Analysis: Digging into Paramount Skydance deal’s implications for broadcasting

Analysis: The merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media, which received its final key approval July 24, 2025, was always expected to be a big deal — but the implications may become even more consequential.

Paramount-Skydance merger gets final approval to move forward

The deal sparked controversy almost immediately after it was announced, with concerns over how new ownership and its potential decisions would affect everything from cost-cutting and job losses to the availability of reliable national and local news, not to mention increased corporate and political influence over news and other broadcast content.  

By now, you’ve already heard speculation that recent moves to settle a largely frivolous “news distortion” lawsuit brought by Donald Trump and the cancellation of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” were done to appease the White House despite official denials to the contrary.

Adding to that were reports of anti-diversity, equity and inclusion pledges from the incoming CEO of the new company and assurances that CBS News would make efforts to reflect all Americans’ “ideologies” and add an ombudsman role.

No matter what the motivation, it’s indisputable that all of these moves are significant. It also remains to be seen if Paramount, after seemingly starting the descent into a rabbit hole, has found a dead-end or might end up falling into a “curiouser” new world dominated by a Mad Hatter (not to mention Tweedledums and Tweedledees).

Now that the incoming company management has, at the very least, shown a willingness to allow even the appearance of conceding to regimental pressure, it remains to be seen how far they can be pushed. 

Economic pressures mounting

The massive cost of the merger, combined with promises to cut around $2 billion in costs, are also likely to have significant consequences. The New Paramount is likely to start shedding assets, including its linear cable networks, mirroring the strategy Comcast and Warner Bros. Discovery are taking to get these types of channels, which are primarily seen as a shrinking business, onto another set of books. It’s also possible that Paramount+ and its FAST cousin Pluto TV will be combined.

Unfortunately, no media companies are strangers to one of the most common ways to bolster the bottom line — cutting employees — which, in turn, risks reducing the availability of reliable journalism and forcing news coverage to become increasingly narrow.

Advertisement

For those staffers who remain to oversee the now stripped-down teams, it’s likely they will end up doing more work for the same pay, which is will push morale down. These moves could raise a myriad of concerns — including reduced editorial quality and the possibility of oversights in related business operations. 

Even before the merger was nearing completion, CBS News and Stations, the division responsible for national and local news output in some of the biggest markets in the U.S., had seen significant high-profile turnover, including the resignations of its president and CEO and the executive producer of “60 Minutes.” Both said their exits were tied to disagreements with higher-ups on the future direction of the news division. It also laid off some other managers. 

Over the past five years, CBS News and Stations has embarked on multiple rounds of layoffs that included high-profile names and newsroom staffers alike. These cuts affected both its network and local newsgathering, with many experienced journalists sent packing. 

While staff changes ahead of a new ownership structure are to be expected.,it’s hard not to see all of these departures as warning signs of what may only be small rumblings of changes with the news division. 

Like many media companies, Paramount and CBS have already cut hundreds of jobs across the board in recent years in addition to the network and local newsroom downsizing. Other cost-saving measures have also been initiated, again reflecting overall trends in the media industry. Strategies such as automation, hubbing and sharing content are already the norm — while the future affect of artificial intelligence still remains a question mark.

Future of journalism at Paramount Skydance

Paramount Global will likely need to make a significant course correction if it wants to uphold CBS News’ legacy. 

Back in the days when Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite called the “Tiffany Network” newsrooms home, the network fearlessly took on government and corporation corruption, including putting up a resistance to the repressive persecution that was McCarthyism.

Some of those same tactics are emerging as the foundation for today’s attempts to scapegoat and point blame at an “enemies list.” 

While some journalists have put up resistance to some of these moves, bigger, bolder corporate decisions have tampered many of these efforts and it remains to be seen if newsrooms will be able to continue exposing lies and corruption unhindered now that some executives have at least shown the appearance of willingness to fold to political pressure. 

In short, quality journalism should be making bold moves to report the truth, with corporate interests taking a backseat, though that ideal has eroded across multiple news organizations.

While a move to feature a broad perspective of beliefs may sound good in practice, it’s a slippery slope that can ultimately lead to yet another rabbit hole.

Some interpretations of such a pledge could conceivably lead to a network covering white supremacy groups as positive parts of the community, for example, because, after all, that is an “ideology” that some Americans have. 

Advertisement

There’s also the question of who gets to define just what that spectrum is.

Some of those in power have already shown that calls for so-called “free speech” and “family values” only apply to how they define those terms. For example, calls for more diversity, equity and inclusion can be classified as an “ideology” that many Americans hold, but certain groups have moved to summarily dismiss the concept as being “wrong,” mainly as part of a broader attempt to demonize certain groups of people.

The incoming leadership’s moves to install an ombudsman will, just like that pledge to account for a broad spectrum of ideologies, be seen as a positive by many. To others it may seem like a token ceremonial move to satisfy the powers that be, but it remains to be seen how the role will look or how powerful it might be. 

That lack of clear definition, combined with varying perceptions of this type of position, could prove to be dangerous since it’s setting the stage for shifting expectations that could change as the political winds shift. 

Potential effects of local news

Local news and public service, a key component of any over-the-air broadcaster’s mission, could also become a target, especially if TV station ownership limits are reduced or lifted, which appears likely. 

If these limits are lifted, a slew of duopolies and triopolies will almost certainly start popping up. While most TV station owners argue these setups reduce costs while still maintaining the FCC-mandated mission of public service attached to their licenses, there are downsides to these moves, especially when the owners begin forcing content mandates.

The industry has already seen examples of local newscasts being forced to air political commentary from a single person or having talent appear in promos with scripts that echo corporate talking points almost verbatim.

So far, most of these types of moves ended up backfiring, but it also remains to be seen how they could fare under the current political climate, particularly if the federal government is willing to turn a blind eye to stations operating on public airwaves that keep their messaging in line with its ideology. 

Consolidation is also likely to cut back on just how much original, local content is produced — no matter the network or group ownership. Not only is the quantity at risk — but also the quality and diversity of the content.

Local news has already been heavily diluted by decidedly non-local news coverage because its inherently easier and cheaper to fill out a broadcast with content culled from wire services or sister stations despite the likely lack of relevance to most viewers. This trend isn’t new — it began years ago when stations began offering a glut of local news as an economical way to fill out schedules. 

Advertisement

With shrinking newsroom staff rosters, both on-camera and behind-the-scenes, the resources to cover truly unique, local stories will become even more challenging than it is for many stations today. 

So-called “hyperlocal” storytelling has already dried up, with much of the truly local community news coverage left to newspapers — which have been battling a crisis of their own — along with independent websites, nonprofits and the blogosphere, none of which have a federal mandate to provide service to their communities.

The result is that coverage of local events along with investigative journalism keeping an eye on local officials and companies, is a shadow of its former self, even as corporate ownership groups still continue to deliver millions in profit, which largely benefit shareholders and executives.  

Just how much local news output might change remains to be seen, but an increase of simulcast broadcasts across regions — perhaps with localized segments — could become the norm. It’s not hard to see owners filling airtime, including replacing some traditional local newscasts, with news roundups or whiparound shows pulling in summaries of stories from other stations it owns.

Effect on entertainment

Even outside the news and TV station division, Paramount Pictures, the CBS broadcast network and the other parts of the company that create content could see a shift outside of just the effects of cost-cutting.

Anti-DEI movements, for example, could begin encroaching what viewers see in films and shows even after years of advocacy has lead to increased diversity among characters and plot lines, which proponents argue more accurately represent today’s viewers. 

It’s also likely that networks, including CBS, will cut back on original programming, especially pricier single-camera sitcoms and dramas, which will mean fewer jobs in the entertainment industry, which plays a huge role in shaping America through the arts and creative expression. Instead, lineups may end up being filled out with content produced by ownership groups for their stations — potentially representing narrower viewpoints — or less expensive programming options that don’t fuel as much innovation and creativity. 

Ultimately, the Paramount Skydance merger is going to happen. That wheel has already been set in motion.

However, moving forward, the new company still could do a lot of good by investing in fair and accurate journalism, local news and diverse and inclusive content — but it’s more likely those issues will fall by the wayside over profit, power and continued conceding to political pressure.