By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article details how Donald Trump and FCC Chair Brendan Carr are accused of bullying late-night hosts into silence by leveraging the FCC’s power over broadcast licenses and corporate mergers. ABC’s “indefinite” suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show is cited as an example of corporate capitulation, mirroring instances where shows were canceled ahead of important government approvals. The author argues that corporations prioritize profits over free speech, and the FCC is complicit, with Carr seemingly willing to censor content that is critical of Trump. This approach is deemed concerning, particularly as Trump has indicated that negative press could be used to revoke broadcasting licenses.
Read the original article here
Trump will silence critics until broadcasters value free speech more than profits, which seems like a pretty loaded statement, doesn’t it? The central idea is that there’s a battle brewing, a struggle for control over the narrative, and the main player is the former president. The idea is pretty simple, that he’s actively working to shut down voices that disagree with him, and the key weapon is the influence he holds, or hopes to hold, over media outlets. The more nuanced idea here is that he’s playing a long game, a slow burn to change the whole landscape and ultimately, the direction of the truth.
Broadcasters will always care about profits. This is the cold, hard truth. Corporations, especially in the media landscape, are driven by the bottom line. It’s the fuel that keeps the engine running. They’re not in the business of philanthropy or championing free speech for its own sake. So, expecting them to suddenly prioritize anything over profits is like expecting gravity to stop working. It’s just not going to happen. This isn’t some idealistic pipe dream; it’s the fundamental reality of how these entities operate.
If profits are the lifeblood, then the flow of information and public opinion are the arteries. It’s a delicate balance, and Trump, according to this view, understands that. He appears to be leveraging his power, whether through direct pressure, regulatory actions, or even just the implicit threat of retribution, to control the flow. He’s working to manipulate the media ecosystem to silence those who criticize him. This includes using government agencies to do his bidding.
The only way to counter this is to make the lack of free and accurate speech unprofitable for broadcasters. This is where the audience comes in. If people refuse to watch, listen, or subscribe to media outlets that are perceived as biased or beholden to Trump, then the financial incentives for censorship begin to crumble. Boycotts become a powerful weapon in this scenario. It’s about taking away their profit, and thereby, their power.
This approach acknowledges that the system is designed this way and that it won’t change without concerted effort. The expectation isn’t some overnight transformation, but a gradual erosion of the incentives that drive censorship. It’s the same way we deal with other threats from corporations.
Of course, there’s a major hurdle. The oligarchy appears to control many of the media companies now. Many of the top news outlets are owned by a small number of giant corporations. With this level of consolidation, competition is suppressed. The power to change things is in the hands of the people, but it is a big ask in a world that is increasingly divided along political lines.
Also, remember, this is a call to arms, so to speak. It’s a rallying cry to take action. It’s about demanding that media outlets uphold their responsibility to truth and free speech. It’s about understanding that the fight isn’t just about Trump; it’s about the future of the media and the health of democracy.
The point is pretty clear: There are no easy fixes. It’s a long game, a marathon, not a sprint. It requires constant vigilance, awareness, and a willingness to act. And, most importantly, it requires people to vote with their wallets.