Business
Sen. John Kennedy slams FCC over hurried approval of Soros massive radio station takeover
From LifeSiteNews
U.S. Sen. John Kennedy took to the Senate floor Tuesday to renew questions about the Biden Federal Communications Commission’s approval of a deal for far-left activist financier George Soros to acquire more than 200 stations at once
Republican U.S. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana took to the Senate floor Tuesday to renew questions about the Biden Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) approval of a deal for far-left activist financier George Soros to acquire more than 200 stations at once, declaring something “weird” expedited the review.
In February 2024, Soros purchased $400 million of debt for Audacy, the second largest radio station owner (behind iHeartMedia) in the nation. Soros invested in the company after it filed for bankruptcy the month before with nearly $2 billion in debts. The investment comes with a yield of 50 cents on the dollar after the company emerges from bankruptcy, pending approval by a bankruptcy court of the company’s restructuring plan. Audacy stations carry the top names in conservative punditry, including Sean Hannity, Dana Loesch, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, and Erick Erickson.
In September, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr testified before the House Oversight Committee that “the FCC is not following its normal process for reviewing transactions that it has established over a number of years. It seems to me the FCC is poised, for the first time, to create an entirely new shortcut.”
The New York Post added at the time that Carr told them “the Democrats in FCC leadership cut a secret, backroom deal – one that kept the Republican FCC Commissioners and perhaps others completely in the dark – and then hustled it out the door on a Friday afternoon” in a 3-2 party-line vote. The FCC approved the deal in October, with congressional Republicans vowing to investigate.
Speaking on the Senate floor, Kennedy began by recalling former President Joe Biden’s Farewell Address warning that “an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.”
Kennedy said he did not know which “oligarchs” Biden had in mind, but that Soros fit the description. He went on to detail how Soros took advantage of Audacy filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and became the majority shareholder, which triggered an FCC review process.
Approval of the deal, he said in his trademark style, “went through the FCC like green grass through a goose,” and Democrat commissioners “short-circuited” the normal review process.
“I’m not an FCC expert. I’m not a communications law expert,” Kennedy said. “But I’ve read, this has been widely reported and I’ve read about it in many reports. Normally on a deal of this size, when 220 radio stations are being transferred, their licenses, using airwaves that belong to the American people, and there’s a substantial percentage of foreign owners, it would take about a year to get through the FCC. FCC would do a complete investigation. Not this time! Noooo. This time was special.”
“Pass me the sick bucket,” Kennedy said after reviewing past commentary by Carr and others about the deal. “This isn’t right! But they did it. Now, this is America. You’re entitled to believe what you want. If it’s legal, you’re entitled to do what you want. And Mr. Soros is certainly entitled to his opinion. He is. I don’t agree with him, but he is certainly entitled to it in America. I’m not much into this cancel culture. And hopefully we’ve seen the end of it.”
“But when you’re acquiring radio licenses which can influence public opinion, and you’re doing it in part, not exclusively but in part, with foreign money, well, that’s why we have the FCC,” he went on. “They’re entitled to their opinion, but my people in Louisiana are entitled to know whose opinion they’re hearing on the radio. And this has not been reported once in Louisiana.”
“I am not saying it wasn’t done legally,” Kennedy concluded. “I am saying it looks funny. Not funny ha-ha. It looks weird the way this was done. It has the aroma of politics. And I hope the new FCC revisits this issue.”
Soros’ takeover of so many stations is alarming as the latest display of his willingness to use his vast wealth to influence American politics. A small sampling of the causes the billionaire has financed includes promoting legal abortion-on-demand worldwide under the guise of “reproductive health care;” supporting the election of district attorneys friendly to his politics in localities across the United States; pushing a “racial justice” agenda, including the narrative that America is systemically racist and promoting policies such as reparations for slavery; subsidizing “fact-checking” enterprises that attempt to discredit conservative media outlets under false pretenses, and funding Democrat political candidates.
In 2023, local news outlet Maine Public reported that the Soros-backed National Trust had gained control of Maine’s largest network of newspapers, acquiring five daily papers and 17 weekly publications. The National Trust received funding from Soros’ Open Society Foundation and left-wing Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss for the purchase of the media network.
Carr, who has since been appointed FCC chairman by President Donald Trump, is expected to investigate the deal.
By I have my opinions about which academic research is worth funding with public money and which isn’t. I also understand if you couldn’t care less about what I think. But I expect we’ll all share similar feelings about research that’s actually been retracted by the academic journals where it was published.
Globally, millions of academic papers are published each year. Many – perhaps most – were funded by universities, charitable organizations, or governments. It’s estimated that hundreds of thousands of those papers contain serious errors, irreproducible results, or straight-up plagiarized or false content.
Not only are those papers useless, but they clog up the system and slow down the real business of science. Keeping up with the serious literature coming out in your field is hard enough, but when genuine breakthroughs are buried under thick layers of trash, there’s no hope.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Society doesn’t need those papers and taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for their creation. The trick, however, is figuring out how to identify likely trash before we approve a grant proposal.
I just discovered a fantastic tool that can help. The good people behind the Retraction Watch site also provide a large dataset currently containing full descriptions and metadata for more than 60,000 retracted papers. The records include publication authors, titles, and subjects; reasons for the retractions; and any institutions with which the papers were associated.
Using that information, I can tell you that 798 of those 60,000 papers have an obvious Canadian connection. Around half of those papers were retracted in the last five years – so the dataset is still timely.
There’s no single Canadian institution that’s responsible for a disproportionate number of clunkers. The data contains papers associated with 168 Canadian university faculties and 400 hospital departments. University of Toronto overall has 26 references, University of British Columbia has 18, and McMaster and University of Ottawa both have nine. Research associated with various departments of Toronto’s Sick Children’s Hospital combined account for 27 retractions.
To be sure, just because your paper shows up on the list doesn’t mean you’ve done anything wrong. For example, while 20 of the retractions were from the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, those were all pulled because they were out of date. That’s perfectly reasonable.
I focused on Canadian retractions identified by designations like Falsification (38 papers), Plagiarism (41), Results Not Reproducible (21), and Unreliable (130). It’s worth noting that some of those papers could have been flagged for more than one issue.
Of the 798 Canadian retractions, 218 were flagged for issues of serious concern. Here are the subjects that have been the heaviest targets for concerns about quality:
|
|
You many have noticed that the total of those counts comes to far more than 218. That’s because many papers touch on multiple topics.
For those of you keeping track at home, there were 1,263 individual authors involved in those 218 questionable papers. None of them had more than five such papers and only a very small handful showed up in four or five cases. Although there would likely be value in looking a bit more closely at their publishing histories.
This is just about as deep as I’m going to dig into this data right now. But the papers I’ve identified are probably just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to lousy (and expensive) research. So we’ve got an interest in identifying potentially problematic disciplines or institutions. And, thanks to Retraction Watch, we now have the tools.
Kyle Briggs over at CanInnovate has been thinking and writing about these issues for years. He suggests that stemming the crippling flow of bad research will require a serious realigning of the incentives that currently power the academic world.
That, according to Briggs, is most likely to happen by forcing funding agencies to enforce open data requirements – and that includes providing access to the programming code used by the original researchers. It’ll also be critical to truly open up access to research to allow meaningful crowd-sourced review.
Those would be excellent first steps.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
MxM News
Quick Hit:
Elon Musk said Saturday that all federal employees must submit a productivity report if they wish to keep their jobs. Employees received an email requesting details on what they accomplished in the past week, with failure to respond being treated as a resignation.
Key Details:
-
Musk stated that federal employees must submit their reports by 11:59 p.m. on Monday or be considered as having resigned.
-
Musk emphasized that the process should take under five minutes, stating that “an email with some bullet points that make any sense at all is acceptable.”
-
FBI Director Kash Patel instructed agency employees not to comply with the request for now, stating that the bureau will handle reviews internally according to FBI procedures.
Diving Deeper:
Federal employees have been given a strict deadline to justify their jobs, as DOGE pushes for greater accountability within the government. The email came late Saturday, explaining that all federal workers would be required to submit a brief productivity report detailing their accomplishments from the previous week. Those who do not respond will be deemed to have resigned.
Musk framed the requirement as a minimal effort, writing on X that “the bar is very low.” He assured employees that simply providing bullet points that “make any sense at all” would suffice and that the report should take less than five minutes to complete.
The policy aligns with President Trump’s push for increased efficiency in government. The Office of Personnel Management confirmed the initiative, stating that agencies would determine any further steps following the reports. Meanwhile, FBI Director Kash Patel pushed back, advising bureau employees not to comply for the time being, stating that the FBI would handle its own review process.
The policy has drawn sharp criticism from the American Federation of Government Employees, which blasted Musk’s involvement, accusing him of disrespecting public servants. The union vowed to fight any terminations resulting from the initiative.
Musk also took aim at the White House’s Rapid Response account after it listed recent Trump administration actions, including expanding IVF access and cutting benefits for illegal immigrants. In response, Musk quipped that simply sending an email with coherent words was enough to meet the requirement, reiterating that expectations for the reports were low.
The directive comes as Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency seeks to eliminate waste across federal agencies, signaling a broader crackdown on bureaucratic inefficiencies under the Trump administration.
Snapshots of Alberta and Canadian trade with the US
Is Our Five-Year Nightmare Finally Over?
Two New Studies Find Fewer Clouds Cause Warmer Temps
The FDA is trying to shut down his successful cancer treatments. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s patients are outraged
-
Alberta10 hours ago
Snapshots of Alberta and Canadian trade with the US
-
Censorship Industrial Complex9 hours ago
Is Our Five-Year Nightmare Finally Over?
-
Opinion8 hours ago
Two New Studies Find Fewer Clouds Cause Warmer Temps
-
Health7 hours ago
The FDA is trying to shut down his successful cancer treatments. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s patients are outraged
-
Indigenous2 days agoTrudeau gov’t to halt funds for ‘unmarked graves’ search after millions spent, no bodies found
-
Business2 days agoApple removes security feature in UK after gov’t demands access to user data worldwide
-
Business2 days agoPepsiCo joins growing list of companies tweaking DEI policies
-
Energy1 day agoFederal Government Suddenly Reverses on Critical Minerals – Over Three Years Too Late – MP Greg McLean