Sorry for this dump. I’m old enough to recall that the most frightening words in the English language have now frighteningly evolved.
As I have previously stated, I'm an NPA (No Political Affiliation) I am not a registered Democrat or Republican although I was recruited by the Regan-Bush administration to serve as Division Chief at the US Information Agency's Spanish-language content arm.
I recall GOP POTUS liked to say they were “I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.” It is now” I’m here to protect you whether you like it or not. These two phrases are similar but they're still still the same old song.
My decades of experience in communication have touched on a critical evolution in how media landscapes have changed, and how power has shifted both in terms of financial backing and influence. The emergence of Fox News in 1996 was indeed a pivotal moment. Back then, mainstream media had its own established power, and Fox News initially was regarded as a fringe player—an annoyance, as you say. But the way it was able to leverage growing discontent with the so-called "liberal media bias" and craft a distinct identity for itself helped it solidify its place at the center of the conservative media ecosystem.
Rush Limbaugh, too, played a significant role in the evolution of right-wing media, though he was primarily a radio presence, which made his impact more limited in terms of shaping broader media narratives. His real influence was in creating a cultural movement, with his larger-than-life personality serving as a template for a new kind of media celebrity.
What changed the game, though, was the rise of the internet and digital platforms. In many ways, the internet’s early promise of democratizing information was more effectively realized on the right, where investment in digital infrastructure allowed for the quick scaling of voices that could rally a base. The comparison between the right-wing and left-wing media investments over the past two decades is striking. Conservative billionaires (like Rupert Murdoch and others) poured money into media companies, and that investment paid off—not just in terms of revenue but in building a political infrastructure that goes far beyond just media, creating networks of think tanks, advocacy groups, and direct political influence.
On the other hand, many liberal media ventures struggled once the advertising model was undermined by the rise of Google, Facebook, and other tech giants that gobbled up the ad revenue that used to sustain independent outlets. Websites like HuffPost, Daily Kos, and others started as powerful voices but have had difficulty maintaining their momentum in the face of economic shifts and changing user habits.
In some ways, this has led to an increasing polarization of the media landscape, where the right has become particularly adept at using media to push narratives and galvanize political movements while left-leaning media has faced more financial and institutional headwinds. This dynamic is evident not just in traditional media, but in the explosive growth of platforms like Breitbart, and later, the rise of alternative online outlets, podcasts, and even YouTube channels.
It also begs the question of whether this pattern is sustainable or if it will eventually shift as new forms of media continue to emerge. The current state of media—where traditional outlets are struggling while partisan digital content flourishes—suggests that the old rules of media might be fundamentally changing, for better or worse. What do you think the next decade holds for this divide? Will new models emerge, or is this polarization becoming entrenched?
raises several thought-provoking points about media control, power, and historical parallels. Let’s break it down and reflect on the underlying implications.
Some media companies are not satisfied with simply maintaining a slight advantage in media influence. The desire is for domination. This is significant because media isn’t just about broadcasting news—it’s a tool for shaping public perception, framing narratives, and controlling what information is emphasized or suppressed. If Sinclair, or another powerful media conglomerate like News Corp., were to control major newspapers like The Washington Post, they would be in a position to shape political discourse on an even larger scale. We’re not just talking about the ability to report facts, but to determine which facts are presented and how they are interpreted.
The fact that some for-profit companies have established a strong foothold in local news markets with their right-leaning content is a step toward a broader consolidation of power. While their expansion into the print realm might seem like a long shot, media conglomerates constantly evolve. The broader consolidation of power, especially if it extends to multiple media formats, is a logical next step for those with the resources and ambition.
The comparison to guerilla movements is striking. When revolutionary groups—whether left-wing or right-wing—take control, their first move is often to seize the means of communication. The radio or television station is the conduit for disseminating propaganda, rallying support, and controlling the narrative. This is true across ideologies because the ability to shape reality through media is central to the consolidation of power. It’s not just about having control over the state apparatus; it’s about having control over what people believe about their world and their leaders.
This comparison is a reminder that media isn’t neutral. It’s an instrument that can be wielded to shape political, social, and cultural realities. The control of media doesn’t just affect what news gets shared; it dictates how societies are structured and how conflicts are understood. If a powerful corporation like Sinclair or News Corp. were to take over an institution like The Washington Post, it could shape national politics in ways that go beyond just providing information—it could manipulate the very framework in which that information is understood.
We live in an era where media conglomerates wield unprecedented power, often more so than the state itself. Think about how social media platforms like Facebook, Google, and X aka Twitter influence elections, public opinion, and even the political survival of leaders. The role of these platforms in amplifying or suppressing particular narratives is immense. Traditional media companies, like Sinclair and News Corp., may be seeking to diversify into digital spaces, potentially making their influence even more pervasive.
But it’s not just about political control. There’s also a cultural dimension here. The rise of corporate media giants can result in a narrowing of voices and viewpoints. Independent journalism struggles to compete with the resources of these conglomerates, and smaller, independent outlets find it harder to survive. This leads to a more homogenized media landscape, where a handful of companies control the flow of information.
If media control were to concentrate in the hands of a few large corporations, the risk to democratic society would become clearer. Democracy depends on an informed electorate, and in the age of media manipulation, controlling the flow of information becomes central to maintaining power. If we rely on only a few major corporations to tell us what’s happening in the world, we risk losing the diversity of perspectives that are vital for a functioning democracy.
The consolidation of media power could lead to a narrowing of political discourse, where dissenting views are marginalized, or where narratives are shaped to benefit certain corporate or political interests. In such a scenario, the public might find it more difficult to access a balanced view of events, undermining the idea of a free and informed society.
Recognizing the risk is the first step. If media domination by a few large corporations is something to fear, then we must find ways to counteract it. That might include advocating for stronger antitrust measures, supporting independent journalism, and fostering a media ecosystem that includes diverse voices—both in terms of ownership and content.
There’s also the question of how to adapt in an age where traditional forms of media are increasingly challenged by digital platforms. New models for supporting independent, local, or niche journalism may emerge, but they need the support of audiences and policymakers to thrive.
The contemplation of media domination as a tool for power brings to light the profound connection between media and political control. History shows that those who control the narrative control the future. The prediction that major media companies could target highly influential newspapers like The Washington Post is not just a matter of speculation—it’s a sign of how media empires expand their reach, consolidating power in ways that could affect every level of society. What’s happening in the media today is part of a broader global struggle over the future of information, democracy, and power itself.
