Now that the big political ad spend is over, the media industry is making its next logical move in politically volatile times: divesting news holdings to protect core businesses. Comcast is spinning off MSNBC and CNBC. Disney is exploring the sale of ABC, possibly to Nexstar. These aren’t just business decisions— they’re survival strategies. And they reflect a bigger truth: the business of news has become too risky, too polarizing, and too reliant on short-term fixes.
While political advertising has kept many media outlets afloat, it’s not a sustainable solution as a business model, nor is it journalism’s savior. Political ad spending poured a record-breaking $10.7 billion into media coffers during the 2024 election, but that money’s gone now, leaving traditional networks scrambling. Worse, the reliance on political ads fuels a relentless focus on politics—not because it serves the public, but because it sells. This creates a vicious cycle: more politics, more polarization, and less trust in the media overall.
Less Money, More Headaches
Absent a major election, ad dollars increasingly flow to digital platforms like Google and Meta. Big Tech controls over 75 percent of the ad market, putting legacy media under immense pressure. And this is where financial and political pressures intersect.
President-elect Donald Trump’s return to power underscores the risks. His threats to punish critical outlets and revoke broadcast licenses make owning news divisions a political minefield. For companies like Disney and Comcast, shedding these assets means insulating their more profitable ventures—streaming, broadband, and entertainment—from the fallout.
(And let’s be clear about one thing: National over-the-air news outlets—ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX—don’t hold broadcast licenses. The affiliates, your local news stations, carry those licenses. That means to go after CBS, for example, WCBS would actually be the target. How is killing local news—the most trusted source of news according to every poll since polling began—the answer?)
There’s a sense of déjà vu here. Regulators are going after Big Tech—Amazon, Meta, Google—demanding they break up their monopolies. Media companies see the writing on the wall and are making preemptive moves to decentralize and avoid the same fate. It’s smart business, but it comes at a cost.
The Thing About Legacies
Even individual media owners are feeling the pressure. Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, faces a complex situation. With Amazon under intensifying antitrust scrutiny and his space venture, Blue Origin, heavily reliant on government contracts, Bezos’s ownership of a prominent news outlet could be seen as a liability. If he decides to sell The Washington Post to smooth operations for his other businesses, it raises critical questions about the future of one of the nation’s most influential newspapers.
Of course, there’s another alternative: shutting the paper down. Not that I’m advocating for that, but look at the math. In 2023, The Washington Post lost $77 million. That same year, Amazon made $575 billion. If there’s one thing modern media has taught us: legacies are meaningless.
The reliance on political advertising has put the news industry in a tough spot. It drives sensationalism, prioritizes conflict over context, and leaves newsrooms at the mercy of election cycles. The great media sell-off is an attempt to break free from this trap, but it also leaves journalism in limbo.
For the public, these divestitures have significant implications. Independent newsrooms, freed from the priorities of sprawling conglomerates, might thrive. Standalone operations could focus on innovation, explore new revenue models, and deepen their commitment to public-interest reporting. However, the future of these assets remains uncertain. Will they land with owners who value journalism’s role in democracy, or will they be stripped down and reshaped into partisan tools or pay-to-play engines?
As Big Media sheds its news divisions, journalism stands at a crossroads. This could mark the start of a more vibrant, independent era for news—or the beginning of a fragmented and uneven media landscape. The outcome will depend on who steps in and whether the public is willing to support and demand the quality journalism it deserves.
The Great Media Sell-Off: What’s Next?
The Great Media Sell-Off: What’s Next?
By Jaci Clement, jaci@fairmediacouncil.org
Now that the big political ad spend is over, the media industry is making its next logical move in politically volatile times: divesting news holdings to protect core businesses. Comcast is spinning off MSNBC and CNBC. Disney is exploring the sale of ABC, possibly to Nexstar. These aren’t just business decisions—
they’re survival strategies. And they reflect a bigger truth: the business of news has become too risky, too polarizing, and too reliant on short-term fixes.
While political advertising has kept many media outlets afloat, it’s not a sustainable solution as a business model, nor is it journalism’s savior. Political ad spending poured a record-breaking $10.7 billion into media coffers during the 2024 election, but that money’s gone now, leaving traditional networks scrambling. Worse, the reliance on political ads fuels a relentless focus on politics—not because it serves the public, but because it sells. This creates a vicious cycle: more politics, more polarization, and less trust in the media overall.
Less Money, More Headaches
Absent a major election, ad dollars increasingly flow to digital platforms like Google and Meta. Big Tech controls over 75 percent of the ad market, putting legacy media under immense pressure. And this is where financial and political pressures intersect.
President-elect Donald Trump’s return to power underscores the risks. His threats to punish critical outlets and revoke broadcast licenses make owning news divisions a political minefield. For companies like Disney and Comcast, shedding these assets means insulating their more profitable ventures—streaming, broadband, and entertainment—from the fallout.
(And let’s be clear about one thing: National over-the-air news outlets—ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX—don’t hold broadcast licenses. The affiliates, your local news stations, carry those licenses. That means to go after CBS, for example, WCBS would actually be the target. How is killing local news—the most trusted source of news according to every poll since polling began—the answer?)
There’s a sense of déjà vu here. Regulators are going after Big Tech—Amazon, Meta, Google—demanding they break up their monopolies. Media companies see the writing on the wall and are making preemptive moves to decentralize and avoid the same fate. It’s smart business, but it comes at a cost.
The Thing About Legacies
Even individual media owners are feeling the pressure. Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, faces a complex situation. With Amazon under intensifying antitrust scrutiny and his space venture, Blue Origin, heavily reliant on government contracts, Bezos’s ownership of a prominent news outlet could be seen as a liability. If he decides to sell The Washington Post to smooth operations for his other businesses, it raises critical questions about the future of one of the nation’s most influential newspapers.
Of course, there’s another alternative: shutting the paper down. Not that I’m advocating for that, but look at the math. In 2023, The Washington Post lost $77 million. That same year, Amazon made $575 billion. If there’s one thing modern media has taught us: legacies are meaningless.
The reliance on political advertising has put the news industry in a tough spot. It drives sensationalism, prioritizes conflict over context, and leaves newsrooms at the mercy of election cycles. The great media sell-off is an attempt to break free from this trap, but it also leaves journalism in limbo.
For the public, these divestitures have significant implications. Independent newsrooms, freed from the priorities of sprawling conglomerates, might thrive. Standalone operations could focus on innovation, explore new revenue models, and deepen their commitment to public-interest reporting. However, the future of these assets remains uncertain. Will they land with owners who value journalism’s role in democracy, or will they be stripped down and reshaped into partisan tools or pay-to-play engines?
As Big Media sheds its news divisions, journalism stands at a crossroads. This could mark the start of a more vibrant, independent era for news—or the beginning of a fragmented and uneven media landscape. The outcome will depend on who steps in and whether the public is willing to support and demand the quality journalism it deserves.
Contact Jaci Clement: jaci@fairmediacouncil.org
Subscribe to our newsletter below.
Search
Recent Posts
2025 Media Watchlist: Trends & Implications
How Australia is Reclaiming Childhood
All News Outlets: Enter Folio Awards by Feb. 1
New Podcast Episode: Hidden Costs of Social Media
Crisis Management Masterclass: Be Prepared to Handle Any PR Crisis
The Great Media Sell-Off: What’s Next?