Chris Wallace: States Are Playing Politics With the Law to Block Paramount’s Warner Bros. Deal
"I don’t believe government should use its powers to determine who owns a news platform or to control how that outlet reports the news," writes the former Fox and CNN anchor, who is now a paid advisor at a firm that has a large stake in Paramount.
Chances are that by now you have read aboutParamount’s effort to buy Warner Bros. Discovery. But what you likely have missed is the lawsuit filed by twelve state attorneys general in federal court to block the sale — and especially, how that suit infringes on First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I want to make my interests in this case clear. For the past year, I have been a senior adviser at RedBird Capital, a private equity company with a large stake in Paramount and in the acquisition of WBD. But more important, I spent 55 years as a reporter — starting in newspapers, then almost three decades working at two of the major broadcast networks, and ending with 21 years in cable news. What — you may be asking — does the AGs’ antitrust lawsuit have to do with the First Amendment? That is precisely the question I want to address. If you read the lawsuit, it alleges the merger would harm competition in three narrowly-defined markets: wide-release theatrical films, anticipated “top-grossing” theatrical films, and affiliate fees from cable television distributors. There is no mention of antitrust violations from the potential merger of CBS News — which Paramount now owns — and CNN, which is part of WBD. And there is a good reason for that. The AGs’ lawsuit is based on California’s Cartwright Act, that state’s version of federal antitrust law. And what does the Cartwright Act say about the merger of news operations and the threat to news diversity? Absolutely nothing. Perhaps, you think, this is a conventional antitrust case — and any possible impact on blocking the combination of CBS News and CNN is an unintended, if desirable, consequence. But that’s where this really gets interesting. Because some of the prime movers behind the lawsuit have said the quiet part out loud. In an interview on July 14, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said he was “very concerned” about what’s happened at CBS News. And he expressed concern that “what’s happening at CBS could be part of an attempt to curry favor with the president who might want something similar to happen at CNN. ”That same day, in a streamed town hall, one of the other state attorneys general, Letitia James of New York, said this: “We have to block this merger to ensure diversity of opinions, diversity of viewpoints, so we can have a robust viewpoint of the world. ”That concern about diversity might have made sense in the Reagan era 40 years ago, when there were three major television networks and CNN. But in today’s media marketplace, it is utter nonsense. In the second quarter of this year, CNN averaged 711,000 viewers in primetime. TheCBS Evening Newsaveraged 3. 9 million viewers. That’s a combined audience of 4. 6 million viewers on a given evening — or 1. 7 percent of the adults in this country. And that’s in a news market of broadcast, cable, streaming, podcasts, YouTube, TikTok, Substack, and on and on. There may be a lot of problems with the news media in our country, but diversity of viewpoint is not one of them. So, what is the lawsuit really about? The host of that town hall was Norm Eisen, who was a co-counsel in the first impeachment of President Trump and now heads an organization called Democracy Defenders Action. And for anyone still wondering, he gave away the game. He celebrated the court’s temporary restraining order blocking the merger by going after the Ellison family — David and Larry — who hold the majority stake in Paramount. He said, “The Ellisons believed their relationship with President Trump would help them push through a disastrous deal that threatened democracy, creative freedom, and independent journalism. ” Forgive me for doubting that Eisen’s advocacy for this case is animated by his concern about ensuring theatrical windows for new releases. Now look, there is nothing wrong with opposing the Ellisons or disapproving of changes over this past year at CBS News. But if you think it’s wrong for the Trump Justice Department to use legal weaponization for political purposes, it is just as indefensible for a dozen Democratic AG’s to do the same thing. And that is what is going on here. In fact, there are reports that some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit have suggested any settlement would have to include Paramount divesting CNN from the merged company. Over my 55 years in the news business, I have built a reputation for being fair, for playing it straight. Here’s some straight talk. I have problems with some of the journalism at CBS News. Just as I had problems with some of the journalism at Fox and CNN when I worked at both of those news operations. But I don’t believe government — either at the federal or state level, whether it is controlled by Republicans or Democrats — should use its powers to determine who owns a news platform or to control how that outlet reports the news. If you don’t like coverage on a network, change the channel. If you don’t like what you read in a newspaper, cancel your subscription. But when state attorneys general bring an antitrust lawsuit in large part to get around First Amendment protections, that is deeply troubling. It becomes a backdoor way for politicians to decide which media owner — and what kind of journalism — is acceptable. Then the case is not about protecting free speech, but instead about enforcing approved speech. Chris Wallace is a senior advisor at RedBird Capital Partners. He has served as an anchor on NBC, ABC, Fox News and CNN.