Recently, the actions of politicians highlight a belief in a free press that only stands when it requires no cost to them. Offices held by members of both political parties are now utilized to shield themselves from unfavorable media coverage, all cloaked in the rhetoric of protecting the public or the press.
Trump’s Media Ban
President Trump took an unprecedented step by banning certain critical media companies from the White House. He announced, “Effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW, and Politico.” In raising questions about courts allowing the publication of what he deems “fake news,” he hinted at potential censorship added to these exclusions.
Democratic Opposition to Media Mergers
On the other hand, Democrats are similarly engaged in using a political test for media. A group of twelve blue states is attempting to block the acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance. Though they frame their argument with questionable antitrust logic, some admit they are trying to safeguard CNN, a channel recently prohibited by Trump for its liberal perspective.
Earlier, Democrats had caused a government shutdown, partly due to withdrawn support for National Public Radio, another liberal outlet. Efforts also included lobbying cable companies to drop Fox News.
The Cost to a Free Press
Both Trump and the Democrats ignore the real cost of their maneuvers — a threat to the free press and free market. It seems a blind pursuit of political gain overshadows recognition of the potential harm brought to these foundations. Trump invigorated public support by opposing media bias during elections. While criticisms of CNN, MSNOW, and Politico’s reporting exist, banning them is a direct attack on media freedom, eroding long-respected standards upheld by former presidents.
Historic figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were critical of the press. Yet, they understood the importance of preserving and defending media as part of their constitutional responsibilities.
Democrats’ Transparent Motives
The Democratic fight against the merger similarly reveals clear intentions. Figures like Norm Eisen argue against the Warner Bros.-Paramount merger as a direct threat to democratic values, aiming to stop a conservative figure, David Ellison, from gaining control over CNN and other media assets. Leading voices describe this attempted block as essential to preventing CNN from becoming more aligned with Trump’s agenda.
While condemning Trump’s tactics, many who oppose the merger engage in blocking a legitimate business transaction purely on political motives. There have been suggestions to let the merger proceed only with conditions ensuring ownership of CNN goes to a liberal party, reflecting insufficient concern over the true costs involved.
Implications for Media Companies
The outcomes could echo past decisions, such as thwarting the Spirit Airlines and JetBlue merger, considered a Democratic achievement that led to Spirit’s bankruptcy and workforce dismissal. Similarly, CNN faces challenges with ratings and revenue. It’s struggling to maintain key advertising demographics and remains a significant drain on resources.
The merger suggests potential benefits for both companies and their workforce. By opposing it under a false monopoly threat, Democrats are dismissing approvals from entities like the European Commission and experts who were initially skeptical.
The Need for Strong Media and Free Speech
With years of experience in legal analysis, I advocate for a prospering CNN. A robust media is crucial, affirming our responsibility to uphold both journalistic integrity and financial stability within press companies. This responsibility often involves overlooking personal biases to fight against political influence over media by any party.
As historically noted, emotions and personal stakes can obscure judgment. Formerly, President John Adams’ administration targeted journalists through harsh laws, highlighting a recurring theme of political players attempting to restrict media scrutiny.
Maintaining the principle of free press and market is not equivalent to agreeing with a particular media perspective. Instead, it’s defending the right to independently choose the media to engage with and trust.