Why the Decline of Major Leftist TV Anchors Benefits America

What do you label a scenario where three prominent leftist TV hosts fall from grace within just a few days?

A promising development.

It started with Norah O’Donnell departing CBS, followed by Jim Acosta at CNN, and now we have Chuck Todd exiting NBC.

Who says all news is negative?

Their departure from prime platforms is a win for America.

Despite their varied networks and roles, a shared theme is that they all thought they were too significant to just report the news.

Presenting the facts honestly and fairly was beneath their pretentiousness.

They exuded disdain for the working and middle classes, viewing themselves as part of an elite ruling class.

They dictated to viewers how to perceive every issue and crafted narratives that bolstered their biases, particularly regarding Donald Trump.

For eight years, every narrative linked to him ended in the same way: Trump is bad, wrong, and often villainous. Everything else is merely detail.

They frequently operated out of touch with the nation and its actual sentiments.

On numerous major issues, from the Russia, Russia, Russia saga to the origins of COVID-19 and Joe Biden’s health and family scandals, they disseminated state-sponsored misinformation.

Being typical Democrats in disguise, their downfall is a reason for celebration as Trump embarks on his second term.

However, a vast majority of television news still skews so far left that three departures must be just the beginning if real change is to occur.

The next milestone should involve networks applying some semblance of an informal fairness doctrine to their news broadcasts.

Let viewers form their own conclusions rather than being force-fed progressive narratives.

Advocates and partisans should be relegated to separate segments or shows, clearly labeled as such.

Changing tides

Without that, it’s possible that the exits of O’Donnell, Acosta, and Todd, along with related changes at the major networks, signal the onset of greater fairness on a television near you.

To be clear, I do not harbor any illusions about entering a new golden age of TV news.

Walter Cronkite is not making a comeback, and Trump Derangement Syndrome remains prevalent, deeply embedded in almost all legacy media outlets.

Yet, rays of hope are beginning to appear primarily because network executives realize they are facing repercussions for permitting their newsrooms to be overrun by radicals whose politics and principles diverge from those of most Americans.

Just like in 2016, Trump’s second victory has demonstrated that the media remains oblivious to the national sentiment and his appeal.

While he initially focused on addressing border security and economic issues, he also promised to liberate government, academia, and other sectors of contemporary culture from extreme leftist influences.

The sheer size of his movement, both domestically and internationally, indicates he and his supporters can no longer be dismissed as temporary anomalies.

Wokeness was the anomaly, and it is now dead.

Network bosses are aware of this, but another significant factor is surfacing in their coverage decisions.

They and their corporate owners urgently seek to avoid conflicts with Trump and his administration, as such confrontations could be detrimental to business.

Similar to tech giants, banks, and various business sectors that are finding ways to coexist with the new authority, networks are trying to do likewise.

Trump’s leverage

In certain situations, that involves settling lawsuits that Trump has undertaken against them concerning their coverage.

ABC recently agreed to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Trump by acknowledging errors and compensating him with $16 million for his legal costs and a presidential library.

This settlement occurred post-election, just days prior to depositions in a case triggered by the fervent Democrat anchor George Stephanopoulos, who falsely claimed multiple times that Trump was found liable for rape in a New York civil suit.

Defamation claims are notoriously challenging for public figures to prove, especially against the most recognized person in the world, yet ABC’s parent company, Disney, wanted to avoid quarrels with the upcoming president and his regulatory bodies.

They insisted that the network reach a consensus, despite Stephanopoulos’s dissent.

CBS also has financial motives to reign in the anti-Trump sentiment that has permeated its leading programs. Network executives had backed O’Donnell’s snarky, condescending remarks about Republicans — until she was ousted from the anchor role shortly after Trump took office.

Even her last broadcast was laden with partisanship, featuring Oprah Winfrey, a staunch supporter of Kamala Harris, delivering a cringe-worthy farewell.

O’Donnell’s viewership had long been dismal, but her partisan stance was the final nail in the coffin following Trump’s victory.

The network’s parent company, Paramount Global, requires Federal Communications Commission approval for a planned merger with Skydance Media.

Concerns surrounding this merger likely clarify why CBS suddenly engaged in settlement discussions with Trump over a lawsuit he initiated regarding his treatment during a campaign interview on “60 Minutes.”

Previously, the network claimed it had done nothing wrong, despite showing Harris responding differently in a promo than she did during the actual segment.

Despite repeated calls for clarification, network representatives stonewalled by refusing to disclose complete footage and the transcript, prompting Trump to file a suit even though success was unlikely.

Yet here we are, with Trump back in the White House, settlement discussions in play, and his new FCC chairperson demanding the aforementioned transcript and footage of the Harris interview.

This time, the network complied after FCC Chairman Brendan Carr reportedly indicated to Paramount that evidence of political bias would influence their decision regarding the merger, which involves transferring broadcast licenses.

Fairing better

Corporate oversight is also a critical concern at NBC, which recently parted ways with Todd.

Comcast, the parent company, intends to divest its cable properties, including MSNBC, which will require regulatory approval from the current administration.

MSNBC’s anti-Trump rhetoric is so rabidly hateful that it often sounds like a fever dream from another dimension.

Comcast has not taken steps to rein in this rhetoric, but given the steep decline in viewership and the regulatory challenges ahead, that may soon change.

CNN’s business challenges differ, as it grapples with severe financial strain amid a prolonged decline into irrelevance.

This downturn sharply contrasts with Trump’s current standing, as he experiences the highest approval ratings of his career.

This reality means that the relentless attacks from Acosta and others are failing to resonate with audiences, who, even those not supporting Trump, sincerely hope for America’s success during these turbulent times.

Across the television news spectrum, it would be ideal if executives suddenly recognized the necessity for honest, impartial journalism and altered their practices accordingly.

But at the very least, we can be optimistic that networks will inch closer to where they ought to be, even if motivated primarily by their fear of Trump and the desire to safeguard their financial interests.