David Ellison Convinced Me He Should Never Own a Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery

David Ellison wrote an editorial in the New York Times (gift link) in which (I think) he tries to make the case for why he should be allowed to have his Paramount acquire Warner Bros. Discovery. He accomplished the opposite. He should not own them.

I read his writing with an open mind, and he firmly convinced me he should probably never own a well-read blog, let alone a major news-media-entertainment conglomerate.

"Add up every hour Americans spend watching television, and a combined Paramount-Warner would account for less than 20 percent of all watch time...Those are not the numbers of a company that can dictate what audiences watch or what writers get paid."

1 in every 5 minutes of watch time is too small to have any really impact? Respectfully, pound sand, David Ellison.

Talent agents make only 10% of what their clients make (let's ignore packaging for the moment) and not only does their over-a-century-old-business-model still work (they remain in business), we all know they can have an outsized impact on the market. If 20% ain't no thing, perhaps this particular billionaire can send me a check for 20% of his family's net worth; I'm not asking much: Just a token, really, a trifle.

"I believe this fight is not really about market share. If it were, it wouldn’t have been reviewed and approved by regulators..."

This hand I'm putting in your pocket and taking bills out of your wallet isn't theft, if it were the regulators whom me and my family helped fund the campaigns of would surely say so. Remember the sand I mentioned? Put some in your eye, David Ellison.

"The issue is whether I can be trusted as a steward of Warner’s CNN [and CBS and others]...Unfortunately, I can’t give anyone a view into my heart and mind..."

You are literally writing an editorial in the New York Times. You can't give a view into your heart and mind in a NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL?! What, exactly, do you and your Pepperdine University and the University of Southern California (USC) educations think is the function of an editorial, pray tell? Should someone who doesn't know what an editorial is, while they're writing one, be anywhere near the control of any news outlet? No. Ya know that sand? Eat it, David Ellison.

"...I hold some views that would be called conservative and others that would be called liberal..."

Oh, well, then, why haven't we given control of every fifth minute of watch-time to you, I mean: you did name check the political concepts of "conservative" and "liberal." Can we give you a Pulitzer for name checking ideas? Oh, David, since you're so new to the Journalism world, a veritable lamb in the wild, let me help you out: the Pulitzer Prizes are "designed to celebrate excellence in journalism, arts and letters." And no, you and your daddy aren't supposed to try to buy them.

"Our journalists will continue to answer to the facts and to all the people they serve - not to any party or cause."

It seems current CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, who works for you, was hired by you, did not get that memo. I would cite a source here, but the coverage of Weiss' evisceration of the once lauded 60 Minutes is so ubiquitous and pervasive it hardly seems necessary.

"In an age when so much of what fills our screens is machine-generated or engineered to enrage, journalism from real reporters matters more than ever. That is the work I intend to pay for, patiently, for a long time."

Machine-generated or engineered by whom, Mr. Ellison? Your dad's company, Oracle, proudly says, "97% of Fortune 100 businesses and hundreds of thousands of smaller companies run their most critical workloads on Oracle AI Database, including the largest banks, retailers, telecoms, and governments." So it seems the AI slop, slopaganda and algorithmic feeds that are doing that enraging are "calls coming from inside the house," inside the Ellison family home to be specific.

"That machinery [of the movie business] is in trouble. Hollywood is losing ground to technology platforms whose algorithms reward the loudest voices."

Whose technology platforms could you be referring to? Could it be TikTok, which is largely owned by (wait for it, let the tension build, the suspense over who owns what in the corporate landscape of mega-monopolies is so exciting, isn't it?) daddy's Oracle!

This is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Please Subscribe Here.

Patrick K. Lin (Technology & Human Rights Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School's Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights) says, "The new joint venture [that owns TikTok] is made up of a group of investors, including U.S. cloud computing and database software company Oracle..." which to be honest made me fall out of my chair. Then I did a spit-take, slapped the ghost of a long-lost relative and needed my pulse/blood pressure checked out of sheer surprise.

If the Ellisons wanted to establish effective monopoly control and influence on way more than 20% of the screens and conversations in the United States, I cannot think of anything they could do differently. They haven't missed a trick.

"I understand that promises from an executive in the middle of a merger invite skepticism. So judge us by the year we just had."

Really...you wrote a whole editorial because you're totally ok with skepticism. Sure, Jan. Then judge you we shall.

You say you increased the number of movies and TV series Paramount is releasing, which is great because we know quantity is so much more important than quality. We're all sitting in your board room or c-suite waiting to give you a pat on the back for "you make numbers go up."

"We raised our content investment by $1.5 billion."

Nothing says, "I have loved film since I was old enough to sit still for one" like calling movies and TV the generic, bland and interchangeable term: content. I can feel the love of movies coming through the newsprint on my computer screen. Your "spousal individual" and "diminutive offspring" must be so warmed to see their husband and father simply gush with su8ch affectionate terms about motion pictures. If only you owned a movie studio, or a media company, and could get in touch with writers who could help you make this sound less sterile, and financial. Maybe you can find a billionaire who can hook you up with the funding for that.

This isn't the annual report, it is an editorial in the New York Times, do you not know wha- oh, right: already addressed your lack of understanding of news and journalism. I think you have almost convinced the residue beneath the garbage bag in the trash bin that you should totally helm more news organizations.

"...making more is the whole point of the company we are building."

While I personally cannot, in fact, confirm David Ellison exists, he is nothing if not honest. More of what, Dave, more of what? Money, power, control? Surely not a content lover like you? Say it ain't so?!

You then promise to "make number go up" in the future with the combined company. Awesome.

"I have learned better than to promise hits...nobody can dictate what audiences will love. What I can promise is the work, and more of it."

Can't dictate, but you can try, right? Lock up all the movie theatres with your material perhaps (so it won't matter what anyone else is producing)? I wonder if anyone (it was me, but probably not only me) could have predicted such a thing.

Horizontally integrate (Investopedia: "a business strategy where a company expands to increase its market share and competitive advantage by acquiring or merging with other firms operating at the same industry level") a lot of the cloud servers streaming sites run on, or buy/control most movie theatres, and so forth, and you get to dictate terms up and down the supply chain (yes, I wrote about this in 2015).

But sure, David Ellison, you're doing all this just for the love of the game. By the way, I have a bridge I'm thinking of selling, interested?

This is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Please Subscribe Here.

© Copyright August 4, 2026, David August, all rights reserved davidaugust.com

David August is a multi-hyphenate in the entertainment industry and has worked as an award-winning actor, acting coach, writer, director and producer. He plays a role in the movie Dependent's Day, and after its theatrical run, it's now out on Amazon (affiliate link). He has appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live on ABC, on the TV show Ghost Town and many others. His product and visual effects artwork has been used and featured by multiple writers, filmmakers and theatre practitioners to express visually. Off-screen, he has worked at ad agencies, start-ups, production companies, and major studios, helping them tell stories their customers and clients adore. He has guest lectured at USC's Marshall School of Business about internet marketing and sales funnel engineering.