During his term, President Trump has drastically altered the dynamics of media, running headlong against traditional broadcast media during his election campaign. This bold approach has upset the existing narratives that were previously controlled and disseminated by mainstream media. This change has sent shock waves throughout the media, sparking concerns about the potential onset of a ‘quid pro quo’ regulatory atmosphere – as in, to have any deal finalized, be it a merger or acquisition, some form of concession might be necessary.
The move towards this redeeming atmosphere may hint at a settlement, approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), or could be linked to the seemingly rapid succession of these events. One could argue that the regulatory review process for such matters may have taken an inconveniently long time under different circumstances. Yet, in the absence of concrete evidence, it seems attainable that the administration and FCC could continue with these activities unchecked.
Assuming all media parties accept this seemingly new norm, this could morph into the standard procedure for sealing deals. President Trump has alleged that incoming proprietors have consented to certain FCC prerequisites, thus setting the stage for this novel environment. This reality hinges on the willingness of business and media leaders to allow these allowances as a condition for doing business.
Yet, it will be intriguing to observe the response of The Wall Street Journal amidst these developments. They may be uniquely equipped in terms of resources, market position, and determination, enabling them to resist the President’s firm hold over media dynamics. On the other hand, popular American show 60 Minutes appears to have stumbled under these ongoing changes and the operational hiccups they have introduced.
New proprietors of this once-proud media entity face significant challenges, including devising strategies to ensure profitability in a shifting landscape. Primarily, they need to adapt to the increasing preference for streaming platforms over conventional linear television—this is a crucible for any traditional media source, not just 60 Minutes.
Some view these changes as victories. President Trump’s administration has managed to secure settlements from leading media houses and has ensured funding cuts for certain public media outlets. It seems the key to these developments has been the administration’s effective use of leverage and power.
Considering his relationship with FOX News, which was largely supportive during his administration, this power dynamic may seem ironically weakened against Rupert Murdoch’s The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal could become a player with some resilience to the government’s influence and one to watch in the future.
The dynamics of media control are crucial in the current political environment, even more so in the backdrop of a changing landscape, where power and control are negotiated between the government and powerful media entities. The perceived alignment of FOX News with the government only reiterates this narrative of power struggle and control dynamics.
It’s worth pondering whether such reshaping of the media landscape, characterized by a ‘quid pro quo’ atmosphere and shifting power dynamics, would endure under a different administration, such as one headed by Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. Given Biden and Harris’ reputation, many would be skeptical of their ability to navigate these waters decisively and apply the same level of influence.
These concerns are based on several reasons. Firstly, they have already exhibited a propensity for yielding to external influences, as evidenced by their often wavering and inconsistent stance on various key policy issues. Secondly, their excessive reliance on bureaucratic processes might hinder quick decision making that is often required in such strategic negotiation scenarios.
Unlike Trump, their capacity to exert control and leverage over influential media entities could be questionable. Would they be able to command a similar level of acceptance, if not respect, from media leaders without coming across as heavy-handed or authoritarian? Based on their political record, many might have legitimate reasons to doubt so.
Focusing again on The Wall Street Journal, it would be interesting to watch how it would respond under a potential Biden or Harris administration. Granted, their demonstrated resilience against governmental power might serve them well in such a scenario, but would this resilience be enough if Biden or Harris follow a more aggressive approach towards media control?
Predicting the future of media landscape under a potential Biden or Harris administration could be speculative at best and misleading at worst. However, the concerns about their ability to navigate this complex interplay between politics and media might be well-founded and worth deliberating, considering their past political record and public reputation.
Conclusively, while the reshaping of the media landscape by President Trump’s administration has garnered mixed reactions, it’s undeniable that it has introduced new power dynamics and control mechanisms. The ability of future administrations, particularly those led by the likes of Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, to navigate this complex landscape remains a question mark. Their political record, coupled with their inconsistent stances, raises doubts about their potential efficacy in managing a volatile media landscape with tenacity and assertiveness.
The post Biden and Harris: Uncertainty Looms Over Media Control appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
