Blocking the Paramount-Warner Merger: Keeping the Trumpers from Owning Everything
Preventing this consolidation is important, but we need a better media ecosystem
Until a couple of months ago, we could get a dose of humor to help us get through the craziness, cruelty, and corruption of the Trump administration. But CBS pulled Steven Colbert off the air, not because of bad ratings; he had by far the most widely viewed network show at that hour.
The problem was Donald Trump is too thin-skinned to put up with a comedian poking fun at him regularly. As a result, he had Brendan Carr, his chair of the Federal Communications Commission, imply that the Ellison family’s effort to take over Paramount, CBS’s parent company, would be blocked if Colbert wasn’t fired. The Ellison family includes prominent Trumper, Larry Ellison, one of the richest people in the world, and David Ellison, his equally right-wing son who most immediately controls Paramount.
But taking over one of the country’s major broadcast networks wasn’t enough for the Ellisons. They also control TikTok, the fifth most widely used social media platform, which Trump wrestled away from a Chinese company and put in Larry Ellison’s hands.
And now, Paramount is looking to take over Warner Brothers. In addition to giving them control over two major Hollywood studios, the merger would allow Paramount to merge CBS’s newsroom with Warner-owned CNN. This would presumably mean arch-Trumper Bari Weiss would be in charge of CNN.
David Ellison put Weiss, who has long-established right-wing credentials, in charge of CBS News soon after taking over the network. In this role, she has already fired or driven away many serious reporters and repeatedly censored 60 Minutes, its highly regarded and widely watched investigative news show. We can expect more of the same at CNN if Paramount’s takeover of Warner is allowed to go through.
While Trump’s Justice Department’s antitrust division has greenlighted the Paramount-Warner merger, there is still a possibility it can be stopped. California and 11 other states sued to stop the merger on antitrust grounds. In addition to merging two of the major news networks, it would also consolidate two massive Hollywood studios.
An analysis by the Media and Consolidation Research Organization Lab, at the University of California, San Diego, found that the resulting reduction in competition would almost certainly mean fewer new movies are produced and less employment in the industry. It also would likely mean higher streaming prices for consumers. This is in addition to the problem of giving Trumpers even more control of the media.
There is at least some chance that the courts will block this merger on the merits. However, if it goes through the appellate process, the Republican Supreme Court may find the opportunity to provide another gift to Trump supporters irresistible. Still, the prospect of a years long delay could persuade Paramount to compromise and offer at least partial divestment of some of Warner Brothers holdings to facilitate the merger. In any case, the antitrust lawsuit raises the possibility of blocking the merger in its current form.
While further consolidation of the media and placing ever more of it in the hands of Trumpers is definitely bad news, it would be wrong to imagine that we previously had a golden age of media. News outlets owned and run by rich people tend to present news in a manner that is acceptable to the bosses. Stories about the upward redistribution of income over the last half-century, and anti-worker practices by businesses, tend to get short shrift. But there is no doubt they would get even less attention in a Trumper-controlled media universe.
However, we should be looking for something better. One route is a system of individual tax credits, say $100 per person, to support a person’s favorite news outlet(s). This would be a credit, not a deduction, and fully refundable, so even the poorest person would get a $100 to support the news outlet of their choice.
The model is the tax deduction for charitable contributions, except that everyone would get the same amount. There are many design issues that would have to be ironed out, but such a system could create a large pool of money to support news reporting in various forms that is not controlled by rich people.
This system also has the advantage that it can be done at the state or even local level. That means that cities run by progressives, like New York and Seattle, could pave the way by putting this sort of system in place. (Seattle’s new mayor, Katie Wilson, is a big supporter of this sort of system.)
It is hugely important to do what we can to block further consolidation of the media in the hands of the Trumpers. We also need to do other things, like reforming Section 230 to take away the special protection it gives the huge social media platforms. But the most important longer-term measure to protect a free press is to set up an alternative funding mechanism. An individual tax credit system is a promising route, but we need to get these alternatives on the table and start moving forward with them.
As it so happens, on the media ecosystem, I caught a Washington Post Editorial Today from Jeff, attempting to bash the ACA and Medicaid, subject of major already-done damage which the Democrats were unable to prevent with the shutdown last year. I guess they are shooting for more, in this new vacuous-but-that-doesn't-matter-after-all editorial.
THE 7/15/26 WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL
entitled
“Medicaid Fraud Control Units aren’t doing enough to control fraud Indictments and convictions are down, despite a surge in funding.”
and is here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/07/14/medicaid-fraud-control-units-arent-doing-enough-control-fraud/
(NOT to be mixed up with the 7/10/26 Washington Post Editorial, which I find so problematic I have a full POST on it:
https://normspier828307.substack.com/p/washington-post-editorial-71026-i )
O.K. Fraud. Fraud with the ACA, and its associated “expanded Medicaid”, which is actually part of the ACA legislation, and did not exist prior to it. And everywhere else they want to shout about it—”fraud, fraud, fraud!”.
(Prior instances have been explored, and found false, exaggerated, falling short, vacuous, curious, etc. etc.
Such as the “phantoms”, which they had to switch to “ghosts” because they figured too many of those targeted didn’t know what the word “phantom” means:
https://substack.com/@normspier828307/note/c-288953391
Then you’ve got Dr. Oz, with his four wild deceptions, on the National Mall, as part of the new “Let Them Eat Pancakes” campaign:
https://substack.com/@normspier828307/note/c-289373653
Then you’ve got the huge and increasing coverage number drops are supposed to all be from stopping the fraud. (Baloney:
https://normspier828307.substack.com/p/the-administrations-claim-in-the
Then you’ve got the earlier leak from CMS that the false due-to-fraud explanation was coming
https://normspier828307.substack.com/p/loss-of-aca-coverage-after-republicans
)
WOULD I GET TO THE POINT?— THE CURRENT 7/15/26 WA PO EDITORIAL!
OK, I will.
The editorial continues in the logically vacuous style of the prior one, apparently attempting to have people just see “ACA—FRAUD—BAD—STUPID DEMOCRATS WHO LET EVERYONE CHEAT”, which a certain class of minds take as equivalent to airtight reasoning.
So, that approach seems to be most evident at the very end, with, in the last paragraph:
“Targeting waste and abuse is necessary but not sufficient to save Medicaid, whose costs have ballooned in unsustainable ways because of the Affordable Care Act.”
This may need an explainer—as to why Medicaid costs have gone up—”ballooned in unsustainable ways” is, of course, wording chosen for the benefit of those who get mixed up between words and actual content):
Medicaid costs have gone up quite a bit with the Affordable Care Act, because a new part of Medicaid was added, expanded Medicaid.
Expanded Medicaid is part of the ACA, and covers about 20 million people now. It is the way people without other health coverage, such as from an employer, who are below 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), get coverage. (There is no asset test—people below 138% of FPL get it regardless of assets—done to make the system airtight and leave no one out.) So, they get expanded Medicaid. (Without the expanded Medicaid, they would not have coverage unless they dropped down to being dirt poor in BOTH income and assets to qualify for traditional, pre-ACA Medicaid, which still exists.) The expanded Medicaid people cannot get subsidized on-exchange coverage, as the ACA structure prohibits them from doing that. This provision of the ACA was done as a cost-saving measure, to keep the lower-income group getting services paid for by the government at the lower Medicaid reimbursement rates.)
—-
Beyond the “fraud” and “ballooned in unsustainable ways” wording to manipulate the less-analytically-discerning, which is the apparent purpose of the editorial,
NOTE THESE:
BIG ONE, in the quoted text: “but not sufficient”!!!
More fully: “Targeting waste and abuse is necessary but not sufficient”.
Do you see that? Thinking caps, the logically capable. Those cuts from OBBB. (Not in effect yet. They go into effect right after the midterms. Coming. Sure to bring chaos and uninsurance to many.)
Begging the question here on “not sufficient” (in the old fashioned logic meaning—not the newer “raises the question” sense.)
Also:
We don’t see much in dollar amounts of the fraud. Keeping dollar amounts out of perspective is a repeated technique of these guys. A millions, a billion, a trillion—what’s the difference—they all rhyme, after all?
So, note total federal spending on health care is about $1.9 trillion a year. That would be 1,900 billion. (From https://www.kff.org/medicaid/what-does-the-federal-government-spend-on-health-care/ )
Meanwhile, I don’t see any dollar amounts in this thing: https://thefga.org/research/americas-medicaid-fraud-control-units-are-failing-their-mission/ that the Wa Po editorial refrenced from this “Foundation for Government Accountability” think tank that they reference.
They also seem to have left off a comparator, that tax evasion in the U.S. is about $700 billion a year https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mapping-maze-where-irs-could-find-billions-unpaid-taxes
and I don’t have a number on loopholes, which would be separate. And I wonder how much the administration is doing about that. (It would be Scott Bessant, not Dr. Oz.)
Aren't all these folks Ellisons rather than Elliots? It's confusing. There was a previous post that I *think* misnamed the family members as well.