While CNN sues the White House, arguing that its exclusion from the building amounts to a First Amendment violation, some journalists and media analysts are voicing concern about whether the network will be as willing to stand up to President Donald Trump once it is subsumed in the merger of Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Skydance.
CNN’s editorial integrity is supposed to be ensured by a five-person oversight board of veteran journalists, as laid out in Monday’s blockbuster legal settlement that removed the last significant barrier to the merger.
The board will be appointed by and report to the combined board of the merged company, chaired by Paramount CEO David Ellison.
Eillison has said he intends to safeguard CNN’s independence and commitment to fact-based reporting.
But some journalists inside and outside CNN question whether his word and an oversight board will be enough to forestall the sorts of shifts that have happened at CBS News under Ellison.
Ellison’s polarizing moves include installing political commentator Bari Weiss as the network’s editor in chief in October. She has since led an overhaul at CBS News, been accused of inserting political bias and fired several top “60 Minutes” correspondents who have complained about interference. CBS has strenuously denied these claims.
The future of CNN and CBS was not a primary focus of the antitrust lawsuit seeking to block the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger. And it remains unclear what impact the merger will have on the two networks — including whether and how they might merge.
But the oversight board was included in the settlement to assuage some concerns voiced by the 12 states that brought the suit.
Under the agreed terms, the oversight board will be made up of five journalists who have been in the field for at least 10 years. The settlement specifies that no more than two of the members can be members of the same political party — though many journalists take pains to avoid public affiliation with any political parties or figures.
The board will be responsible for drawing up a set of editorial principles and resolving disputes at both CNN and CBS, including between the networks’ journalists and Paramount’s management.
The settlement is also enforceable by court order. That means the 12 states could be in the unusual position of asking a court to enforce the provisions about editorial independence.
Some skeptical media analysts point to the experience of the oversight body established as a condition of Rupert Murdoch’s 2007 acquisition of the Wall Street Journal.
In addition to editorial oversight, that committee’s duties nominally included the hiring and firing of top editors. But after being blindsided by the resignation of managing editor Marcus Brauchli, the committee claimed that Murdoch had broken the “letter and spirit” of their agreement and acknowledged they had no power to intervene.
“These things don’t work,” said journalist Kara Swisher, a leading CNN contributor who said she is planning to leave the network.
“The only mechanism is good owners who back their reporters, and confident, good reporters, none of which need a monitor,” she added.
Brauchli, a former Washington Post executive editor, said “the real purpose of these boards is to impose some friction to discourage the most egregious behavior.”
“They won’t stop an owner determined to interfere,” he said by text message on Wednesday. “But they will cause most owners to pause and think before risking public opprobrium.”
Lawrence Ingrassia, a journalist and chair of the Journal’s committee, said a track record of vigorous reporting is what’s key for establishing reader trust.
“That’s what’s most important to readers,” he said. “The special committee, and, presumably, the new body that might provide oversight at CNN and CBS, exists to try to make sure that continues to happen.”
But some owners have chosen to run roughshod over such boards anyway. In 2020, Meta launched a high-profile board of journalists and experts to oversee the company’s handling of controversial posts, but later sought to slim down its funding.
One CNN staffer, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment, said journalists in the newsroom have little trust in the proposal for a board. However, there may be bigger issues.
“I can’t decide what concern should be more immediate, that there will be political interference in our reporting or that we’ll be laid off before that’s even a problem,” the staffer said.
At a Wednesday all-staff meeting, CEO Mark Thompson said that the network would have to take a look at its costs regardless of who owned it, according to a second CNN staffer.
CNN declined to comment.
Another CNN staffer, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said it’s unclear what the oversight board means. “We’ll only see how it works when it happens,” they said.
Paramount declined to comment.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said after the announcement of the settlement that he was “deeply disappointed” it did not do more for CNN and CBS.
His office had pushed to have the networks spun off as separate properties, because he was concerned about the future of the news industry, he said.
In response to that long-shot prospect, Paramount offered up the oversight board instead, Tong said.
“We had nothing. Let’s just be clear,” Tong said in an interview. “Do I think it can be effective? Yes.”
But he added: “It is not what I wanted.”
The judge in the case has yet to approve the settlement and scheduled a Thursday hearing to address “certain outstanding questions” about the proposed agreement.
The post Paramount-Warner Bros. merger raises questions about CNN’s future appeared first on Washington Post.
