[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
'The White House Is Shaking Down Media Owners to Get Them to Follow the Trump Agenda' Janine Jackson ([link removed])

Janine Jackson interviewed Free Press's Tim Karr about media capitulation for the September 19, 2025, episode ([link removed]) of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

[link removed]


Variety (9/17/25 ([link removed]) )

Janine Jackson: Even listeners who don't track the business part of the media business will know that Disney's ABC has suspended ([link removed]) , in their language “indefinitely,” the late-night talk show hosted by Jimmy Kimmel, declaring the comedian's comments about MAGA responses to the killing of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk so unacceptable as to warrant silencing.

A search for the reasons a journalistic outlet would make such a decision could start with the response to it. Donald Trump said ([link removed]) , “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done.” And new FCC chair Brendan Carr ([link removed]) thanked Nexstar Media Group, which owns and operates many ABC stations, and had promised ([link removed]) to preempt Kimmel, for “doing the right thing.”

So Trump and the head of a media conglomerate and the head of the federal agency charged with advancing the public interest in media just happened to share a very specific understanding of what the “right thing" is when it comes to censoring political views. But that's not quite the whole story.

Joining us now to talk about what is neither starting nor ending with Jimmy Kimmel is Tim Karr, senior director of strategy and communications at the group Free Press ([link removed]) . Welcome back ([link removed]) to CounterSpin, Tim Karr.

Tim Karr: Hi, Janine. It's a pleasure to be here with you.

JJ: Jimmy Kimmel talked ([link removed]) about right wingers trying to “characterize this kid ([link removed]) who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them,” and doing everything they can to “score political points from it.” FCC chair Brendan Carr called ([link removed]) that the “sickest conduct possible.”

So right there, we can just sit with that for a second. A Fox host called ([link removed]) for unhoused people to be given lethal injections—“just kill ‘em,” Brian Kilmeade said—but that didn't amount to actionably “sick” conduct. So what does is failing to praise a person who said—well, actually, you're not supposed to say what Charlie Kirk actually said ([link removed]) , because that in itself is somehow unfair to his legacy, and in fact will put a target ([link removed]) on you.

Guardian (9/11/25 ([link removed]) )

We're obviously in the topsy-turvy here, rhetorically, where recounting someone's hateful speech is hateful speech, because when he said it, it was God's merciful love, or a hyper-intelligent debating technique, or whatever it is they come up with tomorrow. But it's all the more reason to keep our own heads on straight, and to address what's happening, which clearly this is just one piece of.

So what, concretely, has happened here? How should we understand it?

TK: All of the headlines of the past week have dealt with the death of Charlie Kirk, and—at least for the part of the story that you and I are particularly interested in—the media's response to that. And there has been a concerted effort, across mainstream media outlets, to kind of canonize, to literally whitewash Charlie Kirk's history, so that some of the horrible things that he has said, and he has said many horrible things, are no longer referenced.

And obviously, we have this incident, we have this response. We have now the story of ABC deciding to let Jimmy Kimmel go, or at least to suspend his programming. And what it is, is part of a larger pattern. What we've been doing at Free Press, through the Media Capitulation Index ([link removed]) , is looking at the largest media companies, 35 large media companies, and measuring the degree to which they have capitulated to President Trump.

Free Press (7/29/25 ([link removed]) )

And this is all part of a project by the Trump administration to basically control the message, to control the media. And they have been more effective in this administration than he was in his first administration, of figuring out where those pressure points are.

And those pressure points are often with massive media corporations that have business before government. They're seeking approval of a merger, as is the case with Nexstar and TEGNA ([link removed] local TV colossus Nexstar said Tuesday,consolidate station ownership across the United States.) , as was the case for Paramount ([link removed]) .

And in order to get onto the government's good side, they have to capitulate. They have to do whatever the chairman of the FCC, Brendan Carr, tells them to do, and whatever the White House tells them to do.

So while what we're seeing is one outrageous incident, I think people need to understand it's part of a pattern, an extortionate pattern, where the government, the White House, is shaking down media owners in order to get them to follow the Trump agenda.

New Republic (9/18/25 ([link removed]) )

JJ: Some folks might think "extortion" is a heavy word, but FCC chair Carr said ([link removed]) :

We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.

This is not several steps away from extortion. “You are looking for a merger, you're looking for beneficial federal policy, and we as a federal agency want you to change your tune. So, you know, what’s gonna happen?”

That's not how policy and lawmaking are meant to work.

TK: Well, no, Carr's language feels like it comes straight out of The Godfather, right? It's like, you can either work with us, or you can work against us. And while he has been taking a victory lap ([link removed]) —this is Chairman Carr at the FCC—every time one of these companies capitulates, there are bigger questions about whether the FCC should be in the business of doing this. Obviously, there are First Amendment restrictions against government interference in editorial content.

Tim Karr, Free Press

Tim Karr: "Unfortunately, the companies that have the freedom to report on it aren't willing to take up their constitutional right, and speak truth to power."

The problem is that the media who are supposed to be reporting on these outrages is largely intimidated by this administration. So too often they soft-pedal these stories ([link removed]) , stories of extortion ([link removed]) , of seeking bribes ([link removed]) from media companies, of forcing media companies to fire talent ([link removed]) , to block editorials, to block presidential endorsements ([link removed]) .

It's a First Amendment story. And, unfortunately, the companies that have the freedom to report on it aren't willing to take up their constitutional right, and speak truth to power—in this case, speak out against this extortion that's happening at the hands of Brendan Carr and the Trump White House.

JJ: It's so dispiriting, and not to stay at the level of language, but the twisting of language, and elite media's resistance to untwisting it, rather than just saying, “Well, some say, others differ,” is just galling. I mean, Carr said: ([link removed])

We at the FCC are going to enforce the public interest obligation. If there's broadcasters out there that don't like it, they can turn their license in to the FCC.

It's a very—you could say “creative,” you could say “weaponized”—use of the term "public interest," isn't it?

TK: Yes. The public interest, as far as the Federal Communications Commission is concerned, is largely that the agency, when it's doling out broadcast licenses—we all own the public airwaves, and the agency hands out licenses—is to promote—this is one of the founding principles of the FCC—is to promote diversity (and that's become a loaded term), localism and competition.

And what they've done, claiming it to be in the public interest, is they've rooted out diversity ([link removed]) within these companies. And already media companies are largely owned by wealthy white male individuals. But they've also, through the approval of mergers, they've gotten rid of competition.

New York Times (7/11/25 ([link removed]) )

And they turned their back on localism. As you merge local news companies, local television stations, local radio stations, you get these economies of scale, where they use syndicated content ([link removed]) , rather than local reporting, to cover the news program for these many stations that they now own.

JJ: So it's important to understand how structure affects content. Sometimes when we talk about "ownership," it sounds abstract, because people are thinking about what they saw on the television last night. But this is where these things connect. And this is why an understanding of media concentration, media consolidation—this is where it meets the idea of, if you don't want to see folks fired for not appropriately eulogizing Charlie Kirk, this is why you need to understand who owns your local station.

TK: Yes. And the problem is that many of these owners are billionaires who have massive corporate empires. You look at the owner of the Washington Post, for example: Jeff Bezos also has a company called Blue Origin, which is in space exploration. And they have bids in for billions of dollars worth of government contracts, contracts from NASA, essentially, to help put US spaceships into orbit.

So when you have these massive corporations, you also have massive conflicts of interest. And someone like Jeff Bezos has clearly demonstrated he's more interested in the bottom line, in his profits, than he is in the principles behind the First Amendment. So he has manipulated ([link removed]) the Washington Post in ways that allow him to wrest editorial control from a lot of the journalists who work there.

FAIR.org (2/28/25 ([link removed]) )

JJ: It matters, again, very much how the news media that we still rely on cast this fight that we're in, and cast this situation that we're in, and we don't really see an independent press fighting valiantly against moneyed interests and state power. And if we don't cast the fight in the way that the fight really is, then people get confused about what's happening, and what meaningful intervention might look like. So I just want to ask you, what would good journalism—and I know it's out there, I know it's happening—what does it include, what does it exclude, that we need?

TK: So as I mentioned earlier, when we did the Media Capitulation Index at Free Press, we looked at the 35 largest media companies, and judged their level of independence versus compliance, and in the worst case, acting as pure propagandists. What we found is that size does matter, but in the wrong ways.

These companies are too big not to fail. That is, when you get to a certain size, a media company like Paramount or Disney becomes so entangled with government, because they have so many competing interests, that they fail in their mission to act as the Fourth Estate, as a check against the powerful, and speaking truth to abuses by politicians and billionaires and others.

But as you get smaller, you're finding more and more local, independent, many times noncommercial outlets that are doing good journalism, because they don't have these corporate overlords who are making decisions based on their bank accounts.

JJ: Right. And folks should look out for those, and find ways to contribute at that level.

Also, I know that Free Press is saying ([link removed]) , “Call your ABC affiliate about…”—if we come back to the Kimmel firing, and I understand that people might think that that's not so meaningful, but talking back to big media is still a muscle that we need to exercise to get it strong.

TK: Yeah. I think, one, you need to shame these media outlets that are doing such a poor job of protecting our democracy. But there are also other things you can do in public policy.

The FCC, which is unfortunately under Chairman Carr at the moment, makes a number of important decisions about the shape of our media, about how much consolidation they will allow. Members of Congress, obviously, are very involved in these policies as well. So in addition to going directly to the source—the media company—I think it's incumbent on people to be aware of these structures, the policies that have created the media system that we have today, and also for people to understand that they have some agency in changing those policies.

That's the work that we've done here at Free Press, is we've brought a public voice. We brought the real public interest back into these debates over the future of our media, and now, more than ever, is an opportunity for people to speak out.

JJ: I'm going to end on that note. We've been speaking with Tim Karr. He's senior director of strategy and communications at the group Free Press. They’re online at FreePress.net ([link removed]) . Tim Karr, thank you very much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

TK: Thank you, Janine.
Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .