On Sept. 15, Jimmy Kimmel commented on speculations about who fatally shot Charlie Kirk, a conservative influencer and infamous ally of Trump. Soon after that, Kimmel was taken off air. Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) argued this action had to be taken against Kimmel, and it could be done either the “easy way or the hard way.” This event, and many others, brought to light the harsh reality that the journalism industry is not as perfect as it should be. To some degree, the press has always been controlled. People with power, either political or monetary, are able to decide what information the general public receives. And particularly within the last few years, we’ve seen the true impacts of this power.
The FCC implements and enforces America’s communications network laws and regulations. It has the power to regulate the content that is aired, penalize companies that violate the Communications Act and “[revise] media regulations so that new technologies flourish alongside diversity and localism.” The president selects the commissioner who serves as chairman for the agency. This is just one of many reasons why recent developments have been concerning.
It’s impossible to deny the fact that American nationalistic sentiments are rising throughout the country. When Karen Attiah, the only remaining Black full-time opinion columnist at the Washington Post, spoke up against the controversial viewpoints of Kirk, she was fired. Today, terminations for less-public figures who have chosen to speak out against Kirk’s harmful rhetoric have also been growing more common as well, especially with Vice President JD Vance calling on people to act as watchdogs of their colleagues: “Call them out, and hell, call their employer.”
Trump has been unjustly targeting his critics for years now. During the ongoing criticism of Kimmel, Trump claimed that “all [the networks] do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that,” as if being licensed by a government agency means that they cannot criticize the nation’s leader. The administration has set its sights on challenging the tax-exempt statuses of various nonprofits that have been critical of the president, aiming to make their missions more difficult to accomplish.
The Trump administration has cut NPR and PBS funding, leaving the nonprofit media organizations scrambling for funds. NPR, a radio network, has provided well-researched and reputable journalism for years. PBS has aired countless documentaries and news stories while maintaining a commitment to cultural diversity. By limiting the resources these networks have, the Trump administration is limiting the quality of coverage the nation can access.
This oligopoly over the media can also be seen in our social media as well. Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, acquired Twitter in 2022 with the alleged aim to provide “civilization [with] a common digital town square.” Prior to its acquisition, Twitter, now X, was one of the most popular apps for promoting discourse and spreading news. It allowed for the quick dispersion of new political and social developments, providing an accessible forum for users to weigh in with their opinions. Before Musk took over, checkmarks were a way to denote verification. Public figures could be identified and less at risk of being impersonated by bad actors. Now, though, users have the ability to pay a monthly subscription fee for a checkmark, which in turn pushes their content more than those who are unpaid users. This barrier to entry has created a platform full of Musk’s own supporters, parroting each other’s political views and providing useless or harmful commentary on important announcements.
Similarly, billionaire Mark Zuckerberg owns Meta which now encompasses Instagram. While Instagram was never intended to spread political awareness, in recent years it has grown to help with advocacy. Users post infographics about how policies can hurt people in America or quick reels to spread information, which can then gain virality and encourage protests. So often today, though, mention of certain political movements on the app receive limited visibility.
Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post. The billionaire’s control over America’s media came under fire when a pre-written endorsement for Kamala Harris during the 2024 election was axed prior to publication. After some individuals who worked at the company stepped forward to profess their outrage over the decision, Bezos wrote his own editorial, stating that “[p]residential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election.” At the time, the chief executive officer of Blue Origin, the aerospace company founded by Bezos, met with Trump hours after the Editorial Board of The Post had drafted its original endorsement of Harris.
As a student newspaper, this is the restrictive climate we must navigate within our operations. We have to make sure we are accurately reflecting the ideas of our campus community and being mindful of the opinions of our alumni and donors—who will, and have, vehemently pushed back when they feel the publication has stepped out of line. Every editorial decision requires calculation, not out of choice, but out of necessity. A newspaper should be a forum where complete freedom of speech should be lauded, yet we have seen in recent history that there can be severe consequences for saying exactly what we want to say in the way we want to say it. True editorial freedom requires financial freedom.
At the end of the day, our writers are not allowed to publish content anonymously. This is a hurdle when it comes to being vocal about incredibly controversial topics. This policy does not just encourage students to remain silent, it also highlights the fact that they can be exposed to administrative or political retaliation. If a student wants to share political views not widely held by rich and powerful Americans, they can be doxxed and harassed. This is what today’s environment of divisiveness, hatred and greed has cultivated. While all news sources contain a trace of bias, it is up to us to maintain a generally nonpartisan standard of reporting. The main exception is our opinion section, which is our primary avenue to express concerns about the world around us.
That being said, we encourage everyone who is interested to write us letters and articles for publication. Express how upset you are, say what you think are the biggest problems plaguing our country, dispel apathy. It is our job to distribute information about how our campus community feels, and our audience is the most vital piece of our job.