George Soros Acquires 200 Radio Stations in 40 US Markets – Just Weeks Before the Election!

We have seen earlier how George Soros runs America's foreign policy and also controls many levers to power apart from subverting other nations.

Now comes another disturbing news.

These actions have ignited debates about political influence, media control, and the digital divide in America.

This comes on the heels of another controversial decision by the Federal Communication Commission regarding the availability of internet in the rural US communities.

FCC's and Democrat's denials aside, the fact is that this deal will irretrievably impact the American political landscape.

And with that the global geopolitical situation.

The Soros Radio Empire: A Game-Changing Acquisition

The FCC's recent decision to expedite approval for George Soros' purchase of more than 200 radio stations across 40 U.S. markets has sent shockwaves through the media industry. This move, which came just weeks before a major presidential election, has raised questions about the potential impact on the American media landscape and the balance of political voices on the airwaves.

The Scope of Soros' Radio Acquisition

George Soros, the 93-year-old billionaire known for his left-leaning political activism, has made a significant foray into the radio industry. Through a $400 million investment in Audacy, Soros has gained control of a network that reaches an estimated 165 million Americans. This vast reach gives Soros considerable influence over the information ecosystem in the United States.

The sheer scale of this acquisition is staggering. With over 200 radio stations spread across 40 markets, Soros now has the potential to shape public opinion and political discourse in a substantial portion of the country. This move is particularly noteworthy given the timing, coming so close to a major election cycle when radio remains a critical medium for political messaging and voter outreach.

The stations acquired in this deal include a mix of formats, but perhaps most intriguingly, they encompass several conservative talk radio programs.

Shows hosted by prominent conservative voices such as Sean Hannity, Dana Loesch, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, and Erick Erickson are now under the umbrella of Soros' media empire.

Is American free speech now doomed?

FCC's Controversial Fast-Track Approval

The manner in which the FCC approved this deal has drawn significant criticism. The agency adopted an order to approve Soros' purchase with unusual speed, bypassing typical review processes. This decision was made along partisan lines, with the commission's three Democrats voting in favor and the two Republicans opposing.

What makes this approval particularly controversial is the apparent exception made to standard FCC rules.

Quite convenient, huh?!

The Post reported that the decision is the first time in modern history that such a deal was approved by the FCC without running a national security review process. This process typically takes up to a year or more to do. The Soros group has said that they will come back to the FCC at some point in the future for that process. Soros’ investment firm Soros Fund Management bought up $400 million of debt in Audacy in February, making Soros’ stake in the company’s debt equal to about 40 percent. Audacy runs more than 220 stations nationwide and is the second most popular radio station network behind iHeartMedia. The radio network is home to prominent conservative pundits and commentators, such as Sean Hannity, Dana Loesch, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck. (Source: FCC approves order to fast-track George Soros' purchase of over 200 radio stations: report / Post Millenial)

Commissioner Brendan Carr voiced his concerns about this process, stating, "The FCC should not create a special Soros shortcut... the FCC needs to run its full and normal review process." This sentiment reflects broader worries about the potential for political favoritism in regulatory decisions affecting media ownership.

Implications for Media Diversity and Political Discourse

The Soros acquisition raises important questions about media diversity and the concentration of ownership in the radio industry.

With a single entity gaining control over such a large swath of the radio landscape, there are legitimate concerns.

It is a monopolistic move.

The US radio market is now moving toward a homogenization of content and perspective.

Critics argue that this level of consolidation could lead to a narrowing of viewpoints presented to the public, particularly if Soros chooses to exert editorial influence over the stations' content. The history of media acquisitions suggests that new ownership often leads to changes in programming and editorial direction, even when initial assurances of continuity are given.

There's also the question of how this acquisition might affect the balance of political voices on the airwaves. Given Soros' well-known liberal leanings, some observers worry that conservative voices currently featured on these stations may be marginalized or replaced over time. This concern is particularly acute given the proximity to a major election, where radio remains a crucial medium for political advertising and debate.

Rural Internet Rollout: Promises Delayed, Communities Left Waiting

While the Soros radio deal was being fast-tracked, the FCC made another significant decision that has drawn sharp criticism. The agency quietly chose to delay a buildout that would bring internet access to rural communities, a move that has been characterized as a setback for bridging the digital divide in America.

The Original Plan and Its Importance

The original plan for expanding internet access to rural areas was seen as a crucial step in ensuring that all Americans, regardless of their geographic location, could participate fully in the modern digital economy. High-speed internet access is no longer a luxury but a necessity for education, healthcare, business, and civic engagement.

The plan was particularly important for the most remote communities in the United States, which have long been underserved by traditional internet service providers due to the high costs of infrastructure development in sparsely populated areas. By setting ambitious deadlines for coverage expansion, the FCC had signaled its commitment to addressing this persistent inequality in access to digital resources.

The Unexpected Delay and Its Implications

The decision to delay the rural internet rollout came as a surprise to many, including some within the FCC itself. Commissioner Brendan Carr described it as "the worst abuse of agency process I have seen in my twelve years of working at the FCC." This characterization underscores the unusual nature of the decision and the lack of transparency surrounding it.

The delay primarily benefits Dish Network, whose chairperson Charlie Ergen was granted up to three additional years to bring service to the most remote communities. This extension pushes the deadline for providing coverage to 75% of the US from June 2025 to as far back as 2028.

The implications of this delay are significant. For rural communities that have been eagerly anticipating improved internet access, this decision means potentially years more of struggling with inadequate connectivity.

In an era where remote work, online education, and telemedicine have become increasingly important, this delay could exacerbate existing inequalities between urban and rural areas.

Criticism of the Decision-Making Process

What has drawn particular ire is not just the decision itself, but the manner in which it was made. The FCC approved Ergen's request for an extension without seeking public input or holding a vote by the Commission. This lack of transparency and public engagement has been criticized as a departure from normal FCC procedures.

Commissioner Carr's statement that he had "never heard of the FCC granting relief like this with no process, no public input, and no heads up" highlights the exceptional nature of this decision. (Source: New York Post)

“I have never heard of the FCC granting relief like this with no process, no public input, and no heads up,” Carr told The Post.

The speed with which the request was granted – just two days after it was made – has also raised eyebrows, with some industry analysts calling it a possible "speed record" for the agency.

Political Influence and Regulatory Decision-Making

The recent FCC decisions regarding the Soros radio deal and the rural internet rollout delay have brought to the forefront questions about the role of political influence in regulatory decision-making. These cases highlight the complex interplay between political donations, regulatory agencies, and public policy outcomes.

The Role of Political Donations

In the case of the rural internet rollout delay, attention has been drawn to the political contributions made by Charlie Ergen, the chairperson of Dish Network.

While political donations are a common practice in today's politics and do not necessarily imply impropriety, the timing and scale of these contributions, coupled with the favorable decision from the FCC, have raised questions about potential conflicts of interest.

This situation underscores the ongoing debate about the influence of money in politics and its impact on regulatory decisions.

Transparency and Public Engagement in Regulatory Processes

Both the Soros radio deal and the rural internet delay decision have been criticized for their lack of transparency and limited public engagement. In the case of the radio acquisition, the expedited approval process bypassed some of the usual review procedures. For the internet rollout delay, the decision was made without public input or a formal Commission vote.

These instances highlight the importance of transparent regulatory processes that allow for public scrutiny and input. When decisions that significantly impact public resources or media landscapes are made behind closed doors, it can erode public trust in regulatory institutions and fuel concerns about undue influence.

Balancing Political Realities with Public Interest

Regulatory agencies like the FCC face the challenging task of balancing various interests, including political realities, industry needs, and public good. The recent decisions demonstrate the complexities involved in navigating these often competing priorities.

On one hand, there's a need for regulatory flexibility to accommodate changing market conditions and technological advancements. On the other hand, there's a paramount responsibility to protect public interests, ensure fair competition, and maintain the integrity of democratic institutions.

The controversy surrounding these FCC decisions serves as a reminder of the ongoing need for robust checks and balances in regulatory processes. It also highlights the importance of maintaining clear lines between political influence and regulatory independence to ensure that decisions are made in the best interest of the public.

FCC's Hypocritical Stance Denies Americans their Human Rights!

Contrast how the internet access to rural areas has been effectively blocked and one subversive political operative handed the media monopoly to how FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel was dinging Elon Musk and his Starlink.

Remember, access to internet was added as a Human Right in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)!

When the establishment denies human rights to its own rural people by pushing away an egalitarian player like Starlink and allowing providers like Dish to push the connectivity project further down the road - you know that there is something dystopian about the whole thing.

Pushing the Ultra-Left Soros Propaganda

The recent FCC decisions regarding George Soros' radio station acquisition and the delay in rural internet rollout have sparked significant controversy and debate. These cases highlight the complex interplay between media ownership, political influence, and regulatory decision-making in the United States.

The fast-tracking of Soros' radio deal raises important questions about media diversity and the potential impact on political discourse, especially in the lead-up to a major election. Meanwhile, the delay in expanding internet access to rural communities underscores the ongoing challenges in bridging the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to essential services.

These decisions also bring to the forefront concerns about transparency in regulatory processes and the influence of political donations on policy outcomes. As the media landscape continues to evolve and the importance of digital connectivity grows, it's clear that careful scrutiny of regulatory decisions and their broader implications for American society will remain crucial.

Moving forward, these controversies may spark renewed discussions about the need for regulatory reform, increased transparency in decision-making processes, and stronger safeguards against undue political influence in agencies like the FCC. Ultimately, finding the right balance between regulatory flexibility and public interest protection will be essential in shaping a fair, diverse, and accessible media and telecommunications landscape for all Americans.