I was reminded today of a post I started in November of 2025 (?!) but postponed because of news developments surrounding it: Netflix’s attempted acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD). That didn’t go through, of course. Paramount, whose owners are among those billionaires fellating the tRump administration “won” the prize in February.
And what a prize it was: the stock, after the-back-and-forth bidding, was completely overvalued, therefore saddling its new owners with debt—who also had to pay Netflix a $2.8 billion “breakup fee” to void the deal Netflix inked with WBD back in December. Netflix was happy to take the severance check as it became clear that Paramount’s owner, David Ellison (and his dad, Oracle’s founder Larry, who has the real money) wanted WBD like a child wants sugar and would pay a ridiculous sum. (*Read a summary of that action below the end of this article.)
In addition, it’s not like anything else has happened since the start of the new year that might make me forget about a blog post regarding something that, in our daily life in Minnesota, was inconsequential. And then Iran happened.
But I digress.
Oh. What reminded me of the post stuck in my drafts folder: the news that Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings announced last week that he was stepping down from Netflix’s board of directors after 30 years with the company.
Also, Netflix is expanding its podcast lineup (video podcast, of course), to include big names like Brian Williams and other popular hosts that someone who is not me would know.
My initial post was about Netflix’s partnership with Spotify, announced in October 2025, to bring video podcasting to the streaming network, which I had read about in the New York Times back in October. At the time, I gave a shrug and moved on, unsurprised but slightly depressed.
We hear the line uttered by the hosts of most of our favorite podcasts these days: “Be sure to follow us on YouTube.”
I don’t. Personally, I find “watching” a podcast among the more egregious time-wasting activities. It’s mostly podcasters’ afterthought of trying to capitalize on YouTube’s seemingly endless user growth, and often their production values match that effort—yammering heads squeezed like soft cantaloupes into unflattering headphones. The joy of the podcast, in my traditionalist mind, is that of radio: plug in your headphones or earbuds of choice and go about your walk, home-improvement project or long drive (sans the earbuds, people!) and listen.
It depressed me also because of recent moves by cable news networks to add content that, production-wise, is little more than a Zoom meeting. The BBC, for example. I’ve watched recent programs on media, tech and AI that, while an interesting discussion, annoyed me, perhaps because I’d already endured two Zoom meetings during the day and had enough with shitty sound quality and video dependent on the investment of the person in their home studio (read, kitchen or closet-sized office). When I turn on my flatscreen TV, I’m doing it because I want to see certain production values to be met.
I understand these moves, of course. Cable news is hemorrhaging viewers and revenue, and networks need to figure out how to produce engaging content that meets viewers where they are (generationally, increasingly on their smartphones). They need to figure out how to produce that content efficiently—meaning, fewer studio technicians. And, frankly, with that explosive growth of YouTube, most consumers watching content on phones and tablets are less concerned that the host of whatever show is primped to the max and lighted perfectly. Throw on top of that TikTok and Meta’s Reels and user-generated content is fast overtaking (if it hasn’t already) anything studio-produced for consumers.
So. Podcasts, which brought back the romance of radio, are now the savior of the visual medium? By being sort of a hybrid? I pondered. I remained queasy, given the bits I’ve seen (research, y’know). I also read a piece in the Guardian which backed up my thesis—and then some, as many podcasters turn to video (and vloggers adding a podcast) completely forget or neglect the audio medium and supply a miserable listening experience for the podcast listener—namely, verbal description goes out the window.
Still, Netflix, whether you think they are becoming a media monopoly or not, does exercise quality control. Thus, if that extends to the video podcast genre, it could work.
Among my favorite late-night shows was Charlie Rose. I began watching in college (right when he started, in 1991), and the one-hour, long-form interview show was part of my nightly routine until Rose was cancelled (pun intended, but not without some discomfort as I admired his journalistic standards and expertise) in 2017. Whatever one’s current view of him, he was a great interviewer.
Please read on, to absorb my point. Rose’s lineup of guests was easily the most diverse at the time, and would still rank currently. World leaders, artists of all genres, sports heroes, philosophers, journalists—all of them, well known or not, appeared on his show. It was the simplest of setups: Rose and the guest, sitting at a round wooden table surrounded by a dark background, for an hour. The format, minimalist but comfortable, for that length, allowed Rose to strip away generalities and PR-coached responses. That basic format allowed for its own drama—when he’d pin down a politician making absurd statements, for example. Or, conversely, seeing guest known for their reticence suddenly open up and reveal hidden qualities—laugh, even.
My point: What was the Charlie Rose show but a video podcast? Not much crew required to produce it. The bulk of the budget was for research and fact-checkers and occasional travel for interviews.
As I pondered this, I was reminded of a podcast episode of Pivot back in November or December. Pivot is hosted by Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway; you can look up their particulars, but their combined knowledge of tech and business makes for a good combination in this era of AI dominance in our cultural discourse and surging stock markets. (I’ve never watched the show on YouTube, and probably never will.) In that episode, Galloway described the Netflix/Spotify deal as Netflix’s recognition that it’s not other streaming services that are its true competition, but YouTube.
Netflix and YouTube are the two largest video services—according to the New York Times, they accounted for 20 percent of all TV viewing during May of 2025. But, 12.5 percent of those viewers were on YouTube. Another item to consider: in 2020, Netflix had about 36,000 hours of content. One can assume they have more now, but when several sources report that more than 500 hours of content is uploaded every minute to YouTube, Netflix’s actions of late (including live productions like John Mulaney’s “Everybody’s Live” and NFL games) look like a company that understands what’s going on with within the landscape, and is wisely countering.
With this step to broadcast podcasting, will Netflix hold the podcasters to any standards, or is this just an audience-capture strategy that will lead to the “enshitification” of yet another media platform?
One has reason to hope not, as Netflix still generates high-quality, award-winning original content in series form and full-length movies. But, given the track record of social media companies, where profits rise with growth while the platforms get worse, one understands some skepticism. Will increased viewership become more important than holding podcasters accountable for false and/or inflammatory information? Spotify’s record is lousy on that front, and it’s all too easy for corporate raiders to hide within a “free speech” sandwich board—especially now, with a presidential administration looking to punish any media it views as critical to its unhinged agenda.
It’s a spongy problem. The wonder of podcasts (I’m including the ones for eyeballs, too) is literally anyone with a smartphone can produce one. Monotony abounds, but also creativity, and, with the best podcasts (no matter the genre), expertise and worthy insight. But, like social media influencers, there are podcasters who knowingly build an audience spreading misinformation, lies and rage. Combine that with a social media account and its built-in algorithm to elevate that rage-y content, and, well, garbage in, garbage out for the podcast streaming platform, too.
Netflix might be a good platform, however, with its reach and power, to correct some of this simply because it’s not doing this deal out of desperation. It can select already established and reputable podcasts that meet a whatever standard they want. Netflix (I assume) will also allow for looser language restrictions, one would think, so as not to change a podcasts’ rhythm. (I’m thinking of “The Move,” a cycling podcast hosted by Lance Armstrong—who is also not without controversy—and other professional cycling guests. It’s fun to listen to because of the friendly (and occasionally profane) banter between Armstrong and his longtime friend and former teammate, George Hincapie as they break down every stage of the Tour De France post-race—and, obviously, they are not without expertise. Peacock (owned by NBC/Universal) gave them a livestream this past season for the duration of Le Tour, and the dynamic changed—Armstrong noted it himself occasionally during the broadcasts. It will be interesting to see if they return to their audio-only format.
But back to the original thesis. My initial great sigh of resignation at the thought of broadcast podcasts on Netflix has been replaced with a curiosity. “Charlie Rose,” which aired on PBS, worked for decades—as a video podcast, sans the ubiquitous podcast boom microphones and headphones. There are other examples, of course, of great interview or comedy shows from both radio and television that could fit in this new space, and provide a guide for these new entries.
• • •
*A summary of the drama: WBD’s board accepted an $82.7 billion offer from Netflix in December, 2025 (that worked out to $27.75 per Warner Bros. Discovery share, for which Netflix offered $23.25 in cash and $4.50 in Netflix stock to each shareholder). Netflix was primarily interested in Warner Bros. and its content, and would have sold off the networks like CNN and others. Those in media and entertainment thought this was the better deal (despite creating a streaming behemoth), for preserving “studio” values regarding content creation—i.e., continuing to hire writers, directors, set designers, and all the stuff that makes good movies and TV.
David Ellison, with his dad’s money, had recently purchased Paramount (see the Steven Colbert drama). He also had his eye on WBD, and embarked on a hostile takeover by appealing directly to WBD shareholders after Netflix’s bid was approved. (There is a timeframe and clauses in purchase agreements to entertain counter offers.)
Ellison jumped in with a ridiculous bid at the start: $30 per share ($108.4 billion). Netflix didn’t counter, really, other than to remind the WBD board and shareholders that they will be getting cash from them, not promissory notes, billion of dollars in help from the Saudis and possibly Jared Kushner money. Ultimately, because the Netflix gang does math, and while they have piles of cash, know a big anchor when they see one. Further, they saw that Ellison was deep into tRump’s pants and the President’s lackey at the FCC, Brendan Carr, has ultimate approval of these big M&As. There was a greater than 50/50 chance they wouldn’t have been approved at the outset. Besides, they didn’t really “need” WBD. It just would have been nice to have all that Oscar winning content (Sinners and One Battle After Another for starters, in 2025) and all things Harry Potter (the movies, not the books’ author).
So, Paramount’s eventual winning bid in Feb. 2026: $111 billion, including $24 billion from the Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (the same fund threatening to pull out of LIV Golf because of cash problems) or, $31 per share. The thought is, with the massive debt load, they will start cutting costs quickly on the studio side of things, replacing as much as possible with AI tech from Larry Ellison’s Oracle. Also, it appears there will be a vibe shift at CNN to mirror the news room at Paramount’s other media entity, CBS News—more tRump friendly.
There has been considerable backlash.