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

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

2025-09-14Technology
--:--
--:--
Aura Windfall
Good morning mikey1101, I'm Aura Windfall, and this is Goose Pod for you. Today is Monday, September 15th. With me is Mask, and we're here to explore a powerful trend: the world’s richest men are buying huge media companies, simply because they can.
Mask
Let's get started. The ink is barely dry on David Ellison’s $8 billion takeover of Paramount, and now he's targeting an even bigger prize: Warner Bros. Discovery. We're talking about a potential deal worth over $70 billion. It's a bold, aggressive move.
Aura Windfall
It’s staggering. And what I know for sure is that money on this scale creates its own gravity. The moment the news broke, Warner Bros. Discovery's shares shot up 29%. The market is reacting to the sheer force of will, not just the business logic.
Mask
Exactly. This isn't a normal merger. David Ellison has his father, Larry Ellison, one of the world's richest men, providing the financial firepower. They don't need to worry about shareholders or market sentiment. They can essentially write a check and reshape the entire media landscape.
Aura Windfall
And that’s the heart of it, isn't it? This echoes what we saw with Elon Musk buying Twitter. It's a demonstration of ultimate power, where influence and information become the ultimate acquisitions for those who have everything else. What does that mean for the rest of us?
Mask
This isn't new, just bigger. Billionaires have always been drawn to media. Remember Marc Benioff buying Time magazine in 2018 for $190 million? He said he wanted to be a "steward" of real journalism. It’s a common refrain, this idea of saving a legacy institution.
Aura Windfall
A steward of truth, that’s a beautiful purpose. He spoke of a "crisis of trust." But does personal stewardship solve a systemic problem? We’ve seen so much consolidation. Disney buying Fox, Pixar, Marvel. Amazon snapping up MGM for over $8 billion, just to own James Bond.
Mask
Those are strategic business moves to control content pipelines. Big Tech has been disrupting media for years. Google buying YouTube, Facebook buying Instagram. They understood that controlling the platform is paramount. Now, they're buying the content itself. It's a vertical integration of influence.
Aura Windfall
But when a handful of companies control the platforms and the content, what happens to the diversity of voices? It feels like we're moving toward a world with endless entertainment options, but they all flow from just a few sources. Where is the space for new, independent stories to find their light?
Mask
The space is wherever the audience is. The market adapts. But the consolidation trend is undeniable. The media landscape is in a constant state of realignment, with companies trying to scale up to survive. The Ellisons are just playing the game on a level no one else can reach.
Aura Windfall
And that brings us to the core conflict. There's an "illusion of choice." We think we have endless news sources, but 90% of what Americans read, watch, and hear is controlled by just six companies. It’s a carefully constructed reality, and most people don't even know it's happening.
Mask
That's the result of deregulation, like the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It opened the floodgates for mergers. From a business standpoint, it’s efficient. But it creates massive conflicts of interest. Board members of media companies also sit on the boards of banks, tech firms, you name it.
Aura Windfall
It's more than just business, it's about the spirit of journalism. One study found that half of investigative journalists believe newsworthy stories are sometimes buried to protect their company's financial interests. How can truth prevail when profit is the only objective? It betrays the audience's trust.
Mask
As former Disney CEO Michael Eisner famously said, "We have no obligation to make history... To make money is our only objective." That’s the brutal reality. Media is a business. These billionaires aren't buying charities; they are buying assets that project power and generate returns, financial or otherwise.
Aura Windfall
And that power has a profound impact. When billionaires own the platforms, they shape public opinion. They can steer political discourse to align with their interests. We saw Jeff Bezos's ownership of the Washington Post come under scrutiny, and Elon Musk explicitly remade Twitter into a platform for his own views.
Mask
Musk transformed X into a powerful tool for his agenda, spreading disinformation that favored his political allies. Sinclair Broadcast Group forces its 193 TV stations to air identical, right-wing scripts. It’s a top-down information cascade. Effective, but controversial. It’s about winning, not about being liked.
Aura Windfall
But what is being won, and at what cost? When media serves narrow business and ideological interests, democracy itself is at risk. It creates an under-informed public, unable to tell fact from fiction. What I know for sure is that a healthy society depends on shared, reliable information.
Mask
Looking ahead, the Ellison bid for Warner Bros. Discovery will require immense private financing and political maneuvering. Larry Ellison's wealth and political connections, especially his alliance with Donald Trump, will be critical to navigate any monopoly concerns. It’s a high-stakes game of influence and power.
Aura Windfall
It feels like we're bracing for a repeat of what we've already seen, but on an even grander scale. It’s a stark reminder that the future of our most important information sources is being decided in boardrooms, with very little say from the public they are meant to serve.
Mask
And that's the bottom line. Power is consolidating. That's the end of today's discussion. Thank you for listening to Goose Pod. 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

Analysis

Conflict+
Related Info+
Core Event+
Background+
Impact+
Future+

Related Podcasts