Trump FCC Prepares To Destroy Whatever’s Left Of Media Consolidation Limits
from the merge-ALL-the-things! dept
During Trump 1.0, his captured FCC took at absolute hatchet to what was left of media ownership limits. Those limits, built on the back of decades of bipartisan collaboration, prohibited local broadcasters and media from growing too large, trampling smaller (and more diversely owned) competitors underfoot. The result has been a rise in local news deserts and (if you hadn’t noticed) a painfully disinformed electorate.
The Trump FCC stripped away a lot of the rules specifically so Sinclair Broadcasting, a GOP-propaganda effort posing as local news (recall the old Deadspin video?), could acquire Tribune Broadcasting for $3.9 billion. But ironically, Sinclair lied so frequently and repeatedly to regulators when selling the deal that even the dodgy, industry-friendly Trump FCC had to pull their support for appearances’ sake.
Even with media consolidation rules in tatters, the broadcast industry hasn’t been satisfied. They’ve been arguing for years that thanks to the success of streaming, there’s simply no reason to have any media consolidation limits whatsoever. Giants like ABC, Fox, NBC, and CBS are all very keen to continue their often mindless and clearly harmful consolidation spree and merge with each other.
In 2023, the Biden FCC made a fleeting, bare-bone efforts to protect whatever is left of media consolidation limits. FCC lawyers are currently in Minnesota court defending the restoration of those restrictions, but it’s expected they’ll shortly find the rug pulled out from beneath their feet by the “leadership” of Trumplican FCC boss Brendan Carr.
Even if the FCC wins the case, it’s expected that Carr will use his FCC majority to dismantle what’s left of any sort of media consolidation limits at industry’s behest:
“Carr has long supported relaxing media ownership rules and is expected to roll back the 2023 order regardless. It appears he’ll soon have the majority he needs to do that, with Democratic Commissioner Geoffrey Starks planning to step down “this spring.” That will leave two Republicans and one Democrat at the agency.”
Broadcasters claim that because streaming is so commonplace and competitive now, there’s no longer any need for any media consolidation limits whatsoever. They (falsely) claim that once these restrictions are lifted, they’ll just magically start re-investing in local markets:
“The economics in TV don’t support having more than three independent newsrooms in the vast majority of markets,” Andrew Kilberg, the attorney for the broadcasters, said. “But if they were able to access economies of scale,” he said, “they would have more resources to invest in that.”
But of course “enshittification” and the pursuit of impossibly endless quarterly growth means it doesn’t work that way. And what passes as “three independent newsrooms” in most markets now is already a homogenized mess of hollow infotainment pretending to be real journalism.
As we see in cable and streaming, consolidation routinely just results in higher prices, layoffs, worst product quality, and widespread public annoyance. Most of the same shitty consolidated companies that ruined cable TV are hard at work doing the same thing to streaming as they eye “growth for growth’s sake” and endless consolidation.
The death of newspapers and the consolidation of local broadcasters (often under the control of right wing local broadcast propagandists like Fox and Sinclair) has resulted in vast news deserts and a broadly uninformed (and misinformed) American populace. A recent study out of Northwestern University found that Trump won 91 percent of “news desert” counties by an average of 54 percentage points.
Since their shitty, unpopular policies can’t stand on their own two feet, Republicans want to dismantle all useful journalism and replace it with propaganda. Democrats haven’t had any answer to the threat, routinely only paying lip service to the need for quality journalism, often rubber stamping harmful consolidation, and refusing to modernize party messaging for the modern era.
Streaming and traditional media executives alike are positively giddy for a ramp up in consolidation and enshittification under Trump. Trumpism, in turn, is excited for the continued supplanting of real journalism at the hands of contrarian engagement trolls and assorted bullshit artists. And because policy circles are largely fixated on “big tech,” media policy routinely gets kicked by the wayside.
BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to




Comments on “Trump FCC Prepares To Destroy Whatever’s Left Of Media Consolidation Limits”
And now all bets are off. Currently, Trump cannot be elected as POTUS for a third term, so he’s now in full-on dictator-mode and the rest of the GOP are doing likewise because they feel empowered by this.
Re:
…but there seems to be a lot of gray area. Like, the Vice President must be eligible to become President, but do they have to be eligible to be elected President? If not, we might have Vice President Trump in 2028, and guess what happens if the President resigns…
Re: Re:
This is from the Twelfth Amendment:
The easiest, and likely the most accurate, interpretation of that sentence would suggest that Donald Trump—having exhausted his ability to serve as President due to term limits set in the Constitution—would be ineligible to become President again and therefore couldn’t become Vice President. Any plan involving Trump becoming Vice President and having his running mate give up the Oval Office at some point for Trump to become President again would hinge on the idea that the Constitution would allow it despite the plain language of the document suggesting otherwise. Even our current Supreme Court might not want to upend the Constitution for the sake of a third Trump administration.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s a fine interpretation, but Wikipedia’s page about the office doesn’t mention it, and I don’t find the opposite interpretation as tortured as you suggest.
It would be reasonable to say that the 12th Amendment was referring to the eligibility requirements in the original Constitution, those being the only requirements then existing. If the drafters had meant the requirements to be elected as President, why wouldn’t they have said so? Note that the 22nd Amendment, by contrast, talks separately about being “elected to” the office, and “holding” the office—and, separately again, about “acting as President”, which is another thing to worry about (per Wikipedia: “The Presidential Succession Act refers specifically to officers beyond the vice president acting as president rather than becoming president when filling a vacancy”—if Trump were Speaker, and the President and Vice President resigned, I don’t see any Constitutional protection at all).
The authors of the 22nd Amendment had the opportunity to further restrict V.P. eligibility to those directly electable as President. I think they should have; but, based on the language, it’s likely they considered such possibilities and intentionally neglected to. In general, when we have opportunities to clarify laws like this, we should always take them, rather then just hoping that courts will see it in the same way we do. Assume any ambiguity will be exploited, to the maximum extent possible, by would-be dictators.
Re: Re: Re:2
The Twenty-Second Amendment is as much a part of the Constitution as the Twelfth. While the idea you put forth is reasonable, it would also require ignoring the rest of the Constitution. I don’t see how even this Supreme Court could do that and still maintain even an iota of credibility.
Yeah, see, here’s the thing: People technically elect the Vice President, too. In going with the plain language of the Twelfth Amendment, one could argue that electing Trump as Vice President is, in effect, electing him as President: Both roles run on the same ticket and the incapacitation of the President (or an abdication of office by the President) would require the Vice President to assume office. If Trump has already been elected twice as President (and he has), the Twelfth and Twenty-Second Amendments in tandem would suggest that he can’t be elected Vice President. Only by reading those amendments in a light most favorable to Trump (and pretty much nobody else) could one conclude that he should be eligible for a “third term” by way of becoming VP.
Again: This would ultimately come down to the Supreme Court ruling on such an idea. I have doubts about this—as should anyone—but I tend to think even the justices put on the bench by Trump himself would have a problem with him using the office of the Vice President as an end run around the Constitution.
Re: Re: Re:
This is apparently a reference to the 22nd Amendment, which doesn’t actually say that. It only talks about being elected to the office, not about becoming President or acting as President. Its language is quite carefully worded to differentiate between these three things, which makes me wonder why “Scholars debate whether the amendment prohibits affected individuals from succeeding to the presidency under any circumstances or whether it applies only to presidential elections.”
No Consildation limits, But with a Big "IF".
You forget, Under Carr’s rule at the FCC, Media Companies are not allowed to consolidate if they’re not sufficiently deferential to Trump.
Just ask the folks at CBS.
Re:
Companies soon won’t be able to exist if they’re not Trump propagandists.
Oh wait, sorry, they “just” wanted to repeal section 230 to get big tech to make something better, right? Not like they’d ever deliberately make sure they could shut the little guy out forever if they got the chance.
Bunch of idiots, all of current congress.
Just waiting for Koby to pop in here and tell us how consolidation and lack of competition are good things.
Re:
Does this Koby person often make obviously foolish and wrong statements?
Re: Re:
Pretty much every breath they take is accompanied by an objectively idiotic statement.
Re:
They already argued this when Jeff Bezos decreed what topics the Washington Post could write opinion pieces about. They literally called it “diversity of opinion”.
Nah. They scuttled the Sinclair merger because Rupert Murdoch told them to.
It’s cronyism and corruption all the way down.
Causality
Do we have evidence to support this statement of causality? It seems kind of backward to me. Did people stop reading the newspapers, and thus become uninformed, because the newspapers ceased to exist? I suspect that, actually, they ceased to exist because people had stopped reading them.
Similarly for television and radio news. Who but old people are regularly receiving news broadcasts or newspapers?
I understand that these obsolete institutions did, by an accident of history, often end up running the most popular news websites for the area, and the loss of those could be problematic. But I don’t see the Federal Communications Commission as having any sensible role in fixing it.
Re:
Local news is what’s dying.
https://www.usnewsdeserts.com/reports/expanding-news-desert/loss-of-local-news/
And because consolidation is the ultimate end goal of capitalism, and by proxy, conservatism, guess who ends up in total control of your news?
“Giants like ABC, Fox, NBC, and CBS…”
Huh? Maybe the companies that own them are giants but broadcast per se is circling the drain. One outcome of a failing business model is to consolidate to try to compensate.
Re:
Broadcast TV viewership has declined, but “circling the drain” is an exaggeration. The major networks are still the biggest players in an increasingly fragmented market, and making them bigger might help them but it’s not going to help us.
Mergers can be a sign of a failing business model, but they can also be a sign of a successful one. Disney hasn’t been on a merger spree because it’s a failing business.
Anyone watch this YT Channel?
https://www.youtube.com/@thejuicemedia
Its the Aussies trying to Fight Gov. Corruption. This is where ‘Whats his face’ is from, with Sinclair Broadcasting.
Carr: Consolidation for everyone!
Soros: Great!
Carr: …except for Soros!
“The economics in TV don’t support having more than three independent newsrooms in the vast majority of markets,” Andrew Kilberg, the attorney for the broadcasters, said. “But if they were able to access economies of scale,” he said, “they would have more resources to invest in that.”
So if they aren’t independent, we can have more independent newsrooms. Got it.
Excessive media consolidation was a hot topic — even in the media — when I was in grade school.
I’m retired now, and media consolidation has reached levels barely imagined back then. Yet, somehow, excessive media consolidation and the problems that creates, aren’t talked about in the media anymore…
… Gosh, I wonder why not?