A pivotal congressional hearing in the United States this week has issued a stark warning: the potential acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery by either Netflix or a Paramount Skydance consortium represents a profound danger to journalism, free expression, and democracy itself.
Two Dangerous Paths: Market Power vs Political Capitulation
The hearing, held by the House judiciary committee to examine competition in the streaming sector, laid bare the severe risks of two colossal proposed deals. Netflix has tabled an $82.7bn bid for Warner Bros Discovery. This was countered by a hostile $108bn takeover offer from Paramount Skydance, a group led by David Ellison, whose father Larry is a known ally of former President Donald Trump.
Experts and lawmakers argued that neither proposed merger serves the public interest. Both would result in an unprecedented concentration of power over American media consumption and narrative control. Crucially, they are advancing at a time when the Trump administration is openly accused of weaponising the regulatory approval process to extract editorial concessions from compliant media companies.
This is not theoretical. As it sought Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval for its merger, Paramount installed Kenneth R Weinstein—a former Trump nominee for ambassador to Japan—as a so-called "bias" monitor at CBS News. FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez condemned this as a "never-before-seen" form of government control over newsrooms that violates the First Amendment.
The Proven Pattern of Political Concession
The ramifications for journalistic independence have been immediate and tangible. Paramount paid $16m to settle a Trump lawsuit against CBS. In what was seen as an offering to secure merger approval, Stephen Colbert's late-night show was cancelled prior to the Paramount-Skydance deal. Key figures including 60 Minutes producer Bill Owens and CBS News president Wendy McMahon resigned.
Now, the same ownership group is reportedly promising "sweeping changes" at CNN—a direct echo of Donald Trump's public demands for the network to be sold. Placing both CBS News and CNN under the control of owners who have demonstrated a willingness to suppress journalism for political favour poses a documented threat, not an abstract concern.
Netflix: The Threat of Algorithmic Control and Market Dominance
While perhaps seeming a more benign contender, Netflix presents a different but equally serious danger. Although CNN would be spun off in its current bid, Netflix's history of yielding to political pressure is troubling. In 2019, it removed a satirical show critical of Saudi Arabia, with CEO Reed Hastings stating, "We're not in the news business... We're trying to entertain."
This creates a false divide. Entertainment, including satire, documentaries, and historical drama, shapes public understanding and acts as a vital channel for political accountability, especially when traditional news media is under pressure. Furthermore, Netflix operates a closed, algorithmic ecosystem. Unlike traditional studios that license content, Netflix produces solely for its own platform, using opaque algorithms to decide what content succeeds or disappears.
Acquiring Warner Bros Discovery would give Netflix control over HBO's prestige programming and a vast film library, locking them inside this walled garden. It would eliminate a major buyer of independent content and accelerate vertical integration, creating a potential global entertainment behemoth with excessive control over culture and speech.
The hearing underscored that this is not a simple studio buyout; it is big tech extending its platform power directly into Hollywood and journalism. The United States once recognised this danger, forcing Hollywood studios to divest theatre chains in 1948 to prevent excessive control over production and distribution. Netflix now combines both without facing comparable structural limits.
A Call for Regulatory Action to Protect Democracy
Both deals are unfolding against a backdrop of an unprecedented assault on press freedom and the weakening of independent regulatory agencies like the FCC. The response from many large media corporations has been capitulation: paying settlements, rolling back diversity commitments, and manipulating editorial leadership.
The FCC and the Department of Justice possess both the authority and the obligation to reject these deals, which threaten the public interest and likely violate antitrust law. As the hearing made clear, handing such extraordinary power over speech and culture to massive corporations operating under coercive executive pressure is a profound threat. This is no deal for democracy.
