Friday's Court Hearing Could Shape CNN's Future
The judge will decide only whether to slow the Paramount merger. But the bigger questions now involve political pressure, editorial independence, and what comes next for CNN.
Friday morning, we'll get our first indication of whether a federal judge intends to slow down Paramount's takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.
The hearing isn’t expected to decide whether the merger succeeds or fails. Instead, California and a coalition of other states are asking for a temporary restraining order that would prevent Paramount from completing the deal while their antitrust lawsuit moves forward.
People close to the companies say they expect the judge to grant that request. If that happens, the merger would likely be delayed for a few weeks. If it doesn't, Paramount could move toward closing the deal within days.
But at this point, the timing may be the least interesting part of the story.
The merger has evolved far beyond a fight over market share in Hollywood. It's becoming a broader test of how politics, regulation, and journalism collide.
Perhaps the biggest change over the past few days is that CNN is no longer the elephant in the room.
When I first wrote about this merger, the concern was that what happened at CBS News could eventually happen at CNN. That was largely an industry conversation. Now California Attorney General Rob Bonta is saying it publicly.
In an interview with Oliver Darcy, Bonta said he’s concerned that the editorial changes already taking place at CBS could be part of an effort to curry favor with President Trump, and that similar pressure could eventually be brought to bear on CNN. Darcy even suggested that forcing Paramount to divest CNN could become part of the negotiations surrounding the merger.
That doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen.
CNN isn’t a stand-alone asset sitting on a shelf waiting to be sold. It’s deeply intertwined with Warner Bros. Discovery’s cable business through distribution agreements and revenue streams. Analysts have pointed out that CNN’s profits will be important if the combined company hopes to pay down the debt created by the merger. Spinning it off would be far more complicated than it might sound.
Still, the fact that a state attorney general is openly talking about CNN’s future marks a significant shift. The discussion has moved out of boardrooms and into the courtroom.
At the same time, another story has added to the scrutiny surrounding Paramount.
ProPublica reported this week that FCC officials accepted expensive gifts from Paramount while the company had major matters pending before the commission. The report doesn’t establish that the gifts influenced any official decisions, but it raises some questions about appearances at a time when every regulator connected to this merger is already under a microscope.
Now another lawsuit has added to that scrutiny. A shareholder has sued Oracle founder Larry Ellison and his son, Paramount CEO David Ellison, claiming they had an illegal arrangement with President Trump to help clear the way for the acquisition. The Ellisons have not been found liable, and the allegations remain unproven, but the lawsuit shows how questions about politics and influence are becoming intertwined with what began as a corporate merger.
And while all of this is happening, the FCC has signaled that it's ready to eliminate the national television ownership cap, removing the rule that prevents any one company from owning stations reaching more than 39 percent of U.S. households. If that happens, it would clear the way for Nexstar to pursue a blockbuster acquisition of Tegna, potentially reshaping local television news across much of the country.
Standing alone, the proposal is a significant regulatory change. Viewed alongside the Paramount merger, however, it suggests something bigger may be underway. The companies poised to benefit tend to have one thing in common: they're viewed as friendlier to the Trump administration than the media organizations that have made the president fire off threatening social media posts.
Taken together, these stories are evidence that the merger is no longer being viewed solely through the lens of business strategy.
A few weeks ago, this looked like a straightforward corporate merger between two struggling media companies trying to gain enough scale to compete with Netflix and other streaming giants.
Today, the courtroom is filling up. States, writers, and shareholders are suing. Regulators are facing scrutiny. And attorneys general are openly talking about CNN's future.
Now it has become a debate about antitrust law, political influence, editorial independence, regulatory oversight, and the future of one of the world’s best-known news organizations.
The judge probably won’t answer the biggest questions. A temporary restraining order would simply buy time while the case proceeds. Even if the request is denied, the legal fight is far from over.
But by Friday afternoon, we’ll have our first real indication of whether the courts are prepared to slow one of the most consequential media mergers in decades.
And that may tell us as much about CNN's future as it does Paramount's.
If you enjoy this kind of reporting and analysis, you can support my work by becoming a paid subscriber. Also, I’d love to know what you think.