
Elon Muskās takeover of Twitter has been difficult to satirise. The company is , thanks in large part to the US$1 billion in additional debt payments Musk has saddled it with. His idea to sell blue-check verifications for $8 was ā predictably resulting in a flood of fake posts from āverifiedā accounts ā and mass layoffs have put the websiteās infrastructure in . A lockdown of the company offices had many wondering if Twitter would the pre-Thanksgiving weekend.
For the right-wing press, Musk ā who backed the in the recent midterm elections ā is a social media saviour who is appalled by content moderation, factchecking and the banning of certain extremist content. lauded him for reducing spending at Twitter, and others say heās a free-speech champion trying to end Big Tech . The New York Post that the advertiser boycotts of Muskās Twitter were signs of a liberal conspiracy to enforce wokeness online, while ā who once wrote about the greed of big banks for Rolling Stone ā attacked critics of the anti-union billionaire media baron for conducting a pro-conformity witch hunt.
For all of Twitterās problems ā mean-spirited fights, harassment, bots, extremist content ā the social media network has been a liberating way for writers, activists and academics to build platforms and followings free from corporate media filters. Under Musk, Twitter could become such a cesspool of and that it becomes unusable, or the stress caused by layoffs and the revenue losses could bring down the whole thing.
Monied parties
This would be a loss for a lot of users, but such a situation is hardly new in US media. Thereās a long history of monied parties taking over media and watering them down, even breaking them up for parts. Itās just that this time it involves the worldās richest man and social media.
Look at American radio. āSince passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Clear Channelā ā now called iHeartRadio ā āhas grown from 40 stations to 1240 stationsā, which is ā30 times more than congressional regulation previously ā. The company famously silenced the trio the Dixie Chicks on its stations in for the groupās stance, and its news and talk stations are home to right-wing commentators ā including, formerly, the late . These ownersā biases have had enormous political implications due to the consolidation of the radio market.
Meanwhile, , which operates nearly 200 local television stations, was staunchly of the administration, and the group has given to Republicans. The group has the largest local television reach in the country, and its influence is only .
Itās an old story in newspaperland as well. Columbia Journalism Review on how Wall Street investors took over Tribune Company, āliquidating the newspapersā and ātaking declining businesses and effectively selling off their remaining assets that are stable or growingā. Itās a story later retold by and as the situation with Tribune papers worsened.
McClatchy was similarly by Chatham Asset Management. As the American Prospect , these deals often force papers to shed staff and even close down papers, due to the āpractice of cutting costs to the bone to maximize short-term returnsā. For example, McClatchy recently its design and typesetting work.
In both of these cases, consolidation of local media ownership hasnāt just skewed content to the right, but it has created local news deserts where, if papers and stations exist locally, local coverage is either scraped together with barebones staff or audiences and readers are left to dine on warmed over wire copy. This is a deficit for democracy.
Advancing mogul politics
And consider for a minute that Musk, the CEO of Tesla, is the worldās richest person, while No. 2 is of Amazon, who also owns the Washington Post. Like Musk, Bezos is another rich, corporate boss who wants to influence the public discussion through control of a major media outlet. Itās unclear how much editorial sway he has, but FAIR the Postās factchecker Bezos against Senator Bernie Sandersā accusation that Bezos has a lot of money. The Columbia Journalism Review that Bezos has at least passively influenced the direction ofĀ the ±Ź“Ē²õ³ŁāČŁ news and opinion Ā鶹“«Ć½. Musk and Bezos are two sides of the same coin here.
Or consider when the late Republican mega-donor and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson bought the Las Vegas Review-Journal for $140 million, prompting columnist Jon Ralston , āI find it hard to believe that he would have so dramatically overpaid for that paper without having some agenda in mind.ā Under Adelson, the Donald Trump for president twice. Adelson, who was an ardent conservative Zionist, also set up a free Israeli newspaper, Israel Hayom, that until recently āā for Benjamin Netanyahu.
Moguls use their money to advance their politics, through campaign contributions and media acquisitions. In addition to Muskās recent endorsement of Republican candidates, his interest in conservatism grew after the presidential election of Donald Trump. āStarting in 2017, Muskās donations began to skew much more heavily toward Republicans than Democrats, spending on GOP campaigns,ā Business Insider , adding that Musk āaccepted positions on two of Trumpās White House councilsā. He cheered on a in Bolivia, and is outspokenly to unions.
Muskās acquisition of Twitter seems like a new chapter in history, but his choice to either skew Twitter to be friendly to the right (as his right-wing cheerleaders believe he is doing) or to run the network into the ground is only the latest episode of monied interests pillaging our communications infrastructure for financial or ideological gain. Muskās Twitter takeover seems new, because it impacts new media rather than the old. But what Musk is doing to social media has long been done by monied interests to traditional media ā much to the poverty of our journalistic culture.
[Reprinted from .]