Why has the media become so vulnerable to Trump, and what can we do about it? Even after Disney's reversal on Jimmy Kimmel, the vulnerability remains — unless we change the rules. Robert Reich Oct 9 Friends, Jimmy Kimmel returned to the airwaves just two weeks and two days ago (although in Trump time, it seems far longer). Disney’s decision to allow Kimmel back on was a victory for freedom of the press and a setback for Trump’s authoritarianism. Nonetheless, today’s media ecosystem is far more vulnerable to authoritarianism than it was decades ago. Today I want to explore three structural changes in our political economy that have made it so, and suggest what must be done to strengthen media independence. 1. Media concentration has facilitated censorship. After Paramount’s CBS settled Trump’s frivolous $16 million lawsuit against them and canceled Stephen Colbert, much to Trump’s delight, the FCC swiftly approved Paramount’s merger with Skydance. The result: a newly consolidated media giant now run by David Ellison — son of Larry Ellison, the world’s third-richest man and a major Trump donor. Now, Ellison has announced Paramount’s acquisition of The Free Press and installed its anti-“woke” founder, Bari Weiss, as editor-in-chief of CBS News. This is the same billionaire-led conglomerate that wants to absorb Warner Bros. Discovery — an even bigger step toward the concentration of the power to shape public opinion. The proposed merger would hand control of CNN, CBS News, HBO, MTV, Comedy Central, BET, HGTV, TNT, and more to a single mega-corporation — with Trump’s allies at the helm. When the media is under the control of a handful of people, it’s far easier for an authoritarian in the White House to intimidate that handful — and force them to do his bidding — than when the media is less concentrated. In 1983, the U.S. media was dominated by 50 companies. Today, that number has shrunk to just six giant media conglomerates. 2. Ultra-wealthy individuals are now controlling major media. These are people likely to be biased against the public’s right to know. The second trend has been a shift in control over those media corporations to a relative handful of ultra-wealthy moguls. As noted, the Ellison family is rapidly taking over a large swath of media. Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, bought X (then Twitter) for $42 billion. He then turned it into a right-wing cesspool. Jeff Bezos, the second richest, owns Amazon and The Washington Post. Rupert Murdoch, another billionaire, owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Post. Why are the ultra-rich buying up so much of the media? Vanity may play a part, but there’s a more pragmatic — some might say sinister — reason. As vast wealth concentrates in the hands of a few, this small group of the ultra-wealthy may rationally fear that majorities of voters could confiscate their wealth through, for example, a wealth tax or the elimination of the “stepped-up basis at death” rule, which would tax all capital gains. If you’re a billionaire, in other words, you may view democracy as a potential threat to your net worth. Control over a significant share of the dwindling number of media outlets enables you to effectively hedge against democracy by subtly (or not so subtly) suppressing criticism of you and other plutocrats. Seen in this light, Jeff Bezos’s decree that The Washington Post’s opinion section support “personal liberties and free markets” isn’t just a means of ingratiating himself with Trump. It also reduces the risk that movers and shakers in the nation’s capital might be seduced into raising taxes on people like Bezos. 3. The shift from stakeholder to shareholder capitalism. Behind these maneuvers lies a third underlying shift — from the stakeholder capitalism of the first three decades after World War II to the shareholder capitalism that began in the 1980s — along with the rise, starting in the 1990s, of CEO pay packages consisting of large amounts of shares of stock and options to purchase additional shares. Paramount (CBS) surrendered to Trump, and Disney (ABC) initially did so, because they determined that fighting him would have cost those firms’ CEOs and shareholders far more. Disney then discovered — when its customers threatened to boycott all Disney products and services — that the actual cost of surrender was far higher than it had counted on. Hence, its decision to reinstate Kimmel. I’m old enough to remember when CBS News would never have surrendered to a demagogic president. But that was when CBS News — the home of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite — was independent of the rest of CBS, and when the top management of CBS had independent responsibilities to the American public. The New York Times, by contrast, decided to fight Trump from the moment he initiated a lawsuit against it. That may be because the Times is owned and controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through a trust that holds a majority of special, high-voting shares in the company. The Times is not dedicated to maximizing shareholder value; it’s dedicated to the public’s right to know. *** Trump and his stooges are engaged in blatant political censorship that runs afoul of the First Amendment. But the three underlying trends I’ve just outlined — the consolidation of media into a handful of outlets, the increasing control of the media by the ultra-rich, and the growing primacy of shareholder interests — have made it far easier for Trump and his lackeys to do their dirty work. When and if We the People are ever back in charge, not only do we have to protect freedom of speech from demagoguery, but we must also reverse these three underlying trends that have made it far too easy for a demagogue to undermine such freedom. This will require: (1) conditioning media ownership on a proven commitment to the public’s right to know, (2) using antitrust laws to prevent or break up media monopolies and giant media conglomerates, and (3) raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy so they have less power to undermine our democracy. Easier said than done, obviously, but key prerequisites for restoring American democracy. *** Here’s CBS News’s Edward R. Murrow in 1954, criticizing Senator Joe McCarthy — and criticizing America for allowing McCarthy’s witch hunt. Would today’s CBS News have allowed Murrow to say this on the air? **** PS: Gentle reminders: You can find my new book, Coming Up Short, at your local bookstore or order through bookshop.org, which supports local bookstores. You can see “The Last Class,” here. Or host a screening for it, here.

Again: Why isn’t the media reporting on Trump’s growing dementia? Trump’s increasingly bizarre behavior can no longer be attributed to a calculated “strategy.” Robert Reich Sep 29 Friends, Over the weekend, on his Truth Social, Trump shared a video purporting to be a segment on Fox News — it wasn’t — in which an AI-generated, deepfaked version of himself sat in the White House and promised that “every American will soon receive their own MedBed card” that will grant them access to new “MedBed hospitals.” What? Believers in the “MedBed” conspiracy theory think certain hospital beds are loaded with futuristic technology that can reverse any disease, regenerate limbs, and de-age people. No one has an actual photo of these beds because they don’t exist. Trump also posted (again, without any basis in fact) that the FBI “secretly placed … 274 FBI Agents into the Crowd just prior to, and during” the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, during which they were “probably acting as Agitators and Insurrectionists.” Trump added that this “is different from what Director Christopher Wray stated, over and over again!” and went on: “Christopher Wray, the then Director of the FBI, has some major explaining to do. That’s two in a row, Comey and Wray, who got caught LYING.” In fact, the Department of Justice’s inspector general reported that there were no undercover FBI agents at the January 6 riots. (FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed that the few FBI agents present on January 6 were there on “a crowd control mission after the riot was declared.”) Trump also announced Saturday that he intends to send the U.S. military to Portland, Oregon, authorizing “Full Force, if necessary” to “protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.” Hello? Although protesters have been camping on the sidewalks outside the ICE office for months, the demonstration has dwindled to almost nothing. Of the 29 related arrests, 22 happened on or before July 4, when the protests were at their peak. What’s been the media’s response to Trump’s bonkers postings and announcements this weekend? Nada. The media either ignored them, mentioned them as part of Trump’s “strategy,” or assumed Trump was just being Trump. But there’s another explanation. Trump is showing growing signs of dementia. He’s increasingly unhinged. He’s 79 years old with a family history of dementia. He could well be going nuts. You might think this would be covered in the news, but he isn’t facing anything like the scrutiny for dementia that Joe Biden did. Perhaps the most telling evidence of Trump’s growing dementia is his paranoid thirst for revenge, on which he is centering much of his presidency. The paranoia was becoming evident in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election. On November 11, 2023, he pledged to a crowd of supporters in Claremont, New Hampshire, that: “We will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections and will do anything possible — they’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American dream.” Most media commentators chalked this up to overheated campaign rhetoric. But since occupying the Oval Office, Trump has demanded that his attorney general target political opponents, urged the head of his FCC to threaten a major network for allowing a late-night comedian to say things Trump disliked, suggested that the government revoke TV licenses of network broadcasters that allow criticism of him, and pulled government security clearances from former officials whom he deems his enemies. Less than two weeks ago, he demanded that the Justice Department prosecute a handful of named political opponents “now!” — including James Comey, whom Trump fired from his post in 2017 after Comey oversaw the FBI’s investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election; Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who indicted Trump; and Adam Schiff, U.S. senator from California, who played an active role in the House hearings on January 6, 2021. On September 19, Erik Siebert, the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (initially selected for the position by Trump) resigned after Trump told reporters “I want him out.” Siebert had concerns about the strength of the evidence against both Comey and James. The following day, Trump posted a message to his attorney general, Pam Bondi. “Pam,” it began, “Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.’” He said he was promoting Lindsey Halligan, one of his former personal attorneys, to take Siebert’s place, and fumed: “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” On September 22, three days after Halligan assumed office, she secured a simple, two-count indictment against Comey for allegedly lying to Congress and for allegedly obstructing justice. “JUSTICE IN AMERICA! One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey,” Trump exalted on social media following the indictment. “He has been so bad for our Country, for so long, and is now at the beginning of being held responsible for his crimes against our Nation.” The Comey indictment was a blip in the weekly news cycle. The media appeared to shrug: Yes, of course Trump is vindictive, so what else is new? But wait. Are his acts those of a sane person? Or of an aging paranoid megalomaniac? Even if it’s unclear to which category Trump belongs, shouldn’t this question be central to the coverage of his presidency? At the very least, shouldn’t the media be actively investigating? *** PS: Gentle reminders: You can find my new book, Coming Up Short, at your local bookstore or order through bookshop.org, which supports local bookstores. You can get the audiobook here. You can see “The Last Class,” here. Or host a screening for it, here.

What My Father Taught Me About Bullies Robert Reich Sep 1 Friends, Trump is the bully-in-chief — a sociopathic tyrant capable only of forcing others to submit to his will. We are all feeling the consequences of his malignant narcissism. History is littered with the tragic outcomes such bullies have wrought. It is impossible to appease a bully; giving in to them just encourages their bullying. The only way to deal with bullies is to join together with others and stand up to them. Many of you have asked me to repost a reading I did earlier this summer from Coming Up Short, about what my father taught me about bullies. If you’d like to hear the entire book as an audiobook, you can find it here. Many thanks. RR

The Fine Print of Trump Fascism The Trump regime is taking over every major institution in America. Here's how. Robert Reich Jul 31 Friends, Today I want to describe for you the specific mechanism of control the Trump regime is using over the core institutions of America — the media, higher education, our largest corporations, and Wall Street. It's all in the fine print. Start with CBS. It’s now owned by Skydance Media. Under its Trump-appointed chairman, Brendan Carr, the Federal Communications Commission insisted, as a condition of allowing Paramount to sell CBS to Skydance, that the new owner install an “ombudsman.” What will that ombudsman do? According to Skydance Media’s agreement with the FCC, the ombudsman will “receive and evaluate any complaints of bias or other concerns involving CBS” for at least two years. The agreement doesn’t specify the meaning of “bias,” nor does it define whose “complaints” are to be responded to, nor enumerate what “other concerns” might trigger action. But none of this is difficult to imagine. Trump himself could complain of CBS’s bias or anything else. In fact, he probably will. He already has at least once. If the ombudsman then decides that any complaint of bias or other concern is justified, CBS will have to remedy it. If the ombudsman decides that CBS has not remedied it, Skydance Media’s new president, David Ellison, must do so. If Ellison does not remedy it — or if Trump believes the problem continues, regardless of what the ombudsman decides — the Trump regime can claim that CBS has reneged on its agreement, in which case Skydance’s ownership of CBS could be contested by the FCC. Its stock price would plummet. Note that this method of Trump control is indirect but powerful. The regime doesn’t have to assert control over CBS; it just retains the power to do so. And it’s up to Trump to determine what CBS will have to do to avoid being found to be “biased” or avoid any “other concern.” This mechanism of control is similar at Columbia University, whose new agreement with the Trump regime stipulates a mutually agreed-upon “monitor” who will, like CBS’s ombudsman, respond to complaints about “bias.” Columbia will provide the monitor detailed information about the race of students who are admitted and rejected, including grade point averages and standardized test scores broken down by race. All data related to faculty and administrative staff hiring and promotion practices must be provided to the monitor annually, and hiring data will be subject to a “comprehensive audit.” The monitor is also charged with assuring that the university establishes processes to guarantee “civil discourse, free inquiry, open debate, and the fundamental values of equality and respect.” And the monitor will review data to assure Columbia is meting out discipline without regard to a student’s immigration status. The monitor’s decisions are advisory. If the Trump regime is dissatisfied with the monitor’s decision or feels that the university is not acting in accordance with it, the Trump regime reserves the right to open a new investigation of Columbia and possibly revoke current or future federal research funds. Just like the CBS agreement, the Columbia agreement gives final power to the Trump regime. It allows the regime to maintain control over Columbia by holding a cudgel over the university. As Linda McMahon, Trump’s secretary of education, told Fox Business, “This is a monumental victory for conservatives who wanted to do things on these elite campuses for a long time because we had such far-left-leaning professors.” Or consider the Trump regime’s agreement allowing Nippon Steel to acquire U.S. Steel. During his 2024 campaign, Trump denounced Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel as a threat to American manufacturing. “I am totally against the once great and powerful U.S. Steel being bought by a foreign company, in this case Nippon Steel of Japan,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “As President, I will block this deal from happening. Buyer Beware!!!” On resuming office, though, Trump approved the deal. But this was after forcing Nippon Steel to give a “golden share” to the Trump regime — essentially giving Trump veto power over strategic decisions by the company. You see the pattern? Veto power over strategic decisions. Ombudsmen. Monitors. They’re all mechanisms for giving the Trump regime power to prevent these institutions — a television network, university, or corporation — from doing something that the Trump regime doesn’t want it to do. But because that power is held in reserve, Trump doesn’t have to display it. The heads of these institutions will do all the work for him; they’re likely to go out of their way to avoid offending the regime. The potential chilling effect is enormous. It’s much the same with major law firms that have surrendered to Trump. And with ABC. And with Jeff Bezos’s control over The Washington Post’s editorial page — which appears to be motivated by fear that Trump might retaliate against Bezos’s other businesses unless Bezos forces the Post to toe the line. It’s the same even with Wall Street. “I have been working on multiple deals where I have people inside the White House telling me what I can and can’t do,” a top dealmaker involved in mergers and acquisitions unrelated to the government recently told the Financial Times. “It’s a level of intrusion I have never experienced before.” Note these words: A level of intrusion I have never experienced before. That from a dealmaker on Wall Street! The words apply to more and more institutions in America that used to be free from government control. This level of intrusion inhibits public criticism of Trump, which is what Trump wants. It also deters so-called “conservative bias” in university hiring, however the Trump regime wants to define it. It eviscerates whatever Trump dislikes, such as corporate “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs, or transgender women in women’s sports, or contracts with people or institutions against which Trump holds grudges. In short, this level of intrusion gives the Trump regime potential control over almost every institution and organization in America, every aspect of American life — but indirectly, quietly, and as a default if the leaders of the institution go too far. I’m old enough to remember when conservative Republicans stood for limited government and accused Democrats of wanting too much government. No longer. We’re now at a point in American history when a so-called Republican regime in Washington is extending its control far beyond the wildest dreams of the most left-wing of Democrats — or even socialists. But this control is not exercised publicly. It’s behind the scenes. It’s found in the fine print. And it is personal. It depends on Trump’s whims. This is what fascist control looks like, people. By the way, my memoir of my life and times, entitled Coming Up Short, will be out next Tuesday, August 5. If you wish, you can preorder here from Bookshop.org, which supports local bookstores, or find it wherever books are sold. I wrote it to share what I’ve learned about stopping bullies — at a time in American history when we’re dealing with an authoritarian bully who is encouraging bullying throughout the nation and the world. I hope you find it helpful for understanding how we combat the bullies. And why I believe so passionately that we will.