Media Giant Mergers: Biden and Harris Influence Suppressed?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) arrived at a decision recently that authorized the fusion of two significant pillars in the media sphere, namely Paramount Global and Skydance Media. This paved the pathway for a massive sale – accumulating to $8.4 billion – that involved some of the most substantial entities in the entertainment industry. These included renowned names like the CBS broadcast television network, Paramount Pictures, and the Nickelodeon cable channel, all primed to change hands in this massive transaction.

The blessings of the FCC also effectuated the transition of broadcast rights for 28 CBS television stations, previously owned and operated, into the possession of the new proprietors. A contributing factor was the payment of $16 million by Paramount in order to put a halt to a legal dispute directed at them by none other than the former President, Donald Trump. A thorny issue initiated from a ’60 Minutes’ broadcast in October, featuring an interview with Kamala Harris, Vice President at the time, instigated the lawsuit.

Despite the controversy, Brendan Carr, Chairman of the FCC, was adamant in expressing that the legal issue did not play a pivotal role during the agency’s review process associated with the merger. He affirmed clearly that the approval was unbiased, ensuring the lawsuit stood separate from the merger review. This showcases a peculiar attempt to distance the FCC from any political entanglements, an intriguing stance that raises numerous questions about its legitimacy.

This merger announcement was closely followed by reassurances from both Skydance and its investment aid, RedBird Capital, who sought to underline their devotion towards facilitating an open and unbiased journalistic environment. They focused on promoting a diversity of viewpoints, which is often a tricky path to navigate in a media space teeming with varied ideologies and heated debates.

In order to uphold a so-called transparency and amplified accountability, Skydance even declared it would appoint an ombudsman. The specific task of this individual will be to serve as a reviewer of any editorial bias complaints or other concerns about CBS’s operations. However, such a role may arguably be a token gesture, in a world where media bias is often ingrained in the fabric of the company and not easily combatted by a single individual.

Paramount took further steps to secure their footing in this landscape, eliminating its own diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. A clear shift occurs, with Paramount aligning with the Trump administration’s perspective that views such affirmative action policies as discriminatory.

Given all the motives, assertions, and elaborate maneuvering behind the scenes, it is of vital importance to lay emphasis on the fitting question: Where does this leave us? Many have seen this as a clear move to keep any subjects related to Kamala Harris and Joe Biden at bay, potentially skewing the news towards negative shows on these two figures which aligns with the Trump administration’s viewpoints.

The cancellation of Paramount’s diversity initiatives also robs the entertainment industry of some much-needed progressive steps, as viewed by its numerous critics. By eliminating the initiatives, the company has allowed itself to be influenced by the aforementioned administration’s perspective, openly declaring these initiatives as discriminatory – a stance many find insufferable.

The merger’s implications on CBS’s news coverage is another valid concern. Skydance’s ombudsman brings about the concept of a potential gatekeeper to monitor and possibly influence the channel’s viewpoints. The uncertainty about whether this figure’s power could be used to promote a factional agenda makes the future of CBS questionable, at best.

The intertwining of significant media stalwarts may paint a disturbing picture for some observers. A power shift of such magnitude in the media industry can be seen as intensifying centralization of media ownership, which often leads to a uniformity of viewpoints and a constriction of the diversity of ideas – a far cry from the diversity originally promised by companies involved.

One could even venture to speculate on the implications a merger of this size may have for the FCC itself. Despite the insistence on their impartiality, the role they played in orchestrating this deal may unintentionally make them a party to the consequences, desired or otherwise, that ensue. A facet to consider that adds further layers to the already complicated narrative spun around this transaction.

On the surface, this media merger may showcase an amalgamation of forces dedicated to unbiased reporting and diverse perspectives. Unfortunately, for the critics, the veneer of objectivity may conceal a more sinister undercurrent of bias and disproportionate power distribution.

It is paramount to remember, the media landscape plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception and can sway the balance in various arenas, including politics. If media outlets lean heavily towards any side under the guise of transparency, the consequences may trickle down to a poorly informed society caught amidst partisan feuding.

The arrival of the ombudsman, the relinquishing of diversity programs, and the leaning towards certain political ideologies make the merger a field day for critics who warn about media bias. This paints a bleak picture of the media landscape where volatility, bias and image management take center stage, leaving true journalistic ethics far behind.

While the merger is seemingly a business move on a macro scale, its implications ripple beyond the corporate world. As viewers, participants and critics of the media landscape, the spotlight now shifts towards the audience. In the face of such instances, the importance of discernment, critical analysis, and awareness towards the consumption of information becomes an undisputed necessity.