For decades, the institutional left ignored billionaire ownership of NBC, ABC, CNN, and the Washington Post. The moment those institutions started asking tougher questions — or changed hands entirely — ownership suddenly became an existential threat to democracy. What changed wasn’t journalism. It was who controls the megaphone.
By Michael Phillips | Riptide Analysis
WASHINGTON — Something remarkable happened when Elon Musk bought Twitter, when the Ellison family acquired CBS and moved on CNN, when Sinclair expanded its local news footprint, and when Jeff Bezos quietly shifted the Washington Post’s opinion pages rightward. The American left — the same coalition that spent forty years dismissing concerns about media bias as right-wing paranoia — suddenly discovered that who owns a news outlet matters enormously.
They were right. It does matter. It always did. That’s exactly the problem.
The selective outrage over media ownership is not a principled stand for press independence. It is a panicked response to losing something the institutional left held for decades without ever acknowledging it: near-total dominance of the national media narrative. And now, as that dominance fractures, the playbook has shifted from ignoring ownership to weaponizing it — attacking journalists, discrediting outlets, and branding anyone who asks uncomfortable questions as an operative for the other side.
You can see it at the national level in the breathless coverage of every conservative media acquisition. You can see it at the state level in places like Maryland, where Governor Wes Moore’s taxpayer-funded communications team recently deployed opposition research against a Sinclair journalist — not to rebut his reporting, but to label him a Republican operative for asking about the governor’s poll numbers and unanswered questions about his military record. Same strategy, different zip code.
The Ownership Record They’d Rather You Forget
Let’s establish the baseline. For the better part of three decades, the major American media institutions were controlled by ownership with clear left-of-center political sympathies, and this was treated as the natural order of things.
The Washington Post endorsed the Democratic presidential candidate in every election from 1976 through 2020 — a 44-year unbroken streak. Not once. Not occasionally. Every single time, without exception. When owner Jeff Bezos blocked the editorial board’s drafted endorsement of Kamala Harris in 2024 and shifted the opinion section toward libertarian and free-market principles, the reaction from the left was not ‘finally, balanced coverage.’ It was fury, mass subscription cancellations, and accusations of democratic betrayal.
The Ochs-Sulzberger family has controlled the New York Times since 1896. One family. 130 years. Their ideological orientation has been well understood for generations — center-left on politics, progressive on culture, reliably skeptical of Republican administrations. Nobody on the left spent those decades warning that dynastic family control of America’s paper of record posed a threat to pluralistic democracy.
Comcast’s Roberts family controls NBC and what was MSNBC through a supervoting share structure that concentrates power in the hands of a single family, regardless of what other shareholders want. NBC’s political donations went heavily Democratic for years. MSNBC built an entire cable network explicitly serving the progressive political audience. The left’s response to Roberts family ownership of a major news network? Silence. Subscription. Viewership.
CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, donated 87 percent of its political contributions to Democrats during the network’s peak influence years. Not a whisper about how ownership was corrupting the journalism.
The rule, it turns out, was never ‘ownership shouldn’t influence coverage.’ The rule was ‘our ownership shouldn’t be questioned.’
The Shift — And the Panic
What has changed is not the principle. What has changed is the math.
Elon Musk purchased Twitter — now X — and immediately made it inhospitable to the kind of content moderation that had systematically suppressed right-of-center voices during the 2020 election cycle and its aftermath. The institutional left called this an attack on democracy. What it actually was: the removal of a thumb from the scale.
The Ellison family — Oracle founder Larry Ellison, a Trump ally and major donor, and his son David — acquired CBS through Paramount Skydance in August 2025 and then won a bidding war for Warner Bros. Discovery, putting CNN, HBO, and the Warner film library under the same family umbrella. David Ellison has signaled he wants CNN to serve what he described as ‘the 70 percent of Americans who identify as center-left or center-right’ — a formulation the network’s remaining progressive voices treated as a declaration of war. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth publicly said ‘the sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.’ That is legitimately worth scrutiny. But so is the question of why the same scrutiny was never applied when the previous ownership structure reliably produced programming that a Democratic administration would have said the same thing about, in reverse.
Sinclair Broadcast Group has been expanding its local news operation for years, acquiring stations in markets across the country, including Baltimore’s FOX45 and the Baltimore Sun. The left’s response has been sustained and aggressive: Sinclair is propaganda, Sinclair is dangerous, anyone who works for Sinclair is suspect. This is the context in which Maryland Democrats felt comfortable publicly attacking Gary Collins, a Sinclair journalist, for asking the governor about his poll numbers. The outlet had been pre-disqualified. The journalist could therefore be pre-disqualified too.
The pattern is consistent. Fox News has been subjected to forty years of institutional pressure, advertiser campaigns, and rhetorical attacks from Democratic politicians and their media allies — not because its journalism is uniquely bad, but because it exists as a counterweight to a media ecosystem that spent decades tilted sharply in one direction. Every outlet that challenges that tilt gets the same treatment.
The Playbook: Disqualify the Messenger
The specific tactic being deployed against journalists at these outlets follows a predictable sequence.
- First, the outlet is labeled partisan — not through journalistic criticism, not through factual rebuttal, but through association with its ownership.
- Second, anyone who works there inherits that taint.
- Third, when those journalists ask questions that produce bad coverage, the response is not to answer the questions but to attack the journalist’s credibility using the pre-established partisan label.
This is precisely what happened in Maryland. When Collins pressed the Moore administration on a UMBC poll showing 24 percent of residents don’t believe the governor is honest, on a redistricting bill that failed even in the Democratic-controlled Senate, on unanswered questions about military record claims, and on an energy rebate the governor prematurely declared resolved — the response was not a press conference. It was a screenshot of a party registration card and the word ‘operative.’
The spokesperson who executed that strategy works for the state of Maryland. Not for the Democratic Party. Not for a campaign. For the government, on the taxpayer’s dime — the same taxpayer who is still waiting for that $150 annual energy break the governor said was done weeks ago.
Moore’s office is simultaneously advertising for a Partnerships Director at up to $120,000 a year to manage relationships with ‘local and national creators’ and amplify the governor’s message — while the state runs a budget deficit that required $2.5 billion in spending cuts and over $1 billion in new taxes just last year. The influencer-industrial complex, publicly funded. The critical journalist, publicly smeared.
The left didn’t discover media ownership bias. They discovered they no longer own the media. Those are very different things.
What Accountability Journalism Actually Looks Like
Here is the specific irony worth sitting with. The outlets now being attacked as dangerous propaganda machines — Sinclair, Fox, X, the shifting Washington Post — are, in most of these cases, doing something the institutional left-media complex was notably reluctant to do when it held the megaphone: asking uncomfortable questions of Democratic officials and publishing the answers, or the non-answers, regardless of political consequence.
Collins covered Republican accountability in Annapolis. He gave Moore’s lieutenant governor a platform on National Women’s Day. He voted for Moore. None of that mattered once the questions became inconvenient. The only thing that mattered was the logo on his press credential.
That is not a defense of journalism standards. That is a prosecution of them.
A press that can be neutralized by attacking its ownership structure is not a free press — it is a press that is free only so long as it asks the right questions of the right people. The American left built that structure over decades, benefited from it enormously, and is now furious that the architecture is being dismantled. The fury is understandable. The lack of self-awareness is not.
The Principle, Applied Consistently
If media ownership influences coverage — and it does, always has, always will — then that scrutiny applies universally. It applied to Time Warner’s CNN. It applies to the Ellisons’ CNN. It applied to the Roberts family’s MSNBC. It applies to Murdoch’s Fox. It applied to the Sulzbergers’ Times in 1975, and it applies today.
What it does not do is selectively apply only when the ownership shifts away from one ideological pole. A press freedom argument that only activates when the right buys something is not a press freedom argument. It is a market protection argument dressed in constitutional language.
The reporters being attacked — Collins in Maryland, others elsewhere, journalists at outlets that have committed the sin of asking Democratic officials the same questions they once reserved for Republicans — are not operatives. They are doing what journalism is supposed to do: pressing the powerful on behalf of people who don’t have a press credential or a taxpayer-funded communications team.
The politicians attacking them are not defending democracy. They are defending themselves.
There is a difference. In a healthy press environment, the public would be able to tell them apart. That, more than any ownership structure, is what’s actually at stake.
Keep This Reporting Free
If this work matters to you, please consider supporting it.
Your contribution helps fund independent reporting across our entire network.
Discover more from RIPTIDE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
