Paramount Skydance has discussed creating an editorial board whose job would be to keep the company’s executives out of CNN’s newsroom once it takes ownership of the network. The Wall Street Journal reported the discussions Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter. “We always remain open to internal improvements to journalistic integrity,” the company said in a statement.

The idea is not new in American media. The template is the Dow Jones Special Committee, which Rupert Murdoch agreed to create in 2007 as a condition of buying The Wall Street Journal — a standing body that describes itself as safeguarding the editorial independence of the Journal and Dow Jones and monitoring their adherence to professional standards.

Timing matters for how the move gets read. Paramount’s internal discussions began before California and 11 other states sued to block its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery. CNN has separately reported that similar conversations occurred at the network’s own highest levels when Warner Bros. Discovery was planning to split itself into two companies, meaning they predate Paramount’s involvement entirely. Warner executives weighed the same maneuver during that split, before Paramount bid for the company.

Whatever its origins, the proposal now sits inside a live legal fight. Twelve state attorneys general, led by California’s Rob Bonta, filed suit on July 13 in federal court in Northern California to stop the deal. The complaint alleges the merger violates the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Writers Guild of America filed a separate action the following day. The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division had already cleared the transaction in mid-June, so the states are the remaining obstacle. A similar state coalition succeeded earlier this year in freezing Nexstar’s acquisition of Tegna ahead of trial, which is the precedent both sides are watching.

Paramount chief executive David Ellison argued last week that the lawsuit is not really a competition case at all, but an attempt to keep him from owning CNN. He made the same case in a guest essay for The New York Times on Aug. 4. An oversight board answers that argument directly: if the objection is editorial control, hand the editorial control to someone else.

Hollywood executive Ari Emanuel, an Ellison ally, floated exactly that on CNBC, calling an editorial board over the news organizations an easy solve for the concerns about the Ellison family controlling both CNN and CBS News.

Here is the part that makes it expensive. An oversight board would complicate the cost savings Paramount will want from a combined company, because merging CBS News and CNN is precisely where the production and newsgathering savings sit. A body with standing authority over editorial matters is a body that can object to consolidating two newsrooms into one. Paramount would be trading operating leverage for regulatory goodwill, and the leverage is worth real money in a business where news divisions rarely carry themselves.

Skepticism about the arrangement traces to what has already happened at Paramount’s existing news operation. The company installed Bari Weiss atop CBS News, and her removal of senior producers and correspondents from “60 Minutes” generated controversy the conglomerate appeared unprepared for. CBS journalists have described political interference in the newsroom, which the news division disputes. That record is what an oversight board at CNN would be asked to reassure people about.

Congressional pressure continued Wednesday on a separate track. Representative Jamie Raskin, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, requested a transcribed interview with Ellison, citing the Times essay in which the executive pledged to stop staying silent, and noting that four prior letters went unanswered. Raskin gave him until Aug. 26. As the minority party, Democrats cannot compel his appearance, and Ellison has declined earlier invitations to testify.

For a board to mean anything, the details will have to be spelled out and enforceable: who appoints the members, what they can veto, and whether the arrangement survives the closing or expires with it. The state attorneys general have already argued in their complaint that one of Paramount’s public commitments was not legally enforceable — the same objection any voluntary board would invite. Structure, not intention, is what will decide whether this counts as a concession or a press release.

JBizNews Desk | New York

© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.