Musk's threat to buy MSNBC is no joke

For the past week, Elon Musk has repeatedly commented about buying MSNBC. At the same time, Musk accused the news outlet of peddling "puerile propaganda" and derided MSNBC's ratings, which have—as might be expected—dropped since the election. The result has been a string of comments on Twitter and Fox News in which Trump supporters chortle over the thought of replacing Rachel Maddow with Joe Rogan and exult in the distress they believe Musk's comments must be generating on the left.

Many of Musk's "jokes," and those of toadies like Rogan, have been accompanied by the kind of homophobic, racist, or misogynist memes that have come to dominate Twitter since Musk laid down $44 billion to destroy that platform. But even as Musk and his social media pals laugh, no one should consider this a farce. It's a threat. And it's not just a threat against MSNBC.

Musk is signaling that he has the limitless resources and unchecked power to purchase and shutter any outlet he believes represents a threat to Donald Trump or the incoming array of kleptocrats. He can not only silence perceived critics, he can do it on a whim.

What Musk is suggesting is known as "media capture," and it's a common practice among authoritarian governments everywhere. Whether it's a long series of Russian journalists falling from windows, or Victor Orban building a media empire that controls every scrap of news reaching the citizens of Hungary, a hallmark of authoritarian governments is that they do not tolerate independent reporting.

One of the first and most obvious messages to emerge in the wake of the election earlier this month was just how uninformed and misinformed many American voters already are. In post-election interviews, many voters falsely attributed policies advocated by Kamala Harris to Trump. The policies that Trump actually ran on, from inflationary tariffs to mass deportations to the destruction of the legal system, were either missed altogether or dismissed as inconsequential political rhetoric.

The reason for that is simple enough: While the right has an effective media force at every level, America has no progressive media.

When people are in their cars, radio pundits push a constant stream of fearmongering and hatred. Rush Limbaugh may have been one of the first of these toxic voices in America's ear, but he's the soul of moderation compared to many that now fill the airwaves.

When people are in their homes, right-wing propaganda is always available. It's not just Fox News, Newsmax, Real America's Voice, Right Side Broadcasting Network, and One America News Network. It's The 700 Club, Great American Family, and dozens of syndicated pundits. In many cases, these pundits pop up during news programs that are nominally on NBC, ABC, or CBS stations as right-wing owners like Sinclair Broadcasting insert commentary into what are supposedly factual news programs.

When people are waiting for their tires to be changed, their teeth to be cleaned, or their meal to be prepared, there's a good chance that if there's any news programming available at all, it's a right-wing broadcast backing Trump, sowing suspicion about "others," and offering up good old American solutions couched in racism and violence.

On the left, there is effectively no alternative. Some late-night comedians are willing to take Trump on, and a handful of cable programs mingle comedy with a dose of news content. However, there is no progressive news platform in the United States.

Trump supporters may be quick to deride the traditional "big three" outlets, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post as if they are all the products of Karl Marx, but all of these outlets—with the exceptions of a few programs of commentary and a scattering of editorial columns—still hold to a broken concept of "balanced" coverage, even when that means leaving lies unchallenged.

If anything these outlets skew distinctly right just because they are so concerned about being seen as favoring the left. Over the last decade the extent to which these outlets have bent over backward to avoid being critical of the right, while joyfully leaping on any perceived weakness of the left, has become startlingly obvious.

In the 2024 election, large news outlets demonstrated an astounding willingness to amputate their coverage, to "sane wash" messages from Trump, J.D. Vance, and other figures on the right by leaving out their most outrageous, hateful, and bigoted statements. Viewers, listeners, and readers of the unvarnished right-wing media got a steady stream of statements that painted President Joe Biden as either an incompetent bumbler or a subversive radical socialist, Harris as a race-bating communist, and the Democratic Party as a threat to "traditional American values."

Those who took their news from the other outlets received a message that this was just another election, both candidates were unpopular, and boy, would you check out the price of eggs.

It has been clear, from 2016 to date, that there is no statement Trump could make that would cause the media to genuinely hold him to account. There has never—not even on the days when a jury held that he had sexually assaulted a woman in a dressing room, or when another jury found him guilty on 31 felony counts—been a time when news outlets barraged Trump in the way they did Hillary Clinton in 2016 or Kamala Harris in 2024.

What Musk is proposing now, isn't the elimination of intrepid opposition journalists. It's cleaning up around the edges. It's making sure that the only message, is the one that he approves.

Musk's threat to buy MSNBC followed a tweet from Donald Trump Jr. suggesting that he do just that. Both followed an announcement that the news outlet's parent company, Comcast, was spinning the channel off as part of a package of cable channels.

While Comcast may insist that the channel is not for sale, and Musk may continue to pretend that this is all for laughs, no one should believe this is the case. Musk isn't joking. It's a real threat and a real message—not only will Trump's billionaire cronies demonize any outlet that fails to fall in line, the owners of those outlets can avoid any trouble by just handing over the keys.

In a 2019 report, international agencies identified four steps in media capture by authoritarian regimes.

Capture the media regulator

In this case, that means the FCC. Trump has selected Brendan Carr to head the agency that regulates not just television and radio but internet access. Carr is the author of the chapter on the FCC from Project 2025 where he called it an "institution ripe for change." Expect Carr to not only carry through on threats to remove broadcast licenses from networks that don't toe the Trump line, but to eliminate diversity in rural broadband selection in favor of enormous contracts for Musk's Starlink service. Also expect Carr to go after social media platforms like BlueSky, forcing them to end moderation practices that prevent right-wing trolls and bots from degrading that platform's effectiveness. Don't expect Carr to be concerned about media consolidation or figures like Musk and Rupert Murdoch continuing to expand their reach.

Control of the public service broadcaster

For years, the focus of Republicans has been stripping PBS and NPR of government funding. Don't expect that to be the limit of the damage in this cycle. Instead, expect the complete capture of these outlets and a refocus on using them to spread the right's message at every level—including in programming aimed at children. You may think that NPR has already made a big shift to the right (because it has), but what's coming is going to be much worse.

Use of state financing as a control tool

With the collapse of the advertising model, it's become increasingly difficult to operate a large newspaper, radio, or television network without the largesse of a deep-pocketed owner. However, outlets will likely see that change over the next four years with an influx of funds for those willing to say the right things. Good Trump-loving patriots can expect the coffers to open. It's already clear that some media figures can see those dollar signs and are anxious to follow.

Ownership control

The simplest solution in many cases will be exactly what Musk is suggesting about MSNBC. The cost of public media outlets is well within the scope of what billionaires are willing to pay to expand their influence. Jeff Bezos may have spent a reported $250 million on The Washington Post and related properties, but that's not even half of what he spent on his yacht — on one of his several yachts. Musk bought Twitter by offering the owners an unrealistically high value for their property. He could do the same with MSNBC. Or any other outlet. And those owners will take his money, no matter what they're saying now.

Existing news outlets, tangled up by billionaire owners and upside-down notions of "fairness," have been singularly ineffective in delivering news over the last decade. But it can get worse. Much worse.

Here are a few random imaginary headlines that don't require more than a dime-store crystal ball.

• Fox News and Newsmax exclusively allowed on military bases
• White House press conferences remove journalists under investigation for "treason"
• FCC moves to award Starlink nationwide contract for providing rural broadband, declares it will save billions
• CNN goes dark following dispute with regulators
• Congress opens investigation into censorship on BlueSky as FCC passes new rules against blocking or banning users
• U.S. government agencies to use only social media platforms certified "free"
• Congress insists that Sesame Street include more Christian content

None of these things have happened. Don't think for a moment that they can't. Or won't.

The best move for any of the outlets not already firmly captured by the right is simply this: Report clearly. Stop trying to be fair to people who have no interest in being fair, or honest, or anything less than hateful.

America needs an opposition media. It needs one quickly.

Unfortunately, there are no signs of that opposition emerging. Musk may be threatening to buy MSNBC, but in the meantime, the remainder of the media is signaling that they don't need to be captured — because they are willing to capitulate.