Media Consolidation And Free Speech

There has been a huge reaction to the silencing of Jimmy Kimmel by our thin-skinned, can’t-take-a-joke (let alone criticism) wanna-be King. Pundits have pontificated. Some citizens have protested by canceling their Disney streaming subscriptions and/or trips to Disney theme parks, others are demanding a boycott, and a number have even turned up in front of Disney offices in California and New York. All of those actions have been entirely appropriate, but very few have focused on an element of our media environment that has enabled–even invited–the sort of ham-handed blackmail that has allowed the administration to muzzle speech of which it disapproves.

A recent essay from Lincoln Square connected the dots between that blackmail and the unprecedented media consolidation that has made it much more effective than it would otherwise have been.

As the essay noted, Kimmel was suspended because “billionaires who own the American media decided they were willing to capitulate to a dollar-store despot who decided his voice was no longer acceptable.” When a government regulator of broadcasting licenses goes on television and threatens to punish a network if it doesn’t rid the administration of the offending comic, the subsequent and immediate removal of the program “isn’t free will. It is state coercion made possible by billionaire media consolidation.”

The suspension also exposes a structural problem. A handful of companies control nearly every lever of American media. Nexstar is in the process of buying Tegna, a $6.2 billion deal that would give it reach into almost 80 percent of U.S. households if regulators (like Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr) approve it. Sinclair already holds enormous power. Gray is not far behind. Together, they dominate what gets marketed and sold as “local news.”

On the studio side, Larry Ellison and his son, David, just closed an $8 billion merger with Paramount. They are now openly vying for a Warner Bros. Discovery deal. Combined, that would give them control of two of the largest content pipelines in the world. Oracle, Larry Ellison’s company which has made him the richest man in the world, is also expected to play a central role in a restructured TikTok, potentially handing him primary cloud partnership and equity shares in a U.S. majority carveout. Ellison is also one of president Trump’s top political donors.

The picture is stark: The same billionaire network of Trump allies (including Rupert Murdoch and Fox News) controlling the studios, the broadcast stations, and the digital platforms — which we saw with Trump’s recent tech dinner. When government pressure comes, those choke points collapse inward. That is what just happened with Jimmy Kimmel.

And–as the essay points out–it’s interesting that those on the Right who’ve previously been the loudest about the importance of free speech have been suspiciously silent.

The cancellations of Colbert and Kimmel are examples of the power that media consolidation gives to into the billionaires who own the media and especially to the regulators acting–as the essay puts it– as “mob enforcers for the White House.” As it concludes:

If we let this moment pass without rightfully losing our shit and naming it for what it is, then the precedent will harden. The next comedian, journalist, or critic who challenges Trump or his allies will face the same weaponry — or think twice before doing so. And if Rogan and the rest of the self-proclaimed “free-speech advocates” continue to stay silent, then they are not allies in this fight. They are accessories to the silencing.

Billionaires loyal to the president are about to own nearly 80% of local and national media in this country — ahead of midterm elections and widespread military and police crackdowns in Democrat run cities. Jimmy Kimmel may be one of the first high-profile hosts to feel the wrath of this new system, but he will not be the last.

What went dark this week wasn’t just the Jimmy Kimmel Live! studio. It was a signal about where the First Amendment stands in Trump’s America.

Americans who still insist that “it can’t happen here” need to consider a “blast from the past” in a recent column by Charlie Sykes. The column reproduced a 1939 article from the New York Times, titled “Goebbels Ends Careers of Five ‘Aryan’ Actors Who Made Witticisms About the Nazi Regime.”

Read it and weep.

A postscript: since this was written, Kimmel’s show was returned to the airwaves. Evidently, the huge negative public reaction to Disney cowardice had an effect. We the People need to keep up the pressure!

Comments

The War Against Facts

I keep thinking of Kellyanne Conway’s remark, during Trump’s first term, about “alternative facts”– because if there is one through line in Trumpism, it is the daily effort to replace reality with the would-be King’s preferred alternative.

The Bulwark, among other media outlets, recently reported on one especially egregious example

The Department of Justice has removed content highlighting a decades-long trend: far-right extremists have carried out the overwhelming majority of ideologically motivated killings in the United States. The removal comes days after the assassination of conservative media figure Charlie Kirk, amid a renewed push by the Trump administration to blame the “radical left” for political violence.

Instead, visitors to that government website were informed that official websites were being reviewed, and that “some content” might be unavailable.

One bit of “unavailabe” content was a National Institute of Justice–funded study that documented the fact that far-right extremists have been responsible for the great majority of ideologically motivated killings in the United States since 1990. As the article noted, the study’s conclusion was hardly controversial; it was in line with decades of evidence from the Extremist Crime Database and from watchdog groups such as the Anti-Defamation League.

The study vanished just days after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, an event the Trump administration used to sharpen its argument that the “radical left” is driving political violence. The contrast was stark: while the data showed a persistent pattern of far-right lethality, the government was simultaneously scrubbing its websites and amplifying a narrative that cast blame in the opposite direction.

Evidently, when the facts don’t support your preferred narrative, the obvious remedy is to bury the facts.

Among the material no longer reachable was research funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), long a sponsor of work by criminologist Steven Chermak and others who study extremist violence. Their Extremist Crime Database (ECDB) has consistently documented that far-right extremists account for far more killings than their far-left counterparts. One NIJ-published article put the point bluntly: far-right violence, it concluded, “continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism.”

Independent evidence supports the same pattern. A 2021 ECDB-based study found that, between 1990 and 2020, far-right extremists were responsible for the overwhelming majority of ideologically motivated homicides. And the Anti-Defamation League reported that in 2023, every extremist-related murder in the United States was committed by far-right actors.

The real damage being done by the elimination of officially vetted evidence and facts isn’t that those facts disappear; the independent studies and other sources of information remain easily accessible. The problem is, the absence of an official, neutral and reliable source of information adds to an already massive problem–the internet’s invitation to indulge in confirmation bias. MAGA folks can find plenty of sites offering propaganda more consistent with their desired “facts.” For that matter, so can progressive folks. The absence of an official report, with numbers and data attested to by civil servants not in thrall to a politically desired result, encourages the polarization that has left Americans fragmented, polarized and unable to conduct civil conversations. It is one more step toward constructing alternate–and dramatically inconsistent–realities.

Granted, Trump is hardly the first to attempt to bend reality (although he may be the first President who is clearly unable to perceive or live in it…) As the Bulwark concluded,

Moments of crisis have long been leveraged to redraw the boundaries of legitimacy. Richard Nixon used the language of law and order to denounce protestors; George W. Bush invoked the “war on terror” to consolidate national unity and presidential power. Trump’s rhetoric fits that lineage but also departs from it, casting blame in ways that cut against the weight of evidence. By turning Kirk’s death into an ideological fulcrum, he signals not just how this White House interprets violence but how it intends to shape the nation’s memory of it. The question is whether Americans will accept that framing—or remember the data it seeks to eclipse.

I’ve forgotten who to credit with a quote that seems more apt every day: “Facts don’t care whether you believe them or not.” We do ourselves no favor when we choose to reject evidence in order to reside in a false alternate reality.

Comments

The Assault On Knowledge

Americans who follow the news even slightly, are aware of the daily, major assaults from this administration on the Constitution and our liberties. We’re aware of RFK, Jr.’s insane attacks on medical science and the likely negative effects on our health, the assaults on ships from foreign countries in defiance of international law, the economic damage being caused by Trump’s insane (and illegal) tariffs and his war on immigrants, and the administration’s vicious and escalating attacks on journalism and free speech. 

What most Americans tend to miss are Trump’s entirely illegal refusals to honor spending decisions made by Congress, despite the fact that the Constitution vests those decisions solely in the legislative branch, not in the executive. The sudden cut-offs of thousands of promised grants will hobble all sorts of research for many years to come–including research into cures for diseases like cancer and Alzheimers–and the negative consequences will go far beyond medical science research.

A former academic colleague recently shared a notice that the Trump administration is withholding payment of the final year of a four-year grant–a grant to a program at Indiana University that has been continuously supported by the federal government since 1959. That ongoing support was based upon a determination that the program was an important part of the United States’ defense effort, as described in the post-Sputnik National Security in Education Act of 1958, and the subsequent David L. Boren National Security Education Act (NSEA) passed in 1991. 

IU’s program supported students studying several of the foreign languages that enable American diplomats to communicate with and recognize threats from individuals and governments of foreign countries. The grants were intended to “address the U.S. shortfall in experts with critical language and international area knowledge needed for national security,” and were intended to enable students to “study languages and regions vital to national security.”  

The remnants of the Department of Education informed IU that the final year of the grant would not be forthcoming, because “the international and foreign language education grant programs are not a priority of the administration,” and that the programs are “inconsistent with administration priorities and do not advance American interests or values.”

As a result of the funding cut-off, a number of graduate students will be unable to continue their graduate studies. It is yet another facet of this administration’s unremitting attack on education at all levels.

How do arbitrary and capricious–and patently illegal–actions like this harm American interests? Let us count the ways…

Rather obviously, the lack of individuals able to understand foreign communications will make it more difficult to conduct international affairs and to recognize threats to U.S. interests. Those interests may not be a “priority” of this administration, but they’ve been a very high priority of previous administrations–and of the legislators who continued to authorize and fund the programs. 

It’s unlikely that most Americans will ever hear of the discontinuation of this particular program, or the negative results that will flow from the significant number of other abruptly terminated education programs and research projects. What we will experience, however, is a steady diminution in national health and in economic well-being, and a substantially reduced ability to protect American interests internationally. 

Of course, as the missive from the Department of Education candidly admitted, the protection of America’s interests are not a priority of this administration. That has been obvious for some time. The clear priority of Trump and his collection of clowns, misfits and grifters is the exercise of power and the ability to line their pockets–the corruption of this administration puts Teapot Dome to shame.

The even clearer priority of Trump’s MAGA followers is reversing the legal and social gains of women and minorities–rooting out efforts to level the playing field for non-Whites, non-Christians and non-males. They neither know nor care that those priorities weaken America.

We need to turn out eleven million protestors for the second “No Kings” Day on October 18th.

Comments

What We Stand To Lose

A while back, the Indianapolis Capital Chronicle published an article reminding readers of the importance of the nation’s public schools. The article began with an acknowledgement of the war being waged on those public schools by the Trump Administration and the Christian Nationalists responsible for Project 2025, and it followed that acknowledgement by underscoring what the nation stands to lose if that war succeeds. The authors reminded readers that the nation’s public schools have been responsible for creating an educated workforce–and far more importantly, for inculcating generations of students with the United States’ fundamental values of liberty, equality, fairness and concern for the common good.

As the great political scientist Benjamin Barber wrote, the public schools have been constitutive of a public–they have forged a community of Americans from the diverse families who sent their children into those public school classrooms.

Education is a public good;  it doesn’t simply benefit individual students, it benefits the country. The authors quote Horace Mann–often dubbed the father of our public school system–for the assertion that universal, publicly funded, nonsectarian public schools would help sustain American political institutions, expand the economy and fend off social disorder. Mann’s words really resonate right now, as the years of persistent war on public schools and the diversion of tax dollars to primarily religious schools has contributed greatly to the current polarization and tribalization of the American public, and contributed to our growing social disorder.

The authors of the article noted that they’d written a book titled “How Government Built America,” and they shared two lessons they took from their research for that book.

One is that the U.S. investment in public education over the past 150 years has created a well-educated workforce that has fueled innovation and unparalleled prosperity.

As our book documents, for example, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries the states expanded public education to include high school to meet the increasing demand for a more educated citizenry as a result of the Industrial Revolution. And the GI Bill made it possible for returning veterans to earn college degrees or train for vocations, support young families and buy homes, farms or businesses, and it encouraged them to become more engaged citizens, making “U.S. democracy more vibrant in the middle of the twentieth century.”

The other, equally significant lesson is that the democratic and republican principles that propelled Mann’s vision of the common school have colored many Americans’ assumptions about public schooling ever since. Mann’s goal was a “virtuous republican citizenry” – that is, a citizenry educated in “good citizenship, democratic participation and societal well-being.”

Mann believed there was nothing more important than “the proper training of the rising generation,” calling it the country’s “highest earthly duty.”

The people currently in positions of authority have made it abundantly clear that they have no interest whatsoever in that “rising generation,” neither its training nor its very survival. From the replacement of medical science with quackery likely to cost children’s lives to denial of the climate change that threatens the livability of the planet, the grifters and con men currently in power are interested only in what they can extract during their time in office. They are perfectly happy to advance Christian Nationalists goals, including the destruction of “government” schools and their replacement with “godly academies” that deepen America’s social divisions.

Trump’s dismantling of the Department of Education has been accompanied by pious statements about returning control to the states, but in direct contradiction to that rhetoric, the administration has also been busy mandating what can and cannot be taught in public schools. It continues to threaten funding for school districts that fail to penalize transgender children or that teach about slavery and contemporary forms of discrimination. The White House is demanding a curriculum highlighting “patriotic” education–a curriculum that ignores the less admirable parts of our history and instead depicts the founding of the U.S. as “unifying, inspiring and ennobling.”

A shining City on a hill…

Trump and MAGA fear true education. Instead, they want to indoctrinate–and the material they want to impart is (to put in mildly) inconsistent with reality.

The weakening and eventual destruction of America’s public schools is an essential part of the Christian Nationalist/MAGA/Project 2025 plan to privilege (certain) White Christians and turn others into second-class citizens.

The assault on our universities has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, and the assaults on our public schools have nothing to do with the quality of education.

Comments

Charlie Kirk And That War On Women

In the wake of the Charlie Kirk slaying, Micah Beckwith–Indiana’s Christian Nationalist Lieutenant Governor– reportedly said “From the history of mankind, there’s always been truth-speakers who have been speaking God’s truth and the enemy comes at them – the devil and his lies. They’ll try to silence those people. Charlie was one of those people. He was speaking truth and the enemy, the devil and his minions, try to silence him. I think what’s happening is actually the exact opposite effect. I think what you’re going to see is that there are going to be many more like him that are now going to rise up and start speaking where he left off. There’s a saying in the church throughout Christendom, ‘The blood of the martyr is the seed of the church.”

I was heartened by a recent poll (paywall) that pegged Beckwith’s support in Indiana at a robust 9%. Still, I think it’s worthwhile to examine some of the “truths” that Beckwith thinks Kirk was speaking.

In a recent Substack, Paul Krugman looked at Kirk’s approach to women–an approach that is shared by Christian Nationalists, much of MAGA, and other Rightwing radicals.

Kirk was a counterrevolutionary, a revanchist, who deftly exploited a vision of a lost American gender ideal and the accompanying feelings of dislocation and humiliation on the part of men. Specifically, he wanted to reverse what Claudia Goldin (winner of the Nobel in Economics in 2023) has called the “quiet revolution” in women’s role in American society that occurred between the late 1970s and early 1990s.

Krugman points out that Goldin’s “quiet revolution” didn’t refer to the increasing numbers of women in the paid labor force, a trend that had begun in the 1940s, and had mostly culminated by the late 1970s. Rather, it referred to a radical change in the nature of the kinds of jobs that American women held.

While many women held paid jobs by the early 1970s, young women still tended to see work outside the home as occasional and provisional, as a way to earn modest amounts of money rather than as a fundamental part of their identity. The revolution, according to Goldin, happened when young women began to think about jobs in the same way young men always had — that it wasn’t simply “work” but a career.

As a result, women lived their lives differently. And as Krugman notes, that change has had large ramifications for men. 

The changes in women’s status were results of access to contraception and the passage of anti-discrimination laws, and what Krugman describes as a “multiplier effect”— the more that women delayed marriage and childbirth, the more they trained for careers, the easier it became for others to do the same. And as he also pointed out, “rising divorce rates led many women to doubt whether marriage was a safe haven that obviated the need for an independent career.”

Charlie Kirk argued strenuously that this was all a mistake and should be reversed. Krugman quotes him: “Having children is more important than having a good career.” 

Kirk was calling on America to stop being the society it is and go back to being the kind of society it hasn’t been for generations. Or, rather, he wanted us to enact his fantasy about what our society once was like. If you imagine that America before the quiet revolution was a nation in which all marriages were happy and all stay-at-home wives were contented, you should read Betty Friedan — or the novels of John Updike.

Krugman and others have pointed out that Kirk never bothered to offer serious policy proposals. But his hostility to women’s equality clearly resonated with many young white men — “men who resent their status in modern America and believe that their lives would be better if we returned to an older social order.”

Krugman concluded by recognizing that, in today’s America, we have “a society that appears to be problematic for many men.” There is a reason Kirk’s revanchism grew his support among them.

Appealing to resentments is the whole strategy of MAGA, Trumpworld and Christian Nationalism–not by suggesting ways to ameliorate unsatisfactory situations, not by advancing policy proposals that might mitigate such situations, but by the far simpler tactic of finding some “other” to blame. 

It’s a strategy that evidently works with a significant number of Americans, and it explains the rise of “religious” zealots like Micah Beckwith and clever grifters like Charlie Kirk–opportunists who wage war on women, immigrants, gay people and people of color…

Comments