Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) recently took to his pen, sending an urgent letter to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel on October 10. He demanded clarity on why the commission expedited this deal with a Soros-backed nonprofit mere weeks before Election Day. How can we trust an agency that seems ready to bypass national security reviews for foreign-funded purchases?

Other Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) have joined the chorus decrying this politically charged decision — which was allegedly made along party lines in a troubling 3-2 vote.

But let’s face it; nobody expects the FCC to reverse course here. As Soros extends his reach deeper into media just as we approach what promises to be a tight race in 2024, conservatives are understandably concerned about what this means for our political landscape.

“What you now have is a left-wing Looney Tune who has access to millions of people in every market in the United States of America,” said David D. Smith, executive chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group. “That’s scary.”

Indeed it is! For too long, conservative voices have been marginalized or outright persecuted within mainstream media channels—something only amplified by moves like these from unaccountable billionaires wielding their financial power without remorse.

Yet there appears little unity among conservatives regarding how best to respond. Some propose that megadonors should mimic Soros’s aggressive investment strategies rather than relying solely on traditional methods that leave them vulnerable and unheard.

Scott Walter—the president of Capital Research Center—echoes sentiments reminiscent of late journalist Andrew Breitbart when he asked, “What is the art of the conservative billionaire?”

He further emphasizes, “Soros, by contrast, makes big investments like this huge radio play. If conservative donors don’t invest more, the damage to our country’s culture will only worsen.”

The reality remains stark; money talks but so does influence through diverse platforms—and trusting adversarial outlets isn’t viable for effectively disseminating conservative messages either.

David D. Smith, executive chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, said, “There are four places where you can have a voice in today’s marketplace: internet, radio, TV and newspaper.

“So the simple question is if I was standing in front of every billionaire in United States right now I would say ‘Do you want to have a voice put out your philosophical perspective?’”

“If the answer is yes, then OK here’s how do that. They have decide: Do they really want just sit their money put it nonprofit someplace? And then they lament fact Democrats control everything.”

For now at least many conservative benefactors still cling tightly onto hopes pinned upon Washington politicians fighting valiantly for their agenda—a misguided notion given how often these elected representatives seem all too willing to capitulate under liberal pressure instead of making principled stands against such encroachments as those brought forth by George Soros.

As disillusionment mounts among frustrated conservatives watching yet another election cycle unfold under unfavorable media circumstances, perhaps it’s time they look towards embracing winning plays rather than remaining content merely playing defense.

Article generated from corporate media reports.

She has six employees. When she was fired by NBC in 2018, she believed that it was the end of her career. She went to dark places in her mind.

But she bounced back with her own broadcasting company and has never been happier or more influential.

The same story has been told by Tucker Carlson, whose network is gigantic and whose influence is far beyond even the heights that he obtained at Fox in the old days. I have no direct knowledge of how many people work for his personal channel, but it is a reasonable guess that it is no more than a dozen.

Everyone knows about the success and reach of Joe Rogan’s show. Apart from that, there are many thousands more with influence in their own sectors of reach. The share of influence dominated by legacy seems to be falling dramatically. You can detect their influence in this election season in which candidates are working the podcast circuit.

You might chalk this up to technology: Everyone has the capacity now to make content and distribute it. Therefore, of course, people do it.

The real story, however, is more complicated.

A new poll from Gallup offers an intriguing look. The latest polls show trust in major media is at an all-time low. It’s fallen from a post-Watergate high in 1976 of 72 percent to 31 percent today. That is an enormous slide, impossible to dismiss as mere technological change. Along with that, the poll documents dramatic losses of trust in government and essentially all official institutions.

The loss of trust has hit all age groups but more profoundly affects people younger than 40 years old. These are folks who have grown up with alternatives and developed a sophisticated understanding of information flows, and are deeply suspicious of any institution that seeks control over public culture.

Gallup stated: “The news media is the least trusted group among 10 U.S. civic and political institutions involved in the democratic process. The legislative branch of the federal government, consisting of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, is rated about as poorly as the media, with 34 percent trusting it.”

In contrast, “majorities of U.S. adults express at least a fair amount of trust in their local government to handle local problems (67 percent), their state government to address state problems (55 percent), and the American people as a whole when it comes to making judgments under our democratic system about the issues facing the country (54 percent).”

It seems based on this poll that, in people’s hearts and minds, we are defaulting back to the America of Alexis de Tocqueville, a network of self-governing communities of friends and neighbors rather than a centrally managed and controlled monolith. The farther the institutions get from people’s direct experiences, the less they are trusted. That is how it should be, even aside from other considerations.

In this case, the causal factors are not only the distance and not only the technology that allows for alternatives. Legacy media has been so aggressively partisan for at least nine years that it has alienated vast swaths of the viewing audience. Top executives have known about this problem for a very long time and worked to fix it, but they face tremendous pressure from within, from reporters and technicians with Ivy educations and a dedication to woke ideology.

The New York Times after 2016 attempted to repair the damage from having so completely mishandled and miscalled the election. It hired new editors and writers, but it was only a matter of time before they were driven out in a reminder to the top brass that there was a cultural revolution afoot, and that the personal is the political and visa-versa.

The newspaper defaulted back to extreme partisanship, leaving owners and managers to figure out other paths to sustaining profitability.

As a result, it appears that an entire industry is in the process of a long meltdown with no available fixes. Huge audiences have turned away from it toward alternatives that are not necessarily partisan on the other side but simply display a dedication to telling facts and truths about which actual readers care.

A question has long mystified me: Is this loss of trust entirely because of a change in media bias, or is it that new technological options have fully revealed what might always have been there but was not widely known? I don’t have the answer to that but it is worth some reflection.

When I was a kid, there were exactly three channels on television and one local newspaper. There was never a chance to see The New York Times except perhaps at the public library. The nightly news came on at 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. It lasted for 30 minutes. It opened with international news, moved to national news, turned to sports, and then the local affiliate took over with local news and weather.

There was perhaps 10 minutes per day of national news on three separate channels, each reporting more or less the same thing. That was it. People in those days chose their station based on whether they liked the voice and personality of the broadcaster. News media was highly trusted. But was that trust based on reliable and excellent reporting, or simply a reflection of all that people did not know?

In those days, my own father was deeply distrustful of what he saw on television. Somehow, he intuited that Richard Nixon was being railroaded by the Watergate scandal. He theorized that someone was out to get him, not for bad things he had done, but for the good he had done and had planned to do. He preached this opinion constantly and it set him apart from all conventional wisdom. Indeed, as a young man I knew for sure that my father was the outlier: None of my friend’s parents agreed and none of my teachers did, either.

Since then, much has come out that seems to reinforce my father’s views.

If Watergate happened in today’s world, there would be a huge explosion of opinions in all directions, with motives of all actors pushed out on every channel, and there would be widespread competition to find the real story. We certainly would not be relying on two relatively inexperienced reporters at The Washington Post.

I happen to believe that this is a good thing, even though it has come with a loss of trust. Maybe the old trust was not nearly as merited as people thought, simply because there were so few options. As the years went on, there were even more sources, starting with PBS but moving to CNN and C-SPAN. After the web came online and social media took off, that’s when the veil was really pulled back and media wholly transformed.

People on all sides of the political spectrum today express profound regret for this change. Former presidential candidate John Kerry has said that today’s media environment makes governing impossible, and Hillary Clinton has floated the idea of criminal penalties for misinformation, a word tossed around so frequently these days but rarely defined as anything other than speech that some people do not like.

All told, the rise of alternative media has surely contributed to the decline in public trust in the mainstream media. This might not reflect a fundamental change in the bias of media sources but simply the reality that we are only now fully aware of what has always been true. In that case, we are better off seeing these trends as good news all around, provided that we have an attachment to seeing reality as it is. In any case, we all should.

Returning to the Kelly/Carlson business model: They are doing far more with fewer staff members than was ever thought possible. It’s a solid prediction that many legacy media companies will be downsizing in terms of personnel in the future. They can do more with less. And they can do it with more fairness and less bias. Economic realities will likely make it so.

The entire landscape of information and media economies is dramatically shifting. That is precisely why we are hearing ever more calls for censorship. Many elites long for the old days of canned and constructed narratives with no other options. But the well-documented loss of trust makes that little more than a pipe dream. It cannot and will not happen.

The only viable path to earning audience loyalty in our times is to write and speak with fact-based integrity. Trust has to be earned.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.