Pete Hegseth: We Can’t Wait For Larry Ellison To Turn CNN Into Another Right Wing Propaganda Mill
We’ve noted repeatedly how the U.S. authoritarian right is buying up all of our new and old media companies because they’re trying to mimic what Viktor Orban created in Hungary. Namely, a media where all the major outlets are owned by rich autocratic allies, who spew propaganda 24/7 while the government strangles real, independent journalism just out of frame.
Of course, you’re supposed to try and have some subtlety in this so the public isn’t fully aware of the con. But the Trump administration doesn’t do subtlety.
Last week Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth apparently got upset by the fact Trump’s war in Iran isn’t going very well. Poor Donald clearly didn’t understand the evolving nature of modern and inexpensive drone warfare (despite all the brutal evidence in Ukraine), and has gotten the country bogged down in precisely the sort of clusterfuck the fake populist pretended he opposed last election season.
Even our soggy corporate press has occasionally been making this clear to the public, something that upsets Pete Hegseth very much. Hegseth apparently got particularly upset with CNN recently insisting that the Iran War had “intensified.” It made him so upset that he openly pined for the moment when Larry Ellison (and his nepobaby son) control CNN, so they can cheerlead for war:
One of the funniest parts about this is that claims the war had “intensified” was made by his own agency in a press release!
It’s very clear that the U.S. right wing won’t be satisfied until the entirety of U.S. media is owned by a handful of rich right wingers like Larry Ellison and Elon Musk, allowing them to create a North Korea bullhorn of daily, uniform propaganda that does nothing but lavish praise upon them. To build something like that here in the States requires a level of subtlety they’re simply not capable of:
Democrats historically suck on media policy and reform (even the progressive wing of the party is fairly incompetent on the subject), so you can’t expect much help there.
But there are several things working in our favor, including America’s sheer size (it’s very difficult to maintain the kind of control they’re looking for), our diversity, the decentralized nature of the modern internet, and the fact that most of the nepobabies (David Ellison) and brunchlords (Bari Weiss) integral to their plans appear to have absolutely no Earthly idea what they’re actually doing.
For example, all the debt Ellison has adopted from the purchase of CBS and Warner Brothers is going to force them to engage in massive, unprecedented cost cuttings and layoffs, making it hard to maintain informational control and build an effective, ratings-grabbing propaganda operation (even if Bari Weiss knew what she was doing, which she assuredly does not).
And the public still has agency. Larry Ellison can buy TikTok and Elon Musk can buy Twitter, but they can’t control the flow of the public as they flee to other, less white supremacist, right wing friendly alternatives. It’s sheer hubris to think they can maintain information control in a country this massive and diverse, and there will be some useful entertainment value in watching them set money on fire trying.




I mean it certainly starts that way. And your point makes sense if you completely ignore the later stage trajectory of most large privately-traded companies over a long enough timeline. Like Boeing. Or the entirety of telecom. And you mention Google, but their search quality is an absolute dumpster fire now because, in part, they're financially incentivized at every level to pursue impossible ever-upward scaling growth over quality.
here's a study from just this week showcasing how U.S. mobile data price competition effectively halted in the wake of the deal https://research.rewheel.fi/downloads/The_state_of_mobile_and_broadband_pricing_1H2024_PUBLIC_REDACTED_VERSION.pdf I'll trim out the relevant bit for you: "Five years on, the Sprint / T-Mobile 4-to-3 mobile merger made the US one of the most expensive mobile markets in the world."
This is gibberish. The FCC literally didn't read the merger review impact studies from its own agency before approving the deal: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/10/22/fcc-approved-t-mobile-sprint-merger-without-even-seeing-full-details/ And the Trump DOJ "antitrust enforcer" Makan Delrahim worked with both companies, in his personal time using his personal phone and email accounts, to make sure the deal got approved: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/technology/sprint-t-mobile-merger-antitrust-official.html That is not how "antitrust enforcement" works. Also here's a study from just this week showcasing how the consolidation in competition immediately put a halt to all wireless data price competition https://research.rewheel.fi/downloads/The_state_of_mobile_and_broadband_pricing_1H2024_PUBLIC_REDACTED_VERSION.pdf mindless consolidation apologists are embarrassing
freedom technology
I mean he just last week called X a "freedom technology," which suggests to me either rampant ignorance or allegiance to the broader mission of being a safe space for bigots. I simply can't take him seriously.
I forgot to mention in this post that Comcast waited two weeks to implement the necessary patch to protect its systems, despite widespread discussion of the severe impact of this particular vulnerability. Good times!
yup. "flood the zone with shit." Undermine consensus and expertise. Erode public trust in institutions. Make it challenging if not impossible to determine what's true. Helps if you simultaneously attack journalism and academia on multiple, concurrent fronts.
thanks
Whoops, thank you. I had conflated the union background with People's Choice (which is engaged in a similar mission) in my head. Corrected, thank you (and please keep up the good work).
the data is super clear on this, yep. Cooperatives, utilities (many city owned), and municipalities provide better, cheaper, faster broadband. AND it's locally owned by people who have a direct responsibility to the markets they serve. It's not some magical panacea, and there's certainly a huge role for private ISPs, but the path forward here is pretty clear. Tons of community-owned open access fiber networks, leased to multiple competitors.
yes, most analysis also doesn't include the hidden fees buried below the line. That just technically doesn't exist, and that's where cable and telecom giants make huge chunks of their profits.
"Push it onto the large ISPs: make them give details of speed availability throughout the territory they’re operating in (or looking to expand into), have an intern overlay it onto a map, and hold the companies to it." One, giant telecom monopolies lie about coverage, constantly. Two, they have spent twenty years lobbying government to ensure telecom regulators are too feckless, feeble, understaffed, and underfunded to hold them accountable for anything. Your proposal basically involves throwing untold billions at a big ambiguous mountain of predatory monopolies and just hoping it all works out Without reform and taking aim at state and federal corruption, none of this works out particularly efficiently, which is kind of explained in the post you responded to.
RTFA
So the FCC's first effort on this front made adhering to it voluntary, which was pointless. The Infrastructure bill required that they implement it permanently with mandatory requirements. But it still needs review and getting it implemented and enforced would require an FCC voting majority, which they don't have because the telecom lobby is currently ratfucking the appointment of a third Democratic commissioner to the FCC. And even with its full voting majority I'm not really sure the FCC would have the backbone to consistently enforce this much.
whoops, yes. brain fart. apologies.
it's so funny because even the Democratic Commissioners heralded as being pro-consumer can't candidly acknowledge in public comments that telecom monopolies exist and cause harm. there's just zero political courage to challenge them in any meaningful way, even if it's just rhetorically.
there used to be these kinds of requirements embedded in many local franchise agreements, but those were largely killed off in a big vilification push when phone companies lobbied to ready the field for their entry into the TV sector.
they're still basing a lot of this on "advertised" speeds. Hopefully this gets corrected courtesy of challenges, but I'm hearing a lot of skepticism on the challenge process actually working.
...
They don't serve my neck of the woods in South Seattle, unfortunately. There's conduit everywhere yet Comcast remains the only competitor here in much of "Silicon Valley North"
right on. "don't do the thing they incentivize you to do and punish you for not doing" is not a solution. And as I note to others, I also don't like laggy GUIs, tying the GUI to basic HDMI port switching, which still happens if you're offline.
I settled on the LG C1 this last purchase round and love the quality, but I still think the OS and GUI is shitty. And it STILL has the same problem where they tether the GUI (which gets slower as the TV hardware ages in relation to software bloat) to HDMI switching, so doing the basic act of switching ports is way more cumbersome and annoying than it should be (even if you operate the TV without connecting it to the internet).
Sceptre is arguably the dodgiest TV brand you can find and he linked to a dated LED TV. He literally didn't read the post, did a 30 second google search, and concluded the issue solved.