[murph-almighty]

At face value, maybe. But it's worth noting that this administration tried to stop the AT&T-Time Warner merger while suggesting that it would go through if Time Warner divested itself of CNN. I supported the action, but not the reasons why- it was a legislative hurdle that aimed to take out a source of journalism that was critical of the administration.

That in turn has colored my opinion of any antitrust action this administration takes, and I wouldn't be shocked if this action had some sort of corrupted subtext as well. I wouldn't trust this administration to perform antitrust actions for the sake of antitrust actions, but rather for some sort of ancillary benefits.

[cloakandswagger]

That has been a common pushback to many media/broadcasting mergers though. It presents a real threat to freedom of the press when a broadcasting company absorbs a media company as they can more easily suppress stories that don't serve their interests.

CNN being critical of the administration is immaterial (practically all large media outlets are). The concern from the administration seems justified rather than malicious in this case.

[unlinked_dll]

I think the suggestion that the admin's position on the AT&T/TW merger wasn't biased by CNN's existence as a moderate news outlet is extremely disingenuous, since multiple judges found the opposite to be true.

As well, if they cared about freedom of the press in the face of media consolidation, Sinclair wouldn't have been able to buy up so many local news outlets. But Sinclair runs stories that praise the administration, and Sinclair has impunity when it comes to acquisitions.