We live in strange times.
They’re so strange that when an apolitical media mogul buys a new property and wants to provide more centrist programming — reflecting attitudes of most Americans — he feels compelled to explain himself like a sinner in a confession booth.
David Ellison, the CEO of Paramount Skydance, is that “sinner” and if you read his op-ed in The New York Times this week, you can see his confessional for the apostasy of bucking conventional progressive norms in the mainstream media.
Because of his offenses against the progressive orthodoxy that dominates news and entertainment, Ellison’s bid to merge PSKY with Warner Bros. Discovery is now being challenged on antitrust grounds by a dozen loony Democratic US state attorneys general, led by some dude in California that no one heard of until now.
Ellison makes the case in his Times op-ed that the only reasons these leftist AGs are suing is politics.
They might lose a reliable cheerleader for their progressivism at CNN — the WBD cable news subsidiary Ellison wants to acquire — much the same way Ellison is rewriting the lefty script at the news network he currently controls, CBS.
‘Trusted steward’
Or as Ellison astutely points out: “The issue is whether I can be trusted as a steward of Warner’s CNN. There has been speculation about my politics, my loyalties, my intentions.”
Based on the facts, it’s hard to find fault in his analysis.
First, if you know Ellison, you also know he’s not some right-wing ideologue — a point he tried to drive home in the piece.
If you’re even a casual viewer of CBS, you would also know that under his leadership and through his appointment of heterodox though hardly right-wing journalist Bari Weiss to run CBS News, you would also know it’s not now and never will be MAGA central.
If you don’t believe it, go back and read some of Weiss’ pieces on the issues.
Yes, she is staunchly pro-Israel and hates all forms of wokeism, but that puts her in line with just about everyone except these AGs, and much of the progressive media ecosystem.
This type of centrism isn’t what the likes of California AG Rob Bonta, who is leading the case, is aiming for.
His office counters that the case “resulted from clear-cut antitrust analysis” and is “necessary to protect competition and consumer choice.”
The federal judge in the case has already indicated the court “cannot accept Defendants’ argument that the transaction will produce efficiencies in the streaming market.”
But keep in mind that Bonta (like the Biden-appointed judge hearing the case) is a progressive and he’s looking to burnish his lefty bona fides, probably to run for governor in a state dominated by like progressives.
What better way to do that than cry foul over some merger, including one that won easy passage through the Trump DOJ Antitrust Division?
As an added benefit, Bonta can point out how David Ellison’s dad, Larry, the Oracle co-founder, and the president are pals.
Maybe Trump will set the new agenda of the combined CBS-CNN?
That argument falls apart on so many levels.
Why would Ellison risk alienating centrist viewers — the 70% of the country that’s center-left and center-right — by running Trumpian-infused agitprop?
More centrist programming might just work in a media business that has seen audience declines over its progressive leanings for years now.
Yet crying “Trump” to block this deal is not nearly as weak as Bonta’s legal argument.
He wants people to believe that the Paramount-WBD combo will somehow rule the airwaves and force viewers to pay more for stuff they have been consuming for years — increasingly through Big Tech, and thus increasingly making Big Media rather small.
Bad for consumers?
The lawsuit is a joke on so many levels that I haven’t seen a single antitrust expert — except the politicized ones in the AGs’ offices — explain how these companies are about to smash the likes of Amazon, Apple, YouTube and all the other places offering content these days.
Maybe that’s because these AGs are trying to make the case that the deal is bad for consumers because two pretty weak companies merged are stronger than if they remained on their own.
True, they will be stronger, which is the point.
Each reported earnings last week, with WBD missing on revenues and Paramount’s profits sinking.
Dive deeper into their balance sheets and you see two companies withering from competition, not cutting prices, not hiring more stagehands, but in a long-term death spiral.
Combine them and they have a chance to compete on price with streaming giant Netflix.
They might be able to make a run at Big Tech for consumer eyeballs going to Amazon and the like.
What’s most absurd about this case is that if you take it on face value, there are actually US politicians with a degree of power who are to the left of the progressives in the European Union and the UK regulatory apparatus.
Both have now greenlit the $80 billion merger for the obvious reasons: Arguing antitrust power when you combine two weak companies displays real economic illiteracy.
I’m going to give Bonta and his wingmate in this action, our very own New York AG Tish James, their due: This lawsuit isn’t about protecting consumers or the jobs of the creative community that are going away because of the industry’s wonky economics.
It’s a politically savvy way of stopping David Ellison from bringing news to the center and exposing Americans to points of view on both sides, as opposed to tilting to the left, which has been a significant part of CBS and CNN’s faltering business model for years.
Who knew that was such a crime?