U.S. Federal Communications Commission FCC has officially approved an $8–8.4 billion merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media. The FCC voted 2–1 in favor, giving the final nod to this high-profile media consolidation after more than 250 days of legal and political scrutiny .
FCC Chairman Brendan Car, appointed by the Trump administration, said he welcomed Skydance’s promises to bring more balance into CBS and its news content. He spoke of the need to rebuild trust in legacy media by ensuring diverse political perspectives.
What conditions did the FCC impose on the Paramount‑Skydance merger
As part of the merger approval, Skydance agreed to significant editorial and organizational changes at CBS and related channels. They also committed to appointing an independent ombudsman for at least two years to handle complaints about news bias or imbalance .
These requirements align with the FCC’s policy approach under Chair Carr, which critiques DEI initiatives as potentially biased. Skydance also agreed to support a broader political spectrum in programming a move meant to regain viewer confidence in news integrity.
Dissent Raises Press Freedom Concerns
FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the sole Democratic dissenter, strongly opposed the merger. She argued that it represented an erosion of editorial independence and amounted to government interference in newsroom decisions an unprecedented breach in press freedom. Gomez labeled the settlement and conditions as coerced and harmful to the public interest.
Senators Edward Markey and Ben Ray Luján also condemned the move, calling it the worst form of corruption. They criticized the timing of the decision, suggesting the approval was engineered in coordination with the lawsuit settlement.
Critics Warn of Press Freedom Threat in Paramount‑Skydance Deal
The recently approved merger between Paramount and Skydance has sparked sharp criticism from political figures and press freedom advocates. While the deal marks a major shift in the media landscape, not everyone sees it as a win particularly when it comes to the future of editorial independence.
Moreover, these financial moves, critics argue, appear to have directly influenced regulatory outcomes, raising serious concerns about corporate media’s growing susceptibility to political manipulation. If powerful media outlets can secure favorable deals by making politically aligned contributions, the line between journalism and influence peddling becomes dangerously blurred.
