In late September, a coalition of twelve state attorneys general decided to end their lawsuit against Paramount, essentially giving its corporate leaders everything they asked for. The Trump-aligned Ellisons’ takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, including CNN, is now well within their reach: a judge has already approved it. We live in unpredictable times, so anything can happen. But it’s not looking good. Chances are, this will be finalized early next week.
To understand the merger's far-reaching consequences, I think it helps to look at it through three themes, themes I've repeatedly returned to in this newsletter since launching it a year ago.
- The right wing is gerrymandering our media landscape just like they’re gerrymandering our elections—with the same goals in mind. We must fully embrace the reality that political consolidation and media consolidation are one and the same thing. And if we are not fighting both we’re not serious about winning progress and protecting people. (I wrote about this in The Nation and past newsletters.)
- The strategy for gaining power in today’s era is rooted in a new truth: We cannot change rules without first changing roles. This is one of the major themes of my book.
- The difference between real and fake solutions that our politicians are selling us is one of the most important red lines we need to hold them accountable to. I’ve been promoting this idea as early as my fight against Big Tech, outlined in my testimony before Congress.
This merger is a classic presence-vs-power conundrum: The media could not ignore the campaign we mounted against the merger, but decision-makers easily could—and did.
Corporate power rarely backs down for fear of shame or threat. It may get savvier or subtler, but it charges forward confidently unless facing an adversary it can’t get around. We haven’t yet become that adversary.
Early on in this newsletter, I advocated for turning this merger into a real fight rather than simply accepting it. Through my continuing strategy work on corporate accountability, including as co-chair of the steering committee for the Committee for the First Amendment, I supported them in taking a leading role in opposing the merger.
Yet, I am even more invested in reinforcing the lessons it has exposed in terms of what we still need to learn about power: changing how we fight so that we can win more than we lose in the years ahead. With so much on the line, we need to get past the doomsday analysis of what this merger will do at its worst. That can leave us angry and in perpetual analysis mode. Instead, we must invest in taking our fights to the next level—and get ready for the next big one.
The signs are all right there in front of us.
1. Gerrymandering the Media Landscape
Above, I linked to my analysis about this deal being just one example of how the right wing is redistricting the media landscape with the same vigor—and goals—as they are redistricting the political map in states across the country. They are giving their stories the advantage.
For a recent view of how this works, just look at what happened with the entertainers Macklemore and Ed Sheeran and the billionaire sports team owner, stadium owner, packaging mogul and real estate developer Robert Kraft. Kraft decided he wouldn’t let Macklemore (the opening act for Ed Sheeran) perform at the Boston area Gillette Stadium that he owns, and got other stadium owners to join in, based on what Macklemore said about the suffering in Gaza.
A stadium might not be widely understood as a media platform, but it very much is. And it’s clearly no longer neutral ground. This is not consolidation in the typical sense, but the ability of a de facto consortium of ideologically-aligned stadium owners to quickly collude in shutting down a big concert tour is very much an example of media consolidation and its dangers.
National parks, libraries, entertainment centers, universities and colleges, Twitter/X—they are all part of a right-wing takeover strategy targeting the experiences that shape public attitudes and behaviors. They play out through ownership mergers and result in political consolidation.
2. Roles, Rules, Results
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who positioned himself as the right champion to lead this fight, turned out to be the best ally the Ellisons could have. I’m not enthusiastic to say that out loud, but it’s the hard truth. And it’s not the first time something like this has happened.
Bonta started with all the right talk about the dangers, echoing others:
- The political consequences: A single mogul (and his even worse ideologue father) owning the content decisions for nearly one-third of all basic cable channels and American made movies in theaters, not to mention both CBS and CNN.
- The economic and cultural consequences: Per the Writers Guild of America’s study of past mergers, we know that corporations break every promise—the opposite of what they claim will happen is what actually happens: lower wages, fewer jobs, less diverse content, higher prices.
- The brand consequences: Taking an aggressive stance in challenging corporations, no matter the threats the Ellisons made against California, seemed to buck the trend of ‘corporate surrender’ characterizing California leaders and the Democratic party generally.
It seemed like we might get a major change in the rules governing what corporations can get away with, and the power and resources they can hoard. Moreover, it seemed like that change would come as a result of actions taken by people in positions of authority who were ascending to those roles and running their offices not much differently than their predecessors. But it turns out that without that role change, we didn't get any rule change.
We had racked up enough power to force Attorney General Bonta to push back on the merger, but not enough to force him to hold the line against the interests advancing it. That’s progress, but not sufficient. Especially as the FCC, Congress and other authorities have been captured and used to push the merger. Our AGs with shifting priorities were no match for their singularly aligned forces.
That is, Bonta listened to us but he wasn’t one of us. He shared some of our goals but he wasn’t enlisted in the mission of fighting for them with everything he had—or risking much for them.
The reality is that we haven’t rewritten the public job description of an AG to make it impossible for people like Bonta to rise to that office, in favor of those with more fight in them. We haven’t changed the meaning of the role of attorney general, such that voters expect a different kind of person in that role—someone on a mission to enact the rule changes we need, no matter what stands in the way.
As I discuss in my book at length, the right wing has redefined many roles—from Supreme Court justice to news anchor to President of the United States—in order to get the rule changes they want. They realize that nothing less than changing the roles will lead to changing the rules. They know that people embodying the status quo definition of those roles will never work out. We’ve done this on our side with some local prosecutors. Will we invest enough to take on even more?
3. Real Solutions vs. Fake Solutions
Leaders cannot be held accountable for caving in if they are able to convince us that they haven’t—even when they have. That's why we have to look past their rhetoric to see when fake solutions are dominating a deal, including:
- Promises that are never fulfilled
- Fuzzy math making losses look like gains or making crumbs look like cookies
- Rules with no bite: not enforced or enforceable, lots of exceptions and carveouts
- Threats no one takes seriously enough to change their behavior
Big corporations are all about the kind of fake solutions that return them to their favorite state of affairs: self regulation. Meaning: no regulation. Perhaps they’ll allow for minimal fines that don’t add to the cost of doing business any more than a big lunch bill. But that’s it.
This deal is so full of fake solutions to the real problems this merger will cause that Bonta can talk about it only in venues where no one will hear everybody laughing. The deal is a total cave. (In many ways, it echoes the recent sweetheart deal between state AG’s and Meta.)
It’s not that Attorney General Bonta made compromises, it’s that he’s compromised. Even without any secret recordings being revealed, the very plain and public legacy of this deal will prove that over time. Instead of holding the line to demand terms that will actually make a difference, he’s doing the opposition’s work: convincing people that fake solutions are real. There’s plenty of outside analysis demonstrating what’s real, but that matters little if we can’t draw that line for decision makers—and make sure they’re on the right side of it.
Where do we go from here?
An analysis of a loss isn’t always the best roadmap for figuring out how to win. But in this case, it’s instructive. How do we become the adversary that corporations can’t always get around?
We need to invest in the power of role changing (redefining who should be in positions of power, to get people in power who don’t need to be convinced to do the right thing) and not just rule changing (policy development, messaging, public activation and lobbying—hoping bad people will do good).
There are cultural, legal and many other aspects of ‘role change’ fights. But if we are not obsessively focused on it, it does not happen. And if we don’t invest in that longer term work, we will continue to lose battle after battle that’s right in front of us.
We will not create powerful constituencies who believe corporate power is their fight if we are not organizing people around redefining roles and mustering the ability to force role changes.
It is long-term work, but we are going to get hit every day in the here and now if we don’t do it. That’s why I am building a center for strategy and practice related to corporate accountability work that can both advise and help lead projects capable of rivaling today’s corporate powers.
I will share more about that soon. For now, I’m very interested to know if this sounds critical and interesting to you. Where do we get stuck in taking on corporate power? What would you want to build or fund related to the challenge of corporate power—what would its contribution be and what’s standing in the way of getting started? How can we know when there’s a real opportunity?
Let me know your thoughts and feedback. We’ve got a long fight ahead.
Rashad
