Trump’s media divide: Business barons cower to his power, while Murdoch resists

During the presidential election, the Washington Post did not back a presidential candidate for the first time in decades and said it would no longer do so in future races. Sir Will Lewis, the former Daily Telegraph and Murdoch executive brought in as CEO by Bezos, ruled that the Post would immediately abandon its decades-old practice of endorsing political candidates. An editorial backing Kamala Harris had already been agreed but was never published.

More recently, Bezos, a major donor to Trump’s inauguration, instructed that the newspaper’s opinion section is to only feature content supporting “personal liberties and free markets,” effectively excluding opposing views.

The decision led to the resignation of opinion editor David Shipley and praise from Elon Musk, who tweeted “Bravo, @JeffBezos!”

X’s owner Musk is of course another business billionaire media proprietor that has turned a once liberal platform into a pro-Trump propaganda machine.

Marty Baron, meanwhile, a highly regarded former editor of the Post, said Bezos’s decision was a “betrayal of the very idea of free expression” that had left him “appalled.”

“It’s craven. He’s basically fearful of Trump. He has decided that, as timid and tepid as the editorials have been, they’ve been too tough on Trump,” Baron warned. “We’re at a point where we’re not having a difference of opinions, we’re have a difference about what the facts are.”

Earlier this year artist Ann Telnaes quit after more than a decade at the Washington Post when her cartoon depicting Bezos among Trump’s sycophants was dropped. Last month, the paper turned down $115,000 and refused a wraparound cover advertisement asking:

“Who’s running this country: Donald Trump or Elon Musk?”

Looking at the newspaper’s stories in response to the Trump and Ukraine debacle, critical analysis is notably absent.

‘Washington now ‘largely aligns’ with Moscow’s vision, Kremlin says,’ is one headline.

‘Trump and the end of the geopolitical ‘West,’’ was another column that argues “Donald Trump and JD Vance may delight in shocking Europe, but their counterparts across the pond are coming to terms with the collapse of a united West.”

There is a sub text in all of this of concerns about the reconfiguring of American policy away from traditional allies towards autocrats like Putin, but it’s done so very quietly as to be almost silent.

The editors are clearly nervous of someone – who I wonder? Forthright, courageous journalism seems to be disappearing like water down a plughole.

LA Times shows signs of bowing to pressure

Even the LA Times, a prominent liberal newspaper, appears to be adjusting its editorial line under the ownership of billionaire businessman Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong. Much like Jeff Bezos, Soon-Shiong’s influence is raising questions about the paper’s direction.

In October, the paper announced it would not endorse a candidate in the presidential election. The decision to withhold an endorsement of Kamala Harris, despite one having been prepared, caused turmoil at the newspaper. Three editorial board members resigned, numerous staffers openly protested, and thousands of readers cancelled their subscriptions.

It also raised speculation about the rationale behind Soon-Shiong’s decision, with the outgoing leader of the paper’s editorial board decrying it as “complicity” in “dangerous times.”

In a CNN interview, Soon-Shiong explained that Harris’ position on Israel’s war in Gaza influenced his choice to block the endorsement. He also announced plans to “balance” the paper’s opinion pages by featuring more conservative and centrist voices.

Yet despite this shift, the LA Times has continued to offer some critical commentary. A recent article focused on Trump’s renewed attacks on the media, referencing warnings from media experts about the new administration’s aggressive use of government power to intimidate an increasingly polarised press.

UCLA 1st Amendment law professor Eugene Volokh was quoted saying that during Trump’s first term, media organisations showed resistance to Trump. “It’s unsurprising that Trump is returning that hostility. I don’t think he ever particularly liked them, but now it seems that he dislikes them even more,” said Volokh.

Murdoch resists

As the business media proprietor moguls rush to cater to the president’s unpredictable demands and navigate his hostility toward the press, Rupert Murdoch is appearing more critical.

The media mogul is well known for aligning his business interests with the politician of the hour yet his relationship with Trump has long been tempestuous. But despite their previous feuds, Murdoch joined the president as a guest at the Oval Office last month, suggesting that the two men were ‘back in business.’

Not quite it seems, as Murdoch publications have been notably critical of the style and substance on Trump’s return to power, particularly in response to Ukraine.

The New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, both owned by Murdoch’s News Corp., launched attacks on Trump’s abandonment of support to Ukraine and his cosying up to Putin.

‘Mr. President: Putin is THE dictator and 10 Ukraine-Russian war truths we ignore at our peril,’ headlined the New York Post in February.

And the author?  None other than Douglas Murray, a well-known Trump bootlicker, who just weeks earlier had praised the President’s ‘one flag’ policy, banning US buildings from buildings from flying anything but the American flag.

Sources close to Murdoch have reportedly said that standing by Ukraine against Putin is “personal” to Murdoch, as a Fox News journalist covering the conflict was seriously injured in a Russian attack, which killed two other reporters.

The New York Post has also extended its hostility to Elon Musk, with a recent editorial headlined: ‘Why Team Trump should beware its job slashing triumphalism,’ warning both Trump and Musk against “gleefully declaring how much they enjoy making tens of thousands unemployed.”

You wonder what Trump now thinks of what was once his “favourite newspaper”?

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), also Murdoch-owned, has been equally critical of Trump of late.

In an article this week entitled ‘Trump takes the dumbest tariff plunge,’ the WSJ slammed his decision on tariffs. It reads: “We’ve courted Mr. Trump’s ire by calling the Mexico and Canada levies the “dumbest” in history, and we may have understated the point. Mr. Trump is whacking friends, not adversaries. His taxes will hit every cross-border transaction, and the North American vehicle market is so interconnected that some cars cross a border as many as eight times as they’re assembled.”

But the WSJ and Trump have not always seen eye-to-eye. In 2015, Trump took issue with the newspaper’s editorial board after it hammered him over his positions on trade, calling for an apology after he said it mischaracterised his views. Several months later, Trump referred to a poll co-sponsored by the paper showing him behind as a “Rupert Murdoch hit,” in reference to the publication’s owner. 

Press hostility spreads to Britain

The Murdoch media’s antagonism towards Trump is making waves across the UK.

‘Forget bully boy Trump or hypocrite Swinney – Keir Starmer knows how to treat our allies,’ headlined the Scottish Sun this week.

Then again, like the WSJ, the Sun and Trump haven’t exactly got a cordial history. In an interview with the newspaper during his first presidency in 2018, Trump said the then prime minister Theresa May had “probably killed” any hopes of a free trade deal between the two countries by ignoring his advice to go for a clean break with the EU. But he then accused the Sun of ‘fake news’, after the newspaper revealed he had blasted the Brexit plan put forward by May and insisted the two nations would be free to strike a deal after Brexit.

But the UK right-wing media’s seeming hostility towards Trump and his allies isn’t limited to Murdoch’s outlets.

A series of recent frontpages have forced you to look twice, some even suggesting solidarity with Keir Starmer, and, dare we say, Europe.

‘Now stop the state visit for ‘bully’ Trump,’ splashed the Mail on Sunday, accompanied with a photo Starmer hugging Zelensky. “THAT’s how to treat a war hero… PM’s hug ahead of crunch summit,’ the article continued.

Even the typically anti-EU Express took a less derogatory position. ‘Now’s the time for allies to unite for peace,’ it splashed in reference to Starmer’s message as Zelensky arrived at No. 10.

Meanwhile, the comments made by Vice President JD Vance about Britain’s war history triggered a furious backlash in the UK media.

‘’Clown’ Vance’s slur on 636 war heroes,’ splashed the Daily Express on March 5, noting a ‘blundering US vice president’ saying Britain has ‘not fought in a war in 40 years.’

While the Sun fired: ‘Show some respect: Brits heroes hit back at ‘ghastly’ JD Vance after Trump’s No2 sparks fury for forgetting UK’s 636 Iraq and Afghan war dead.’

Driven by business interests, notably the desire to deregulate their social media platforms, and to protect their vast financial empires, the billionaire media class is buckling under the pressure of potential lawsuits for any coverage that might anger Trump. As a result, they’re failing as stewards of the press, offering tepid and insipid coverage while Trump’s influence only grows stronger.

Meanwhile, more seasoned media magnates, less afraid of confrontation and with a rather different set of business priorities, seem more willing to expose Trump for what he truly is. Have they at last woken up to what the rest of us knew all along – that capricious Trump is a real threat to any kind of orderly conduct in the world? One thing remains clear: journalists must redouble their efforts in the face of the grave threat to democracy that Trump represents.