By John Q. Hosedrinker 
CNN staffers are reportedly in a state of panic as David Ellison, chief of Paramount Skydance and a figure who has reportedly cozied up to Donald Trump, emerges as the likely new owner of Warner Bros. Discovery, which includes CNN. This follows Netflix’s withdrawal from a potential acquisition deal, clearing the path for Ellison’s bid. The potential takeover has drawn parallels to Bari Weiss’s previous steering of CBS News into a more Trump-friendly direction, a move that reportedly led veteran broadcaster Anderson Cooper to depart CBS to avoid working under her leadership. Trump himself has previously expressed his desire for CNN to be sold and fall under new ownership, and reports suggest Ellison has offered assurances of significant changes to the network.
Read the original article here
Staffers at CNN are reportedly in a state of “panic” as an influential group, described as “Trump and his buddies,” appears to be plotting a significant shift that could transform the network into a “MAGA-friendly” platform. This potential upheaval is fueled by the withdrawal of Netflix boss Ted Sarandos from a deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, the parent company of CNN. This development leaves the path open for another bidder, David Ellison, the Paramount Skydance chief who has reportedly cultivated ties with former President Donald Trump. The implications of such a takeover are causing considerable anxiety among CNN employees, with some expressing dire sentiments about the network’s future.
The prospect of CNN moving towards a more right-leaning, MAGA-aligned stance has sparked a wave of commentary and concern. Many believe this signals a further erosion of independent media and a consolidation of right-wing influence in the news landscape. The sentiment is that established networks like CBS News and CNN are being absorbed into a broader right-wing media ecosystem, potentially sacrificing their credibility in the process. The idea is that even if a premium price is paid for the brand, the product’s integrity will inevitably diminish as its editorial direction shifts.
There’s a strong belief that this move represents a strategic division of the market by right-wing interests, and that while takeovers might occur, the financial viability of such a transition is questionable. The expectation is that audiences accustomed to a certain type of programming, perhaps exemplified by figures like Christiane Amanpour, will not readily accept a replacement by someone perceived as aligned with a MAGA agenda, and will consequently abandon the network. The narrative suggests that audiences will not simply accept all programming as the same if the core identity and editorial voice of the network are fundamentally altered.
As consumers, the power to influence the direction of these networks is seen as residing with the audience. The message is clear: viewers are not obligated to watch content they find objectionable. By choosing to disengage from networks that are perceived as compromised by a MAGA agenda, consumers can diminish their influence and, in essence, render them powerless. The ease of inaction is acknowledged, but the call is to actively reject what is being termed “garbage” and allow CNN to “fade into irrelevance.”
The fear is that this trend could lead to a media landscape entirely owned by Republicans, with Donald Trump wielding significant control over what is reported. This scenario is frequently compared to the media control seen in countries like Russia. The suggestion is that if a network like CNN cannot maintain its journalistic integrity, it would be better off ceasing operations altogether. For those advocating for a different direction, like the idea of a “CBS-branded MAGA pipeline,” the response is that such an endeavor would need to be self-built, implying a significant undertaking.
The potential impact on on-air personalities is also a subject of speculation, with some suggesting that certain journalists’ tenures might be nearing their end, possibly being replaced by individuals perceived as less qualified but more aligned with a specific political viewpoint. This shift is seen by some as potentially negative for outlets like Fox News, while benefiting those perceived as more left-leaning, like MSNBC. Networks like OAN and Newsmax, already catering to a specific segment of the audience, are not expected to undergo significant changes, as they already occupy a particular niche.
CNN, in this view, is already a diminished version of its former self, and these developments are simply adding further pressure. There’s a sense of disillusionment that CNN may have amplified Donald Trump’s presence for ratings, and now faces the consequences. The article points out that the network has already been accused of “sanewashing” an 80-year-old figure through 2024, suggesting a willingness to prioritize ratings over critical analysis. The prediction is that racist and sexist Republicans will end up controlling news outlets, disseminating more falsehoods.
The demographic shift is noted, with younger generations less reliant on cable news, potentially sparing them from what is perceived as brainwashing. This underscores the importance of supporting independent media outlets that are not perceived as compromised. The idea is that the MAGA echo chamber is already saturated with propaganda networks, and that the general public will not be easily swayed by further ideological entrenchment. The recent observation of a pro-ICE ad followed by CBS programming plugs on CNN is cited as evidence that a shift is already underway, leaving MSNBC as a lone perceived bastion of independent news.
For those who continue to watch CNN, it’s suggested that they are likely aware of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering and recognize when anchors might be disingenuous. The appearance of figures like Scott Jennings being given their own shows is viewed as a predictable outcome of a network that has been leaning in a MAGA-friendly direction for some time. The lack of personal connections to CNN viewers is also highlighted, implying a dwindling or at least a disengaged audience. There’s a sardonic comment about Jake Tapper’s book, implying it might be his final act before potential changes.
The argument is made that the shift might not be a direct turn to MAGA, but rather a move towards a “centrist that leans right,” which ultimately serves as another conduit for MAGA influence. The control of news by a select few is described as “crazy” and “propaganda,” with only the most susceptible individuals expected to remain loyal to a perceived “crazy cult of bad Republicans and Trump.” The potential outcomes are starkly contrasted, ranging from a North Korean-style societal structure to a popular uprising against perceived treasonous elements.
Ultimately, the feeling is that this will further alienate people from legacy media and intensify animosity towards right-wing messaging. The irony is noted that the MAGA movement, which often decries censorship, is now perceived as attempting to suppress dissent. The core of the issue appears to be the perception that a significant number of CNN staff are distressed by the impending influence of Donald Trump and his allies on the network they have historically criticized.
The potential acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by David Ellison, who has reportedly aligned himself with Trump, is seen as a significant factor. This development has led to expressions of extreme pessimism among some CNN employees, who feel the network is “doomed” and “f—ed.” There’s a fear that CNN could face a similar fate to other outlets perceived as having undergone an ideological shift, such as the “Bari Weiss treatment.”
In the context of navigating this evolving media landscape, suggestions are offered for viewers to explore alternative sources. This includes looking into specific video series that analyze the “Alt Right Playbook” and educational resources that promote critical thinking about bias and the scientific method. The advice extends to examining any reliance on media platforms or networks funded by billionaires, urging a search for alternatives. The danger to entertainment is also mentioned, implying a broader concern about the influence of these powerful entities.
Some argue that CNN was already leaning right, particularly in its handling of Trump, and that a “soft right turn” occurred years ago. The perception is that the network has been actively alienating its core audience for a considerable time, making a sudden ideological flip implausible for its existing viewers. The comparison to Republicans suddenly endorsing Hillary Clinton highlights the perceived disconnect.
The question of where to find unbiased news is a recurring theme, with suggestions like Politico being floated as potential alternatives. The concern is that the shift towards a right-leaning bias at CNN was a gradual process, making the current situation less of a surprise to some. The broader trend of media consolidation and control by powerful figures is also a point of contention.
However, a silver lining is perceived by some in the fact that legacy media primarily caters to an older demographic, and younger people are less engaged with it. This might, in theory, lead to the creation of a more robust left-leaning media ecosystem to counterbalance the right-wing consolidation. There’s a hope that this entire scenario might backfire, as it could further alienate audiences and strengthen their resolve to seek out diverse perspectives. The core argument remains that audiences who have been disaffected by CNN’s perceived biases for years are unlikely to suddenly embrace a radically different direction.