RECAPITULATION: THE NETFLIX + WARNER BROS MERGER CONSIDERATION

We look at the fundamentally spiritual culture war behind the potential Netflix or Paramount merger with WBD. To begin with, some contextualisation. So, for years, Netflix built its empire on a simple but ruthless formula: they license everything, produce some originals, and distribute it all through a single global streaming platform. By 2019 it had become a frontrunner in streaming, but this would soon birth competition. For instance, Disney pulled its library from Netflix to launch its own streaming platform called Disney+, NBCUniversal also reclaimed its content for its streaming platform, Peacock, WarnerMedia did the same for HBO Max (now called Max), and even Paramount and Apple entered the fray. So, suddenly the licensing pipeline that had fed Netflix’s catalog was being turned off, one studio at a time, as those studios reclaimed their library of films and television shows to create their own streaming platforms.

In light of this, Netflix’s response was predictable: they went on to spend astronomical sums of money on original movies and series to plug the gaps of content. The strategy seemed to work for subscriber growth, but it came at a brutal cost. Originals are expensive, and—crucially—it appears that most viewers found that most of the originals by Netflix were not as culturally resonant or rewatchable – which I think is a euphemistic way of the viewers saying that the Netflix originals are bad. And so, Netflix originals were not generating the viewing hours that the studio produced content was. As a result, the company seemed to need a pivot, and fast.

And, Enter Warner Bros. Discovery. By 2025, Warner Bros. Discovery itself was losing its balance. The 2022 merger of WarnerMedia and Discovery had been sold as a scale play that would allow the combined company to compete with Netflix and Disney, but the reality was much messier. The solution that emerged was to split Warner Bros. Discovery in two. One half would contain the cable networks (including TNT, Discovery Channel, CNN and others, plus the rest of the legacy linear businesses, which is now rebranded as “Global Discovery.” This entity would remain a separately traded public company focused on traditional television, sports rights, and advertising. Then, the other half, which is called Warner Bros film and television studios, and includes the DC Intellectual Property, HBO, and the Max streaming technology stack—this is what would be sold. And so, Netflix pounced.

It made an offer for $83B to WBD, and if the merger would pass, Netflix would have bought the Warner Bros film and television studios, the scripted production capabilities, which includes the DC Intellectual Property, HBO, and the Max streaming technology stack. This would mean that Netflix transforms from a distributor that happens to make some of its own (bad) shows into a fully vertically integrated major studio, that owns all of the Warner Bros film and television studios IP, and effectively has swallowed up a competitor in the streaming capacity. 

WHY BOTH THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT DO NOT SUPPORT A NETFLIX + WARNER BROS MERGER

Well, part of what is quite interesting about the response to the potential Netflix and WBD merger is that both those on the right and those on the left are concerned about what it might amount to – NOT necessarily to the extent that it has unified the right and the left, but to the extent that there is significant pushback against this potential merger across the political spectrum. Now, primarily, for the left, the issue with Netflix potentially purchasing WBD is that this merger would exacerbate media concentration, while already 90% of the US’s TV viewership is controlled by six conglomerates. Netflix’s dominance in originals (which amounts to 700+ hours annually) combined with Warner Bros Discovery’’s library would create a “super-studio” of sorts, with unprecedented leverage over distribution, pricing, and content. 

In more detail, post-merger, Netflix would be poised to command 30% of global streaming market share, raising FCC alarms under the 1996 Telecommunications Act’s horizontal merger guidelines. Additionally, a 2024 FTC report warned that such consolidations stifle independent filmmakers, with production budgets funneled to tentpole films or tv shows. Meanwhile, this issue is not even just about market power, it is largely about Netflix having the ability to gatekeep stories that speak to substantive issues, in pursuit of what it deems a worthwhile, often incredibly woke pursuit. In fact, in light of this, Netflix is often criticized for a “quantity over quality” approach to film and television (e.g., it prioritises churning out 500 rom-coms yearly, many formulaic), and thus (through this merger) will likely  prioritise data-driven content and not meaningful story telling. 

Then, for the right, the potential merger between Netflix and WBD is not just big business; it is seen by conservatives as a liberal leviathan that would amplify the cultural warfare of the Hollywood so-called elites. In light of this, conservatives argue that streaming corporations already censor via shadowbans and content warnings, where less liberal or anti-trans comedians are threatened with boycotts by Netflix viewers, who are generally entitled to demand ultra-liberal content on the Netflix streaming platform. Therefore, a merger of Netflix and WBD, which would entail Netflix controlling the WBD’s streaming platform HBO Max… well, this could weaponise algorithms against dissenting views. And this is considering that a 2024 Heritage Foundation report found 70% of top-streamed content leans left on issues like climate and gender, per sentiment analysis.

This tells us that the conservative’s concerns are therefore not conspiracy. Netflix has been operating on a code of prioritise engagement (or quantity of quality), while also burying controversy or issues of substances, unless it’s culture-war bait that makes them money. And this comes at a time where (despite its own dip into the woke pool) WBD’s DC reboot under Zaslav (were praised for “de-wokifying” the DC Aquaman character) which clashes with Netflix’s progressive movies. And so, the concern is that post-merger, WBD’s DC intellectual property like Superman, who is a character generally viewed as a symbol of American exceptionalism, would get “ruined” with DEI casting or eco-messages. Much like Disney did with the Star Wars franchise, where Kathleen Kennedy (as president of Lucasfilm, under Disney) imposed not just gay characters but satanic story adaptations) – not that Diney was lacking in that respect before she came on board, considering it tried to normalise bestiality in films like Beauty & the Beast.

Then, economically, conservatives decry taxpayer bailouts. This is considering that – even as Netflix has made an offer for the merger – WBD has debt amounting to over $40B, which stems partly from COVID relief. Now, if WBD would merge with Netflix (which is a profitable but subscriber-based platform), users could see corporate welfare plans, where Netflix increases the cost of their subscriptions to make up for that debt. And the issue with this is that since they would have already swallowed a  competitor in the streaming market, being WBD’s HBO Max, well then consumers do not have another option to go to see exclusively WBD-produced or streamed content – and so concerns about the violation of antitrust laws is quite valid.

NETFLIX CEO TED SARANDOS AT A SENATE HEARING ON THE PROPOSED NETFLIX-WARNER BROS MERGER

Now, it is against this backdrop that on the 3rd of February, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos appeared before the US Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights in a high-stakes hearing examining the proposed $82.7 billion acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery’s studios and streaming assets. 

Now, Sarandos, seated alongside WBD’s Chief Revenue and Strategy Officer Bruce Campbell, faced bipartisan scrutiny. For one, Subcommittee Chair Mike Lee opened by framing the merger as raising serious competition concerns, noting that Netflix would eliminate HBO Max as a rival streamer. Sarandos countered in his opening statement, that a combined Netflix and Warner Bros will apparently strengthen the American entertainment industry, preserve choice and value for consumers, and create opportunities for creators. He added that the acquisition would boost domestic production, protect American jobs, and keep Warner Bros “healthy and competitive” amid pressures from tech corporations like YouTube, Amazon, and Apple.

However, I will state here that strengthening the American entertainment industry is not inherently a positive outcome considering that the socio-political impact of Hollywood has been a contribution towards moral decadence and the glorification of satanic influence. Additionally, what Netflix calls keeping Warner Bros “healthy and competitive” means an eradication of the aspects of the entertainment industry that empower creators who wish to tell meaningful stories, like the ability to capitalise on theatrical releases – which Netflix reportedly said it would do away with, but might have u-turned on amid pressure and competition for the merger with Paramount, which reportedly favoured theatrical releases.

In any case, lawmakers further pressed the Netflix co-CEO on consumer impacts. Here, Sarandos highlighted significant subscriber overlap – which is around 80% of HBO Max users also subscribed to Netflix – arguing the deal would deliver “more content for less” by combining libraries without immediate price hikes. He positioned Netflix’s 9% share of total US TV viewing time behind YouTube, downplaying monopoly fears. Which is really telling because monopolies are not only a problem once they’ve achieved unilateral control over a market – rather, even the consolidation process (much like the one Netflix is trying to undergo in merging with WBD) is a concern because of what it represents, which is that Netflix would be coming a step closer in acquiring the potential for unilateral control over the entertainment industry. 

But, ultimately, Democrats like Senators Cory Booker and Adam Schiff focused on labor and theatrical traditions, while the hearing veered into CRUCIAL cultural territory when Republican senators, including Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Eric Schmitt, shifted to the focus to Netflix promoting “woke” content, DEI initiatives, and “transgender ideology” in children’s programming. Senator Ted Cruz argued that Netflix has “long been a left-wing company,” referencing board member Susan Rice and past deals (which we’ll discuss in a moment). Additionally, Senator Josh Hawley presented that nearly half of Netflix’s children’ content pushed transgender agendas, citing external reports. In all of this, Sarandos claimed that: “Netflix has no political agenda of any kind, and that they feature a wide variety of stories and programs to meet a wide variety of people’s tastes.

THE DANGER OF NETFLIX CONTROLLING THIS PORTION OF “ENTERTAINMENT”

Now, here, I’d like to emphasis a cautionary point that we made when the story of the potential mergers broke, which remains a crucial consideration even now, and to set the tone: the Man of God and President of Loveworld Incorporated, the highly esteemed Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc DSc DD, once famously stated that whoever controls the airwaves controls the people. When it comes to news or even so-called entertainment, this is a crucial and far deeper understanding to have.

And I say this because entertainment is not a harmless pastime; it is one of the most powerful delivery systems for ideas ever invented. Every film, song, television series, or viral clip that you invite into your living room, your headphones, or your child’s bedroom is a Trojan horse carrying someone else’s worldview. You think you’re “just relaxing,” but you’re actually volunteering to have your values, desires, and moral boundaries quietly reshaped. And this is because the storyteller, who owns the IP, decides who is the hero and who is the villain, what is normal and what is deviant, what deserves sympathy and what deserves scorn. And so, over time, repeated exposure doesn’t just entertain you, it colonises your views. You begin to laugh at jokes you once found offensive, nod along to politics you once rejected, and feel attraction toward lifestyles you once questioned. And all the while, the change seems organic because it arrived wrapped in pleasure, and not argument.

This is why regimes, corporations, and ideologues fight so fiercely over culture. They understand that culture does not remain stagnant, and is a very strong socialisation agent. Additionally, they know that a population that is forcibly censored is likely to fight against efforts at censorship, while (in contrast) a population that internalises messaging through so-called entertainment will likely censors itself because that population will passively internalise the messaging of those who create films and television or music, and begin to appropriate them. It is literally the same idea behind the so-called “influencers”.

Now, how does this directly apply to Netflix? Well, you’d recall that we flagged Susan Rice when her name came up in the Senate hearing with the Netflix CEO, amid arguments that Netflix is a left-wing company. Here is how she features in this discussion. In essence, the Obamas’ announced a partnership with Netflix in 2018, through their production company called Higher Ground. This partnership was sold to the public as a straightforward content deal: Barack and Michelle Obama would produce films, series, and documentaries for Netflix. But, what received far less attention is the deeper alignment of political influence embedded in the arrangement, which includes a key figure bridging the Obama’s and Netflix’s corporate leadership – and this figure is Susan Rice.

Susan Rice served as Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2017 and later as Joe Biden’s Domestic Policy Advisor until 2023. In 2020, Netflix appointed her to its board of directors. Her official biography on the company’s site highlights her “distinguished career in foreign policy, national security, and public service,” and yet the practical effect is unmistakable: what is essentially happening is that one of the Democratic Party’s most loyal and experienced operatives now helps set strategic direction for a dominant streaming platform. This is not a conspiracy; it is literally a convergence of interests. Meanwhile, the Obama’s Higher Ground production company has delivered projects such as American Factory, Crip Camp, Becoming, and Worth, all of which consistently reflect progressive ideas on labor, identity, and post-9/11 justice. This tells us that, as far as the Obama-Netflix partnership is concerned, the Obamas select stories, Netflix finances and distributes them to 270 million households worldwide, and Susan Rice sits in the boardroom helping decide which other narratives receive similar amplification. In other words, the Obamas and Netflix are curating a cultural narrative that might potentially influence 270 million households worldwide.

And concerns about this have already been seen, especially with respect to a recent campaign (also driven by Elon Musk) to boycott Netflix. This campaign challenged the hyper sexualisation of children, and very pro-LGBT content it churned out. One of the pieces of content was even produced by the Obamas’ production company.

NETFLIX PRODUCES THE MOST IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN CONTENT IN STREAMING

Now, the truth of the matter is that all of this criticism is incredibly valid – both from the Senate hearing and political analysis, based on investigative revelations (even as is revealed in the discussion we’re having). And I say this because Netflix produces some of the most ideologically driven content in streaming history, particularly through its aggressive push toward progressive social themes. Frankly, this is evident in widespread race-swapping of historical and fictional figures, heavy DEI emphasis in storytelling and hiring, and the inclusion of transgender characters in programming aimed at families and children.

In greater detail, implementations of race-swapping abound in Netflix productions. For instance, in a 2023 docudrama series on Cleopatra, Netflix was said to have portrayed the ancient Egyptian queen – who is a figure historically identified as of Macedonian Greek descent – as being Black, thus sparking widespread accusations of intentional historical inaccuracy and cultural revisionism. Similar patterns appear in other titles, such as depictions of Vikings or figures in period dramas with non-traditional casting that prioritizes modern diversity over fidelity to source material or historical records. And while, for the most part, I will concede that this is inconsequential to all of us who’ve never seen these productions, this effort at race-swapping is emblematic of a broader agenda to “rewrite” history through inclusive casting that disregards ethnic realities, which crosses into deceptive story telling, and thus must be opposed. Not to mention, this race-swapping approach is even said to extend to fictional works inspired by real events or eras, where characters’ races are altered to align with contemporary representation goals, often at the expense of authenticity.

But then the second reason why Netflix produces some of the most ideologically driven content in streaming history is found in its commitment to DEI. And here, the company has publicly integrated diversity initiatives into its operations, including funds for what is said to be creative equity targeting underrepresented groups and policies aimed at building inclusion across global content creation. But, while supporters view this as necessary progress in an industry long dominated by certain demographics, it is a policy of enforced “wokeness” that influences hiring, storytelling, and programming decisions – not necessarily to empower marginalised groups, but to pander to leftist ideology, at the expense of good storytelling.

Then thirdly, Netflix produces some of the most ideologically driven content in streaming history because of its inclusion of transgender characters and themes in family-oriented or children’s content. Animated series that are rated as suitable for ages 7 and above feature transgender characters, while clips resurfaced in 2025, drawing criticism for introducing complex gender identity discussions to young viewers. Primarily because this content tries to normalize controversial views on gender without adequate parental input or safeguards.

IS THE POTENTIAL PARAMOUNT & WARNER BROS MERGER A BETTER ALTERNATIVE?

Now, it is not only Netflix that is trying to buy WBD – Paramount also made a nuclear offer – not the WBD board, but to the WBD shareholders to undermine Netflix’s efforts because how this all (actually) started is that Paramount made an offer to WBD first, without there ever being communication of an intent to sell or enter a merger from WBD, but Warner Bros then announced such intent, with Netflix also being announced as having won the bid, which was obviously disingenuous, as there was never a bidding opportunity to begin withL they were essentially in billions worth of debt, and Paramount pounced. In any case, the Paramount offer wants to take both the public Global Discovery arms of WBD (which includes CNN) AND Warner Bros film and television studios (which Netflix is after). And so, the question then becomes, is the paramount merger a better alternative?

My honest answer is no. And I say this because Paramount’s financing in its counter offer to that of Netflix includes significant backing from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds: namely, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, Qatar Investment Authority, and Abu Dhabi’s Limad Holding Company, who contributed over $24 billion, which is more than half the equity portion, alongside US investors like the Ellison family, RedBird Capital, and Affinity Partners. And so, this suggests potential informal sway from these foreign entities over American media. Paramount argues that it structured the deal to avoid direct governance rights for these funds (to sidestep mandatory scrutiny), but that does not necessarily eradicate subtle influence on content decisions, narratives, and cultural output.

I think this matters because already, we see foreign actors, penetrate the ranks of what are now so-called independent journalists, and fund liberal learning institutions which has correlated with increases in anti-American ideology, or ideology in favour of those countries foreign policy, which is not necessarily surprising because all aid or financing comes with conditions, whether implicitly or explicitly communicated.

NETFLIX & PARAMOUNT ARE TRYING TO REPLICATE THE DISNEY MODEL

But, to emphasise further why both merger bids are of concern, I’d like to highlight that both of these corporations are imitating the Disney business model.

And to highlight the issue with how Disney has amassed influence, we ought to highlight the list of brands the company owns. There’s Marvel, various TV channels, Hulu, ESPN, VICE, ABC studios, Go Pro, record labels, a massive European Telecom company known as Sky, Lucasfilm, theme parks, a game developer, a software communications company, and a construction company. But, this does not even cover all the corporations under the Disney umbrella. Therefore, this means that when we speak of Disney, we are thus talking about a multinational conglomerate that controls a vast amount of resources; they are a broadcast syndicate that controls much of daytime TV, while also having investments in various other industries.

But, what this tells us is that Disney amassed its influence through monopolistic business practices, where it bought various companies in relatively different industries, while ensuring that they all answer to the same Disney-sanctioned agenda. Basically, Disney metamorphosed from a child-friendly entertainment company into a monolith with a potential to influence popular culture, and thus institute a psycho-cultural war, where it utilises its pop culture influence to control its viewer base and beyond.

Let’s then address why this is a problem. [PAUSE] While each of these Disney sub-companies appears to be a separate corporate entity, they are NOT. This creates an illusion of choice, where people might try to boycott a certain brand, but still buy all kinds of other products from the same company. This thus lets corporations avoid public backlash against them in the form of boycotts; thus proving that giving a single company absolute control over a given sector destroys the free market that the economy is supposedly based on. For instance, people think of Fox Sports and ESPN as competitors in a shared market. In reality all they are is a rebranding. They serve the same corporate overlords. This lets Disney obscure the fact that they are a monopoly. Monopolistic business practices destroy growth and innovation, because there is no incentive to improve or change the product when the consumer doesn’t have a choice.

The second reason that the Disney monopoly is a problem is that by controlling every aspect of media production, from studio to red carpet, Disney is able to easily outcompete or buy new companies. If those first two strategies fail, they could destroy a company by refusing to let them access the businesses that they own as Disney. For instance, if a new film studio was highly critical of Disney, Disney could refuse to work on or distribute their films; which is a notable issue, seeing that Disney controls much of the infrastructure necessary to make movies. For instance, in 2019 alone, Disney was reported to have been involved in 40% of the box office returns. But, then again considering the kinds of films that mostly come out of Hollywood, I will not defend Hollywood film producers who fight Disney to get their work produced – however, the greater point I do make with sincerity, is that Disney has built itself to become an unaccountable gatekeeper in the film and television industry, all eroding competition as well, through its vast control over various aspects of the production scene. And so, when important stories need to get told through film. Disney sheds or blocks them.

For instance, Disney actually had the rights to “The Sound of Freedom” movie which exposes the horrors of child sex trafficking, but instead of showing the movie they tried to bury it! Then, Disney eventually allowed the filmmakers to buy back the distribution rights of the film – which is nothing short of diabolical, considering that the ‘Sound of Freedom’ is not some princess film: it is a film that not only exposes the ills of child sex trafficking, but was produced with aim to encourage society to be vigilant against this problem, which really would have been a great narrative to inject into American society considering that America is reported to be the highest consumer of child pornography (while kMexico is the the largest supplier), AND also considering that there were over 300,000 children who went missing during the Biden Harris administration, which is when ‘Sound of Freedom’ was released!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso