The world's richest person controls the X network.
The kin of the second-richest individual manages the Paramount media empire, which in turn controls CBS, and might eventually take over Warner Bros, which operates CNN.
The third wealthiest mogul possesses Facebook, the Instagram app and the WhatsApp messaging service.
The fourth wealthiest entrepreneur owns that prominent newspaper and the Amazon MGM film studio.
Another billionaire operates the Fox News channel, that financial newspaper and the New York Post.
Why are the super-wealthy purchasing a significant portion of the news media? Pride might be one reason, but there's a more practical – many would argue sinister – explanation.
If you're a multibillionaire, you might view democratic governance as a potential threat to your wealth accumulation. Dominance of a sizable portion of the dwindling number of media outlets would permit you to safeguard your interests from democratic pressures by curbing negative coverage of you and wealthy elites, and deterring any move to – for example – tax away your fortune.
The Trump Factor
You must also contend with the former president. During his return to office, Trump has brazenly and illegally employed the authority of the White House to target his opponents and favor those who lavish him with admiration and financial gain.
So it likely wasn't surprising that the editorial board of the Amazon founder's Washington Post defended the razing of the presidential residence area to build Trump his giant ballroom – omitting the fact that the Amazon founder's the tech giant is a primary funder to the project's financing. Its editors also applauded the Pentagon's under Trump decision to acquire a modern version of miniature atomic plants, but failed to mention the company's investment in X-energy, a enterprise that's creating compact atomic reactors. And it questioned the capital city's rejection of self-driving cars omitting the fact that the tech giant's driverless unit was attempting to enter the capital's market.
These violations are unacceptable.
Oracle Founder's Role
It's very similar with the kin of Larry Ellison, co-founder of the tech company Oracle and the second-richest person. He is a long-standing financial backer for Trump who as court documents show, participated in a conversation to explore how his 2020 election defeat could be contested.
In mid-2025, the billionaire and his company were financial backers of a presidential parade in Washington. During that period, Larry and his son David were expecting the government agency to authorize their $8bn merger with Paramount, owner of the news division.
In the run-up to the merger, some leadership at the network and its premier investigative show resigned, citing concerns over the network's ability to remain independent, and revealing pressure by Paramount to suppress reports opposing Trump. Nevertheless. Too much money were at stake.
Outcomes and Settlements
In mid-year, the media company settled for a multi-million sum to settle the former president's legal action against the network and canceled a popular late-night program, much to Trump's delight. A few weeks after the agreement was made public, Trump loyalist the commission's head, head of the FCC, authorized the merger agreement, making David chief executive of the merged company Paramount Skydance and granting him authority of CBS News.
In October, Ellison selected the conservative commentator Bari Weiss the CBS News editor-in-chief, although she had no background in either broadcasting or journalism. Recently, it was revealed that CBS News doctored Trump's latest news segment, removing his statement that the network "provided substantial compensation".
A Lost Era of Independence
Many recall when the network would never have surrendered to a demagogic president. But those were the days when CBS News – famous for Edward R Murrow and Cronkite – was separate from the corporate parent, and when the top management of the company had independent responsibilities to the public.
It is hard to measure the full extent to which negative coverage and his team has been deterred by the wealthy owners, or what fawning coverage has been elicited.
The Business of Media
But what we understand is that wealthy proprietors like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison and Murdoch are entrepreneurs primarily. Their primary objective is not to inform the public but to generate profit. They know Trump can disrupt their businesses by issuing restrictive policies, implementing worker protections targeting them or denying them profitable public deals.
And in an era when riches is held in the control of a handful of people who have bought up major news outlets, with a sensitive leader who is willing and able to disregard regulations and standards to retaliate or benefit, there is a growing danger that the citizens will not be receiving the facts it requires to operate in this society.
Steps Forward
How should we respond?
At the least, media outlets should inform their readers about any and all possible biases, and media watchdogs and ethical organizations should ensure they do.
Another proposal (assuming) the US has a saner government) is that anti-monopoly authorities reject the purchase of a prominent news organization by someone with diverse commercial interests that could present biased reporting.
Acquisition of a news organization should be handled uniquely than the purchase of, for instance, a company designing driverless cars or {one|
