David Ellison repeatedly asserts that he has no genuine interest in politics, emphasizing this point in nearly every conceivable forum. Whether he is addressing journalists during interviews, reassuring Paramount employees, or speaking directly to government regulators, Ellison delivers the same unambiguous message — that political engagement holds no allure for him. Yet, observing his actions over the past year tells a far more intricate and arguably contradictory story. As Ellison navigated the complex process of acquiring Paramount, and even more so once the deal was finalized, the company began to undertake a sequence of strategic decisions that seem to betray an undeniable interest in political positioning. The pattern of these choices, considered collectively, implies alignment with the conservative or right-leaning side of America’s ideological spectrum.
One of the clearest indications of this shift has emerged in Ellison’s assurances to regulators. In an attempt to mollify potential concerns about Paramount’s corporate direction, he pledged that the company would refrain from engaging in any diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs or initiatives — policies that, until recently, had become almost obligatory across corporate America. These DEI frameworks, once emblematic of progressive business culture, found themselves under renewed scrutiny following the political realignment during the return of the Trump administration. Ellison further declared that Paramount would install an independent ombudsman responsible for investigating complaints related to workplace bias. However, when the appointment was finally announced, the individual selected possessed unmistakably conservative credentials, further reinforcing the impression that Ellison’s leadership might be guided by ideological rather than purely pragmatic considerations.
The company’s recent programming decisions also amplify this perception. Merely weeks before Ellison’s acquisition of Paramount was finalized, the company surprised audiences and industry observers alike by canceling *The Late Show with Stephen Colbert*, a late-night program renowned for its unapologetically critical stance toward former President Donald Trump and his supporters. The timing and symbolism of that cancellation did not escape public attention. Shortly thereafter, Paramount revealed another headline-grabbing move: its acquisition of *The Free Press*, the media outlet founded by journalist Bari Weiss, a former New York Times editor and writer known for her outspoken critiques of perceived liberal orthodoxies in journalism. Under the new arrangement, Weiss will serve as editor in chief of CBS News, reporting directly to Ellison himself — an organizational structure that places her firmly within his sphere of influence.
Weiss and her admirers, among them prominent figures such as Mathias Döpfner — head of the parent company of *Business Insider* — often describe her as a centrist voice, one dedicated to calling out ideological excess wherever it appears. Weiss, unsurprisingly, embraces this characterization of intellectual independence. Nevertheless, *The Free Press* was founded on a clear premise: to serve as a counterbalance to what Weiss viewed as an ingrained culture of liberal groupthink dominating mainstream newsrooms. Having resigned from *The New York Times* in 2020 after publicly lamenting its internal ideological rigidity, Weiss expanded her critique to encompass the broader ecosystem of establishment media. Her brand of journalism was also highlighted in 2022, when Elon Musk, soon after his dramatic acquisition of Twitter, invited her to scrutinize the company’s internal records and publish a series of reports exposing what she framed as censorship and bias by the platform’s prior management.
Despite all of this, Ellison has not yet transformed Paramount into an overtly partisan network. It has not become, for instance, a mirror image of Fox News. Indeed, before finalizing his acquisition, Ellison approved a massive $1.5 billion deal to extend Paramount’s rights to *South Park*, a franchise known for its gleeful irreverence and bipartisan mockery. The show has often targeted President Trump as a subject of satire, continuing to do so even after securing a lucrative new contract — an indication that direct editorial control from Ellison may not yet extend to the company’s creative divisions. Similarly, while speculation abounds — including from Colbert himself — that the cancellation of *The Late Show* was a symbolic concession to Trump-aligned political figures, no conclusive evidence, or ‘smoking gun,’ has surfaced to substantiate such assumptions. Nor is there proof that Ellison has imposed any ideological directives upon Paramount’s other creative properties.
Nevertheless, symbolism carries weight, especially in an era when cultural gestures signal as much as explicit action. Even if the company’s day-to-day programming has not undergone an overt political metamorphosis, its major strategic moves send unmistakable signals to investors, employees, and the public. Industry chatter has emerged questioning whether Paramount’s reported $150 million acquisition price for *The Free Press* — a relatively small, subscription-based digital media venture — represents sound business judgment. After all, the company is simultaneously implementing workforce reductions and cost-cutting measures elsewhere. Yet such a debate may miss the essential point. Ellison’s purchase appears not to be a conventional financial investment but a deliberate cultural wager. He is not necessarily purchasing a revenue stream — he is purchasing alignment, influence, and the perception of ideological direction.
Determining precisely what Ellison seeks to align with, however, remains a more elusive endeavor. His personal and familial political history complicates interpretation. While Ellison himself has in the past made donations to Democratic candidates, his father, the powerful tech magnate Larry Ellison, is an open and enthusiastic Trump supporter. Thus, several plausible explanations coexist. It may be that David Ellison has concluded that the national media landscape tilts too far to the left and sincerely wishes to correct that imbalance. Alternatively, his actions could represent a more pragmatic effort to curry favor with Trump and his allies — among them Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr — whose regulatory authority could have delayed or obstructed his merger approval. Either rationale fits the available evidence, and therein lies the ambiguity.
And perhaps that very ambiguity is the defining feature of this era in American media and business. We inhabit a moment when the boundaries separating commerce, ideology, and culture have become increasingly porous, when even declarations of neutrality are viewed through a political lens. Whether Ellison’s motives are ideological conviction or strategic compliance, the uncertainty itself tells the story — a story about how power in modern media is rarely apolitical, even when it insists otherwise.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/paramount-david-ellison-right-wing-free-press-bari-weiss-trump-2025-10
