FIXES FOR HUGE, BILLIONAIRE-OWNED NEWS AND MEDIA COMPANIES

Huge news and media companies are dangerous and harmful. They control the information and disinformation we receive. They are not providing voters with the information they need to maintain a well-functioning democracy. Here are steps to rein in and compensate for their dangers and harm.

Huge news and media companies owned by billionaires are dangerous and harmful. They control the information and disinformation we receive. They are not providing voters with the complete, balanced, factual information they need to maintain a well-functioning democracy. Therefore, we need, individually and through government policy, to take steps, such as those below, to rein in and compensate for their dangers and harm.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

My previous post focused on the dangers of huge, for-profit, billionaire-owned news and media companies in the TV, radio, print, and social media markets. It noted how their profit motive drives divisive content and a focus on culture war issues. And how this skews our politics and the focus of politicians and the public, while it undermines democracy.

This post focuses on how we can respond to this corruption of our news and media both personally and through government and institutional actions, including the following: [1] [2]

Most immediately, patronize independent, reader / viewer funded news media. In particular, support local media, including local Public Broadcast System (PBS) radio and TV, as well as local print and on-line news sources. Your time spent reading / viewing and subscriptions to these outlets and, if you can, your financial support boosts their viability. Share their content; comment on and like their reporting. (Here’s a link to a previous post that identifies eight sources of news and analysis that I recommend. Much longer lists by topic are available here from Project Censored. Note: Project Censored’s primary goal is to highlight stories un- or under-reported by the mainstream media, i.e., effectively censored by them.)
Enhance media literacy for ourselves, our families, friends, and colleagues. Build critical thinking skills so we and everyone we know can distinguish truth from misinformation, disinformation, lies, and fiction, i.e., real news from fake news. Encourage schools and adult learning programs to include courses on critical thinking and media literacy. More information is available from PBS here.
Expect and, where possible, require news and media companies to clearly and fully disclose conflicts of interest and biases. When they don’t, call them out with comments, posts, letters to the editor, etc. Media watchdogs and professional associations should lead the way on this. Ultimately, ownership of news and media companies by individuals and entities with other business interests should be banned. This would prevent many conflicts of interest and biases. It would also insulate the news and media companies from being manipulated by government officials or others through leverage via other business interests. For example, Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post and also Amazon, which has significant government contracts and is affected by many government labor regulations. Similarly, Elon Musk owns X and has many interests via government contracts and regulations on his other companies. Therefore, they are both susceptible to manipulation by President Trump.
Viewers’ and readers’ personal information should be protected (e.g., ban its collection) and it should be illegal to use it to tailor individual’s news feeds. Personal information is currently used to feed audiences one-sided and slanted information, including disinformation, to spark their emotions and therefore their engagement. This is divisive for society and undermines democracy by failing to provide voters with complete, balanced, factual information.
Regulate social media with a combination of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards and public utility regulations. These would require them to serve the public interest and to stop harming children. They should be liable for failures to moderate content for accuracy, to prevent hate speech and other inflammatory messages (e.g., calls for violence), and to prevent harm.
Reinstate rules on fairness and accuracy in broadcast media that the FCC repealed in the 1980s. Require that news divisions operate independently of executives, advertising, and shareholders, as they did prior to the 1980s. The relicensing of TV and radio stations for their use of the public airwaves should enforce these standards and serious fines should be levied for violations of them.
Use antitrust laws and anti-monopoly regulations to stop any further consolidation in the news and media industry. Ultimately, the huge conglomerates should be broken up. The FCC should change its rules and lower the number of news and media outlets any one entity is allowed to own in local, regional, and national markets.

Huge news and media companies are dangerous and harmful. They control the information and disinformation we receive. Their billionaire owners have biases, including politically. They are not providing voters with the complete, balanced, factual information they need to maintain a well-functioning democracy.

This situation is not inevitable. Personal and institutional actions, including public policies of governments, can change it. Steps, such as those above, need to be taken to rein in and compensate for the dangers and harms of huge news and media companies with billionaire owners.

[1] Reich, R., 11/26/25, “The billionaires destroying our media system and what to do about it,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/billionaire-ownership-media)

[2] Reich, R., 12/2/25, “The monetization of rage,” (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-monetization-of-rage)

THE DANGERS OF HUGE FOR-PROFIT NEWS AND MEDIA COMPANIES

The dramatic consolidation under billionaire owners in the news and media industry over the last 40 years includes TV, radio, print, and social media. Their profit motive drives them to promote divisive and culture war messages that they have found are most effective at attracting attention and viewers. It also pushes them to minimize local reporting and homogenize news to national topics. All of this undermines local civic engagement, perverts politics and politicians, and harms democracy.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

My previous post focused on the huge billionaire-owned companies in the news and media industry that dominate national information dissemination: in TV and streaming: Paramount (with CBS, etc.), Warner Brothers (with CNN, etc.), Fox, Netflix, and Amazon; in social media: Meta and X; and in print media: the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post. It noted the dangers of monopolistic power, particularly in the news and media industry, including resulting in news that is biased, including politically.

In the broadcast TV market, the three biggest companies (Sinclair, Nexstar, and Gray) own 40% of all local TV stations (about 100 each) and cover 80% of the U.S. [1] In the broadcast radio market, iHeartMedia is the country’s largest owner of radio stations, owning almost 900 AM and FM radio stations across the U.S. It was formerly Clear Channel Communications, which was founded in 1972 and taken private in 2008 by venture capital firms Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners in a leveraged buyout (i.e., one using substantial amounts of borrowed money). iHeart has gained its dominance through many acquisitions, mergers, and reorganizations over its 53 years.

The presence of huge billionaire-owned companies in the news and media industry goes much deeper than TV and radio. In the newspaper market, Gannett now owns one-sixth of all local daily papers. Venture capital firms like Alden Global Capital have been actively buying and consolidating (or closing) local print media. In some cases, the local newspapers have been struggling financially, but in any case, the purchasers typically slash jobs and the quality of the journalism. They often strip the papers of their assets (e.g., land and buildings), and then often close them or drive them into bankruptcy after collecting dividends and “management” fees. This is the standard venture capital business model (which I often refer to as vulture capitalism). (See this previous post for a summary of this business model and this post for an example of Alden Global Capital’s operation. Both posts are from 2018, so this has been an issue for quite some time.)

To minimize costs, outlets that remain in business typically run homogenized national or regional news instead of local reporting. The loss of local reporting means the loss of coverage of local community activities, events, and organizations, including local government and local candidates for local, state, and even national offices. This can be particularly damaging in rural communities. [2]

With the demise of local reporting, fewer Americans know who their local elected officials are and voter turnout in local elections declines. The ability to hold those in power accountable, especially in local offices, can be decimated and misinformation (or disinformation) often fills the void. This weakens local civic engagement and democracy.

Furthermore, research shows that while Americans are most affected by government policies and programs on economic and affordability of living issues, over the last 40 years the news and media industry’s coverage of government and politics has shifted to the so-called culture war issues, such as race, crime, immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and guns.

The harms of huge billionaire-owned companies dominating the news and media industry are exacerbated by their single-minded focus on maximizing profits. Beginning in the 1980s, with talk radio, cable TV, and Fox News, coupled with a more competitive and profit-focused industry, news and media companies became more and more focused on attracting attention and audience at any cost. As a result, sensationalism and rapid, first-to-report became more important. These outlets also discovered that conflict and divisive culture war issues were most effective in getting attention and audiences, and even in attracting viewers who normally didn’t watch the news. They had discovered, as the advertising industry had too, that emotions are more easily aroused, are more powerful motivators, and are more malleable than rational, intellectual messages and attempts at persuasion.

Studies have found that audiences who watch more cable news give greater importance to culture war issues. This influences our politics and politicians, who have responded with more culture war focus and messaging. This makes culture war issues more salient in voters’ minds and in elections. Fox “News” has been found to be the most powerful contributor to this evolution to a focus on culture war issues. One analyst summed this up in these words: “the companies that abuse our attention for profit are the real winners of American politics.” [3]

President Trump and his administration, with the support of his allies in the “news” and media industry, are taking this strategy to new heights, or perhaps new depths would be more appropriate. The consolidation of news and media companies under billionaire ownership dangerously aids and abets this political perversion of the information delivered to the American public.

My next post will focus on what can be done about media consolidation under billionaire owners and alternative sources of news and information.

[1] Martin, G.J., Mastrorocco, N., McCrain, J., & Ornaghi, A., 9/6/24, “Media consolidation,” Stanford University (https://web.stanford.edu/~gjmartin/papers/media_consolidation.pdf)

[2] Agrawal, N., 3/3/25, “The fight against media consolidation: Uplifting local journalism to improve civic engagement,” The Lambert Post (https://thelambertpost.com/opinions/the-fight-against-media-consolidation-uplifting-local-journalism-to-improve-civic-engagement/)

[3] Cox Richardson, H., 12/9/25, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/december-9-2025) page 2

THE DANGERS OF MEDIA CONSOLIDATION AND BILLIONAIRE OWNERS

The creation of huge mega-companies is harmful, in part because they have monopolistic powers. It is particularly concerning in the media and news industry because they control the information we receive. Recent and proposed mergers and acquisitions in the media industry have heightened concerns about politically slanted “news” due to billionaire owners. A citizenry that’s well informed is essential to a well-functioning democracy and there’s a growing danger that these huge media companies and their billionaire owners are not providing citizens and voters with the information they need.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The consolidation of companies through mergers and acquisitions to produce huge mega-companies is harmful for consumers, workers, small businesses, innovation, our economy, and our country. Huge companies have monopolistic powers over prices, product quality, and jobs because of limited competition.

Huge companies, owned by billionaires, are particularly concerning in the media and news industry because they control the information we receive and, therefore, what we know. A citizenry that’s well informed with important and truthful information is essential to a well-functioning democracy. Disinformation and a lack of information are what allow authoritarians and dictators to rule.

Because of consolidation and limited local competition, the costs of Internet access and cable TV have been going up. Costs have been increasing too for content providers and streaming services because of consolidation in those areas as well.

Recent and proposed mergers and acquisitions in the media industry have heightened concerns, not only about competition and prices, but also about politically slanted “news” as directed by billionaire owners. There are concerns about Trump’s influence on the owners and bias in reporting on him and his administration. For example, Paramount, owner of CBS and lots of other media companies, and its new billionaire CEO David Ellison have already installed a right-leaning journalist with limited experience as editor in chief of CBS news. Ellison has also gutted CBS’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and installed a right-winger as “ombudsman” to (supposedly) ensure the fairness of news coverage. Paramount and Ellison are bidding to acquire Warner Brothers, which owns CNN among other entities, and are reportedly soliciting money from the Saudis and other Mideast sovereigns to help fund their bid. Ellison’s father, Larry Ellison, billionaire owner of Oracle and the world’s second richest person, has reportedly told President Trump that Paramount would fire CNN personnel that Trump doesn’t like if a deal for Warner Brothers is made and Trump’s regulators approve it. [1]

Billionaire owners of media companies generally have strong biases that are likely to affect the news and information (or disinformation) their companies report and spread. For example, billionaires (and other wealthy people) want public policies that allow them to make and keep great wealth. They often view democratic governance as a threat because it holds equal opportunity and equity as foundational principles. Billionaires may well want to suppress information on and criticism of their great wealth and the actions of their companies, or the private sector and unregulated markets in general. They may want to hide the ways they influence public officials and public policies, as well as the favorable policies they get.

The goals of billionaire media owners are not to provide valuable information to the citizens of a democracy, but rather to enrich and protect themselves. They also know that President Trump can and will support their companies (e.g., with government contracts and subsidies, by approving their proposed acquisitions) if they are on good terms with him. However, if they have a bad relationship, he can wreak havoc on their companies with regulations, tariffs, selective law enforcement, suits, penalties, or by using antitrust laws to block their acquisitions. [2]

Billionaire media owners include:

Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, who bought the major social media platform, Twitter, and rebranded it, X. He has allowed and encouraged it to become a purveyor of right-wing disinformation, hate speech, and dangerous rhetoric.
Larry Ellison, the second richest person, who, with his family, owns Paramount, CBS and many other media companies as described above. They are big supporters of Trump and Republicans. CBS paid Trump $16 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit and canceled Stephen Colbert’s show because he was often critical of Trump. (Some senior CBS staff, including at 60 Minutes, resigned because of presumably because they were told to treat Trump favorably.) The Trump administration then approved a multi-billion-dollar merger of Paramount and Skydance.
Mark Zuckerberg, the third richest person, who owns Meta, which includes Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. He has allowed his companies to spread disinformation, hate speech, and messaging dangerous to the health and safety of children. He has also been a Trump supporter.
Jeff Bezos, the fourth richest person, who owns The Washington Post and Amazon, including all its media entities. He blocked the publishing of an editorial endorsing Kamal Harris in 2024 and has directed the Post’s editorial and opinion writing to support “personal liberties and free markets.” (The billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times also blocked an editorial endorsing Kamal Harris.) Bezos is a Trump supporter and paid Melania Trump (the President’s wife) a staggering $40 million for the right to make a documentary about her.
Billionaire Rupert Murdoch and his offspring, who own Fox, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post. It’s widely recognized that Fox spreads disinformation favorable to Trump and Republicans, up to and including false election fraud disinformation that led to a court decision requiring Fox to pay nearly $800 million for defamation of an electronic voting machine company.

It’s impossible to know how these billionaires have skewed coverage of President Trump and his administration, as well as the criticism and protests of them, but it’s hard to believe they haven’t had considerable influence. There is a growing danger that these huge media companies and their billionaire owners are not providing citizens and voters with the information they need to have a well-functioning democracy.

More on the effects of billionaire ownership and media consolidation in my next post, as well as what can be done about it.

[1] Myerson, H., 11/20/25, “Ellisons tap Saudis to fund news media takeover,” Today on The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/11/20/ellisons-tap-saudis-to-fund-news-media-takeover/)

[2] Reich, R., 11/26/25, “The billionaires destroying our media system and what to do about it,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/billionaire-ownership-media)