Business
Left-wing mainstream media is crumbling right before our eyes
From LifeSiteNews
CBS has been purchased by conservative David Ellison, government funding for PBS and NPR has been eliminated by recent congressional votes, the incoming CEO of Versant, the soon-to-be publicly traded company spun off from NBC Universal believes the public perception of MSNBC is that Republicans cannot get a fair shake from the network. He wants to change that.
Cable news is losing both audience share and financial stability, with no clear prospect for reversing these declines as the cable ecosystem itself continues to erode. The old cable news model is unlikely to survive in its current form much longer.
The pharma industry spent $5.15 billion on national TV ads last year, according to real-time TV ad tracker (source: iSpot.tv). Eventually, the Pharma Bucks that have been propping up the industry will decrease significantly, as cable TV news becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Pharma ads accounted for nearly 25 percent of advertising minutes through May 2025 for all major cable and broadcast networks (NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News).
For now, pharma advertising has not yet begun a mass pullout from cable TV news. Still, the possibility now hangs over the industry. At present, cable news remains one of the few strongholds for pharma ad dollars, but this dominance is no longer assured.
In fact, the Trump administration has indicated a clear intention to crack down on pharmaceutical advertising, particularly in the direct-to-consumer (DTC) segment, which is traditionally seen on television and other broadcast media.
Key actions and proposals under discussion include:
- Making DTC advertising more expensive: The administration is considering ending the tax deductibility of direct-to-consumer pharma ad spending, which would significantly raise costs for drugmakers engaging in these campaigns (1, 2.).
- Increasing regulatory hurdles: Proposals are under review to require more extensive disclosures of drug side effects in ads, likely resulting in longer, more costly ad placements (1, 2.).
- No outright ban yet: Although a complete ban on DTC pharma advertising isn’t currently being planned, probably because of potential First Amendment legal challenges, the emphasis is on tightening legal and financial restrictions instead of banning it immediately.
- High-level leadership support: Key administration officials, including HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have publicly called for a ban on pharma TV advertising, and President Trump has criticized pharma advertising in the past (3). Such stances have contributed to the momentum behind regulatory proposals.
- Legislative support: There is bipartisan interest in more tightly regulating pharma ads. Senators Bernie Sanders and Angus King have introduced legislation to ban direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising across all major media outlets (1).
Trends in the cable news industry both point to a decrease in the significance of this media as well as in traditional ratings. This has also led to a more conservative shift in cable news programming, which is only now beginning to take effect.
Fox News continues to dominate cable news ratings, maintaining its lead over NBC/MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN, with the network holding 99 of the top 100 cable news telecasts in the week of May 12, 2025. In comparison, MSNBC and CNN experienced significant declines in viewership, with MSNBC down 29 percent in total viewers and 40 percent in the key demographics in primetime, while CNN dropped 16 percent in total viewers and 11 percent during primetime.
CBS has been purchased by conservative David Ellison, who has fired Stephen Colbert. David Ellison is an American film producer, former actor, and the founder and CEO of Skydance Media, a major entertainment company. He was born on January 9, 1983, in Santa Clara County, California, and is the son of Oracle Corporation co-founder Larry Ellison and Barbara Boothe Ellison.
READ: Dr. McCullough: Big Pharma controls the airwaves with billions in ad revenue
CBS has not yet officially changed hands, so the firing of Stephen Colbert may or may not have been at Ellison’s request. But the suspicious timing leads many to believe that Ellison had a role in the decision to fire.
All government funding for PBS and NPR, including their local affiliates, has been eliminated by recent congressional votes. Trump has not yet signed the rescissions package into law, but it has been sent to his desk for signature after final passage by Congress. This will lead to a significant reduction in local programming; however, it is believed that national programming will survive due to other revenue streams.
NBC/MSNBC are being spun out from Comcast. Mark Lazarus is the incoming CEO of Versant, the soon-to-be publicly traded company spun off from NBC Universal. Versant (formerly SpinCo) will now be operationally above MSNBC. Versant’s new boss, Lazarus, has indicated in private communications that he believes the public perception of MSNBC is that Republicans cannot get a fair shake from the network. He wants to change that (4), and he has suggested the network should offer more balanced viewpoints. However, the current CEO of MSNBC is still very progressive. So time will tell what influence Lazarus will have on MSNBC programming.
CNN is being spun off as a separate company from Warner Bros./Discovery’s streaming/studio assets. CNN is now undergoing major staff layoffs and has already introduced sweeping programming changes for 2025. However, whether CNN will shift to the center-right is anyone’s guess.
In June 2025, The Washington Post, under the guidance of Jeff Bezos, named Adam O’Neal, former Washington correspondent at The Economist, as its new head of opinion content. O’Neal emphasized a philosophy of optimism and focus on personal freedom and free markets, echoing Bezos’ vision.
The Los Angeles Times‘ editorial stance has undergone a dramatic change in late 2024 and 2025 under the ownership of Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong. The most significant developments include a shift toward “fair and balanced” and the firing and restructuring of the entire editorial board. The LA Times under Soon-Shioung has indicated that there will be an explicit shift to feature conservative, centrist, and liberal voices. Soon-Shiong has also expressed a desire to increase conservative voices in the Times’ opinion section, citing concerns the publication had become an “echo chamber” for the political left (5).
Most mainstream media outlets recognize that audience capture is what will keep this industry alive. As there is a more conservative mood among the general populace, slowly but surely mainstream media is being forced to keep up. People do not want to hear a one-sided, progressive primordial scream coming from their TVs. If they don’t change their overtly socialist, DEI stances, they will continue to wither.
Likewise, seamlessly melding cable networks with streaming services will be the future of the industry. But that again requires liberal voices to be quelled, as they do not represent the center field, let alone the conservative voice.
Without relevancy, cable news is a dying dinosaur and will be replaced. The king is starving and on his last legs: long live the new king – alternative media.
Reprinted with permission from Robert Malone.
It finally happened. Canada received a federal budget earlier this month, after more than a year without one. It’s far from a budget that’s great. It’s far from what many expected and distant from what the country needs. But it still passed.
With the budget vote drama now behind us, there may be space for some general observations beyond the details of the concerning deficits and debt. What kind of budget did Canada get?
Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Try it out.
For a government that built its political identity on social-program expansion and moralized spending, Budget 2025 arrives wearing borrowed clothing. It speaks in the language of productivity, infrastructure, and capital formation, the diction of grown-up economics, yet keeps the full spending reflex of the Trudeau era. The result feels like a cabinet trying to change its fiscal costume without changing the character inside it. Time will tell, to be fair, but it feels like more rhetoric, and we have seen this same rhetoric before lead to nothing. So, I remain skeptical of what they say and how they say it.
The government insists it has found a new path, one where public investment leads private growth. That sounds bold. However, it is more a rebranding than a reform. It is a shift in vocabulary, not in discipline.
A comparison with past eras makes this clear.
Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did not flirt with restraint; they executed it. Their budgets were cut deeply, restored credibility, and revived Canada’s fiscal health when it was most needed. The Chrétien years were unsentimental. Political capital was spent so financial capital could return. Ottawa shrank so the country could grow. Budget 2025 tries to invoke their spirit but not their actions. Nothing in this plan resembles the structural surgery of the mid 1990s.
Stephen Harper, by contrast, treated balanced budgets as policy and principle. Even during the global financial crisis, his government used stimulus as a bridge, not a way of life. It cut taxes widely and consistently, limited public service growth, and placed the long-term burden on restraint rather than rhetoric. Budget 2025 nods toward Harper’s focus on productivity and capital assets, yet it rejects the tax relief and spending controls that made his budgets coherent.
Then there is Justin Trudeau, the high tide of redistribution, vacuous identity politics, and deficit-as-virtue posturing. Ottawa expanded into an ideological planner for everything, including housing, climate, childcare, inclusion portfolios, and every new identity category. Much of that ideological scaffolding consisted of mere words, weakening the principle of equality under the law and encouraging the government to referee culture rather than administer policy.
Budget 2025 is the first hint of retreat from that style. The identity program fireworks are dimmer, though they have not disappeared. The social policy boosterism is quieter. Perhaps fiscal gravity has begun to whisper in the prime minister’s ear.
However, one cannot confuse tone for transformation.
Spending is still vast. Deficits grew. The new fiscal anchor, balancing only the operating budget, is weaker than the one it replaced. The budget relies on the hopeful assumption that Ottawa’s capital spending will attract private investment on a scale that economists politely describe as ambitious.
The housing file illustrates the contradiction. The budget announces new funding for the construction of purpose-built rentals and a larger federal role in modular and subsidized housing builds. These are presented as productivity measures, yet they continue the Trudeau-era instinct to centralize housing policy rather than fix the levers that matter. Permitting delays, zoning rigidity, municipal approvals, and labour shortages continue to slow actual construction. Ottawa spends, but the foundations still cure at the same pace.
Defence spending tells the same story. Budget 2025 offers incremental funding and some procurement gestures, but it avoids the core problem: Canada’s procurement system is broken. Delays stretch across decades. Projects become obsolete before contracts are signed. The system cannot buy a ship, an aircraft, or an armoured vehicle without cost overruns and missed timelines. Spending more through this machinery will waste time and money. It adds motion, not capability.
Most importantly, the structural problems remain untouched: no regulatory reform for major projects, no tax competitiveness agenda, no strategy for shrinking a federal bureaucracy that has grown faster than the economy it governs. Ottawa presides over a low-productivity country but insists that a new accounting framework will solve what decades of overregulation and policy clutter have created. More bluster.
To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
From an Alberta vantage, the pivot is welcome but inadequate. The economy that pays for Confederation, energy, mining, agriculture, and transportation receives more rhetorical respect in Budget 2025, yet the same regulatory thicket that blocks pipelines and mines remains intact. The government praises capital formation but still undermines the key sectors that generate it.
Budget 2025 tries to walk like Chrétien and talk like Harper while spending like Trudeau. That is not a transformation; it is a costume change. The country needed a budget that prioritized growth rooted in tangible assets and real productivity. What it got instead is a rhetorical turn without the courage to cut, streamline, or reform.
Canada does not require a new budgeting vocabulary. It requires a government willing to govern in the best interest of the country.
Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
Help us bring you more quality research and commentary.
I view the recent announcements by the Government of Canada as window dressing, and not addressing the fundamental issue which is that projects are drowning in bureaucratic red tape and regulatory overburden. We don’t need them picking winners and losers, a fool’s errand in my opinion, but rather make it easier to do business within Canada and stop the hemorrhaging of Foreign Direct Investment from this country.
Thanks for reading William’s Substack!
Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Changes are afoot—reportedly, carve-outs and tweaks to federal regulations that would help attract investment in a new oil pipeline from Alberta. But any private proponent to come out of this deal will presumably be handpicked to advance through the narrow Bill C-5 window, aided by one-off fixes and exemptions.
That approach can only move us so far. It doesn’t address the underlying problem.
Anyone in the investment world will tell you a patchwork of adjustments is nowhere near enough to unlock the large-scale energy investment this country needs. And from that investor’s perspective, the horizon stretches far beyond a single political cycle. Even if this government promises clarity today in the much-anticipated memorandum of understanding (MOU), who knows whether it will be around by the time any major proposal actually moves forward.
With all of the talk of “nation-building” projects, I have often been asked what my thoughts are about what we must see from the federal government.
The energy sector is the file the feds have to get right. It is by far the largest component of Canadian exports, with oil accounting for $147 billion in 2024 (20 percent of all exports), and energy as a whole accounting for $227 billion of exports (30 percent of all exports).
 |
Furthermore, we are home to some of the largest resource reserves in the world, including oil (third-largest in proven reserves) and natural gas (ninth-largest). Canada needs to wholeheartedly embrace that. Natural resource exceptionalism is exactly what Canada is, and we should be proud of it.
One of the most important factors that drives investment is commodity prices. But that is set by market forces.
Beyond that, I have always said that the two most important things one considers before looking at a project are the rule of law and regulatory certainty.
The Liberal government has been obtuse when it comes to whether it will continue the West Coast tanker ban (Bill C-48) or lift it to make way for a pipeline. But nobody will propose a pipeline without the regulatory and legal certainty that they will not be seriously hindered should they propose to build one.
Meanwhile, the proposed emissions cap is something that sets an incredibly negative tone, a sentiment that is the most influential factor in ensuring funds flow. Finally, the Impact Assessment Act, often referred to as the “no more pipelines bill” (Bill C-69), has started to blur the lines between provincial and federal authority.
All three are supposedly on the table for tweaks or carve-outs. But that may not be enough.
It is interesting that Norway—a country that built its wealth on oil and natural gas—has adopted the mantra that as long as oil is a part of the global economy, it will be the last producer standing. It does so while marrying conventional energy with lower-carbon standards. We should be more like Norway.
Rather than constantly speaking down to the sector, the Canadian government should embrace the wealth that this represents and adopt a similar narrative.
The sector isn’t looking for handouts. Rather, it is looking for certainty, and a government proud of the work that they do and is willing to say so to Canada and the rest of the world. Foreign direct investment outflows have been a huge issue for Canada, and one of the bigger drags on our economy.
Almost all of the major project announcements Prime Minister Mark Carney has made to date have been about existing projects, often decades in the making, which are not really “additive” to the economy and are reflective of the regulatory overburden that industry faces en masse.
I have always said governments are about setting the rules of the game, while it is up to businesses to decide whether they wish to participate or to pick up the ball and look elsewhere.
Capital is mobile and will pursue the best risk-adjusted returns it can find. But the flow of capital from our country proves that Canada is viewed as just too risky for investors.
The government’s job is not to try to pick winners and losers. History has shown that governments are horrible at that. Rather, it should create a risk-appropriate environment with stable and capital-attractive rules in place, and then get out of the way and see where the chips fall.
Link to The Hub article: Large-scale energy investments remain a pipe dream
Formerly the head of institutional equity research at FirstEnergy Capital Corp and ATB Capital Markets. I have been involved in the energy sector in either the sell side or corporately for over 25 years
Thanks for reading William’s Substack!
Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
‘Modern-Day Escobar’: U.S. Says Former Canadian Olympian Ran Cocaine Pipeline with Cartel Protection and a Corrupt Toronto Lawyer
Psyop-Style Campaign That Delivered Mark Carney’s Win May Extend Into Floor-Crossing Gambits and Shape China–Canada–US–Mexico Relations
Expanding Canadian energy production could help lower global emissions
Trump Gives Zelenskyy Until Thanksgiving To Agree On Peace Deal, With U.S. Weapons And Intel On The Line
-
Health17 hours agoTens of thousands are dying on waiting lists following decades of media reluctance to debate healthcare
-
Business2 days agoI Was Hired To Root Out Bias At NIH. The Nation’s Health Research Agency Is Still Sick
-
Carbon Tax21 hours agoCarney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies
-
Business17 hours ago
Budget 2025: Ottawa Fakes a Pivot and Still Spends Like Trudeau
-
Opinion12 hours agoLandmark 2025 Study Says Near-Death Experiences Can’t Be Explained Away
-
International1 day agoCanada’s lost decade in foreign policy
-
armed forces1 day agoCanada At Risk Of Losing Control Of Its Northern Territories
-
Focal Points12 hours agoSTUDY: TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube Shorts Induce Measurable “Brain Rot”