Who Controls the News?

Two familiar names on America’s television screens now answer to the same corporate parent. With CNN and CBS News brought together in a roughly $110 billion media merger, viewers face a question that reaches beyond any president or political party: How independent can the news remain when fewer owners control more of it?

Paramount Skydance completed its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery on Oct. 6, creating a combined company called Skydance. Its holdings include CNN, CBS, HBO, two major movie studios and the Paramount+ and HBO Max streaming services. David Ellison leads the company, whose voting shares are held by the Ellison family and RedBird Capital Partners.

The business argument is straightforward: Greater size could help the company compete for audiences, talent and investment. Ellison described the goal as creating “a stronger competitor.” The Justice Department closed its antitrust investigation June 12, concluding that the transaction was unlikely to harm competition or consumers.

Twelve state attorneys general, led by California’s Rob Bonta, challenged that assessment. Their lawsuit alleged that the merger threatened competition, workers and consumers. It was an antitrust action brought by states, not a consumer class action, and the public record does not justify dismissing its economic concerns as merely a disguise for partisan objections.

A federal judge approved a settlement Sept. 30. Among its provisions is a particularly relevant safeguard: a News Editorial Independence Board for CNN and CBS. The company must establish the five-member panel within 180 days of closing, drawing from experienced journalists. Government officials cannot serve on it or approve its members. Its responsibilities include resolving editorial disputes and monitoring independence from owners and shareholders.

That protection comes with a qualification. The company’s own board appoints the journalists, and the panel reports through its chief compliance officer. Its effectiveness will therefore depend on how those arrangements operate when an uncomfortable story involves someone powerful. The settlement establishes a mechanism; its practical strength remains to be demonstrated.

The constitutional question begins with the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and of the press against government interference. It generally does not prevent a private owner from purchasing a news organization, choosing its leadership or changing its editorial direction. A change in ownership, even one involving politically connected investors, is not by itself proof of a constitutional violation.

Indeed, editorial discretion is itself protected. In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo in 1974, the Supreme Court struck down a Florida law requiring newspapers to publish political candidates’ replies to criticism. Government could not take over editors’ decisions about what belonged in their pages. That principle protects publications across the political spectrum.

Government pressure presents a different issue. In National Rifle Association v. Vullo in 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that officials cannot coerce private businesses into suppressing disfavored speech. Applied to journalism, the distinction matters: Officials may criticize coverage, but using regulatory power to force its suppression can cross a constitutional line. Establishing such a violation requires evidence of coercion, not simply political friendship.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends First Amendment speech and press protections to state and local governments. Those protections therefore matter at a city council meeting as well as in Washington. The Fifth Amendment, meanwhile, provides due-process protections against federal action. Courts have applied those protections to White House press credentials, including requirements for fair notice before a journalist’s access is suspended. Neither amendment gives reporters unrestricted access to every government location or event.

Those distinctions help explain the separate dispute over CNN’s White House access. On Sept. 24, a federal judge temporarily ordered access restored for CNN, MS NOW and Politico. Subsequent reporting described CNN being excluded from an Air Force One pool assignment; the earlier order addressed White House credentials without directly resolving pool duties. That government-access dispute raises different legal questions from the ownership transaction.

Nor does press freedom exempt media companies from competition law. The Supreme Court has upheld the application of antitrust laws to news organizations. Protecting editorial decisions and examining excessive corporate concentration are compatible responsibilities.

For viewers, the practical test will unfold in the journalism: whether investigations receive resources, whether reporters can challenge owners’ interests, and whether mistakes are corrected openly. A larger company could sustain ambitious reporting. Consolidation could also narrow the range of independent decisions about which stories deserve attention.

The Constitution supplies essential protections against government interference. Keeping a newsroom independent within a powerful corporation also requires enforceable safeguards, determined editors and owners willing to tolerate reporting they would rather not see.