The spark
In recent days, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) rejected an initial takeover approach from Paramount—now rebranded as “Paramount, a Skydance Corporation”—that reportedly valued WBD at roughly $20 per share. The overture, first reported by Bloomberg and echoed by Reuters, was deemed too low by WBD. Paramount is considering next moves, including a higher offer and additional financing partners.
Who’s who—and what they control
- David Zaslav (CEO, Warner Bros. Discovery). Zaslav leads WBD and has laid out a plan—announced June 9, 2025—to separate the company by mid‑2026 into two publicly traded businesses: a premium Streaming & Studios company (Warner Bros. Pictures, HBO/Max, DC, WBTV, games) and a Global Networks company (CNN, TNT Sports U.S., and Discovery’s international networks).
- David Ellison (Chairman & CEO, Paramount, a Skydance Corporation). Ellison took the helm on August 7, 2025, when Skydance Media completed its merger with Paramount Global. The combined company, trading under ticker PSKY, controls Paramount Pictures and TV, CBS, Paramount+, Pluto TV and Skydance’s film/TV/animation/games assets.
Why Warner Bros. Discovery is the prize
A Paramount–WBD tie‑up would fuse two of Hollywood’s deepest catalogs, put Max alongside Paramount+ and Pluto TV, and concentrate live‑sports heft across CBS Sports and TNT Sports. In theory, the bundle could sharpen economics—larger scale for streaming, advertising, licensing and sports—though any combination would face substantial execution risk and regulatory review.
Through a Jewish lens: heritage, memory and community
For Jewish readers, the identities of the protagonists aren’t incidental footnotes—they’re part of Hollywood’s long story.
David Zaslav. Born in Brooklyn to a family with Polish‑ and Ukrainian‑Jewish roots, Zaslav has been active in Jewish communal and remembrance work. He chaired the committee for “Auschwitz: The Past is Present,” a USC Shoah Foundation program marking the 70th anniversary of the camp’s liberation, and he has been honored by UJA‑Federation of New York with the Steven J. Ross Humanitarian Award.
David Ellison. Ellison is widely described as having Jewish heritage through his father, Larry Ellison, who was born to a Jewish mother and raised in a Reform home in Chicago. In the public square, Ellison has been counted among influential Jews by the Jerusalem Post in 2025, and under his leadership Skydance committed $1 million in October 2023 to humanitarian relief efforts in Israel and the region following the Oct. 7 attacks.
A historical echo. The original Warner brothers—Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack—were Polish‑Jewish immigrants (the Wonsal/Wonskolaser family) who helped define the studio era. A fight for Warner’s future led by two Jewish chiefs therefore carries a thread of continuity with the studio’s origins.
What each side is trying to prove
Zaslav’s case for staying the course:
- Unlock value by splitting WBD into focused businesses and negotiate from strength as milestones approach.
- Keep debt trending down and cash flow strong to make independence credible on its own terms.
- Retain key talent and franchises (HBO, Warner Bros. Pictures, DC) so the ‘premium content’ narrative remains on offense.
Ellison’s case for combining now:
- Scale up fast: leverage Paramount’s broadcast and free streaming reach (CBS, Pluto TV) with WBD’s premium brands (HBO/Max).
- Bundle and rationalize: offer a bigger DTC bundle while removing duplicative costs.
- Bring in deep-pocketed partners to finance a higher, credible bid.
What to watch next
1) Price & partners: Does Ellison return with a higher, fully financed bid—and who stands behind it? (Private‑equity co‑investors have been floated.)
2) WBD split milestones: Any slippage—or surprise outperformance—will swing Zaslav’s leverage as bidders weigh whole‑co vs. piece‑by‑piece scenarios.
3) Regulatory weather: Expect scrutiny around news concentration, sports rights and streaming competition if talks advance.
Bottom line
This is a business chess match with a distinct Jewish through‑line. Zaslav is betting that patience and a two‑company split will draw out more value than selling today. Ellison is testing whether bigger‑now beats better‑later. However it breaks, the outcome will shape not just the next org chart, but also the legacy of a studio founded by Jewish immigrants and now contested by two Jewish leaders navigating a very modern media battlefield.
I was calmly eating my Belgian fries—perhaps one of Europe’s last undisputed contributions to world civilization—while watching the Flemish channel VTM. The sun was shining, the sky was clear, and that of course meant it was time for a national ritual: discussing climate change on television.
Because nothing pairs better with a warm, dry day than a panel of concerned experts explaining why everything is actually getting worse.
The news anchor, with the appropriate dose of mild existential concern, asked the question of the day: Why is Europe warming faster than other continents? A fair question. You would expect a complex answer about ocean currents, atmospheric dynamics, or perhaps decades of industrial legacy.
Instead, the explanation took a turn that nearly cost me my appetite.
According to the expert, Europe’s enthusiastic green policies may have… unintended side effects. Fewer emissions mean fewer particles in the air—particles that used to reflect sunlight and thus formed a kind of atmospheric “shield.” In other words: by cleaning the air, we may also be removing a protective layer against the sun.
At that moment, my fries became secondary. I was witnessing a philosophical paradox unfolding live on television: Europe, in its moral quest to save the planet, may be making itself more vulnerable to exactly what it is trying to combat.
You would almost expect a Nobel Prize for irony.
And so we naturally arrive at the thought experiment of the day. If fewer emissions reduce that protective layer, then the often-criticized “Drill Baby Drill” philosophy might deserve reconsideration—not as environmental damage, but as… climate management.
Absurd? Certainly. But no more absurd than pretending that complex systems respond linearly to idealistic policies.
After all, Nobel Prizes have been awarded for raising awareness about global warming. By that logic, one might almost expect that someone like Donald Trump would at least receive a nomination for proposing counterbalances—however controversial. When one side of the debate is treated as untouchable doctrine, the other side quickly begins to look like heresy… until reality asserts itself.
Because here lies the uncomfortable truth: nature does not follow ideology.
In life, and apparently also in the environment, everything revolves around balance. Push too far—whether toward unchecked industrialization or toward uncompromising green orthodoxy—and the system reacts. Not with applause, but with correction.
When policy becomes religion, nuance is the first casualty. And nature, unlike voters, does not negotiate. It restores equilibrium.
Perhaps that is the real lesson, somewhere between a portion of fries and a television debate: environmental policy is not about purity. Not about absolutism. Not about moral superiority.
It is about balance.
And balance, by definition, requires more than one force.
Which may well be the most uncomfortable conclusion of all.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Receive Breaking News
Sign up for our newsletter and stay up to date! Be the first to receive the latest news in your mailbox: