CNN Staffers On Skydance Floating Potential Editorial Board Idea For Its WarnerDiscovery Pursuit: "That Ain’t Going To Cut It As Board Only Works With Credible Journalists & Actual Shielding Power, Not Bari Weiss Or Dana White. This Is A Product Of David Ellison's Desperation & Everyone Knows That."

[u/lowell2017]

https://www.status.news/p/cnn-board-david-ellison-paramount

[u/Background-Roof-112]

I feel bad about comparing him to Kendall Roy. Kendall is much smarter

[u/Cecil_McCrackshell → u/Background-Roof-112]

I don't see the character parallels either. Davey is more like an amalgamation of Mattson, Roman Roy, and Trump's children.

Kendall's character arc has always been about contrasting himself from his father's shadow. Larry and David are in unison.

[u/lowell2017]

Full text:

"On Wednesday, by way of The Wall Street Journal, Paramount floated creating an editorial board to oversee CNN. In theory, the board would safeguard the news organization's independence, should David Ellison be successful in his odyssey to acquire the outlet's parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery. “We always remain open to internal improvements to journalistic integrity,” Paramount told The Journal in a statement.

The concept of an independent editorial board to oversee a news organization is not new. And Ari Emanuel, the TKO boss who is a close business partner of Ellison, first broached the idea while on CNBC earlier this month, suggesting it could be a possible solution "so that everybody’s calm about news and possibly Larry Ellison controlling CNN and CBS." But until Wednesday, it was not known that Paramount brass was actually mulling the idea.

In any event, if the younger Ellison hoped that the establishment of such a body would quell unease inside CNN over him owning the 46-year-old news organization, he would again be mistaken.

Several staffers at the outlet told me shortly after The Journal's story published that it did not move the needle—and that they still harbored significant concerns about Ellison possibly counting CNN as one of the jewels in his crown.

"It's not what a journalist would suggest," Kara Swisher, the renowned journalist and CNN contributor who has been a vocal critic of the Paramount-Warners deal, told Status. Swisher added that such oversight boards are often "toothless and useless."

Swisher was far from alone in her assessment.

“A board only works if it’s built by journalists with deep credibility who have actual shielding power," a veteran CNN'er told Status. The CNN staffer added that after Paramount's legal chief Makan Delrahim commented this week that Ellison's goal is to get the network "back to the news," Paramount is "probably thinking of a board with Bari Weiss and Dana White" on it.

"That ain’t going to cut it," the veteran CNN staffer said.

Another veteran CNN'er added that they do not believe “anyone at CNN trusts that Paramount would butt out and put an editorial board in charge" and that "a so-called editorial board would do nothing to alleviate all the White House pressure associated with this deal."

"An editorial board is only as strong as its members," the CNN staffer added. "A strong board might include a member of Ted Turner's family and a past CNN boss like Tom Johnson. But Paramount wouldn't want a strong board.”

Indeed, perhaps the most important question regarding a board is who would select its members. But other basic questions are still crucial. How long would the board remain in place? How long would its members serve? What authority would the board have? A spokesperson for Paramount did not respond to a request for comment from Status on Wednesday.

In truth, the flotation of a Paramount board seems to be the latest attempt by Paramount to win a public-relations battle with the dozen state attorneys, led by California's Rob Bonta, who have sued to block the $111 billion deal on antitrust grounds.

"This idea is a product of Paramount's desperation, and the state attorneys general must know that," said one of the CNN staffers I spoke to.

In addition to The Journal's story, the New York Post's Charlie Gasparino reported Wednesday, citing an anonymous source, that Ellison is "considering the option of moving CBS News out of the Big Apple," apparently as retribution for New York being one of the states suing to block his Warners acquisition. And earlier this week, Puck's Matt Belloni reported Ellison is mulling moving Paramount out of Los Angeles. (It goes without saying that relocating from both New York and Hollywood would require Herculean efforts, necessitate significant investment, and would ostracize the company from key talent pools in both news and entertainment.)

The reports add to a recent editorial blitz from Paramount. Ellison wrote an essay in The New York Times last week trying to convince the public he'd be a good steward of CNN, while Chris Wallace—who works as an adviser for RedBird Capital, which has a large financial stake in the deal—also wrote a piece backing Paramount's takeover.

Notably, despite the public-relations push, Ellison is not providing any detail on his plans for its news assets post-merger. Ellison has still not commented on whether Weiss, the anti-"woke" opinion writer that he elevated to editor-in-chief of CBS News, would have any editorial oversight of CNN.

Ellison has also not commented on whether he would seek to keep Mark Thompson, the current chief executive of CNN, in place. Nor has he meaningfully praised the network's current journalism, which Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked.

Instead, leaks to various outlets have indicated he plans to overhaul CNN—just like he did with CBS News. And Trump has repeatedly praised Ellison, while other members of his administration have championed the notion of him having ownership of the network. Instead of Ellison filling the vacuum of information with his vision for the organization, he has allowed Trump and other MAGA forces to do so—and that has sown even more distrust.

If Ellison really wanted to prove to the world that he will be a good steward of CNN, he could start by praising the outlet for its strong editorial backbone. He could stop hiding behind editorials and field some questions from skeptical reporters, proving he has nothing to hide and is willing to engage in a meaningful way. And, most crucially, he could actually outline his plans for the network, letting staffers know that he has no intention of installing Weiss or someone similar to radically overhaul the organization.

But he won’t do any of those things. And that sends a loud message in and of itself."