The launch of Fox News remains one of the great free market stories of modern times. While conservatives had long expressed frustration with the left-wing bias that defined traditional media, Fox News met that rising frustration with reporting that incorporated a conservative view of domestic and global news that had historically been ignored by news sources.
Notable about the rise of Fox was that Democrats weren’t fans of the nascent news network. In a preview of critiques commonly heard today, they referred to Fox News as a "right-wing propaganda machine” that was engaging in "false reporting.” Looking back on the anti-freedom, small-minded critiques of Fox by Democrats, we should be thankful that they couldn’t use government force to hamstring what a growing number of Americans looked to for news and commentary.
What’s sad is that accepted wisdom about government’s presumed role in media has changed. Much sadder is that the conservatives who rose above petty critiques of Fox News are the ones who increasingly think the federal government should police media.
As a recent editorial at the Wall Street Journal reported, President Trump’s FCC Chair Brendan Carr “is threatening broadcasters over slanted coverage of the war in Iran.” In Carr’s words, “The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.” The Journal editorial was rightly critical of the Republican in Carr so grotesquely threatening broadcasters without regard to the 1st Amendment.
Traveling back in time to Fox’s 1996 launch, imagine the reaction of conservatives if then-President Bill Clinton’s FCC Chair had threatened to yank Fox’s license…Which is where the story takes a disturbing turn.
While certainly critical of Carr’s threats, the Journal editorial suggested that Carr was “firing the wrong missile at the wrong target. He might want to tell President Trump that TikTok is a real national-security risk and a bigger source of fake news.” Why is the editorial page long known for its “Free People, Free Markets” motto recommending that government target any kind of media?
It’s not just that the Journal editorial page’s jabs at TikTok resemble the Fox News critiques of free-speech lamenting Democrats from 1996 onward, it’s also that the Journal is savaging a source of entertainment and news (TikTok) chosen by over 170 million Americans in one of the most competitive marketplaces in the world.
The Journal’s editorial page implicitly defends its TikTok stance with a reference to Congress’s “overwhelming” 2024 ban of the app (keep in mind that Congress once unanimously passed Sarbanes-Oxley, along with a $3 trillion Cares Act in 2020 that subsidized lockdowns nationwide), all based on the belief among national politicians “that the Chinese Communist Party could use the platform [TikTok] to surveil Americans and manipulate its algorithm to promote propaganda.” That’s hard to take seriously, and it’s really hard to believe the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal takes it seriously.
Not only is the Journal claiming TikTok peddles “fake news,” it’s insinuating that allegedly “anti-American propaganda” from TikTok is an effect of the social media giant’s alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). But if the CCP were manipulating the TikTok algorithm as is being suggested, then by the Journal editorial page’s own historically peerless logic the algorithm wouldn’t be very effective or valuable, and TikTok’s popularity would be in freefall. Something about free markets always outperforming government planning…
Which means TikTok is decidedly not a CCP-manipulated plant. Indeed, the same Journal editorial asserts that “Social media now ranks as the top news source for most Americans,” and as is well known TikTok sits at or near the top of the heap of social media players stateside. TikTok’s perch is overwhelming confirmation of a long-embraced Wall Street Journal editorial page truism that free markets not only do decide winners and losers, they also should. See Fox News if you’re confused.
