You can read more about the editorial in question here. As we noted there and elsewhere, the salient point is that Newsmax is giving its content away free to providers like Amazon and Roku but demanding fees from DirecTV.
Newsmax host Eric Bolling attacks Murdoch-owned WSJ over editorial calling out Newsmax's misinformation about DirecTV
Bolling: “The Journal is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns one Fox News Channel, a Newsmax competitor. How convenient.”
Published
Video file
Citation
From the February 21, 2023, edition of Newsmax's Eric Bolling: The Balance
ERIC BOLLING (HOST): Omission of facts in a story for political gain is a classic tale. The omission of facts to support a certain agenda is dirty business and, in this particular case, it's dirty journalism.
Last week, The Wall Street Journal came down on Newsmax for fighting back against DirecTV censorship. It's a fight that many in both the political and media world have come loudly in support of – senators, congressional members, politicians from all realms have come out in support of Newsmax in our fight against censorship at such a high level.
Now The Wall Street Journal, long and well known for its defensive corporate Goliaths clearly came out in support of DirectTV and AT&T right out of the gate with the headline, "The right's wrong attack on DirectTV over Newsmax." That's odd. The Wall Street Journal's main message being that the removal of Newsmax, in fact, actually had nothing to do with censorship and stifling of conservative voices, but only about money. But Wall Street Journal, I take issue with that. That's simply not true.
The piece by The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, conveniently and strategically, by the way, left out some key facts in order to make that claim. The discrimination by AT&T, the 70 percent owner of DirectTV is quite clear. The company claims that Newsmax should get zero fees, not a penny, while all other cable news channels do receive those fees. AT&T says that despite being the fourth highest-rated cable news channel, Newsmax should not receive any fees while other lower-rated channels do, in fact, receive fees.
Another fact conveniently omitted from the piece by The Wall Street Journal is the fact that the Journal is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns one Fox News Channel, a Newsmax competitor. Hmm. How convenient.
It's also worth noting here that when Fox News had its own carriage -- I was there, folks -- when they had a carriage dispute with satellite provider Dish, The Wall Street Journal never took issue with that particular fight, which is quite similar to our own dispute with DirectTV here at Newsmax now. In that fight, like Newsmax, Fox gained strong support from congressional members. Its anchors called out for support on the air through the dispute. I did it, I was there. But those facts are all conveniently omitted.
Newsmax is against the de-platforming or censorship of any news channels, and we will always support the First Amendment across the board, no matter the political views or competitive status. Like I said, the omission of facts to support a certain agenda, it's just dirty business and downright dirty journalism.
This is the time when we look to our fellow members of the media for support because the First Amendment matters, freedom of speech, of the press, those constitutional rights matter. Telling the story the corporate Goliaths tell in order to justify stepping on any of those things is counter to our democracy and counter to the First Amendment, no matter what side of the political I always stand on. And it's shameful coming from a long-standing institution like the Wall Street Journal.