On MSNOW, Angelo Carusone discusses grave First Amendment consequences of the Trump administration trying to control major media organizations

Carusone: “It reinforces a lack of confidence in what those institutions are about”

Written by Media Matters Staff

Published

From the March 15, 2026, edition of MSNOW's The Weekend: Primetime

CATHERINE RAMPELL (CO-HOST): Angelo, speaking of CNN, I want to play for you something that Pete Hegseth said on Friday.

...

RAMPELL: So, Angelo, David Ellison already has either ownership or some controlling stake in a number of media properties. CNN may become one of them, but already CBS, Paramount, HBO, TikTok. Can you talk a little bit about the concerns there of having all of these major media properties controlled in some way by a Trump ally?

ANGELO CARUSONE (MEDIA MATTERS): Well, first, I would note that it's about exactly that, control. They get to shape the narrative in alignment with what the administration's interests are. And there does seem to be, you know, a reward cycle going on here. I mean, them praising Ellison, just like we saw when the CBS takeover took place, is they're acknowledging that there's some interest there. It serves their political interest, and they're willing to help grease the wheels a little bit, maybe the regulatory concerns. That's something that's come up time and again. So that's the first thing, is that it gives them the ability to project a narrative.

The flip side is that we're going to need these institutions to defend the First Amendment when it's under attack from the government. So, you know, it's very expensive to defend the First Amendment. It's really expensive. And it's a big fight, especially — so when you have an an effort out there that requires you to be proactive, to take legal measures, or to even absorb some financial costs in order to defend the First Amendment, you need to be willing to do that. And they're basically off the board. They're not going to do that now. Right? That they're certainly not — you know, they're toeing the line. They're not going to be the ones helping be a vanguard for the First Amendment here. So it has a double whammy effect, and that then leaves less players on the field to do that important work.

And it then serves as a third thing as an example to others, which is that if you're good, look what we give you. If you're bad, you get all of these maximalist threats without any real clarity as to how you can even satisfy our interests. And that's the thing to keep in mind here. That's the tell — that this isn't criticism. It's about press control, because they're not explaining even what would satisfy them. They're saying maximum punishment, but do as much as you possibly can to serve our vague interest and alignment with what we're looking for.

MELISSA MURRAY (CO-HOST): Angelo, can we follow up on that point about controlling the media? Because this isn't the administration's only effort to do so. There were the numerous lawsuits that the president filed in his personal capacity. Most experts said that those lawsuits were frivolous and had very little chance of success, and yet, many of those news organizations folded and entered into settlements. And when you enter into a settlement with the president of the United States, that concretizes the idea that there has been something that was done that was wrong and that these media enterprises are paying the price for it.

How does that factor into diminishing public support for the First Amendment and for a free press?

CARUSONE: It really does because these are supposed to be the institutions with the capacity to do the most to defend it. They're the ones that — they're built on top of that foundation to be, you know, that's exactly why they're there in the first place. So when they both capitulate, when they don't need to, that's the part that's the reveal here. And they do it in a way that doesn't require you know, that's total — that's no real sense, like you said. It leaves the impression that maybe they did do something a little bit wrong, or maybe the president was kind of right, and so that's why they just settled.

It reinforces a lack of confidence in what those institutions are about. That they're not about telling the truth or that their priority isn't journalism, which is a profession that has standards. It's actually about something else. It's about serving the profit interests of their related organizations, or it's simply about just not having the stomach for the fight, or worse, even being in cahoots with the administration. So it has this erosion effect.

And, you know, Brendan Carr, one of the things he said is that, you know, 9% don't trust the media. That was a totally cherry-picked stat from the 2020 Gallup poll, where it was about a great deal of trust in the media was 9%. The other one was more than 31% of saying they have a fair amount of trust in the media. So, you know, what they're trying to do is make a reality of the lie that they're already pushing out there that there is that erosion. And the way you do that is you get these institutions to cave, and then it serves as an example to others.

You know, we're under investigation from the Trump administration. You know, if if we think to ourselves — I remember being in the room when we had decided, if ABC couldn't fight, could we? And yet we had to make that decision. And I think many others are going to think, boy, if they couldn't do it, then we certainly can't. Because those are the big players.

And I think that's the real sort of wrapper for control. It helps, you know, put some grease on there and make it go a lot faster.

MURRAY: Alright. Angelo Carusone, thank you so much for joining us.