By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article describes a pattern of concerning events at CBS, including prominent journalists departing and news coverage appearing to shift ideologically. These incidents are presented as manifestations of “media capture,” where corporate interests and political maneuvering influence editorial independence. The parent company’s desire to acquire Warner Brothers Discovery, requiring favorable regulatory approval from a Trump-appointed FCC, is identified as the primary motivator behind these changes. Ultimately, the article argues that such consolidation and political pressure endanger democratic information systems and First Amendment freedoms.
Read the original article here
CBS News is experiencing a significant upheaval, with many suggesting that Larry Ellison’s attempts to curry favor with Donald Trump are at the heart of the turmoil. It’s a situation that’s left many observers bewildered, questioning why anyone would go to such lengths to please a figure who, by many accounts, commands low approval ratings and elicits negative reactions internationally. The sentiment is palpable that powerful individuals, including billionaires like Ellison, should be aligning themselves with competence rather than what is perceived as a detrimental political figure. This desperation to appease Trump, it’s argued, is a symptom of a deeper issue—a willingness to be taken advantage of, where past concessions embolden further demands. The narrative suggests that sacrificing principles and changing behavior to gain favor ultimately proves futile, as the recipient continues to exert pressure regardless.
The fallout from this dynamic is presented as a significant blow to established institutions. The Washington Post and CBS News, both institutions with over a century of history and a purported commitment to truth and integrity, are seen as having “burned to the ground” in less than a year. This rapid decline fuels a sense of bleakness, with specific individuals like Bari Weiss and the Ellisons being singled out for their role in this perceived degradation. The suggestion is that their influence has steered CBS away from its journalistic roots, transforming it into something unrecognizable and untrustworthy, a perception shared by a broad segment of the public who are no longer watching.
The concern extends beyond news reporting to the broader media landscape controlled by individuals like Ellison. The argument is that attempting to please Trump is a futile endeavor, as his loyalty is seen as transactional and solely focused on immediate gratification. This leads to the idea that organizations might rebrand to reflect a more accurate, albeit cynical, self-perception—perhaps “BS News”—given their perceived shift towards propaganda that favors particular political figures and agendas. The idea that someone with immense wealth would stoop to such appeasement is met with incredulity, with some likening Ellison’s actions to a Shakespearean figure of sycophancy, and even speculating on when Trump might start to exert more direct and forceful control over such individuals.
The financial implications are also being raised, with speculation about the future of CBS and its parent company, Paramount+. Reports about the financial struggles of Skydance, a company reportedly involved in a potential deal, suggest that CBS itself could be up for sale in the near future. This instability is directly linked to the leadership and the perceived missteps of individuals like Weiss and Ellison. Their impact on CBS properties, such as the once-esteemed “60 Minutes,” is viewed as devastating, leaving viewers questioning the remaining content and its value. The decision to boycott these properties, including refusing to watch new Star Trek shows and cancelling Paramount+ subscriptions, is presented as a direct response, a way for the public to exert pressure by withholding financial support.
The critique goes deeper, questioning the very nature of Trump’s influence and its impact on media. It’s argued that Trump and the MAGA movement are not simply “right-wing” but represent a more dangerous form of authoritarianism. This distinction is crucial, as it frames the issue not as a matter of political disagreement but as a fundamental departure from truth-telling, with media organizations allegedly prioritizing lies over factual reporting to serve an authoritarian agenda. This perspective suggests that the billionaires at the helm of these media empires are prioritizing their own interests and political agendas over journalistic integrity, creating an environment where truth is suppressed, and propaganda thrives.
The notion of powerful individuals acting in concert, perhaps even beyond traditional political influence, is also present. The idea that the wealthy are “baby sacrificing, blood drinking religious lizards” and that Epstein’s files are somehow relevant points to a deep-seated distrust and a belief in hidden machinations. The role of the FCC and DOJ in potential ownership changes is also debated, with one comment suggesting the FCC has no jurisdiction in a particular deal, highlighting a lack of clarity and potentially overlooked legal avenues for intervention. This leads to a call for radical restructuring of both tech and entertainment companies, and a repeal of Citizens United, as a means to dismantle what is perceived as a corrupt and consolidating power structure.
The current media landscape is described as fractured and lacking a unifying force, with traditional networks perceived as “hollow corpses.” Different demographics are seen as gravitating towards specific, often polarized, sources. In this environment, Larry Ellison’s motivations are framed not just as a personal desire to please Trump, but as a strategic move to remove narratives he dislikes from the media ecosystem, regardless of traditional profit metrics. This is seen as a deliberate price paid for achieving ideological control, akin to actions taken with platforms like Twitter. The hope is expressed that such a destructive trajectory won’t extend to other significant media entities like Warner Bros., while simultaneously acknowledging a desire by some to see the current media infrastructure utterly dismantled and rebuilt.
Finally, there’s a profound sense of disappointment and disillusionment with how major networks have devolved. The belief is that the billionaire owners are actively preventing the dissemination of “real news” in favor of narratives that suit their interests. This, it’s feared, will lead to an era of even more pervasive propaganda, making the already problematic 24-hour news cycle even more concerning. The lament for “poor Larry” highlights a cynical observation that even billionaires allegedly struggling to run news organizations poorly are still prioritizing sycophancy to a political figure over their audience or employees, drawing parallels to other companies that have faced public backlash. The overall sentiment is that CBS News, and indeed much of mainstream media, has lost its way, sacrificing integrity for perceived political expediency, and ultimately alienating its audience in the process.