Fuwaad Sait is a final-year law student from St Joseph’s College of Law.
Months after being the leading contender to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, Netflix opted not to compete with Paramount’s latest bid of around 110 billion dollars. This paved the way for the Paramount Skydance Corporation (which formed in 2025 when David Ellison’s Skydance merged with Paramount Global) to gain control over HBO, CNN, and Warner Bros. Studios, in addition to its current holdings of CBS and Paramount Pictures.
Media mergers of this scale are usually analysed through the lens of competition law and the potential for market dominance. However, consolidation in the media sector raises another major concern: its implications for informational pluralism and freedom of expression. When fewer corporations control major channels of news and entertainment distribution, the power to influence what information reaches the public becomes increasingly concentrated.
This article argues that large media mergers should be examined not only under the principles of competition law but also for their impact on media pluralism and freedom of speech and expression.
Media Concentration and Freedom of Expression
Scholars have long warned of the implications of concentrated media ownership for democratic discourse. Ben Bagdikian famously argued that when a small number of corporations dominate media markets, they acquire the power to shape public discourse and social values. Such corporations can also act as powerful gatekeepers by influencing which forms of content are produced and distributed.
In The Media Monopoly, Bagdikian argued that “modern democracies need a choice of politics and ideas, and that choice requires access to truly diverse and competing sources of news, literature, entertainment, and popular culture.”
Similarly, Herman and Chomsky’s “propaganda model” explains how structural factors such as ownership patterns, advertising dependence, and political relationships can influence how information is filtered before it reaches the public. By the time a story reaches audiences, it may already have passed through several editorial and institutional filters that shape how it is framed and presented. As Michael Coops has observed, “diversity of ownership and diversity of viewpoint go hand in hand.”
Concentration in media ownership can influence freedom of expression in several ways. First, when fewer corporations control major distribution platforms, editorial gatekeeping becomes concentrated in fewer hands, giving a small number of actors greater influence over what information reaches the public. Second, consolidation can reduce content diversity, as large corporations often favour commercially safe programming over controversial or experimental work. Third, close relationships between media owners and political actors may increase the risk of political influence over editorial decisions. Finally, the economic incentives faced by large media platforms can encourage self-censorship, particularly when controversial content threatens advertising revenue, regulatory goodwill, or corporate reputation.
The Paramount–Warner Bros. Merger
The Paramount–Warner Bros. Discovery merger illustrates how such concentration of gatekeeping power can arise in practice. Through this transaction, the Paramount Skydance Corporation will control several influential media institutions, including CBS, CNN, HBO, Paramount Pictures, and Warner Bros. Studios.
This concentration raises concerns not only about market competition but also about editorial independence. Large media organisations often operate within complex political and economic environments, and ownership structures can influence editorial priorities or risk tolerance.
For instance, after Skydance acquired CBS as part of its 2025 merger with Paramount Global, the organisation faced criticism over editorial decisions involving politically sensitive reporting. One widely discussed instance involved a “60 Minutes” segment that reportedly examined the deportation of Venezuelan migrants by the Trump administration to a prison in El Salvador; this segment was not aired.
At the same time, the political relationship between media ownership and public authorities has also attracted attention. Prior to the Skydance–Paramount merger, Donald Trump had sued CBS over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris, alleging that the broadcast amounted to election interference. The dispute was ultimately settled for $16 million. The settlement was widely discussed in the media, with some commentators suggesting that it may have been connected to the broader regulatory context surrounding the merger. Stephen Colbert, on his late-night talk show, referred to the payment as a “big fat bribe.”
The addition of CNN through the Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition further expands the merged entity’s influence across both entertainment and news media. The merger has also drawn attention to the political relationships surrounding media ownership. David Ellison, the head of Skydance, has been described as maintaining a cordial relationship with Donald Trump, and reports have suggested that the merged entity may consider significant editorial or structural changes within CNN. While the long-term direction of the network remains uncertain, the episode illustrates how changes in ownership can raise broader questions about editorial independence in large media institutions.
When a single corporate group controls multiple major channels of information and cultural production, questions about editorial independence and informational pluralism inevitably arise.
Invisible Censorship
Concerns about media concentration do not necessarily involve direct or explicit censorship. In contemporary media environments, limitations on expression often arise through more subtle mechanisms.
Media organisations operate within markets where financial incentives, political relationships, and reputational risks shape editorial decisions. Advertisers, regulators, and political actors may not directly prohibit certain forms of speech, but the incentives they create can still influence what content is produced or distributed.
Advertiser pressure is one such mechanism. Brands often prefer to avoid association with controversial or politically sensitive content, which can lead media platforms to remove or avoid such programming in order to protect advertising revenue. Regulatory risk is another factor, particularly for platforms operating in multiple jurisdictions where governments may scrutinise or penalise politically sensitive material. Platforms may therefore pre-emptively limit certain forms of content to reduce the risk of legal or regulatory intervention.
Political relationships can also shape editorial decision-making. Media corporations often maintain complex relationships with governments and regulators, and maintaining favourable political relationships may create incentives to avoid publishing material that could provoke conflict with political authorities. Similarly, reputation management plays an important role in platform decision-making. In an environment where social media backlash, public boycotts, or political controversy can damage a platform’s brand, corporations may choose to avoid content that could trigger widespread criticism.
OTT platforms provide a useful example of how these dynamics operate. In 2019, several major streaming platforms signed a “Code of Best Practices” for online curated content in India, agreeing to self-regulate their programming and avoid content that could potentially offend religious sentiments or national symbols. While this framework was presented as a voluntary regulatory mechanism, it also illustrates how market and regulatory incentives can encourage pre-emptive content moderation.
Such mechanisms rarely involve explicit bans. Instead, they produce an environment where content creators anticipate controversy and platforms adjust their decisions accordingly. As a result, certain types of political satire, investigative journalism, or culturally sensitive narratives may become less likely to be produced or distributed.
When the number of major distribution platforms becomes smaller, these dynamics can become even more pronounced. If one platform declines to host a controversial work, creators may have fewer alternative outlets available.
Platform Power and Content Decisions
These dynamics are not limited to Western media markets. Similar patterns can be observed in controversies involving OTT platforms operating in India and other jurisdictions.
In 2024, Netflix removed the film Annapoorani: The Goddess of Food following allegations that it hurt religious sentiments. An episode of The Patriot Act, hosted by Hasan Minhaj, was removed in Saudi Arabia after criticism of the Crown Prince. Similarly, after the controversy surrounding the series Tandav, Amazon Prime reportedly shelved the political satire series Gormint to avoid further backlash.
More recently, in February 2026, the Indian government directed Netflix to withdraw promotional material for the film Ghooskhor Pandat. Taken individually, such examples may appear isolated. Taken together, however, they illustrate how platforms respond to legal risk, reputational concerns, or political pressure by limiting or avoiding certain forms of content.
Conclusion
Media mergers are often evaluated primarily through the framework of competition law and market dominance. While these concerns are important, they do not fully capture the broader implications of consolidation in the media industry.
When ownership of major news organisations, film studios, and streaming platforms becomes concentrated in the hands of a small number of corporations, the power to influence cultural production and public discourse also becomes concentrated. This influence does not always take the form of explicit censorship. Instead, it often operates through more subtle mechanisms such as editorial caution, self-regulation, and market-driven content decisions.
For this reason, large media mergers should also be examined through their implications for informational pluralism and freedom of expression. As the Paramount–Warner Bros. transaction demonstrates, consolidation in the media industry has consequences that extend beyond market competition and into the broader structure of democratic discourse.
Leave a Reply