The Rising Power of the Podcast

An interesting thing is happening in the new “Golden Age of America.” The mainstream media are quietly fading away.

Although former media giants have been losing their credibility, influence, and audiences for a quite a stretch of time, things really seem to have accelerated over the past couple of weeks.

Most recently, a string of mainstream anti-Trump media figures have given up their positions, including Jim Acosta who exited CNN, Chuck Todd who fled NBC News, Norah O’Donnell who left CBS News, Andrea Mitchell who vacated her MSNBC anchor chair, and Neil Cavuto who waved good-by to Fox News.

Thanks in large part to a whole lot of fake reporting, many left-leaning outlets had simply lost the public trust. That’s when the media vehicles of podcasting and streaming stepped up to provide a much-needed alternative to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

And what happened is quite remarkable. New media figures that were accurate, informative, and real became more powerful and more influential than their media predecessors had been.

Acosta’s former employer generally brings in less than 400,000 viewers during primetime hours. On the other hand, Joe Rogan, who hosts one of the top three podcasts in the world, averages 11 million viewers per episode.

As a result of the changing media landscape, leftist media outlets are no longer able to control the narrative.

One contributing factor in the newfound success of podcasts is the growth of Gen Z (ages 13 to 24) audiences.

Edison Research found that 47 percent of the Gen Z online population (an estimated 24 million Americans) are monthly podcast listeners.

Interestingly, podcasters played a significant role in the landslide victory of President Donald Trump. According to a Bloomberg report, a group of highly popular podcasters and streamers rose to become the new mainstream source of information for millions of young males.

In the report, 9 podcasters were specifically cited: Adin Ross, Andrew Schulz, The Nelk Boys, Logan Paul, Joe Rogan, Lex Friedman, Patrick Bet-David, Shawn Ryan, and Theo Von.

In one impactful episode, Rogan interviewed then-GOP presidential nominee Trump during the final weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign. The podcast drew more than 50 million views on YouTube.

During the 2024 campaign cycle, nominees of both parties courted podcasters in an effort to seek support from voters who increasingly obtained their news information from non-traditional sources.

Vice President and Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris scheduled an interview with Alex Cooper for her “Call Her Daddy” podcast. Harris also sat with the hosts of the “All the Smoke” podcast for some Bay Area basketball talk.

Meanwhile, with the help of his son Barron’s media savvy, Trump focused on getting his MAGA message out via podcasts especially to young male voters.

It was inevitable that media changes would eventually come to White House press briefings and elsewhere in the government, including the Pentagon.

As part of the alternative media ecosystem, podcasters have been afforded seats at the table where they are permitted to ask questions at press briefings, much to the disdain of the establishment press.

At her second press briefing, John Ashbrook of the Ruthless podcast was allowed to ask White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt a question.

Ashbrook, a former campaign strategist to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., sat in the “new media” seat among chairs that in prior administrations had been reserved for members of the White House press corps.

Leavitt called the Ruthless podcast “one of the most influential podcasts in America.”

Meanwhile over at the Pentagon Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth booted formerly prestigious media outlets from the Pentagon’s press offices to make room for new media organizations. The New York Times, NBC News, NPR, and Politico were told to evacuate their Pentagon office spaces by Valentine’s Day.

In their places, three new outlets were welcomed, The New York Post, One America News Network, and the Breitbart News Network.

As the new media kids on the block, podcasts have had an impressive beginning.

In my opinion, they’ve only just begun to wield their media power.

ABC News and Stephanopoulos Give Trump an Early Christmas

ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos recently settled a lawsuit with President elect Donald Trump.

The terms of the agreement have the defendants in the suit forking over $15 million to the incoming prez, the money being designated for a future presidential library or similar foundation.

Also included in the settlement is a forced payment of $1 million of Trump’s legal fees and a big crow-eating apology.

Trump had filed a lawsuit over an interview that Stephanopoulos had conducted with South Carolina congressional representative Nancy Mace.

During the Mace interview, the former Clinton administration operative repeatedly made the false allegation that Trump had been found liable for rape in a civil case that was initiated by E. Jean Carroll and took place in a New York courtroom earlier in the year.

Rep. Mace, a rape survivor herself, was being interrogated on her endorsement of Trump, and Stephanopoulos was evidently trying to paint her as a hypocrite. She felt personally attacked by Stephanopoulos and was brave enough to directly take him on at the time.

“I live with shame,” she said. “And you’re asking me a question about my political choices, trying to shame me as a rape victim — I find it disgusting.”

Most viewers did as well. ABC News had a serious problem from that moment on.

Shortly after the interview aired, Trump filed a defamation lawsuit against both the network and the anchor.

Stephanopoulos subsequently appeared on a politically friendly late-night show with host Stephen Colbert, posturing about the then-pending defamation legal action and boasting that he would not be “cowed out of doing my job because of a threat.”

All things considered, the most compelling part of the Trump win came in the portion of the settlement in which both ABC News and Stephanopoulos agreed to issue apology statements, expressing regret surrounding the case.

Both the settlement agreement and apology statements have already had far-reaching effects. Stephanopoulos has deactivated his X account and left the platform.

While the settlement has been heralded by center-right folks, it has also been viewed as the end of Western Civilization by the compromised media crowd and woke mob gang.

Regarding the settlement, reporter Oliver Willis wrote on Threads, “This is actually how democracy dies.”

Sharon Waxman, editor in chief of the Hollywood trade outlet TheWrap, wrote. “This is both confusing and disheartening. #Disney and #ABC caving to Trump.”

Democrat attorney Marc Elias posted, “Knee bent. Ring kissed. Another legacy news outlet chooses obedience.”

CNN media analyst Brian Stelter asked on X, “Why did ABC agree to pay and apologize? The network won’t say. It could have kept fighting in court, but decided to pay $$ to end the dispute and make the case go away.”

NPR TV critic Eric Deggans wrote on his X account, “Wow. Feels like one more mainstream news organization bending the knee.”

Keith Olbermann sarcastically posted, “What a great look @abc News.”

Left leaning legal analyst Allison Gill, known online as Mueller, She Wrote posted, “This is so gross.

Why not depose him [Trump]?” she asked. “The case wouldn’t cost more than $15M and ABC would have won if they bothered fighting.”

Human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid characterized the settlement as “the cowardice of legacy media out to make profit, rather than uphold principle.”

Here in the United States, a 1964 landmark Supreme Court case made it far more difficult for public figures, as opposed to ordinary folks, to sue for defamation. This is not the case in many other parts of the world.

In my opinion, reform in this area of the law is long overdue.

The timing of the ABC-Stephanopoulos settlement is interesting to say the least. It occurred a few short days after U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette Reid ordered the president elect, and more importantly Stephanopoulos, to submit to depositions of four hours in length.

The ABC News-Stephanopoulos settlement sends a powerful message. It is one that says news personalities, especially those who work for far-left media outlets, can no longer broadcast false claims in the cavalier manner that they have become accustomed to.

An early Christmas present for those who value truth in news reporting.

Goodbye to MSNBC

Media and technology conglomerate Comcast is spinning off cable news network MSNBC from its roster, along with a number of other cable networks.

The company announced it will create a new publicly traded entity, which will house MSNBC and NBCUniversal’s additional cable television networks.

Comcast is giving the new company an apt moniker, “SpinCo.”

Unveiling of the plans are shaking up the media landscape and sending shock waves through the network’s offices.

It all came to a head when MSNBC lost over half its viewers following the electoral triumph of President elect Donald Trump.

An additional ratings drop occurred after Joe Scarborough, host of the network’s program “Morning Joe,” revealed that he and wife/co-host Mika Brzezinski had recently met with President elect Trump at Mar-a-Lago, ostensibly to “restart communications.”

The ratings tank and spin-off talk had Scarborough questioning his own future employment with the channel.

“I could be completely wrong. We could all be fired a year from now. You never know what’s going to happen tomorrow,” he said on his show.

There are a number of reasons that the spin-off is happening. First up is the fact that streaming is clobbering cable. Execs are understandably concerned about the steady increase in cord cutting that has taken place, especially among the younger demographic. This segment of viewers is accustomed to having non-bundled options and is partial to streaming media.

Comcast has also let it be known that current chairman of NBCUniversal Media Group Mark Lazarus will be named SpinCo’s CEO. Sources have indicated to Variety that Lazarus spoke to an audience of concerned staffers and talent, which included MSNBC personalities Rachel Maddow, Chris Jansing, and Katy Tur.

MSNBC will evidently be joined by the business news network CNBC in being detached from NBC News.

Since the two networks will no longer be a part of NBC, attendees at the meeting with Lazarus reportedly expressed concerns about whether the use of familiar symbols, which have been used by MSNBC for decades, will be allowed to continue.

In a shocking admission, Lazarus said that because of the spin-off he wasn’t sure whether MSNBC would have to give up its current image, identity, or home.

“Everyone is in a panic because everything is up in the air,” one MSNBC source told The New York Post.

Journalists at the network CNBC are coming apart at the seams at the prospect of being separated from NBC’s news division. This is because MSNBC routinely shares reporting, and a significant part of the network’s daytime schedule uses correspondents from NBC News.

Andrea Mitchell, chief foreign affairs correspondent and chief Washington correspondent for NBC News, has anchored a daily MSNBC show since 2008. And MSNBC’s Katy Tur and José Díaz-Balart have dual roles as journalists for NBC News as well.

Lazarus was unable to answer questions about MSNBC’s newsgathering and whether the cable news outlet would have to develop its own capability for collecting and verifying news, which is a daunting task to say the least.

The idea of giving MSNBC a makeover has been tossed around for a long time. The network wasn’t always the far-left echo chamber that it is today.

Back in 1996 it originally launched as a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC (although Microsoft would later divest its stake in the TV network).

Like fellow cable networks had previously done, MSNBC would go on to broaden its horizons by doing political coverage as well as opinion-oriented programming. A variety of viewpoints were represented on its programs, ones that ranged across a spectrum from Phil Donahue on the left to Tucker Carlson on the right.

Oh the good ol’ days, when there was a fairly clear line of demarcation between hard news and editorial opinion. That line served a number of important purposes, including a commitment to truth and accuracy in the conveyance of national and international information as well as an adherence to a journalistic code of ethics.

It could be that the good ol’ news days are going back to the future. And the sport of intellectual sparring will make its own separate comeback.

Let’s all stay tuned in whatever new media way is preferred. And may the Truth win out.

Journalism Goes Hollywood

It’s the mainstay of the entertainment industry.

Take bits of creative fabrication, put them all together in celluloid form, and pass the whole thing off as reality.

Voila! A big-screen, little-screen, and/or digital-screen production is born.

Once upon a time entertainment fare didn’t infiltrate journalistic territory. Instead it was happily confined to its own terrain.

And there was a kind of unwritten truth-in-advertising code within the journalism profession as well, secured by an internal bond of trust in news media venues across the culture.

Those days are long gone. The dividing line between entertainment and news media has almost been completely obliterated, and nowhere is it more obvious than within the realm of politics.

So what happens when news journalism goes Hollywood?

Well, in the past professional journalists pretty much had a singular goal, which was actually outlined in the first draft of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, dated 1926: “Seek truth and report it.”

It appears as though way too many journalists have chosen to ditch their reporter notepads and are now itching to get into the Hollywood production game.

Let’s take a look at how Hollywood has done things for decades.

Filmmakers select a story to tell. It can be an original idea, an extension of a previous artistic work, or myriad of other fanciful combinations.

Screenwriters create a script, which oftentimes undergoes multiple revisions in order to increase dramatic effect or enhance entertainment value.

Production designers and art directors create visuals and construct sets.

Locations are scouted and choice venues are selected.

Filming begins, with repeated scene shoots taking place so that the finest performances can be selected from the mix.

An extensive editing process occurs in which scenes are examined, and segments of footage can be re-arranged and/or cut out completely if so desired.

The movie is then assembled and delivered in its completed state.

And of course there is a whole industry built on marketing the final product.

If we apply the above-outlined entertainment template to the news business, it begins to become clear as to what has occurred within a once-noble profession.

Journalism has gone Hollywood.

Some may immediately say, “So what’s the problem?”

The answer is simple. The Fourth Estate is now on life support. However, The Fourth Estate has, and always will be an essential component in keeping a free society free. So if The Fourth Estate truly dies, so does our liberty.

Traditionally, journalists have had an ethical obligation to inform the public, taking particular care to report truthfully and accurately. They have also had an ethical obligation to clarify mistakes that are made and/or issue retractions.

The public hasn’t seen a whole lot of this of late. Instead the opposite has been occurring. Here’s a glaring example.

Vice president and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris recently sat down for an interview with CBS. After a less than sterling outing, it was discovered that the network had used some filmmaking techniques to give the vice president’s performance an extreme Hollywood makeover.

Interviewer Bill Whitaker had asked some rudimentary questions, but the responses given were woefully insufficient. That’s when the network went to work on editing and rearranging her remarks, ultimately making her appear to say something that she didn’t and to be someone that she isn’t.

As a promotion for the segment, the network had released raw footage of her answer to a question about Israel and leader Benjamin Netanyahu. It was embarrassingly bad.

But when CBS later aired the same Q&A, viewers were presented with a new and improved version of her response.

The network had evidently gone to great lengths to produce an edited, i.e., quasi-fictional response, one that had been digitally cut from an earlier part of the interview and re-inserted in the “preferred” place.

Also present in the edited version was some dubbed-in narration, which served to cover up some of her less than perfect responses.

Those who actually still care about the future of journalism, including The New York Post editorial board, have demanded that CBS release the full transcript of the interview. And according to The Post, former CBS staffers are demanding an independent investigation into the matter.

CBS is not alone in jumping into the Hollywood editing game. Action News on 6 ABC (located in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania) aired two different answers from the vice president regarding her economic policies, and then went on to publish the edited version on its website.

Times sure have changed. So-called news outlets are routinely copying the fanciful storytelling and elaborate production of liberal Hollywood. And fiction and fabrication are now unapologetically presented as fact and truth.

Yes, time is running out.

But rest assured, there are still a lot of us out here who will never stop hoping for a Hollywood happy ending and a return to truth.

Wise Words of Wikipedia’s Co-founder Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger is an esteemed figure in the technology community.

Recognized as one of the early pioneers of the Internet, in 2001 he co-founded Wikipedia.

He is also credited with having come up with the site’s name, which is a combination of the word “encyclopedia” and the Hawaiian word “wiki,” which means “quick.”

He and almost all of the early tech-innovators back in the day envisioned a continuous “free and open” Internet, one in which the marketplace of ideas could forever run with abandon.

Sanger has a Ph.D. in philosophy, served as a professor at a number of universities, and remains one of the truly deep thinkers of the technology world.

Many view him as the chief source of the underlying philosophy of the World Wide Web.

In an interview with senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute Christopher Rufo, which was conducted for City Journal, he reacted to statements of former Wikimedia Foundation CEO Katherine Maher, who is now CEO of NPR.

Maher’s statements have created a major backlash. She has basically rejected Internet freedom, admitted that collaboration with government to censor content has been occurring, and seemingly embraces relativism over objective truth.

Acknowledging the inherent bias that exists in Wikipedia, Sanger stated, “The fact that certain points of view have been systematically silenced, is nothing new.”

Yet the Maher comments that were recently reported by Rufo appear to have left Sanger seriously befuddled.

“My jaw is on the floor,” he said.

The Wikipedia co-founder indicated that he was previously unaware of “just how radical-sounding Katherine Maher is.”

Wikimedia’s former CEO reportedly said that it was an error for Wikipedia to be “free and open” and also suggested that allowing the site to be managed in this manner has led to bad outcomes.

Maher also acknowledged that she has worked together with governments to suppress what she deems as “misinformation” appearing on the Wikipedia site.

Sanger was quick to remark, “It’s fantastic, in a bad way, that she actually comes out against the system for being ‘free and open.’”

He views her actions in collaborating with government to censor material as completely incongruent with the notion of a free Internet.

“When she says that she’s worked with government to shut down what they consider ‘misinformation,’ that, in itself, means that it’s no longer free and open,” he noted.

He views it as outrageous that the site “has not just been taken over by the Left, but has been co-opted by and working with the government. That’s not a thing I would’ve imagined happening 20 years ago.”

What makes the situation even more untenable is the fact that now Maher is the head of a national broadcasting company that is financed by American taxpayers.

Sanger believes that she should be immediately removed from her position as CEO of NPR.

“If NPR wanted to prove that they were still committed to free speech, to being ideologically neutral, and simply nonpartisan, they would let her go right away,” he said.

He remembers clearly the vision of the web at its inception.

“We didn’t have to have a special vision of a free and open Internet. That was the Internet,” he emphasized.

Those of us who were early Internet adopters believed that freedom would forever be its hallmark.

Sanger said that in those early days “the notion of restrictions on free speech was nowhere to be found.”

He additionally commented that “in the 1990s and 2000s, Democrats and Republicans were competing with each other to demonstrate how much in favor of free speech they were.”

In an attempt to enhance the understanding of the fragile nature of the net, the online founding father drew from his academic background.

“As a philosopher, I knew that this was not automatic, that it could easily change,” he explained, noting that “we could lose these freedoms.”

To paraphrase the words of one of our nation’s eminent founding fathers, it’s a free platform if you don’t bleep it.

The Christian Nationalist Label

The unthinkable is happening.

Christians in America are under attack from the establishment media, the Hollywood community, and leftist activists within our country.

It was never supposed to be this way. Not in the Land of the Free.

Apart from our Christian founding, people in America generally tried to maintain a kind of “live and let live” attitude, particularly when it came to an individual’s personal religious and political beliefs.

But somehow this cultural tenet, like so many others, has mysteriously been turned on its head.

Christians are suddenly being tarred with the label “Christian Nationalist.”

So what exactly is a Christian Nationalist?

To the best of my knowledge it is a phrase that is currently being used to foment hatred against those who believe in the New Testament and who view the founding documents of our country as a national treasure.

Things seem to be escalating at a rapid pace. The pejorative has been turned into a meme that is being used to repeatedly massage people’s minds and turn Christians and patriots into pariahs.

It may also be a means to further suppress free speech as well as the free exercise of religion.

Apparently it began last year with verbal assaults that were aimed at House Speaker Mike Johnson.

Speaker Johnson had acknowledged his sincere religious beliefs, and the Christian Nationalist label has been used ever since to defame him and the GOP.

Mainstream news outlets have been releasing hit pieces disguised as journalism.

–Time Magazine published an article titled “The Christian Nationalism of Speaker Mike Johnson.”

–Politico followed suit with a piece called “The Christian Nationalist Ideas That Made Mike Johnson.”

–The New York Times joined in with an article titled “Christian Nationalism Is No Longer Operating Beneath the Surface.”

–More recently, in anticipation of the upcoming 2024 presidential campaign, Vanity Fair featured the title “Trump Allies Hope to Spread Christian Nationalism in the White House.”

–The Nation published an article called “Hit Trump on Theocracy, Not Hypocrisy.”

–The Hill deployed “America is facing a threat of biblical proportion: The rise of Christian nationalism.”

Other mainstream and left-wing outlets spewed out similar messages.

In an MSNBC appearance, Politico national investigative correspondent Heidi Przybyla indicated that a belief in the notion that rights come from God is an indicator of “Christian Nationalism.”

“The thing that unites them as Christian nationalists — not Christians, by the way, because Christian nationalist is very different — is that they believe that our rights as Americans, as all human beings, don’t come from any earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress. They don’t come to the Supreme Court, they come from God,” Przybyla uttered.

Referring to natural law as “a pillar of Catholicism,” Przybyla suggested that although natural law was once used for good, “an extremist element of conservative Christians” now apply it to abortion and same-sex marriage.

Bishop Robert Barron, founder of Word on Fire, a Catholic organization, responded to Przybyla in a video posted on X (formerly Twitter).

After citing language contained in the Declaration of Independence, Bishop Barron pointed out the peril of denigrating the ideas contained within this foundational document.

“It is exceptionally dangerous when we forget the principle that our rights come from God and not from the government,” the bishop said, “because the basic problem is if they come from the government (or Congress, or the Supreme Court) they can be taken away by those same people.”

He then issued an ominous warning: “This is opening the door to totalitarianism.”

Hollywood, too, has gotten into the Christian Nationalist name-calling craze.

Rob Reiner has taken a lead role in a not so subtle attempt to negatively brand a huge portion of the population.

Acting as a kind of unofficial marketer of the propaganda, he has produced a film that is chock-ful of falsehoods.

He recently promoted his movie on MSNBC by pushing the meme while simultaneously maligning both Johnson and former President Donald Trump. Then he pulled out the race card.

“They believe that this is a white Christian nation,” Reiner said, seemingly implying that “they,” i.e., Christian Nationalists, are inherently racist.

In the documentary itself, respected institutions and organizations, including The Heritage Foundation, Turning Point USA, and Hillsdale College, are also disparaged in the propaganda process.

All of this started me thinking about the “Deplorables” label of the past.

I remembered that it took the air out of their sails when the label was embraced by those who were in support of the former president.

So here goes.

I love Jesus. I love our country. And I love all people.

If that makes me a Christian Nationalist, so be it.

Restore Newsmax to DirecTV and Score a Win for Our Free Speech Rights

To truly amass power, a would-be autocrat or totalitarian regime will typically suppress any criticism or dissent that might emanate from those who may wish to challenge such authority.

How is the sinister goal of silencing vast numbers of individuals or organizations reached? By controlling and/or eliminating the free flow of news and information within a society.

Examining Newsmax’s removal from DirecTV’s platform is critical in understanding what has happened to the Fourth Estate, what stage in the totalitarian process we are presently in, and what are the means by which we can make our way back to freedom.

In a 2020 Atlantic article, which was written by Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods, and recently referenced by legal scholar and law professor Jonathan Turley, the article’s authors stated that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”

Characterizing “significant monitoring and speech control” as “inevitable,” the authors also determined that “governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with society norms and values.”

This translates into the First Amendment’s complete abolishment.

It is imperative therefore to focus on the recent action by DirecTV (AT&T’s satellite TV provider) in removing Newsmax (the fourth largest cable news channel) from its network, and doing so on the heels of the similar earlier removal of One America News from its lineup.

Twitter owner Elon Musk opened the eyes of so many with the release of the “Twitter Files.” These are internal messages that demonstrate the company, under previous ownership, interacted with government and law enforcement officials to block or restrict prominent right-of-center accounts.

To the rescue have come some heroic office holders that are currently working, via policy and law, to rescue free expression from the jaws of suppression.

The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana have filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Louisiana against the White House and dozens of government officials, alleging that they have been coercing media to censor political criticisms, which is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The outcome of the case is part of the valiant effort to restore the First Amendment to its proper place, and to also expose the “disinformation” ruse.

The attorneys general are responding to recent revelations that indicate news media companies, digital platforms and social media companies have worked in tandem with government officials to discriminate against the free expressions of their political opponents.

Andrew Bailey, Missouri’s new attorney general, was blunt in his language regarding administration officials.

“When, in the public forum, there is speech they disagree with and does not align with their political narratives they then collude with and coerce Big Tech’s social media to take that speech down.”

Via the discovery process attendant to the lawsuit, the depositions of administration officials and the production of documents have yielded evidence, which points to explicit and repeated censorship.

The legislatures of Florida and Texas have stepped into the free speech fray by passing new laws that help prevent digital platforms from removing content that is based on viewpoints involving politics, policies and the like.

The new Republican majority in the House has formed a select subcommittee to investigate what chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, described as routine government violations of the First Amendment’s protections.

Legislators have subpoenaed top tech executives of some of the tech industry’s biggest companies. They are conducting a probe into whether there was collusion between Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. to suppress free speech.

Letters demand documents and communications, including any White House communications related to the regulation of content between the companies and administration officials.

Said documents and communications are being sought from Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella.

Perhaps legislators will consider adding the names of the executives who run DirecTV and AT&T to the list.

“Congress has an important role in protecting and advancing fundamental free speech principles, including by examining how private actors coordinate with the government to suppress First Amendment-protected speech,” Rep. Jordan’s office indicated in a statement.

So the free speech battle lines have been drawn. The fight to restore free speech in the digital media realm brings up a simple question.

How much ideological discrimination of speech should a free people tolerate?

Here’s the simple answer.

None.