By 3 Narratives News
Published: July 22, 2025
Once upon a time, a family would gather around a single object in the room, and it wasn’t a screen. The radio—large, warm-toned, and crackling with distant voices—was the hearth of American homes from the 1920s to the 1950s. It offered baseball games, presidential fireside chats, and Orson Welles’ infamous Martian invasion. Then came television. With “I Love Lucy,” “The Twilight Zone,” “Three’s Company,” and later “Seinfeld,” a new era of entertainment unfolded, dominating living rooms for over half a century. CBS was a titan of that golden age. But the medium is no longer the message. In the age of YouTube, streaming algorithms, and AI-powered answers, even giants like CBS must adapt—or be absorbed.
Today, CBS and its parent company Paramount Global are facing one of the most consequential transformations in their history: a full-scale merger with Skydance Media, the production company behind “Top Gun: Maverick” and “Mission: Impossible.” While the deal promises capital infusion and strategic realignment, it has also triggered an exodus of high-profile talent, raised questions of political compromise, and signalled the end of an era.
What Is the Paramount–Skydance Merger?
The proposed $8 billion merger, expected to close in October 2025, will see Skydance take over control of Paramount Global. The new entity—Paramount Skydance Corporation—aims to combine legacy broadcast power (CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon) with blockbuster production strength and digital-first strategies.
“The media landscape is changing at warp speed,” said David Ellison, CEO of Skydance. “This merger gives us the scale and agility to compete in a world dominated by Netflix, YouTube, and AI-driven consumption.”
Paramount, under intense pressure from mounting debt and declining broadcast ratings, sees this as a lifeline. Analysts estimate Paramount’s streaming division has lost more than $1.7 billion in the past three years, while CBS’s once-dominant broadcast programming has seen advertising revenue drop by nearly 50% since 2018.
Why Now?
“This is about survival,” said media analyst Claire McIntyre of NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts. “Traditional networks are hemorrhaging viewers. Younger generations don’t even own TVs—they stream, scroll, and skip.”
But there’s more beneath the surface. The merger comes at a time when Paramount is also under federal scrutiny over a $16 million settlement with former President Donald Trump regarding the unauthorized airing of a controversial 60 Minutes interview. The timing has led many to believe that the company is reshaping its public image—and programming priorities—to avoid regulatory headaches during the merger review.
The Casualties of the Merger
Even before the ink dried, heads began to roll. The first major casualty: The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
Stephen Colbert
CBS announced the surprise cancellation of The Late Show in July, with the final episode scheduled for May 2026. While CBS claimed financial losses—reportedly $40 million annually—critics argue the decision was politically motivated. Colbert, a fierce critic of Trump and a ratings leader, had long been a liberal voice in late-night.
“Colbert was profitable in more ways than one,” said Jon Stewart. “He brought wit, integrity, and a watchdog sensibility to American television. And now they’re silencing that.”
Jon Stewart
Stewart himself has come under pressure. Though still hosting The Daily Show once a week, reports suggest he may soon be replaced by comedian Josh Johnson full-time.
“This feels like a purge,” Stewart told The Atlantic. “It’s not just about the money. It’s about shaping the narrative to make it merger-friendly.”
60 Minutes Executives
The once-untouchable 60 Minutes has not escaped the fallout. Executive producer Bill Owens resigned in April, shortly after the Trump settlement became public. Sources say he clashed with executives over the handling of the footage and the network’s shifting editorial tone.
Wendy McMahon, co-president of CBS News, also exited, reportedly after expressing discomfort with increasing pressure to avoid “politically sensitive” investigations.
What Do They All Have in Common?
These departures, cancellations, and quiet removals share one key trait: they come from CBS’s editorial and political edge. The programs and people at risk are those who challenge power, inject satire, or hold public figures to account.
“Late-night comedy and long-form investigative journalism are expensive—and they don’t play well with authoritarian power or cautious investors,” said former CBS journalist Lara Thomas. “So they’re the first to go.”
Meanwhile, CBS has announced it will not revive The Late Late Show following James Corden’s departure. Nor will it continue the experimental After Midnight, despite its modest online following.
“It’s a strategic retreat,” said media strategist Jordan Hu. “CBS wants to become a leaner, safer version of itself. That means cutting anything that rocks the boat.”
Political Optics or Business Reality?
The Trump settlement has become a lightning rod in the debate. In a Senate hearing last week, Sen. Amy Klobuchar questioned whether CBS’s programming changes were part of an unspoken agreement to clear the path for merger approval.
“If media companies are changing their editorial tone to avoid regulatory retaliation, that is deeply troubling,” she said.
Skydance, for its part, denies any political motivations.
“This is about modernization, not censorship,” said a Skydance spokesperson. “We believe in diverse voices and journalistic integrity. But we also have to make responsible business decisions.”
Still, the sequence of events is hard to ignore: Colbert out. Stewart pressured. 60 Minutes executives gone. A politically damaging interview quietly settled. And a merger that stands to reshape American broadcast television awaiting FCC approval.
The Third Narrative
Whether the casualties of the CBS–Paramount merger are simply financial decisions or evidence of political appeasement may depend on your vantage point.
One narrative suggests this is the natural evolution of a media empire struggling to stay relevant and profitable in an era dominated by platforms, not networks.
Another sees a dangerous alignment between economic desperation and political compromise, where dissenting voices are systematically removed to ensure corporate survival.
The third narrative, as always, belongs to the audience:
In a world where AI can tell you what you want to know, where YouTube offers infinite niche content, and where media giants restructure to chase disappearing dollars—what kind of information do we want to protect? And what voices are we willing to lose?
