Independence

Should Paramount Skydance prevail in its $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, the Larry Ellison family would control two historic Hollywood film studios, dozens of cable channels, HBO and two legendary newsrooms, CBS News and CNN.

Concerns about the potential loss of more Hollywood jobs, and questions about newsroom independence dominated a hearing Friday to address Los Angeles’ crisis of shrinking film and TV production jobs.

Paramount wants to wrap up its Warner merger by September — a rapid timetable. The takeover deal, which was struck last month after Netflix bowed out, would put HBO and CNN under the control of Larry Ellison and his son David, the chairman of Paramount, which includes CBS.

Both Ellisons maintain friendly relations with President Trump. Those bonds, along with challenges to legacy media and changes at CBS News in recent months, sparked handwringing during the hearing called by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) and Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale).

“The questions surrounding this merger go beyond jobs, contracts and consumers,” Schiff said. “They also go to editorial independence of two of America’s most significant news organizations, CNN and CBS News.”

Trump has long agitated for changes at CNN, and members of his cabinet, including War Secretary Pete Hegseth, have openly cheered for an Ellison takeover of CNN.

To pave the way for the Ellisons’ purchase of Paramount, the company paid $16 million to Trump last summer to settle his lawsuit over edits to a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris in October 2024. Most 1st Amendment experts had deemed Trump’s suit “frivolous.”

Since the Ellisons took the helm, there has been a change in direction at CBS News and a reduction in its size and scope. Staff members at CNN are bracing for similar changes, including to the tone of its newscasts.

In addition to the long-term health of Los Angeles’ film economy, the merger’s fate could determine “whether we have state sponsored media … or whether we have journalists who can truly follow the story,” Friedman said.

A Paramount spokesperson declined to comment.

The deal is currently before regulators in the U.S. and abroad.

Paramount Chairman David Ellison has vowed to “build a stronger Hollywood,” by increasing the creative output of the two legendary movie studios — Paramount and Warner Bros. — to 30 theatrical releases a year. Warner Bros., which owns such prominent franchises as “The Matrix,” Batman, Harry Potter, “The Big Bang Theory,” and “Friends,” has long been one of Hollywood’s most prolific studios.

But Paramount has suffered from years of under-investment and Ellison and his team have been working to boost the film pipeline.

Ellison has also pledged to keep both studio lots and preserve HBO.

“HBO will continue to operate independently under our ownership, enabling it to create more of the world-class content it is renowened for,” Ellison wrote in the Feb. 28 letter to Schiff and Friedman, responding to their concerns about consolidation.

During Friday’s hearing, the lawmakers turned to former CNN anchor Jim Acosta, who famously jousted with Trump during his first term, for his reflections. He was asked whether any “guardrails” could protect against potential merger harms.

“If this merger goes through, the guard-rails are gone,” Acosta said bluntly. “If we continue to go down this road it will be lights-out for the news industry… We need media options that are not controlled by the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country.”

The hearing occurred the same day that CBS News imposed another sweeping round of layoffs and disbanded its CBS News radio network. It also came the same week as Trump’s Federal Communications Commission approved a massive television station merger, which will allow Texas-based Nexstar Media Group to control more than 250 stations, despite a legal challenge from state attorneys general.

The proposed Paramount-Warner merger would prompt at least $6 billion in cost savings, according to Paramount. Industry veterans warn that billions more in cuts may be necessary to make the deal math work.

A combined Paramount-Warner would carry nearly $80 billion in debt, a legacy of the proposed leveraged buyout and the mergers that came before it.

The hearing at Burbank City Hall —“Lights, Camera, Competition”: Promoting American Film Production,” — was wide-ranging. Award-winning actor Noah Wyle, the star and a producer of Warner Bros.’ “The Pitt,” discussed the need to bring more productions back to Los Angeles where thousands of out-of-work film professionals have been suffering. “The Pitt” is filmed in Burbank.

“Over the last six years, the aggregate effect of projects leaving the state in search of tax credits, the pandemic and last year’s fires has been a near cratering of our once thriving industry,” Wyle said. “We lost 42,000 film and TV jobs between 2022 and 2024.”

The hearing unfolded down the road from the massive Warner Bros. studio complex, and was held to explore ways to boost the Hollywood economy, including the potential for a national tax credit under consideration in Congress. The campaign is intended to keep film jobs in the U.S. amid an increased migration to Britain, where Warner Bros. maintains an expansive studio complex in London, and other countries that offer generous subsidies.

“Work in the entertainment industry is precarious,” said Matthew D. Loeb, International President of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE). “Past studio mergers have meant fewer jobs.”

March 4 (Asia Today) — In U.S. history, only one president served four terms: Franklin D. Roosevelt. Facing the unprecedented economic crisis of the Great Depression, Roosevelt pushed forward sweeping New Deal legislation to revive the economy. With Congress controlled by his Democratic Party, the political environment initially seemed favorable.

However, Roosevelt’s New Deal soon faced a major obstacle: opposition from the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court. Several core New Deal laws were struck down as unconstitutional.

After winning re-election in 1936 with 61% of the vote, Roosevelt proposed a plan to expand the Supreme Court. Under the proposal, the president could appoint additional justices if sitting justices over the age of 70 years and six months did not retire. Because six justices were already over that age, the court could have expanded from nine members to as many as fifteen.

The proposal became known as “court packing” – an attempt to add justices favorable to the administration.

Opposition emerged from unexpected quarters. Not only Republicans but also members of Roosevelt’s own Democratic Party objected. Even Vice President John Nance Garner opposed the plan, warning it could create a dangerous precedent by allowing a president to reshape the judiciary for political purposes.

The proposal was ultimately withdrawn without a vote.

Another leader who reshaped the judiciary was Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. After taking power, Chávez expanded the number of Supreme Court justices and appointed individuals loyal to his government. Once the executive branch gained control over the judiciary, the court largely lost its ability to check the administration.

The consequences were severe. Venezuela’s political system deteriorated, and the power structure Chávez built has remained firmly in place under his successor, Nicolás Maduro.

In South Korea, a revision to the Court Organization Act aimed at expanding the number of Supreme Court justices passed the National Assembly on Feb. 28 with 173 votes in favor, 73 against and one abstention. The legislation now awaits promulgation by the president.

If enacted, the number of Supreme Court justices will increase from 14 to 26. President Lee Jae-myung would have the authority to appoint not only the 12 newly added justices but also replacements for 10 justices whose terms are set to expire, including Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. In total, the president could appoint 22 of the court’s 26 justices during his term.

Expanding the number of justices is not simply a matter of increasing seats.

In Venezuela, Chávez filled the court with allies and during his tenure the Supreme Court issued virtually no rulings against the government. The judiciary effectively lost its role as an independent check on executive power.

Even Roosevelt – widely admired in American history – saw his attempt to expand the Supreme Court become one of the most controversial episodes of his presidency.

History offers clear lessons about the consequences of governments attempting to dominate the judiciary. Once the independence of the courts is compromised and the balance of powers between branches of government is weakened, any leader risks being viewed as moving toward authoritarian rule.

— Kim Chae-yeon, Asia Today

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the publication.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

March 4 (Asia Today) — A series of legislative proposals by South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party has sparked debate over judicial independence, as critics argue the measures could affect ongoing criminal cases involving President Lee Jae-myung.

The legislation includes proposals to expand the Supreme Court, introduce constitutional review of court rulings and abolish the crime of breach of trust. Legal experts say the bills, combined with calls to drop certain prosecutions, raise concerns that lawmakers could influence judicial proceedings.

Five criminal cases involving Lee are currently paused while he serves as president. As the National Assembly moves forward with legal revisions, some members of the legal community warn the changes could intersect with those trials.

National Assembly inquiry targets prosecution investigations

According to political sources, the Democratic Party has launched a parliamentary committee seeking a national investigation into what it calls politically motivated prosecutions under the previous administration.

The committee plans to examine several high-profile cases involving political figures, including the Daejang-dong development case and allegations involving transfers of funds to North Korea.

Party officials have also urged prosecutors to withdraw indictments in cases involving Lee.

The move has prompted criticism from legal observers who say the National Assembly should not interfere in criminal proceedings.

Judicial reform bills move quickly through parliament

The Democratic Party has advanced three major judicial reform bills in recent weeks.

The legislation would expand the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26, allow the Constitutional Court to review final court rulings through a judicial complaint system and introduce a new criminal offense for officials who deliberately misapply the law in judicial decisions or investigations.

Supporters say the reforms are aimed at addressing structural issues within the judiciary.

However, some legal analysts say the proposals could alter the balance of power within the court system and influence the legal environment surrounding ongoing cases.

Breach of trust law could affect corruption cases

Another proposal under discussion involves abolishing the criminal offense of breach of trust, which has been used in several major corruption investigations.

If the law were repealed, legal experts say it could affect cases related to development projects in Daejang-dong and Baekhyeon-dong as well as allegations involving misuse of a provincial government corporate credit card.

Under South Korean law, when a criminal statute is repealed after an alleged offense, courts may dismiss charges related to that statute.

Concerns raised over separation of powers

Some lawyers say the pace and scope of the legislative initiatives raise broader concerns about the balance between the legislative and judicial branches.

“The outcome of trials should be determined in court,” one attorney who previously served as a senior prosecutor said. “If lawmakers change laws in ways that directly affect ongoing cases, it raises questions about the separation of powers.”

Supporters of the legislation argue the reforms are necessary to improve accountability within the justice system.

Debate over the proposals is expected to continue as the National Assembly reviews the measures during the current parliamentary session.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260305010001168