First Elon Musk, now Larry Ellison: The world’s richest men are buying huge media companies — because they can | Goose Pod

Authors: Peter Kafka

Publisher:

Business Insider

Published: 9/12/2025

Language:English

--:--

Aura Windfall

Good morning 1, I'm Aura Windfall, and this is Goose Pod for you. Today is Monday, September 15th. What I know for sure is that today's topic is a powerful one, a real sign of the times we're living in.

Mask

And I'm Mask. We're here to discuss a tectonic shift in the media landscape: First Elon Musk, now Larry Ellison. The world’s richest men are buying huge media companies, not because of some grand strategy, but simply because they can. It's the ultimate power play.

Aura Windfall

Let's get started with the heart of the matter. It feels like just yesterday we were talking about one massive deal, and now another is on the horizon. It’s about David Ellison, the son of tech multibillionaire Larry Ellison, and his media company, Skydance.

Mask

It's not just talk; it's action. Skydance just closed an $8 billion takeover of Paramount Global merely five weeks ago. They're already laying off over 2,000 employees to streamline costs. They aren't waiting around. They're moving with ruthless efficiency to reshape their new asset.

Aura Windfall

And that’s the part that gives me pause. Before the ink is even dry, they’re contemplating an even bigger move. The reports say they are now mulling a deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery in its entirety. It feels like a high-stakes game of Monopoly with real-world consequences.

Mask

This isn't Monopoly; it's bigger. We're talking about a deal potentially worth over $70 billion. The market is already reacting—Warner Bros. Discovery's shares shot up 29% on the news. Their market value is now $40 billion, but the enterprise value, including debt, is closer to $71 billion.

Aura Windfall

Those numbers are staggering. It brings to mind the Elon Musk and Twitter situation. One man with immense wealth decides he wants a globally influential media asset, and suddenly, it's his. It seems there's no real competition or barrier when that much money is in play.

Mask

Exactly. Musk made his "best and final" offer for Twitter, pricing it so high that no one else could reasonably compete. For a normal company, convincing investors would be impossible. For Musk, it was a non-issue. He wanted it, so he bought it. The financial disaster that followed was immaterial to him.

Aura Windfall

And the parallels with the Ellisons are truly striking, aren't they? They don't need to worry about shareholder approval or where the money comes from. Larry Ellison is the world's second-richest man. They can effectively operate outside the normal rules of business.

Mask

They can overpay for a company investors have given up on, and who's going to stop them? This isn't just about buying a studio; it's about acquiring influence. They'd own HBO, CNN, and the Warner Bros. movie studio. That's a massive cultural footprint controlled by one family.

Aura Windfall

What I find so interesting is the difference in stated motives. Musk was very clear about his ideological program, his fight against the "woke mind virus." With the Ellisons, it's not so obvious. Larry is a Republican, but his son David has been a Democratic donor.

Mask

David Ellison claims he is an apolitical owner now. But that's the thing about power, it doesn't need to be loud. Owning CNN and CBS News gives you a lever on public discourse whether you use it overtly or not. The potential is always there, simmering under the surface.

Aura Windfall

So we're in this moment of bracing for a repeat performance. We saw one of the world's richest men buy a vital media platform because he could. Now, it's happening again, and we, the public, have very little say in how it will play out. It's a profound shift.

Aura Windfall

This trend of billionaires buying media isn't entirely new, though the scale feels different now. I'm reminded of Marc Benioff, the founder of Salesforce, who bought Time magazine back in 2018. His stated mission was so... hopeful. He wanted to combat a "crisis of trust."

Mask

Hopeful, yes, but also a luxury. He paid $190 million and called himself a "steward" of real journalism. It's a noble sentiment, but it highlights the core issue: journalism's survival is becoming dependent on the benevolence of billionaires. It's a form of patronage, not a sustainable business model.

Aura Windfall

That's a powerful way to put it. And it's part of a much larger story of media consolidation that's been happening for decades. We've seen so many massive deals that have reshaped what we watch and read. Disney buying 20th Century Fox, Pixar, and Marvel is a perfect example.

Mask

And don't forget the tech giants. Amazon dropped $8.5 billion on MGM, not for the studio lot, but for the James Bond franchise and other intellectual property. Google buying YouTube and DoubleClick, or Facebook buying Instagram in 2012, were arguably the most consequential acquisitions in digital media history.

Aura Windfall

It feels like the walls between different types of media and technology are just crumbling. AT&T, a phone company, bought Time Warner for a while. Now Walmart, a retailer, just bought Vizio to get a foothold in connected TVs. Everyone is trying to own the entire pipeline from creation to distribution.

Mask

It's a strategic realignment. A recent mid-year outlook for 2025 showed that while overall deal volumes in Technology, Media, and Telecom are down, the deal *values* are up 20%. That means fewer, but bigger, more transformative deals are happening. Companies are either scaling up or getting out.

Aura Windfall

And the report mentioned that big tech companies are disrupting everything with their algorithmic power, their data, and their deep pockets. What I know for sure is that data is the new currency, and these companies have more of it than anyone else in history.

Mask

Exactly. Look at Amazon's recent $1 billion deal for creative control of the James Bond franchise. That's a tech company with massive capital reshaping legacy content. It's no longer just about content; it's about integrating it into a larger technological and consumer ecosystem. It's total vertical integration.

Aura Windfall

And then there's the AI factor. The report said over a billion dollars is being invested *per day* across R&D, acquisitions, and joint ventures related to AI. It’s creating a whole new frontier for mergers, especially in the tech and semiconductor sectors that power it all.

Mask

AI is the ultimate accelerant. Microsoft is spending $80 billion on AI data centers. Meta boosted its capital expenditure guidance for 2025 to potentially over $70 billion. This isn't just about faster computers; it's about fundamentally changing how media is created, distributed, and monetized.

Aura Windfall

It's a world where traditional media companies are trying to compete in a direct-to-consumer world, while tech giants are moving in with overwhelming force. It seems we've reached an inflection point, and the outcome is this incredible consolidation of power we're seeing with the Ellisons.

Mask

It’s a convergence. Media, tech, and telecom are no longer separate industries. They are merging into a single, dominant sector where scale is everything. The Ellisons' move is just the latest, and likely not the last, major play in this high-stakes game for control.

Aura Windfall

This consolidation has such a profound impact on what we see and hear. The truth is, just six companies—Comcast, Disney, AT&T, Sony, Fox, and Paramount Global—already control 90% of what Americans read, watch, and listen to. It's what some call an "illusion of choice."

Mask

That illusion was supercharged by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was backroom legislation, as the activist Jeff Cohen said, that opened the floodgates for dominant corporations to merge and acquire their way to total market control. The public never saw it coming.

Aura Windfall

And it creates these deep conflicts of interest. A study found over a thousand connections where board members of media companies also sit on the boards of advertisers, banks, and tech firms. How can you report truthfully on an organization when your board members are intertwined with it?

Mask

You can't. It's market censorship. Over 30% of editors admit to feeling pressure from their parent companies, and nearly half of investigative journalists say important stories get buried to protect financial interests. It's not a conspiracy; it's just business. As the former Disney CEO said, "To make money is our only objective."

Aura Windfall

But at what cost? We're seeing the death of local news. Over 2,000 counties in the U.S. have become "news deserts" with no daily newspaper. This leads to lower voter turnout and more government corruption because no one is watching. It's a direct threat to our democracy.

Mask

Some would argue these billionaires are irreplaceable visionaries. That their ability to allocate capital and take massive risks drives innovation that benefits everyone. They argue that without the potential for extreme wealth, you don't get an Amazon or a SpaceX. It's the incentive that fuels progress.

Aura Windfall

But is that true? Or is it a combination of talent and incredible luck? The founders of Friendster and Myspace aren't billionaires. It seems to be about capturing a "natural monopoly" on a market, like Amazon did with retail, and then leveraging that position to extract value, or "rent."

Mask

That's the Georgist argument. Profit from effort is earned, but profit from merely controlling a market slot is not. The debate is whether Amazon's success is pure innovation or the exploitation of network effects. It’s probably a bit of both. But you can't deny the value it created for consumers.

Aura Windfall

The problem is that this concentration of wealth and power becomes self-perpetuating. These media conglomerates spend millions on lobbying to keep the rules in their favor. And as one professor noted, American media becomes rife with misrepresentations that advance ideological agendas, not the truth.

Mask

It's a system designed to maintain itself. The media shapes the narrative, the narrative influences politics, and the politicians write the laws that benefit the media owners. It's a closed loop. As Jim Morrison famously said, "Whoever controls the media controls the mind."

Aura Windfall

And that control has a direct impact on our democracy. When wealthy individuals own the platforms for public discourse, they can steer the conversation in ways that align with their personal or business interests. What I know for sure is that this isn't just about policy; it's about shaping public opinion itself.

Mask

It's historical. Media moguls have always used their platforms to back candidates and causes. But now, with social media platforms owned by billionaires like Musk, the mechanisms are more sophisticated. It’s about content moderation policies and algorithms that can amplify or suppress information at an unprecedented scale.

Aura Windfall

We see this playing out so clearly. The article mentions how the billionaire owners of the Washington Post and LA Times allegedly prevented endorsements of Kamala Harris. The speculation is that it was a business decision, a "quid pro quo" to curry favor with a potential future administration.

Mask

And it can be more overt. Sinclair Broadcast Group mandates its 193 TV stations to air specific right-wing scripts. Rupert Murdoch's empire acts as a de facto propaganda arm for the MAGA agenda. John Malone, a major shareholder in CNN's parent company, wants CNN to be more like Fox News.

Aura Windfall

It's a betrayal of the audience's trust and journalism's mission. Then you have Elon Musk transforming Twitter into a platform ripe with disinformation. The article cited that 55% of his own tweets about election security are disinformation, all while he donates hundreds of millions to the Trump campaign.

Mask

The most cynical part is the financial incentive. The former CEO of CBS, Les Moonves, said in 2016 that Donald Trump's run, while bad for America, was "a good thing" for the company. The money was rolling in. Extremism is profitable. It drives ratings and engagement. Defending democracy, unfortunately, doesn't.

Aura Windfall

That is a heartbreaking truth. The result is a public that is under-informed and vulnerable to manipulation. The media ecosystem, controlled by these narrow business and ideological interests, becomes incapable of providing the accurate information needed to counter disinformation and protect our democracy. It's a failure on a national scale.

Aura Windfall

So what does the future hold? With the Ellisons' bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, it seems we are on the cusp of another monumental shift. The competition in the media sector is only intensifying as everyone scrambles for scale in the streaming wars. It feels like an endgame.

Mask

Analysts believe any acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery will require significant private financing. Paramount Skydance's balance sheet isn't big enough. This is where Larry Ellison's deep pockets and political clout become essential, not just for the money but to clear any monopoly concerns in Washington.

Aura Windfall

And his political connections are notable. As a long-time ally of Donald Trump, he is likely to find a much friendlier regulatory environment if there's a change in administration. It highlights how these massive deals are not just about business, but also deeply intertwined with political power.

Mask

The market is certainly betting on it. Warner Bros. Discovery's stock surged 31% on the news of a potential bid. It's a clear signal that investors believe a deal of this magnitude, which would have been unthinkable a few years ago, is now very much on the table.

Aura Windfall

The question remains, what would they do with it all? Would they break it up, or would they create a newly enlarged Hollywood studio that would dominate the landscape even more? It’s a future being written in private boardrooms, with very little public input.

Aura Windfall

That's the end of today's discussion. The key takeaway is that the concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few ultra-wealthy individuals is accelerating, reshaping not just business, but the very fabric of our public discourse and democracy. Thank you for listening to Goose Pod.

Mask

We're witnessing a paradigm shift where financial power allows billionaires to bypass traditional market forces and acquire immense cultural influence. The rules of the game are changing, and we'll be here to track what it means. See you tomorrow.

## Summary of News: Richest Men Buying Media Giants - A Parallel Between Elon Musk and Larry Ellison **News Title:** First Elon Musk, now Larry Ellison: The world’s richest men are buying huge media companies — because they can **Report Provider:** Business Insider **Author:** Peter Kafka **Date/Time Period Covered:** The article references events in 2022 (Elon Musk's Twitter acquisition) and discusses current contemplation by Larry Ellison regarding Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) and a recent acquisition of Paramount. The publication date is September 12, 2025. **Key News Identifiers:** * **Topic:** Technology, Media, AI (implied by the context of tech billionaires' influence) * **Keywords:** Tech, Twitter, Elon Musk, TV, Hollywood, Regulation, Donald Trump --- ### Main Findings and Conclusions: The news article draws a striking parallel between Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter in 2022 and Larry Ellison's current contemplation of acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), following his son David's recent purchase of Paramount. The central theme is that the world's wealthiest individuals are increasingly leveraging their immense financial power to acquire influential media assets, often with little apparent regard for traditional business concerns or market sentiment. The article suggests that the Ellisons' pursuit of WBD is not a direct replica of the Musk/Twitter situation but shares significant parallels, particularly in the apparent lack of significant competition due to their financial capacity. ### Key Statistics and Metrics: * **Elon Musk's Wealth:** * Estimated to be around **$200 billion** when he bought Twitter three years ago (from the article's publication date of 2025, this would be around 2022). * Estimated to be around **$385 billion** currently (as of September 2025). * **WBD Price Increase:** WBD's price has reportedly **shot up by $10 billion** in the last day since news of the planned bid broke. * **David Ellison's Donation:** Supported Joe Biden with a **million-dollar donation** in the last election (presumably the 2024 election, given the article's publication date). ### Important Recommendations: The article doesn't offer explicit recommendations but implicitly highlights the lack of public or investor agency in these high-stakes acquisitions. It suggests that the public has "not much say in it" when billionaires decide to purchase major media companies. ### Significant Trends or Changes: * **Concentration of Media Ownership:** A growing trend of ultra-wealthy individuals acquiring influential media companies, potentially consolidating control over information dissemination. * **Financial Power Over Market Dynamics:** The ability of billionaires to bypass traditional financial hurdles (like shareholder approval or market valuation concerns) due to their personal wealth. * **Shifting Media Landscape:** The potential for these acquisitions to drastically alter the direction and operation of major media entities like HBO, CNN, Warner Bros. studios, and Paramount. ### Notable Risks or Concerns: * **Erratic Management:** The article points to Elon Musk's transformation of Twitter into a "personal messaging service, run according to his erratic whims" as a potential risk for WBD under Ellison ownership. * **Financial Viability:** While Musk claims Twitter is worth what he paid, the article notes it has been a "financial disaster" as an operating company. The financial implications for WBD under new ownership remain uncertain. * **Ideological Influence:** While Musk had a clear ideological agenda for Twitter, the Ellisons' plans for WBD are unclear, with David Ellison having a mixed political donation history. This raises questions about the editorial independence and future direction of news outlets like CNN and CBS News. * **Regulatory Approval:** While Larry Ellison's backing of Donald Trump might facilitate regulatory approval, the article notes this is a factor. ### Material Financial Data: * **Larry Ellison's Wealth:** Described as the "world's second-richest man," indicating immense financial resources. * **David Ellison's Acquisition of Paramount:** This acquisition has already occurred, with Larry Ellison now backing his son's potential bid for WBD. * **WBD Acquisition:** The Ellisons are contemplating buying Warner Bros. Discovery. The article notes that the price of WBD has increased by $10 billion following the news of their interest. * **Musk's Twitter Acquisition:** Purchased in 2022 for an undisclosed sum, but the article implies it was a significant financial undertaking for Musk, despite his wealth. --- ### Interpretation and Context: The core of this news piece is the comparison between two instances of billionaires making massive media acquisitions. * **Elon Musk and Twitter:** Musk's purchase of Twitter is presented as a case study of a wealthy individual acquiring a platform and reshaping it according to personal vision, regardless of financial performance or user sentiment. The article highlights his immense wealth growth even after the acquisition and the platform's continued, albeit controversial, influence. The "asterisks" on Musk's claim of Twitter's current worth suggest skepticism about its financial recovery. * **Larry Ellison and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD):** The article posits that Larry Ellison, through his son David, is poised to replicate Musk's move by acquiring WBD. The key takeaway is that the Ellisons' financial power is so substantial that they can effectively overcome any potential rivals or financial concerns that would typically hinder such a large acquisition. The $10 billion price surge in WBD is framed not as a deterrent but as a potential mechanism to further discourage other bidders, a tactic reminiscent of Musk's approach. * **Political Connections:** The article touches upon the political leanings of both billionaires. Larry Ellison's Republican ties and support for Donald Trump are noted as potentially easing regulatory hurdles. David Ellison's past Democratic donations and his insistence on being an "apolitical owner" add a layer of complexity to the potential political implications of their media ownership. * **Uncertainty of Future Plans:** A significant point of speculation is what the Ellisons intend to do with WBD. Unlike Musk, who had stated intentions for Twitter, the Ellisons' plans for WBD are unknown, leaving open questions about the future of its various assets, including HBO, CNN, and the Warner Bros. studio. The fact that they are bidding for the entire company, which was already planned to be split, suggests potential restructuring or divestment. In essence, the article argues that the era of billionaires buying and reshaping major media companies is upon us, driven by sheer financial capacity rather than traditional market forces, and the implications for the media landscape are significant and largely unpredictable.

First Elon Musk, now Larry Ellison: The world’s richest men are buying huge media companies — because they can

Read original at Business Insider →

Chief Correspondent covering media and technology Larry Ellison is one of the world's richest men, so he can buy anything he wants, like a media company or two. That's what Elon Musk did with Twitter. Anna Moneymaker; Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images When you're one of the world's richest men, you can afford to buy anything you want.

Like a media giant. That's what Elon Musk did in 2022. And it's what Larry Ellison is contemplating now, by backing his son David's adventures in Hollywood. We don't know what the Ellisons owning Warner Bros. Discovery as well as Paramount would actually mean. But that scenario is theirs if they want it.

One of the world's richest men wants to buy one of the world's most influential media assets. It's unlikely anyone will stand in his way.Does this sound familiar?Yup: That's Larry Ellison, financing his son David's plan to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — the company that owns HBO, CNN, and the Warner Bros movie studio — weeks after buying Paramount.

And yup: That was also Elon Musk in 2022, buying what we used to call Twitter.You know how the Twitter story panned out: Musk made an offer for the service, no rivals showed up, and he quickly had a deal. Once he owned it, he turned Twitter into his own personal messaging service, run according to his erratic whims.

Twitter has been a financial disaster (as an operating company, that is — Musk now says Twitter is worth what he originally paid for it, but that claim comes with lots of asterisks), but that's immaterial for Musk. He was worth around $200 billion when he bought Twitter three years ago; today that number is something like $385 billion.

And despite the fact that many of Twitter's most high-profile users have bailed on the platform since Musk took over, it remains a crucial information source, for better and for worse. The Ellisons' pursuit of WBD, first reported by The Wall Street Journal on Thursday, isn't a full replica of Musk/Twitter.

But there are some parallels. Most striking is that it's hard to see anyone else walking away with WBD now that the Ellisons have raised their hands.Unlike would-be competitors like Comcast or Disney, the Ellisons don't need to worry about where the money comes from, or whether their shareholders like the deal.

That's because Larry Ellison is the world's second-richest man — and while Paramount is publicly traded, the Ellisons have effective control of the company, insulating them from investor concerns.And the fact that WBD's price has shot up by $10 billion in the last day, since news of the planned bid broke, isn't a problem for the Ellisons.

If anything, it helps limit any rival bids from the jump.That echoes Musk's "best and final" offer for Twitter, pricing it way higher than the market had. Any normal person would have a difficult time convincing investors that it was a good idea — but for Musk, it was a non-issue. The same for the Ellisons.

If they think it's worth overpaying for a company investors have largely given up on, who's going to tell them they're wrong?Another Musk parallel: Larry Ellison is also a Donald Trump backer — except that unlike Musk, he has stayed in Trump's good graces. That certainly makes it more likely that the deal gets any regulatory approval it would need.

We're not sure what the Ellisons' plans would beOne meaningful difference between Musk and the Ellisons is that in 2022, Musk was already talking about turning Twitter into something else, away from the "woke mind virus" he said it had infected it. He showed up with an ideological program he wanted to implement.

There's no obvious echo here. Larry Ellison is a longtime Republican — a rarity in tech circles — but David Ellison has been a Democratic donor, and supported Joe Biden with a million-dollar donation in last year's election. And while David Ellison has gone through lots of hoops to placate the Trump administration while getting the Paramount deal approved, he insists he is now an apolitical owner.

How would all of that affect the way the Ellison ran a combined Paramount/WBD?We have no idea. Despite the news media's (appropriate) focus on the future of CBS News under Ellison, that's a speculative exercise for now — just like wondering what would happen to CNN if the WBD deal goes through. The fact that the Ellisons are bidding for all of WBD — which was already slated to get split in half — doesn't mean they won't sell or spin out some of those assets once they have them.

But what we do know is striking enough. We've already seen one of the world's richest men snap up one of the world's most important media companies, more or less because he could. Now we're bracing for a repeat. We don't know how this one will play out. But we don't have much say in it, either. Tech Twitter Elon Musk More TV Hollywood Regulation Donald Trump Read next