Republish
California needs to better resist job-killing megamergers in entertainment
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
California needs to better resist job-killing megamergers in entertainment
Share this:
Guest Commentary written by
William Lockyer
William Lockyer is a former California attorney general and member of the state Assembly and Senate, where he served as president pro tempore.
The architect of the recent Paramount-Warner Bros. megamerger, Gerry Cardinale, initially downplayed the possibility of layoffs once the two companies finished joining together.
Not long afterward, the CEOs of the merged company, Skydance, sent emails announcing “difficult decisions that affect our workforce” — and later offered voluntary buyouts in anticipation of layoffs.
Many of the job cuts will naturally affect California, where Skydance has its headquarters. Concerns over job losses was one reason California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued earlier this year to try to stop the merger.
That lawsuit ultimately was settled out of court, and the merger is a done deal. But if we’re to protect jobs in California — to say nothing of one of our legacy industries — we need to resist these gigantic acquisitions from becoming the norm.
Hollywood’s corporate consolidation trend threatens to yield fewer opportunities for workers and higher entertainment costs for consumers.
The just-completed $22 billion purchase of Roku by Fox Corp. is in line with other mergers, where large media companies join forces with streaming services to build entertainment empires.
Whereas Paramount-Warner received enormous attention in the press and among lawmakers, the Fox-Roku deal has relatively flown under the radar. That’s concerning given its implications for our state and for entertainment law.
READ NEXT
A timeline of California’s decades-long fight to keep Hollywood in state
Fox Corp. employs more than 10,000 employees globally and has a major studio presence in Hollywood. Roku, meanwhile, is headquartered in San Jose and has other offices scattered across our state.
That means the writing is likely on the wall for hundreds, if not thousands, of California jobs. Roku has already been laying off workers, slashing its workforce by 10% in 2023 alone.
It couldn’t come at a worse time. California’s unemployment rate is 5.1%, a percentage point over the national average and among the nation’s highest. The state is stuck in a trap: its economic growth remains high but its job market doesn’t reflect that expansion.
This has some economists warning about a so-called K-shaped economy, where California’s rich get richer and its poor and middle class go the other way.
If we want to arrest this trend, we need to do more than worry about AI taking jobs. We need to challenge the giant corporate mergers that portend more layoffs.
Even without the job losses, Fox-Roku could be a bad deal thanks to its naked conflict of interest. Most media deals where a content provider seeks to join with a content streamer carry this risk.
Streaming services such as Roku are supposed to be content-neutral, recommending channels and shows based on user preference and overall popularity, rather than on corporate or political bias. But Fox recently said it will continue carrying non-Fox content on Roku for at least three years and won’t discriminate against that content in its search results.
Afterward the incentive will likely be to prioritize Fox channels, such as Fox News and FS1 — and to deprioritize their competitors. Fox News’s ratings have been sinking in recent months, but with Roku that might become less of a problem.
Worse, the merger could destroy the precedent of TV provider neutrality, leading other media companies to place their thumbs on the scales.
Ultimately the question behind these megamergers is what kind of entertainment industry do we want for California: A dynamic job-creator where competition ensures viewers have plenty of thrilling and smart shows to choose from, or a handful of lumbering corporate behemoths that produce too much slop and not enough well-paying job opportunities?
READ NEXT
Deal allowing Paramount-Warner Bros. merger may not cure Hollywood’s troubles
Newsom signs anti-monopoly bill after bruising legislative battle