote, the FCC eliminated a 22-year-old rule that prohibited a single company from owning stations that reach more than 39% of American households, replacing it with a rule allowing the FCC to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
FCC chair Brendan Carr said the move was necessary to "restore balance to the broadcast airwaves" and "allow local broadcasters to remain competitive with national ones."
The FCC's lone Democrat and dissenting vote, Anna Gomez, argued that the move would not benefit local broadcasters so much as it would benefit the national conglomerates seeking to buy them up.
“The large station groups positioned to grow even larger under this decision are not local broadcasters; they are national companies that own local stations and increasingly dictate what airs on them," Gomez said. "Trading a squeeze from Big Tech for a squeeze from Big Media does nothing to protect the communities this cap was designed to serve.”
In a statement after the ruling, Reporters Without Borders said the FCC had "just abandoned one of the last significant safeguards against excessive concentration of media ownership."
The change is a big win for media conglomerates like Nexstar Media Group, which is seeking a merger with rival TV company Tegna to reach about 80% of households nationwide. The merger was approved earlier this year by the FCC, but blocked by a federal judge.
It would also allow the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conglomerate known for forcing "must-run" segments with right-wing talking points into local news coverage from its corporate headquarters, the ability to continue gobbling up local news stations around the country.
Free Press, a media and technology watchdog, said it planned to appeal the FCC's decision in court, arguing that Carr had exceeded his power by overriding the 39% threshold, which was enshrined in federal law by the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
"His goal is to spur more media consolidation involving companies Donald Trump views as ideological allies and corporate cronies," said Matt Wood, the group's vice president of policy and general counsel.
Carr, a Trump appointee, has previously sought to use the FCC to crack down on the use of the airwaves by Trump's ideological enemies and consolidate control for his allies.
He has threatened the broadcast licenses of networks that criticize Trump, most infamously pressuring ABC to briefly pull late-night host Jimmy Kimmel off the air last year. He's also used the FCC's approval of the Paramount-Skydance merger to enforce ideological conformity at CBS News, which has dramatically altered its coverage and personnel to be more favorable to the administration.
Carr has argued that the FCC has the power to alter the consolidation cap because Congress technically directed the FCC to modify its own regulations to enact the 39% limit.
Gomez has disputed this, noting that when the FCC previously tried to move the cap, Congress "stepped in within months... and made clear the FCC did not have the authority to change it."
"Changing this limit requires congressional action, but Carr doesn’t care," Wood said. "He’ll do whatever it takes to clear the way for Trump-aligned billionaires to swallow up stations wherever and whenever they please."
John Bergmayer, legal director at the public interest group Public Knowledge, argued that removing the cap was not only illegal but "also bad policy."
"Consolidation does not serve local broadcast audiences or give them more local news and information," Bergmayer said. "It gives distant corporate headquarters more control of what is aired, and it creates pressure to cut local reporters and air the same programming across many markets."
Free Press' filing argues that Carr is not just violating the law but seeking to help Trump "use the commission’s licensing authority to exert total control over the media.”
"Media consolidation and deal approvals," the filing continues, "are now explicitly a way for President Trump to further consolidate his dictatorial power, through explicit loyalty tests and pledges to use the public airwaves as a propaganda tool against the American public."
In the immediate aftermath of the attempt to assassinate former U.S. President Donald Trump, social media became a cesspool of conspiracy theories and an amplifier of partisan propaganda.
At a time of political turmoil and uncertainty about mainstream news coverage, more Americans are turning to social media for the information they need to understand current events. But once there, they’re met with a slew of lies, making it difficult to separate fiction from the facts people need to participate in civic society.
In the immediate aftermath of the attempt to assassinate former U.S. President Donald Trump, social media became a cesspool of conspiracy theories and an amplifier of partisan propaganda as Trump supporters and trolls exploited the violence to deepen political divides and sow chaos. Meanwhile, so many on the left went online to claim that the entire incident was fabricated that tens of millions of people saw Twitter posts containing the hashtag “#staged.”
So where should people go to get the accurate news and information they need to engage in the democratic process during a contentious election year?
Nationwide, more people understand the shortcomings of the existing media environment and support the changes needed to fix it.Nationwide, more people understand the shortcomings of the existing media environment and support the changes needed to fix it.
The answer isn’t simple, but it’s clear that the status quo isn’t working. According to a recent Free Press Action poll, nearly 3 out of every 4 Americans say they don’t feel “very well informed” when voting in local elections.
The poll results strongly suggest that both old and new media are in need of a shake-up in advance of November.
The poll surveyed 3,000 people from across the country, and respondents relayed their concerns about the twin problems of dwindling local news coverage and the prevalence of false information online. Almost 80% said they were concerned that the information they see online is false, fake, or a deliberate attempt to confuse. A majority of people across the country believe that having more independent news outlets could safeguard against disinformation and strengthen our democracy. They support increasing public funding to create and expand local and independent news.
In statehouses across the country, lawmakers are weighing legislation to address the crisis in local journalism. One such proposal in California (SB 1327) would impose a fee on major tech platforms to help support the production of local news. The estimated $500 million this fee would generate would provide outlets with an employment tax credit to cover a portion of employees’ wages. SB 1327 passed the state Senate in June and is expected before the state Assembly in August. Bill champions are still working to gather support for the legislation as it moves closer to passage.
In 2018, New Jersey established the Civic Information Consortium and provided it with the state funding necessary to distribute millions of dollars in grants to community outlets working to engage people in civic affairs.
Measures like these are a good start. Over the past two decades, the country has lost nearly 60% of local-newspaper reporters. Instead of filling that void, social media has stuffed it full of high-engagement content that often spreads falsehoods and conspiracy theories instead of informing people about local issues.
And it’s not just public policy that’s needed. In response to concerns about the spread of disinformation, Free Press joined with 200 other civil society groups to demand that social media platforms strengthen election-integrity efforts. We’ve asked the likes of Google, Meta, and X to reinstate election-integrity policies and staff up critical trust and safety teams to better enforce policies across languages.
According to our poll, the vast majority of Americans across racial, ethnic, and political lines—including two-thirds of independents and GOP voters—want these companies to prevent the spread of misinformation online.
At a time of extreme and heated partisan divides, the poll reveals a silver lining: Nationwide, more people understand the shortcomings of the existing media environment and support the changes needed to fix it.
The challenge before people everywhere is to mobilize behind efforts to compel popular media—both traditional and online—to engage with and be more responsive to the needs of their readers and viewers.
There’s no doubt that this is a hard moment in U.S. history, that tensions are high, that divisions run hot. The media too often play a role in stoking those flames. But people from across the political spectrum are telling us that they’re ready for a change, and today I feel hopeful that we can work together to build a media system that supports full democratic participation.
"It's become apparent that no corporation or CEO is going to save local news, it's up to journalists to preserve our industry and our democracy," said unionized journalists at The Arizona Republic.
As shareholders gathered at the annual meeting of Gannett, the largest newspaper company in the United States following a 2019 merger, hundreds of unionized employees from across the country walked off the job on Monday to demand investors take action against what the journalists say is corporate greed at the top of the organization.
The journalists, who are represented by the NewsGuild-Communications Workers of America (CWA), say CEO and chairman Mike Reed has overseen the gutting of local newsrooms across the country at Gannett's more than 300 publications, jeopardizing readers' access to local news and threatening the livelihoods of reporters while Reed collects a multi-million-dollar salary.
With the walkout, the unionized employees are calling on shareholders to hold a no-confidence vote against Reed.
In a letter to investors last month, the NewsGuild-CWA argued that Reed has "failed shareholders" by taking on debt with high interest rates when Gannett merged with GateHouse Media in 2019.
While taking home a $7.7 million salary in in 2021 and $3.4 million last year, Reed has "maintained a compensation policy that is forcing many of our journalists to seek work elsewhere," the union wrote.
"From a shareholder perspective, these cuts to local news reporters and local news don't just weaken civil society, they diminish the future of that company in the community."
"He has reduced local content by relying on wire service and regional stories [and] cut newsroom staff," the NewsGuild said. "As a result, our communities are not being served and our employees are demoralized. Therefore, we believe it is time for a change in leadership: a clear vote of no-confidence in a guy who has weakened our company, forsaken the towns and cities where we have outlets, and impoverished shareholders."
In order to cut costs to service the company's debt, The New York Times reported Monday, Gannett has cut its workforce nearly in half since 2019. The Austin American-Statesman now has 41 newsroom employees, down from 110 before the merger. The Milwaukee Sentinel's staff has been cut from 104 to 83 in that time period; The South Bend Tribune's was cut from 45 to just 14 in South Bend, Indiana; and The Arizona Republic in Phoenix has cut its workforce from 140 to 89.
Gannett has also closed dozens of newspapers entirely, including six weekly publications in the Akron, Ohio area this past February and four papers in Northern Kentucky last year.
Cost-cutting measures have left readers of The Democrat and Chronicle in Rochester, New York without a business section; The Herald-Tribune in Sarasota, Florida without dedicated reporters focusing on the environment or city government; and just one reporter at The American-Statesman covering issues related to City Hall, Travis County, transportation, and public safety.
"We know what happens to communities when the light from news outlets dims,"
said the NewsGuild last month. "Political extremism can surge, corruption has fewer watchdogs, high school sports have fewer chroniclers, corporate misconduct has fewer witnesses, and municipal borrowing costs can rise. From a shareholder perspective, these cuts to local news reporters and local news don't just weaken civil society, they diminish the future of that company in the community."
The shareholder meeting and walkout come five months after Gannett laid of 6% of its 3,440-employee media division.
Richard Ruelas, a columnist at The Arizona Republic, organized a crowd-sourced fundraiser to support employees as they stage the walkout, which they plan to continue on Tuesday at the newspaper.
While cutting jobs across the company, said the
Arizona Republic Guild, Gannett officials have refused to provide remaining journalists with fair wages and working conditions.
"After over three years of bargaining and repeated unfair labor practices, it's also become apparent that asking nicely isn't going to get us fair wages, benefits and protections for our newsroom, and that Gannett has no intention to bargain over these issues in good faith,"
said the union.
According to Jon Schleuss, president of the NewsGuild, Reed oversaw a "complete farce" at the shareholder meeting on Monday, ending the conference after just eight minutes and refusing to take questions.
"What a complete joke. Mike Reed needs to go,"
said Schleuss. "He has no ability to lead Gannett and no ability to be accountable to journalists or shareholders."
National and state-level efforts to “save local news” would reward chains like Sinclair that continue to neglect the information needs of communities they’re supposed to serve.
Sometimes lawmakers write legislation that would do the opposite of its stated goal. Nowhere is this more evident than in two recent bills—one introduced at the state level and another in the U.S. Congress—that are supposedly designed to “save local news.”
Both the California Journalism Preservation Act (CJPA) and the federal Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) would allow news publishers—including broadcast companies—to extract payments from large social-media enterprises like Alphabet and Meta in exchange for linking to their content. This would apply to any content regardless of its accuracy or news value.
One of the bigger beneficiaries of California’s CJPA and the U.S. Senate’s JCPA is a conglomerate that seems determined to get rid of local news and replace it with right-wing spin produced at a “National Desk.”
One of the bigger beneficiaries of California’s CJPA and the U.S. Senate’s JCPA is a conglomerate that seems determined to get rid of local news and replace it with right-wing spin produced at a “National Desk” far from the communities this broadcast company is legally obligated to serve.
That conglomerate, Sinclair Broadcast Group, recently announced plans to eliminate entire local newsrooms at local-television stations in five broadcast areas. Sinclair is also drastically cutting newsroom staff at an additional five local stations, pushing all of these stations to fill the resulting news hole with National Desk boilerplate. That means zero local coverage—and lots of the cookie-cutter conservatism that Sinclair has pumped out via the public airwaves for decades.
Sinclair doesn’t care about the benefits that local news coverage brings to communities. The company owns and operates several stations that broadcast to regions of California, including KAEF in Eureka, KBAK in Bakersfield, KMPH in Fresno, KRCR in Redding, and KRXI around Lake Tahoe. Any of these newsrooms could be next on its chopping block. But lawmakers in Sacramento and Washington are ignoring Sinclair’s dismal track record and moving forward with legislation that would reward Sinclair as it undermines local news.
On Tuesday, the CJPA passed through California Assembly’s Judiciary Committee just a few days after the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection advanced it. And in Washington, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has reintroduced the JCPA, which failed to pass in the previous Congress after facing headwinds from a coalition of local-news advocates and media-democracy groups.
Both bills would create a convoluted mechanism for corporate handouts to highly profitable and consolidated media outlets—and both bills would allow these chains to continue to neglect the information needs of the communities they’re supposed to serve.
Both bills would create a convoluted mechanism for corporate handouts to highly profitable and consolidated media outlets—and both bills would allow these chains to continue to neglect the information needs of the communities they’re supposed to serve.
That these bills have any momentum is largely due to the powerful Big Media lobby pushing them. This includes lobbyists working on behalf of Sinclair as well as Gannett Co. and predatory hedge fund Alden Global Capital, which have also cut local newsrooms to the bone even as they’ve continued to buy back stocks, go deeper into debt to acquire more local outlets, and use other financial gimmicks to enrich their owners, executives, and shareholders.
These companies aren’t journalism’s saviors. In many places they’ve created news deserts after shuttering local operations. Lawmakers shouldn’t reward them for such slash-and-burn tactics. Instead, policymakers should pass bills that support local-accountability journalism by putting reporters back on local beats and expanding coverage in communities that companies like Sinclair have failed.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has largely taken a pass on disciplining these companies for repeatedly misleading regulators about their constant misuse of the public airwaves.
An FCC mandate is to “protect and advance diversity, competition, and localism in the media marketplace.” The agency has instead allowed Sinclair to consolidate control over nearly 200 local stations. And in 2018, the conglomerate misled the FCC about the nature of its control over the many stations it already owned in a failed attempt to gobble up even more.
In exchange for exclusive access to so much of our public airwaves, Sinclair thumbs its nose at public-interest obligations, delivering the bare minimum required by the FCC.
The FCC needs to take a long-overdue look at its legacy of failure.
It created sham businesses and shell companies to evade FCC station-ownership limits. It forces these local-TV stations to air “must-run segments” filled with propaganda seemingly pulled straight from a MAGA rally. And it routinely cuts back on local-news staffing while its top executives get rich off the bumper crop of political campaign ads that come around every two years.
Whether it’s via state or federal legislation, or a federal agency that has too often bucked its obligation to serve the public interest, regulators seem intent on saving local news by ignoring—or even perpetuating—the problems that led to its collapse in the first place.
Once we recognize the miscues and market failures driving the journalism crisis, it becomes hard to justify simply handing money over to these same incumbents. This recognition requires we shift our focus away from bills like the CJPA and JCPA toward public policy that creates funding for local-accountability journalism, including noncommercial initiatives.
The FCC needs to take a long overdue look at its legacy of failure. Promoting competition, localism, and diversity means giving more locally owned outlets access to the public airwaves—outlets that will serve their communities in ways Sinclair has not.
In a strategic sleight of hand, the large news-media companies want us to conflate the public importance of local journalism with their own bottom lines. When companies like Sinclair lobby for these bad bills, they want us to forget their actual record of mistreating their own reporters. They want to pretend they’re not getting rich by maintaining this broken system that’s misusing our airwaves and poisoning our democracy.
The problem is that too many of our elected representatives and appointed media regulators are all too willing to give Sinclair a pass, and have opted to “save local news” by becoming accessories to its demise.
New polling suggests "efforts by national news organizations to gain the trust of the public may need to focus on communicating more directly with audiences about how their reporting affects society at large."
Polling released Wednesday by Gallup and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation reveals half of American adults "feel most national news organizations intend to mislead, misinform, or persuade the public," which could impact the future of both the industry and U.S. democracy.
The report is the second in a series that began with a publication in October and builds on a body of research that Gallup and the Knight Foundation have conducted about Americans' trust in the news media since 2017.
"This data offers further evidence that sustainable journalism begins and ends with trust," said Knight Foundation president Alberto Ibargüen in a statement. "We believe a citizenry that trusts the news is more informed, more engaged, and better prepared to participate meaningfully in our democracy."
Key findings from the latest survey include that 53% of about 5,600 Americans across political affiliations have an unfavorable view of the U.S. news media overall, compared with just 26% who hold a favorable view. In line with previous polling, younger adults have less favorable views.
"Americans don't seem to think that the national news organizations care about the overall impact of their reporting on the society."
The survey shows a stark difference between how Americans view national versus local media. While nearly three-quarters believe national outlets "have the resources and opportunity to report the news accurately and fairly to the public," just 35% think such organizations can be relied on to provide needed information and generally care about the impact of their reporting.
"Americans don't seem to think that the national news organizations care about the overall impact of their reporting on the society," John Sands, senior director for media and democracy at the Knight Foundation, told The Associated Press.
According to the polling, 52% of Americans don't believe that most national news organizations "care about the best interests of their readers, viewers, and listeners." Just 23% say national media do care about those interests.
"That was pretty striking for us," Gallup consultant Sarah Fioroni told the AP. Summarizing her, the outlet added that "the findings showed a depth of distrust and bad feeling that go beyond the foundations and processes of journalism."
Meanwhile, when it comes to local news, 65% say such organizations have the resources they need. Over half of those surveyed also think that most local outlets care about the impact of their reporting and can be trusted to deliver needed information.
Additionally, nearly half of the respondents believe that local media care about readers, viewers, and listeners, and that such outlets do not intend to mislead, misinform, or persuade the public.
The researchers also examined emotional trust in media and found similar trends: 44% have high emotional trust in local media, while only 18% have low trust in these outlets; 41% report low trust in national news, and just 21% say they have high trust in such organizations.
"Nearly half (47%) of Americans who prefer to get most of their news online report low emotional trust in national news organizations, while only 15% report high emotional trust," the report notes. "In contrast, only 28% of Americans who prefer to get most of their news from television report low emotional trust in national news."
According to the publication:
The pollsters found that "low emotional trust in national news is associated with feeling unable to sort out facts or be well-informed." It is also linked to "a negative outlook on the state of our democracy" and being "more doubtful of the political process and the opinions of experts."
There is also a potential financial impact of low trust in media. The report says that "the more emotional trust Americans have in news organizations, the more willing they are to pay for news in the future."
"This study affirms the importance of a more nuanced understanding of Americans' deeply rooted and growing distrust of the national news media," the publication stresses. "The data provide compelling evidence that efforts by national news organizations to gain the trust of the public may need to focus on communicating more directly with audiences about how their reporting affects society at large."
"While emphasizing transparency and accuracy in news remains important, it is just as important for news organizations to demonstrate the care they have for their readers, listeners, or viewers," the report adds. "Having a financially stable fourth estate that fuels confidence in Americans' ability to be well-informed and greater optimism about the state of U.S. democracy today may depend on it."
Last year, when the survey was conducted, national corporate media outlets came under fire for the quality of reporting on issues including GOP efforts to cut Medicare and Social Security, inflation, student loan debt cancellation, and threats to reproductive rights.
The poll results come as former President Donald Trump—known for his frequent declarations of "fake news" and attacks on the media that were embraced and echoed by his supporters—seeks the GOP presidential nomination for 2024. Rolling Stone reported in November that Trump was soliciting advice for imprisoning journalists if he is reelected.
A bill allowing children of all ages to handle real guns passed the Iowa House of Representatives on Tuesday and is on the way to the state Senate, where lawmakers will consider making it legal for minors under 14 to have "a pistol, revolver or the ammunition" under parental supervision.
The bill passed 62-36 in the state House. Rep. Kirsten Running-Marquardt, a Democrat who voted against the bill, told local media that the bill "allows for one-year-olds, two-year-olds, three-year-olds, four-year-olds to operate handguns."
"We do not need a militia of toddlers," Running-Marquardt said.
Currently, children in Iowa can use shotguns and long guns while under adult supervision, but not handguns. The bill would allow them to do so if the parents are at least 21 years old and maintain "visual and verbal contact at all times with the supervised person."
Rev. Cheryl Thomas, policy director at Iowans for Gun Safety, said the bill was designed to weaken the state's gun laws. The advocacy group petitioned the House on Monday, urging lawmakers to reject the bill.
Last week, the gun control advocacy group Violence Policy Center released a report that found the firearms industry is advertising to children as young as grade school age "for financial and political gain."
"As household gun ownership has steadily declined and the primary gun market of white males continues to age, the firearms industry has set its sights on America's children," the report states. "Much like the tobacco industry's search for replacement smokers, the gun industry is seeking replacement shooters."