The future of one of America's most recognised news networks, CNN, hangs in the balance as two corporate behemoths fight for control of its parent company, Warner Bros Discovery. This high-stakes tug-of-war underscores a profound dysfunction at the heart of the American media landscape, where corporate profit and shareholder gain routinely trump the public's need for reliable information.
A Network Caught in a Corporate Crossfire
Founded 45 years ago, CNN finds itself in a precarious position. The network, while not flawless, remains a primary destination for reality-based reporting during major breaking news events. This was evident recently when anchor Kaitlan Collins directed the public to CNN's coverage amid confusion over a gunman incident at Brown University.
Yet, its editorial fate is now being decided not by journalistic merit, but by a battle between potential suitors like Netflix and Paramount Skydance. The Warner Bros Discovery board rejected a hostile bid from Paramount this week, but regulatory battles loom. Experts argue this framing misses the larger point entirely.
"It gets presented as a business story with powerful individuals as the protagonists, but there is very little discussion of the public interest," said Victor Pickard, a media policy professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He co-authored a recent Roosevelt Institute report warning of the dire effects of such media consolidation.
Political Pressure and the 'Fake News' Antagonist
The situation is further complicated by the shadow of Donald Trump. The former president has long portrayed CNN as a chief "fake news" antagonist, with his rallies frequently echoing with chants of "CNN sucks!". Trump now publicly states the network needs new ownership, which analysts read as a desire for control that would shield him from scrutiny.
His apparent preference leans toward Paramount Skydance. This bid is controlled by David Ellison, son of Trump ally Larry Ellison. Furthermore, Paramount's CBS News recently installed right-leaning editor Bari Weiss, whom Trump has praised. Notably, if Netflix prevails, CNN would be spun off into a separate entity, potentially setting it up for another sale down the line—a cycle that seems never-ending.
A Broken System Built on Policy Choices
At its core, this struggle exemplifies a media system engineered for corporate profitability, not democratic health. "This is yet another example of the deep structural problems with roots in decades of policy decisions," Pickard explained. He traces the issue back to policy choices from the 1930s and 1940s that fostered today's hyper-commercialised monster.
Prominent critic Timothy Wu contends that both potential deals for Warner Bros Discovery should be illegal under antitrust laws. "Either merger would be bad for the country, and both should be challenged by anti-trust authorities," Wu recently wrote.
Despite the grim outlook, Pickard resists defeatism. "What we have now is a very anti-democratic system, but we shouldn't give in to learned helplessness," he argues. He points to potential policy solutions that could strengthen independent news, bolster local journalism, fund public media, and prohibit excessive concentration of media power.
The saga of CNN's ownership is a stark reminder that in the world of media, bigger is not better. News organisations should serve the public, not act as pawns in a perpetual merger game. The path to reform, though unlikely in the current political climate, remains essential for a functioning democracy.
