SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
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.
We all must support (and share with our friends) those outlets where we find useful news and information. If we fail to do so, America’s media landscape may soon mirror those of the autocratic nations the incoming president so admires.
Have you heard that Comcast is planning to sell MSNBC? Is Rupert Murdoch planning to buy it? Will America’s media landscape soon resemble those of Hungary and Russia?
Without the rightwing media juggernaut, Donald Trump probably wouldn’t be president next year and wouldn’t have won in 2016. That said, the progressive media landscape looks like it might be about to get a whole lot worse.
Comcast, which owns NBC and its subsidiaries CNBC and MSNBC (among other media outlets) announced this week that they’ll be spinning off MSNBC (among others) next year.
And the consequences are already showing up. It was reported this week that Rachel Maddow just took a substantial annual pay-cut because of the uncertain future of the network.
In part, this probably reflects a belt-tightening at Comcast, but is also an indication of how legacy media — which now includes cable properties — are taking a hit from newer digital media, from social media to podcasts to web-based networks and programs.
The principal analyst and VP of content for the market research company eMarketer, Paul Verna, told the AP that:
“The writing is on the wall that the cable TV business is a dwindling business,” and, the AP noted, is “predicting future consolidation of the networks or acquisitions through private equity.”
Private equity (like Bain Capital) and large media operation acquisitions have a long history of gutting media properties to increase their profitability; often this includes what a study by Stanford University researchers described as a trend to “substitute coverage of local politics for coverage of national politics, and use more conservative framing.”
Air America radio (for which I wrote the original business plan and which carried my program) was on the air in virtually every major market in the United States, having leased over 50 major, high-powered radio stations from Clear Channel.
My program regularly beat Rush Limbaugh in the ratings: When I was invited to the Obama White House following that election, one person associated with the campaign noted to me privately that they believed Air America had played a meaningful role in Obama’s 2008 election.
That same year, Mitt Romney’s private equity company, Bain Capital, acquired Clear Channel and, in 2009, began reclaiming their stations, replacing Air America content with mostly sports. By coincidence, around that same time it appears Romney decided he’d run against Obama in the next election.
As Air America lost station after station, its ability to earn revenue through selling advertising collapsed. By 2010, the entire network was bankrupt just in time for Romney to run for president.
Will the same thing happen to MSNBC? Stay tuned.
Similarly, Republicans in Congress are salivating over Elon Musk’s rhetorical war with NPR after the network stopped using Xitter when Musk labeled the news network as “state-affiliated” media.
As the headline on Fox Business notes:
“Elon Musk renews calls to defund NPR after clip of CEO resurfaces on X: 'Your tax dollars' are paying for this.’”
Musk, of course, will be in charge of identifying those parts of government or institutions funded by government which can be cut to help pay for Trump’s planned $4 trillion in tax cuts for billionaires.
While it won’t fit her proposed new role as UN Ambassador, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a top member of Republican House leadership, was unambiguous, posting to Xitter: “I will DEFUND NPR.”
This is nothing new: Republicans in the House voted this past July to remove all federal funding for NPR by 2026; Musk and Ramaswamy, working hand-in-glove with Marjorie Taylor Greene (who was just made chairperson of the new subcommittee charged with implementing their recommendations) could probably speed up that timeline.
While NPR goes to great lengths to avoid political bias in their news (the Corporation for Public Broadcasting even hired last month, “in response to right-wing criticism,” multiple editors specifically to spot and stamp out any progressive perspectives that may creep into their reporting), if they were crippled, it’s safe to assume the roughly 1,500 rightwing hate radio stations in the country stand more than ready and willing to pick up their radio audience.
Rightwing billionaires brought us Fox “News,” Sinclair, two other web- and cable-based rightwing TV channels, nationwide networks of hate radio (now also in Spanish), tens of millions of dollars in subsidies to rightwing podcast hosts, and the destruction of about half the nation’s local newspapers.
Not to mention an entire network of billionaire-funded hard-right phony “pink slime” newspapers that pop up around the country every election year.
There’s no equivalent politically-tilted media systems on the left; Democratic-leaning billionaires have stayed out of the media space ever since Romney’s company took down Air America.
The closest TV and radio counterparts we have are Free Speech TV (available on the web, Dish, Sling, Roku, AppleTV, and DirecTV) and the Progress Channel on SiriusXM (my daily program is carried on both).
In the print media space, Substack is growing (although they also carry hard-right content) and provides a solid community of progressive publications (like HartmannReport.com), but that’s a drop in a much larger ocean; even The Washington Post and The New York Times don’t come close to the strength of editorial bias found in the Murdoch family’s The New York Post or The Wall Street Journal.
Publications like The New Republic, Mother Jones, The Nation, and The Guardian provide solid progressive content, but all have funding bases that are trivial compared to conservative publications supported by rightwing billionaire networks. Ditto for websites like Raw Story, Common Dreams, Alternet, LA Progressive, Democratic Underground, and Daily Kos.
As my old friend and the former CEO/founder of Air America, Jon Sinton, noted on his excellent “reluctant” Substack newsletter:
“The left-wing silo is barren. A couple of old line newspapers and magazines. MSNBC and a handful of smallish digital platforms and shows. Pod Save America stands nearly alone as a left-leaning podcast with a large audience.
“By contrast, the right-wing silo is vast and deep. It houses YouTubians, TikTokkers, broadcasters on Fox, Newsmax, Sinclair TV stations, and talk radio stations; posters on social media; and narrowcasters on myriad podcasts.”
All, I would add, heavily supported by rightwing billionaires. As Politico reported in 2014, the Heritage Foundation used to give $1 million a year to Sean Hannity and $2 million a year to Rush Limbaugh alone.
A close acquaintance who was, for years, a mid-level rightwing talk show host told me how a dozen or more times a year he’d give a speech at a random high school and would receive a check for $20,000-$30,000 by a rightwing foundation as a “speaking fee” each time. It was their way of supporting conservative talk radio.
Again, there is literally nothing like that on the left. Not even close.
I’ve repeatedly called for progressive billionaires to jump into the media space, and perhaps the Musk/Trump assaults that are coming will provoke some to act. It may be wishful thinking, but if it does happen it can’t come too soon.
In the meantime, we all must support (and share with our friends) those outlets where we find useful news and information; if we fail to, America’s media landscape may soon mirror Hungary’s and Russia’s with every station and publication praising Dear Leader 24/7/365.
A New York Times interview carried echoes of Vance's "damning non-answer" in the vice presidential debate.
Characterizing questions about whether Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump lied about his 2020 election loss as an "obsession" of the media, vice presidential contender JD Vance on Friday refused five consecutive opportunities to acknowledge the election results.
In an interview with Lulu Garcia-Navarro, host of The New York Times podcast "The Interview," Vance repeatedly attempted to suggest that questions about whether Trump refused to accept the results of a democratic election were unimportant, saying he was "focused on the future."
"Do you think he lost the 2020 election?" asked Garcia-Navarro, point-blank.
"I think that Donald Trump and I have both raised a number of issues with the 2020 election," Vance replied. "I think there's an obsession here with focusing on 2020. I'm much more worried about what happened after 2020, which is a wide-open border, groceries that are unaffordable."
When Garcia-Navarro asked him the straightforward question a second and third time, he claimed tech companies' censorship of a New York Post story about the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop "cost Donald Trump millions of votes," still refusing to answer whether President Joe Biden was, in fact, the election winner in November 2020.
"I've asked this question repeatedly, it is something that is very important for the American people to know," said Garcia-Navarro. "There is no proof, legal or otherwise, the Donald Trump did not lose the 2020 election."
Vance later said he would not have certified the 2020 election if he had been in Congress at the time, citing his claim that "industrial scale censorship" cost Trump millions of votes.
"Vance definitively stated that he would have voided the votes of millions of Americans, and paved the way for installing Trump, after Trump lost the 2020 election," said lawyer and writer David Lurie.
Independent journalist Aaron Rupar called Vance's refusal to answer the question "one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen."
The interview came days after Vance faced Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz in a debate. Vance responded to a direct question about whether Trump lost in 2020 with his favored refrain and more claims of censorship.
"Tim, I'm focused on the future," Vance said at the debate. "Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 Covid situation?"
Walz condemned Vance's "damning non-answer."
Sarafina Chitika, a spokesperson for Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign, responded to Friday's interview by calling Vance "the Project 2025 enabler of Trump's dreams."
"Donald Trump chose JD Vance to be his running mate for one reason and one reason only: He will do what Mike Pence wouldn't and put Donald Trump over our Constitution," said Chitika. "His refusal to acknowledge the simple fact that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election is proof that if Trump wins, there will be no one left to check his worst instincts and stop him from gaining unprecedented, unchecked power to do whatever he wants and put our country at risk."
Trump has cast doubt on the upcoming election's fairness about once per day since he announced his candidacy—engaging in a strategy The New York Times referred to as "heads, I win; tails, you cheated."
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has cast doubt on the fairness of the 2024 presidential election result significantly more than he had by this time in 2016 or 2020, according to an analysis published Friday in The New York Times.
The Times found more than 500 instances of Trump falsely accusing Democrats of trying to rig, cheat, or steal the 2024 election, or of having done so in 2020. This is a significant increase from the 2020 cycle, when Trump did so roughly 100 times, and 2016, when he did not begin regularly raising concerns about the election's legitimacy until the final weeks of his campaign against Hillary Clinton.
"Though the tactic is familiar—Mr. Trump raised the specter of a 'rigged' election in the 2016 and 2020 cycles, too—his attempts to undermine the 2024 contest are a significant escalation," the Times reported, based on its search of social media posts, interviews, and records of campaign events.
In the 2024 cycle, Donald Trump has escalated his accusations that Democrats are trying to rig or interfere with the election, according to analysis published Friday in The New York Times, which searched social media posts, interviews, and records of campaign events. (Source: The New York Times)
Trump has cast doubt on the upcoming election's fairness about once per day since he announced his candidacy—engaging in a strategy the Times referred to as "heads, I win; tails, you cheated."
Dean Baker, an economist at Center for Economic and Policy Research, referred to the Times' findings as a "big deal" on social media, while Ian Bremmer, a political scientist at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, jokingly said, in response to the article, that 2024 was "off to a great start."
The Times analysis illustrates that in the 2024 cycle, Trump has broadened his argument about unfairness, suggesting not just that presidential elections are rigged against him but that the Democrats have a strategy of "election interference" that includes legal cases against him. After announcing his candidacy in November 2022, Trump began to argue that the legal cases against him "constituted a 'new way of cheating' in order to 'interfere' in the 2024 election," the Times reported. Trump called the appointment of a special counsel to investigate him a "rigged deal, just as the 2020 election was rigged."
In so doing, Trump has attempted to "undermine democracy" by conflating claims of a stolen election and claims of interference by means of legal action, argued Edward Foley, a constitutional law professor at Ohio State University, in Election Law Blog on Friday.
Turning to media criticism, Foley wrote that the Times repeated Trump's mistaken conflation in its new analysis. Though Trump collapses these arguments, the Times should not, he wrote, arguing that the analysis wrongly lumps together two distinct phenomena:
(1) Trump's false claim that he, not [President Joe] Biden, won more valid votes in enough states for 270 electoral votes in 2020, once allegedly fraudulent and thus unlawful votes are discounted, with (2) Trump's complaints that the electoral process is 'rigged' against him. Perhaps the most famous example of the first category is Trump's brazen assertion on Election Night that 'frankly, we did win this election.' An example in the second category, which the Times cites (without distinguishing it from the first kind of claim) is Trump's assertion that this year's election is 'rigged' because of the Biden [Department of Justice]'s prosecutions of him.
Trump is not alone in preemptively questioning the legitimacy of November's election results. Prominent Republicans are "already rushing to buy into Trump's 2024 election fraud narrative," CNN's Stephen Collinson wrote earlier Friday. Senators such as Ted Cruz (R-Texas), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) have all failed to commit to honoring the election results despite the fact that "there is no indication that there will be irregularities in the election," Collinson wrote.
In fact, no leading contenders to be Trump's running mate—a list that includes Vance and Rubio—have committed to accepting the election results if Biden wins, according to NBC News.
Trump has hurt public confidence in elections, a pillar of democracy, in a way that will have long-term ramifications, Richard Hasen, a law professor at University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in Politico in January. "Without 'loser's consent'—when those on the losing end of an election accept the results as fairly determined—democracy falters. Trump has succeeded in undermining the foundation of that... pillar for everyone, whether or not he's victorious as a candidate in 2024," Hasen wrote.