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

--:--

Tom Banks

Good morning 跑了松鼠好嘛, and welcome to Goose Pod. Today is Monday, September 15th. I'm Tom Banks.

Mask

And I'm Mask. Today, we’re talking about the titans of tech buying up our media landscape. First Musk, now Ellison.

Tom Banks

Let's get started. It’s a stunning move. Just five weeks after David Ellison’s Skydance Media buys Paramount for $8 billion, he’s reportedly considering an even bigger prize: Warner Bros. Discovery. We're talking HBO, CNN, the whole portfolio.

Mask

It’s not a consideration; it’s the next logical step. When you have the resources, you acquire the assets. The market cap for Warner Bros. shot up to $40 billion on the news. Add the debt, and you’re looking at a $71 billion enterprise. It’s go big or go home.

Tom Banks

That’s a staggering amount of money and influence to consolidate. It echoes what happened with Twitter. An offer is made that no one else can realistically compete with, and suddenly a crucial information source is in the hands of one person. Is this simply because they can?

Mask

"Because they can" is the purest reason. It cuts through the bureaucracy and shareholder hand-wringing that paralyzes legacy companies. You see an undervalued, poorly managed asset, and you fix it. Speed and capital are the ultimate competitive advantages. The price tag is irrelevant.

Tom Banks

This isn't a new phenomenon, though. We've seen billionaires step into the media sphere for years. I’m reminded of Marc Benioff buying Time magazine back in 2018. He said he wanted to be a "steward" for real journalism and combat a "crisis of trust." It sounds so noble.

Mask

"Stewardship" is a pretty word for control. The reality is that the media landscape is undergoing a necessary consolidation. Look at the data. Amazon bought MGM. Disney bought Fox. Google bought YouTube. These aren't passion projects; they are strategic realignments for a digital, direct-to-consumer world.

Tom Banks

But those were media companies buying other media companies, or tech giants expanding their content footprint. This feels different. It feels more personal, driven by individuals. And with tech leaders at the helm, it accelerates the integration of media with big data and algorithmic power, which can be... concerning.

Mask

It's not concerning; it's overdue. Traditional media is slow, inefficient, and disconnected from its audience. Tech brings scale, data-driven decisions, and the capital to innovate. While deal volumes might fluctuate, the value of these TMT deals is rising because technology is the engine of modern media. You either adapt or become a footnote.

Tom Banks

My concern is about the shrinking diversity of voices. We're down to just six massive companies controlling 90% of what Americans consume. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened the floodgates for this, creating what author Ben Bagdikian called "a new media monopoly." It's an illusion of choice.

Mask

The "illusion of choice" was already there. You had boards full of interlocking directorates, all scratching each other's backs. Editors pressured by corporate parents, journalists admitting they soften stories to protect financial interests. It was a corrupt, self-serving system hiding behind a veneer of objectivity. At least this is more transparent.

Tom Banks

Is it transparency or just a different kind of control? When you have a single visionary, their biases, their worldview, become the company's. You argue that billionaires are unique and irreplaceable drivers of this progress, but doesn't that concentration of power in one person's hands become a single point of failure for public discourse?

Mask

It’s a single point of clarity! You know what you're getting. It’s better than a hundred conflicted executives in a boardroom. People claim it’s all luck, but it takes a specific kind of talent and risk tolerance to build and allocate capital at this level. You can't replace that with a committee.

Tom Banks

But this power directly shapes our democracy. When billionaire owners can steer political discourse, it impacts public opinion, the very foundation of our society. We’ve seen owners allegedly prevent political endorsements at their papers to curry favor or protect their other business interests from regulation. That's a dangerous path.

Mask

That assumes the previous path was pure. These outlets already had an agenda; it was just a different one. Take my purchase of Twitter. It was infected with a "woke mind virus" that suppressed speech. Now, it's a platform for free expression. The old guard calls it disinformation; I call it breaking their monopoly on the narrative.

Tom Banks

Yet, as one media group put it, we are witnessing how "democracy dies in the dark pockets of greedy owners." When profit and ideology are prioritized over journalism's mission, the public is left under-informed and vulnerable to manipulation. That seems to be the ultimate, and most severe, impact.

Tom Banks

So, what happens next? With the Ellison family’s deep pockets and political clout, it seems any deal for Warner Bros. Discovery is likely to clear monopoly concerns. Are we destined for a future where only a handful of tech billionaires control all our major information pipelines?

Mask

Destined? We’re already there. The future is more consolidation. Stronger, tech-integrated media powerhouses will acquire the weaker, struggling ones. It's the natural evolution of the industry. Competition is intensifying, and only the companies with scale, capital, and a clear vision will survive this new era.

Tom Banks

That's all the time we have. Thank you for listening to Goose Pod. We'll 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