[throwlogon]

I don't know why this is getting downvoted; companies in other sectors (e.g. oil) get involved in US politics regularly.

But there's little precedent for media companies to take action in US politics overtly. (IANAL, but I suspect there are legal impediments as well). Taking a political stand, or providing support for one side, might force big tech companies to resolve the ambiguity as to whether they're media companies or not.

EDIT: Actually maybe there is nothing stopping tech companies from choosing a side; apparently media companies do make political contribitions: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/08/news-corps-million-...

EDIT 2: I can see I've accidentally opened a can of worms about biased coverage and editorials; but my usage of "support" was intended as overt and consistent involvement in political campaigning, generally through donations. And to my surprise, that does occur.

[MiroF]

> But there's little precedent for media companies to take action in US politics overtly

Sorry, but are we in the same country?

[qppo]

There is extreme precedent, media companies have been political for their entire history. They're pretty tame today for what it's worth, William Randolph Hearst started a war to sell newspapers.

[rileymat2]

> But there's little precedent for media companies to take action in US politics overtly.

Newspapers routinely make political endorsements, that is overt.

[cat199]

> But there's little precedent for media companies to take action in US politics overtly.

Isn't this pretty much one half of their business, the other being advertising?