Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

I really don't like writing about politics and government bodies, but this should alarm anyone working in the media industry and I feel the need to put a light on it.

President Donald Trump is drawing sharp criticism for prioritizing social media battles and the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein saga over core economic issues like tackling rising costs for American families.

While official White House accounts tout the administration’s focus on “Affordability,” the President’s personal Truth Social account has been dominated by off-the-wall posts about the Epstein files—an issue the Department of Justice previously considered resolved—and relentless rage-tweeting at late-night television hosts.

The latest feud erupted following comments made by NBC's Seth Meyers. Meyers took aim at the President's priorities, stating: "Trump claimed his top priority would be lower prices for hardworking Americans, but instead he's spending his time dodging Epstein questions and remodeling the White House." (The latter comment refers to the controversial, multi-million dollar construction of a new White House ballroom.)

The remarks set off a characteristic social media tirade from the President. Trump declared that the NBC host has "an incurable case of Trump Derangement Syndrome" and demanded, "NBC should fire him, IMMEDIATELY!"

This latest call to arms against a late-night personality follows a pattern. The President has spent a significant portion of his time in office attempting to sway network executives to fire his critics, even publicly boasting that he had succeeded in getting Jimmy Kimmel fired. However, viewers tuning into ABC at 11:30 PM Eastern will confirm that Kimmel remains on the air.

But the controversy surrounding the President's thin-skinned media obsession took a troubling new turn when a key regulator openly amplified the attack.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr, the administration’s top official regulating television and radio, screengrabbed and reposted the President’s Truth Social rant demanding Meyers be fired. Carr, who holds significant influence over the very media companies the President is attacking, also posted an additional, separate photo from the weekend, essentially “fanboying” over the chance to hang out with the President.

Looking at Carr reposting what Trump said about Meyers, has even the right questioning him.

"Why in the world is the FCC chairman posting this?" conservative attorney Gregg Nunziata questioned publicly on X, reflecting widespread unease. Fox News said the post was “raising some eyebrows online.”

Critics argue the FCC, an independent agency meant to regulate the media landscape impartially, is now completely compromised by partisan loyalty. The implication is clear: under Carr's leadership, regulatory decisions may be influenced not by public interest or fair practice, but by a willingness to "bow down to the President and kiss his feet."

As one source put it, the President’s behavior and the FCC Chair’s open endorsement show a disturbing shift in focus from governing to retaliating against critics. The concern is that, as the political temperature rises and support within the MAGA base itself begins to show cracks over the President’s focus on the Epstein matter, media companies and the FCC may soon find they have been “kissing the wrong feet.”

The outcry for an impartial FCC and a return to addressing the tangible economic concerns of the American public is growing louder, contrasting sharply with the spectacle of the President’s daily social media drama.

Files

Previews only

Comments

Mark Litton

The networks have turned into a cesspool of money, grabbing shitty programming, outdated delivery system. They should be taken the task, the alleged comedians they have do nothing but stir up, hate and content they deserve everything coming to them.

Bill Flood

If that's the case, they should be taken to task by their audiences, not government regulators. Egregious 1st Amendment violation.

Mark Litton

Please define to me what operating a broadcast facility in the public interest means. I can site 100+ interpretations of that yet it is a qualification to remain an FCC licensee. It would seem to me that people would be more constructive about changing these outdated FCC regulationsrather than bitch about people's interpretation of what they actually mean. Broadcasters have been censored since the beginning of FCC. There are things we can't do or say at different times of the day so why is this now becoming an issue?

Mark Litton

While you're at it, please define for me character issues as a pertains to the ability to hold an FCC broadcast license. It would seem to me a lot of the interpretation about what goes on the air is defined by the quality of the individual and only the individual that possesses the FCC license.