Freedom of the Press

Paramount Skydance has completed its takeover of Warner Bros Discovery, bringing CNN and CBS News under the same corporate ownership, in a deal that has raised concerns about editorial independence and freedom of speech.

The acquisition, worth about $110bn including debt, combines two of Hollywood’s biggest studios after months of legal challenges lodged by state attorneys general and unions.

The new company, Skydance Corporation, brings together HBO, CBS, Nickelodeon, Showtime, Comedy Central, DC Studios and Food Network, alongside streaming services Paramount plus and HBO Max.

But its control of two major US news organisations has drawn particular scrutiny. David Ellison, Skydance’s chairman and chief executive, has promised to preserve their editorial independence, but his father, Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison is a major financial backer of the deal, and has previously donated funds to US President Donald Trump and Israel.

Asked about the takeover on Tuesday, Trump welcomed it. “They’re terrific people, and it’s going to be a great company,” he said.

Why was the merger challenged?

The takeover faced initial opposition from Hollywood workers, politicians and state prosecutors concerned about the mounting concentration of power in an industry already dominated by a handful of companies.

Netflix initially reached an agreement to buy part of Warner Bros Discovery. Paramount then launched a competing bid, prompting a bidding war before Netflix walked away.

A California-led coalition of 12 state attorneys general sued to block the deal, saying that it would reduce competition and raise prices. The Writers Guild of America brought a separate challenge.

Both cases were settled in September when Paramount agreed to commitments relating to film production, support for displaced workers and protections for the news networks, including the creation of a new editorial independence board.

But the settlement did not end opposition to the deal. “This merger will stifle creativity, weaken free speech and cost people their jobs,” actor and activist Mark Ruffalo has said.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren linked the takeover to Trump’s efforts to restrict media access. “As Trump tries to ban CNN from the White House, it would be a massive mistake to cave on the Paramount merger,” she said, referring to the US president’s so-far thwarted attempt last month to bar reporters from several news organisations, including CNN, from accessing the White House.

Can an editorial independence board protect CNN and CBS?

One condition of the settlement requires Skydance to establish a “News Editorial Independence Board” within 180 days of completing the takeover.

The five-member body is to include active or retired journalists with at least 10 years of experience. It is intended to establish editorial principles and address disputes involving the news networks and corporate management.

However, its members will be appointed by, and will report to, Skydance’s board of directors, which Ellison chairs. Two members can belong to the same political party, and there is no requirement to publish its findings.

The condition has left critics with a multitude of questions, including: How can a member of an independent editorial board be a member of a political party? How can there be scrutiny if its findings are not public? How can it be independent if it is appointed by a board of directors, themselves appointed by the CEO of the company?

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, “A Paramount-appointed editorial independence board for CNN and CBS is worthless. The fish rots from the head, and this particular fish is headed by a compromised oligarch with a history of throwing journalists under the bus to advance his business interests.”

Stern also questioned whether government enforcement of the settlement could itself threaten press freedom. “The editorial board creates the same First Amendment problems it’s supposed to solve – the government meddling in the news.”

The First Amendment provides constitutional protection for freedom of speech and the press.

Ellison argues that the two networks will continue to operate independently. “We’re going to make sure that CNN and CBS News are completely editorially independent,” he said on Tuesday.

On Monday, Skydance announced that Mark Thompson would remain CNN’s chairman and editor-in-chief, while Bari Weiss will continue as CBS News’s editor-in-chief, easing previous fears that Weiss would immediately take charge of both networks.

Why are there fears for editorial independence?

The takeover gives the Ellison family control of CNN less than a month before the November 3 US midterm elections, and follows Trump’s repeated attacks on the network as it seeks to hold the US president to account.

Shortly after Paramount launched its bid in December, Trump accused CNN of spreading “poison and lies” and said it was “imperative” that it be sold, while the Trump administration has moved to bar CNN from reporting in certain areas of the White House.

Ellison donated roughly $45m to a political nonprofit group supporting Trump’s election efforts in 2024, while he donated $16.6m to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, a charity supporting Israeli soldiers – its largest single donation at the time.

Earlier this year, the White House criticised CNN’s coverage of the US-Israeli war on Iran, while Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters that “the sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.”

Sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates also hold indirect financial interests in the combined company. They have no voting stakes, although their involvement adds another layer of scrutiny over its funding.

Concerns about the future for editorial integrity, however, intensified after Skydance acquired Paramount in 2025, and layoffs followed, alongside the closure of CBS News Radio and changes to CBS News flagship investigative programme 60 Minutes.

High-profile firings enacted under CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss and Skydance Media CEO David Ellison included correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega, as well as 60 Minutes executive producer Tanya Simon.

The programme’s September season premiere attracted about 21 percent fewer viewers than a year earlier.

In 2025, Paramount also agreed to pay Trump $16m to settle a lawsuit over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

In a June 2 letter, nine advocacy groups, including Reporters Without Borders, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Committee for the First Amendment, warned that CNN could face similar upheaval and firings.

“Bari Weiss’ shameless actions fulfil the Ellisons’ commitment to President Trump to remake CBS to his liking,” they alleged, referring to the firings and changes at 60 Minutes.

“Larry Ellison has reportedly promised to do the same at CNN if allowed to take control through the pending Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger. Not because it makes any business sense, but because they seek to control the public discourse.”

The groups described the proposed takeover as an “existential threat to the free press, independent media, and free speech in this country and beyond”.

Reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico were denied access to White House after Trump calls news outlets ‘fake news’.

Journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico have been barred from entering the White House and have had their press credentials deactivated or confiscated, as United States President Donald Trump’s ban on the three news organisations took effect.

Journalists were turned away from the grounds on Saturday after Trump announced on Friday that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be barred from the White House, accusing the outlets of reporting what he called “fake news”. Trump has said other outlets could also face bans.

CNN White House reporter Betsy Klein and MS NOW White House correspondent Akayla Gardner both reported on air that they had been denied access. Gardner said an officer confiscated her badge after telling her it had been disabled and that the decision was “above him”. An MS NOW photographer also had their badge disabled, she said.

Politico reporter Cheyenne Haslett was subsequently turned away, with Politico saying the Secret Service denied her entry and confiscated her White House access pass.

“A few minutes ago, our colleague Cheyenne Haslett attempted to enter the White House to do her job as a POLITICO reporter,” the news organisation said. “Secret Service denied her entry to the complex and confiscated the pass that allows her access to the White House.”

“We stand by her and all reporters here covering the White House,” Politico added. “As we said yesterday, we will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights.”

“The White House belongs to the American people and the decisions made inside are funded by our tax dollars,” MS NOW said in a statement. “MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”’

CNN media analyst Brian Stelter called the move “a direct threat to press freedom in the United States”.

“It’s so much bigger than CNN,” Stelter said. “This is a free speech test in America.”

The White House Correspondents’ Association said Trump had described “his own planned action as a ‘ban on the free press’”, and said constitutional press protections do not depend on whether a president approves of a news organisation’s coverage.

The ban is the latest in a series of confrontations Trump has had with news organisations during his first and second term.

In 2025, his administration restricted Associated Press access to the Oval Office and presidential travel after the agency declined to adopt the administration’s preferred name, “Gulf of America”, for the Gulf of Mexico. That case remains ongoing.

A key precedent is a 1977 federal appeals court ruling, Sherrill v Knight. The court found that once the White House establishes press facilities for credentialed journalists, access cannot be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. It also said journalists denied credentials must receive notice of the factual basis, an opportunity to respond, and a final written explanation.

It is not yet clear what legal recourse CNN, MS NOW or Politico may pursue, or how courts would apply Sherrill to the administration’s decision to revoke existing credentials.

Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher reported from Washington, DC, on Friday that Trump’s ban will likely be challenged soon.

“The United States has the First Amendment [of its Constitution] that says the government cannot restrict access to this sort of thing,” he said.

Press freedom advocates are watching closely.

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in a news release that the move raises constitutional concerns.

“If President Trump means to expel these news organizations from the White House press pool, his action is doubly unconstitutional because the press pool is a ‘public forum’ under the First Amendment, which means the president can’t exclude journalists from it on the basis of their viewpoints,” Jaffer said.

The fight over access could now become a broader test of the limits on the White House’s ability to control which journalists can cover the administration.

“It’s difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation. “It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move.”

Court also acquits Dow Jones on the charge of dismissal over Selina Cheng’s leadership role with the Hong Kong Journalists Association.

A Hong Kong court has convicted Dow Jones for trying to deter a journalist from taking a union role, but also acquitted the publisher on the charge of dismissal over the role, in a case that raised concerns about media freedom in the city.

Selina Cheng, who was fired by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in July 2024, had accused the newspaper’s publisher Dow Jones of unlawfully terminating her employment over her role chairing the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) and of trying to prevent her from standing for a union position.

The court found the company guilty on Thursday of trying to prevent Cheng’s right to run for the union chairmanship.

However, the judge sided with Dow Jones’ argument that she was made redundant because of corporate restructuring, and not due to her role as HKJA chair.

The right to take part in a trade union is protected by Hong Kong’s labour laws. An employer found guilty on “prevent or deter” charges could be fined up to 100,000 Hong Kong dollars ($12,755).

“If reporters’ employment rights are not sufficiently safeguarded, or when their rights are violated and not enforced in law, then we can no longer work safely as reporters,” Cheng told reporters outside the court after the ruling.

The judge said the company’s requirement that Cheng seek prior permission to take a union role was an “unjustified deterrent” of her rights.

Dow Jones said it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating next steps.

“The Wall Street Journal has a long and proud history as an employer in Hong Kong. Throughout that time, we have remained deeply respectful of its labour laws and supportive of our employees’ rights, while publishing excellent, impartial journalism about the region,” a spokesperson said.

Sentencing is expected to be handed down at a later date.

Cheng launched a private prosecution last year for illegal termination, after filing a complaint with the Labour Department that did not result in a prosecution.

Founded in 1968, the HKJA is Hong Kong’s longest-established journalists’ organisation and one of the last remaining groups advocating for media rights in the city.

Although Hong Kong was once known for its independent news outlets, media freedom has come under strain and many outlets have disbanded since Beijing imposed a 2020 national security law following sometimes violent pro-democracy protests, according to international rankings and HKJA surveys.