Topic: Newsmax
One of Newsmax's arguments against being dropped by DirecTV -- about which it has spent the past month loudly whining about -- is that, as stated in a Feb. 4 article, "DirecTV continues to carry 22 liberal news channels, many with low ratings and all get paid hefty license fees." But it rarely released the list of those "22 liberal news channels." But it would show them on the TV screen every once in a while:
What? The Weather Channel is a "liberal news channel"? Comedy Central is a "liberal news channel"? As the Daily Beast summarized:
While channels like Vice, PBS, Spanish-language networks, and the major broadcasters air nightly news programs, they would hardly be described as “news channels.” Furthermore, describing specialty offerings like Justice Central (which just airs blocks of first-run courtroom shows in the same vein as The People’s Court) as a news network is downright insulting.
In terms of 24-hour cable news channels that could be seen as similar to Newsmax, the following apply from the network’s list: CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Bloomberg, Newsnation, Cheddar, CNN International, CNBC World, BBC World News and CNN en Espanol.
Now, are all of these channels considered liberal? While that is purely subjective, Newsmax has backed its claim by pointing to a 2019 poll that found a majority of Americans believed that all network news channels leaned to the left. Therefore, per the network, that means that The Weather Channel and a channel that airs stand-up comic performances must be part of the liberal news establishment.
The Daily Beast also pointed out that including all of those "22 liberal news channels," as Newsmax insists on describing them, Newsmax would rank 12th in ratings -- not the "fourth highest-rated cable network" it frequently claims to be as justification for DirecTV keeping it.
The Daily Beast further blew up Newsmax's argument that DirecTV pays for each individual "liberal news channel" it offers, noting that some come as part of packages; for instance, Vice is part of A&E Networks, and it's included in a package of other A&E-owned channels.
When the right-leaning Wall Street Journal published an editorial accurately pointing out that the Newsmax-DirecTV was a licensing dispute and not a "censorship" debate, going on to note that it's "bewildering why many Republicans are getting involved" by threatening government interference in a private business decision -- adding that "Political coercion of business is as distasteful from the right as it is from the left" -- Newsmax devoted an unsigned Feb. 20 editorial to complaining about it, claiming that the Journal "failed to mention some important facts":
First, the dispute is not over a fee price. AT&T, the 70% owner of DirecTV, is claiming Newsmax should get zero fees while all other U.S. cable news channels get them. Newsmax, the fourth highest-rated cable news channel, according to Nielsen, believes it is being discriminated against.
Importantly, the Journal editorial failed to disclose that one shareholder, Rupert Murdoch, controls both it and Fox News, its sister company.
As recent disclosures in the Dominion lawsuit revealed, Newsmax is a competitor to Fox. In 2020, Murdoch sent an email to Fox's CEO expressing serious concern about the rise of Newsmax and said the network needed to be "watched."
We understand Fox wants to be the only news source for right-of-center cable viewers, but that is not good for the GOP, democracy, or good competition.
Still, with such a serious conflict of interest, we thought the WSJ would disclose it. But they did not.
If Newsmax is demanding a fee and DirecTV dropped it instead of paying it, that means this is, in fact, a fee dispute. Also, it's ironic that Newsmax would complain about the Journal's conflict of interest here when Newsmax routinely refuses to disclose its conflicts of interest when it promotes books by Dick Morris and David Horowitz that were published by Newsmax's book division.
The editorial then went on a lengthy tangent about Fox News' own fee dispute with a DirecTV competitor, Dish Network, while not mentioning that 1) Fox News has much higher ratings than Newsmax and can therefore justify the carriage fees it wants, and 2) Newsmax has more streaming and OTT options than Fox News does, which would seem to obviate the need for Newsmax to actually be on DirecTV.
Of course, the editorial repeated its own debunked talking point:
Newsmax counts at least 22 liberal-leaning news channels still on DirecTV. All of them get cable license fees, and most have lower ratings than Newsmax.
And none have been deplatformed by AT&T.
Finally, the editorial failed to disclose to readers the fact that DirecTV replaced Newsmax with another right-wing channel. The First, meaning that its argument of viewpoint "censorship" is inoperative.
