Broadcast Network Ownership Changes

The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Key to right the ship

When CNN's Jake Tapper hosted California Democrat Jared Huffman on June 14^th, it was not surprising that the latter attacked the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 with unusual zeal. These are the items covered. In Huffman's view, and apparently Tapper's, they were consistently representative of the far-right wish list.

1. Project 2025 covers Fiscal reform: Project 2025 aims to simplify the tax code, reduce corporate taxes and promote economic growth.
2. Health care: Advocates for market-driven health care reforms, including repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
3. defense: The draft emphasizes a strong national defense, increased military spending and modernization.
4. Regulatory reform: Aims to reduce government regulations on businesses and streamline bureaucracy.
5. Energy Independence: Project 2025 promotes domestic energy production and innovation.
6. education: The agenda supports school choice, vocational training and local control over education.
7. Social issues: Aligns with conservative values ​​on abortion, religious freedom, and family policies.

Uncommon distortion

Huffman is your textbook liberal Democrat. To hear his assessment, one could easily conclude that the Heritage Foundation's initiatives are nothing more than heresy. Most striking is his claim that a second Trump administration intends to replace non-political public servants with MAGA political hacks. Where the biggest exception was Tapper's failure to remind his audience that 95% of federal bureaucrats contributed to Democratic candidates in 2022.

Jake Tapper is not a journalist. He is an activist. He is joined by a host of others who have turned their backs on the media's traditional “watchdog” role. Instead of presenting the facts objectively, they take a stand and create their own version of reality. The thinking is, “if you say it enough times, the public will believe it.” The term for this manipulation is “gas lighting”.

We saw something similar on May 11, 2023, when CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins hosted Donald Trump at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire. In front of a cable audience that was twice CNN's normal audience, Collins steered clear of the relevant and chose to focus on “gotcha”-type questions centered around Jan. 6.^th.

Trump handled the questions with the ease of a man on a mission, often drawing applause from the town hall audience. He even went so far as to call Collins a “nasty person.” In the end, Collins came across as a “vintage '80s bimbo” more committed to advancing a narrative than discussing real issues of concern to Americans like inflation, crime and the border.

Many CNN executives had been discouraged from welcoming Trump to a cable network known to take exception to Trump's policies. Chief executive Chris Licht had previously indicated that a slight move at the center was imminent. He was fired for 13 months from his intention. Meanwhile, the city council boosted Trump's 2024 presidential campaign.

Looking to the future

CNN is cable. You pay a subscription fee to watch it. Cable is more like a magazine. “Over-the-air” television, as in “free-to-air television,” only requires that you own or have access to the necessary equipment to pick up the signal. This is where the concern lies. Both the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934 stated that “the airwaves belong to the people”. Stations and networks rent the frequency. They never have This is where the return to unbiased media reporting begins.

It starts with ownership. The Federal Communications Commission oversees the licenses. Licensees must provide evidence of service to the public. So far, they have escaped the kind of scrutiny that should be expected of any organization that has such an influential tool. From now on, the question becomes “how do you give ownership back to the people?” The answer: “Make an example of those who do not meet the standards.”

It will likely require some FCC personnel changes. But this is within reach. The next step is to take the most egregious organizations and deny license renewal. The two that come to mind are Comcast, the owner of NBC, and Disney, the owner of ABC.

Could this be done? It would be complicated, but it could be. The second step would be to return to the standard of the 1950s when ads were not aired within the newscasts. In streaming terms, “there is no internal benefit, only adjacencies.” As expected, there would be a huge pushback from the broadcast networks. It would amount to a huge loss of income. It should also be noted that this move would affect networks, not local affiliates.

Why would it be necessary? Because advertisers cannot influence editorial content. We see it on cable TV all the time. You can't turn on Fox News without being bombarded with pharmaceutical ads. That's fine, if it's pay TV. However, there must be a place where viewers can turn to objective and unbiased news and information. This includes PBS which, of late, has strayed from its original purpose.

Impact on CNN, Fox, MSNBC and others

If people are willing to pay for it, they should have it. Some simply like a slanted version of the news. But the “free TV” standard would have an impact. Spectators would be much harder to “gaslight”. Finally, they would choose their programming based on “thoroughness and accuracy.” This results in a more informed society. People deserve the truth, even if they don't necessarily like it!

There will always be a “Morning Joe” and a “Fox and Friends.” Partisan cable casts like Sean Hannity, Jake Tapper and Kaitlan Collins keep it interesting. The difference would be the “barometer of free TV”. Listen to an opinion, then compare that opinion with an objective opinion that doesn't take sides but serves as a filter. In essence, discarding the manufactured while emphasizing the fact.

Everyone wins.

Latest messages from Jeff Willis (see everything)

We have zero tolerance for comments that contain violence, racism, profanity, profanity, doxing, or rude behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it, click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for engaging with us in a fruitful conversation.