Political Interference and the Threat to Free Press

Recent events have highlighted a complex relationship with the free press, depending on the absence of personal cost. Political figures from both parties are leveraging their positions to shield themselves from negative coverage, framing their actions as protection for the public or the press.

President Trump has recently imposed bans on certain critical media outlets from the White House. At the same time, Democrats are opposing a corporate media merger on grounds that appear politically motivated. This week, President Trump stated, “I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW … and Politico.” He questioned the legal grounds for the media printing “fake news,” suggesting potential censorship.

On the other side, Democrats are pursuing their own restrictions on media through legal action. Twelve states, led by Democrat governments, are challenging the merger of Warner Bros. Discovery with Paramount Skydance. The opposition, though framed as antitrust concerns, seeks to protect CNN, a media outlet labeled as liberal, from Republican influence.

Past actions, such as government shutdowns over funding for public radio, or calls to drop Fox News from cable, illustrate both parties overlooking the implications of their actions. While Trump’s criticisms rallied some public support against media bias, his approach challenges long-standing principles upheld by former presidents. Historical figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, despite criticizing the media, understood the significance of upholding the free press as part of their constitutional duty.

Democratic opposition to the merger is direct. Figures like former Obama official Norm Eisen view it as a threat to democratic values. The concern is that David Ellison, of Paramount Skydance, may shift CNN and other assets like CBS toward conservative leanings. Sen. Bernie Sanders called the situation a “power grab by the oligarchs,” demanding opposition to the merger.

Meanwhile, MS NOW, CNN, and other critics of Trump’s announcement support blocking the merger, citing political reasons. Discussions propose conditional approval of the merger if CNN remains under liberal ownership, ignoring potential costs of political interference. Past blockages of mergers, such as Spirit Airlines and JetBlue, ended in bankruptcy and job loss. A similar fate could befall CNN, given its financial struggles.

Despite the intent to preserve what they view as a liberal media platform, CNN is financially vulnerable. Warner Bros. has faced significant financial losses, and the merger could benefit the companies and their employees. The Democratic argument against a monopoly hides political motivations, challenging a merger cleared internationally and supported by experts. Having spent decades as a legal analyst, I support strong media companies. It is crucial to back both a free press and market free from political manipulation, prioritizing journalism’s integrity and economic health.

Historically, political figures have allowed personal grievances to obscure their judgment. Former President John Adams emphasized press liberty as essential to state security, yet his administration targeted journalists under the Alien and Sedition Acts. Today’s political leaders are similarly using influence to control media narratives, claiming to protect the public from misinformation.

Defending the free press and market is not about agreeing with particular media but preserving the right to access diverse information. This allows individuals the autonomy to choose their news sources and beliefs.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”