Mass layoffs loom at CNN as insiders reveal prominent figures at risk
Warner Bros. Discovery's shock split into two distinctive companies is a sign the jobs and hefty salaries of CNN's top talent are on the line, media insiders warn. The media giant announced last week it will halve into two publicly traded entities — Streaming & Studios and Global Networks — by mid-2026. Streaming & Studios' domain will be Warner Bros. Television, Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group, DC Studios, HBO, and HBO Max.
This dramatic move could be detrimental to CNN, which is already grappling with plummeting ratings. 'Inevitably, Gunnar will look at CNN and decide he can maintain relatively similar profits at a mere fraction of the cost,' Dylan Byers, a former CNN reporter who now works for Puck, wrote in an opinion piece. 'This will have perceptible ramifications on the talent side. Why, for instance, would Gunnar pay Anderson Cooper (Pictured) $18 million a year when Kaitlan Collins draws the same ratings at roughly a fifth of the salary?'
An anonymous source familiar with the state of the left-leaning news network spoke with Fox News, reiterating there are 'tears on the horizon.' They believe 'bean counter' Wiedenfels will go after high-salaried stars, going against the precedent set by former CNN boss Jeff Zucker, who was forced out before the 2022 merger. 'It's not just the overpriced talent. It's the overpriced producers. The overpriced executives. The superfluous reporters who barely are on the air,' the source said. 'All will either be exited or forced to take massive pay cuts.'
Zucker was allegedly known for overpaying talent to keep them loyal to him, Fox reported. The result - CNN's first and second-tier talent now earn roughly five times what they are worth, the insider alleged. While Cooper earns an estimated $18 million every year, Jake Tapper (Pictured), who hosts The Lead with Jake Tapper, brings in roughly $7 million a year.
CNN veteran Wolf Blitzer's salary is about $15 million and Chris Wallace's is approximately $8 million. Collins (pictured) earns about $3 million as a primetime anchor. In May, CNN had its second-worst month in its history in the essential 25 to 54-year-old age group in both daytime and primetime viewership, Fox reported. Since last year, the network ratings declined in all categories - and the matter may only get worse, experts believe.
Over the upcoming year, Kagan, a research unit of S&P Global Market Intelligence, estimated CNN will lose subscribers and revenue despite the strategic split. Revenue is expected to plummet by $499.2 million, Variety reported. The insider source said the soon-to-be Global Networks CEO could slash CNN's costs by 50 to 60 percent with no impact on revenue or ratings. They believe Wiedenfels could 'start by making 70 percent cuts to all show teams for CNN US, bringing their staffing in line with that of their competition,' before slashing talent salaries. 'But it will be most devastating for the rank and file. With no union protections, there will be massive layoffs and those remaining will be asked to do the work of their departed colleagues,' they explained. Although no layoffs or budget cuts have been set in stone, uncertainty looms among CNN staffers.
Byers told Fox he has 'received a deluge of text messages from addled employees at CNN' asking what the WBD split means for their futures. Despite skepticism, WBD higher-ups believe dividing into two companies is the best possible move. 'By operating as two distinct and optimized companies in the future, we are empowering these iconic brands with the sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today's evolving media landscape,' Zaslav (pictured) said.
Wiedenfels agreed this is a strategic move that will strength the 'specific financial profiles' of each company. 'At Global Networks, we will focus on further identifying innovative ways to work with distribution partners to create value for both linear and streaming viewers globally while maximizing our network assets and driving free cash flow,' he asserted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
My phone has been feeding me footage of Steve Carell in a suspicious way. And I couldn't be happier
On Tuesday this week, my Instagram feed started throwing me footage of the comedian Steve Carell dancing round a stadium in a billowing purple gown. On closer inspection, it turned out that Steve Carell had been giving the commencement address to graduating students of Northwestern University, Illinois, where one of his children is a student, another is a graduate and Steve Carell himself was receiving an honorary doctorate. As a youngster, he attended a summer school at Northwestern, which he credits with sparking his interest in improvisational comedy; he then moved to Chicago to perform at its illustrious Second City club, beginning a career so successful that he now stars in TV series and films where he doesn't even have to be funny. Imagine how easy that must be! Although he's usually funny anyway. At the graduation ceremony, he gave a keynote speech about the importance of kindness – or, as he defines it, 'basic human decency' – before breaking into a dance routine across the stage and out into the crowd. But why did my Instagram feed think I would want to see this? The previous day, I'd been talking about how I'm a massive fan of Steve Carell – did it know? I don't mean that I'd been texting or WhatsApping about it from my mobile phone, never mind posting on Insta itself (which I never do, because I've forgotten my password so can't get in; my profile is frozen to a handful of half-amusing old photos which are going to look so damn pitiful when I'm dead), I mean I'd been talking out loud. To a friend. In a room. Was my phone eavesdropping? I've also been watching a new Netflix series called The Four Seasons, featuring Steve Carell, which dropped in May. Is my Instagram aware of that? It shouldn't be! Dinosaur that I am, I watch TV on a TV. Not a phone. I don't have Instagram on the TV. I'm never logged on to Instagram and Netflix at the same time. Do you have these worries? Do you wonder why you've been sent certain adverts or messages, and what, in your house, is listening closely to everything you're saying? (God knows it's not your husband.) I don't worry too much. I suspect we don't yet need to be too intimidated by the idea of 'smart appliances'. We're told that AI is about to phase out human endeavour entirely, but my laptop can't even find my printer. Are these gadgets really ready to take over the world? My mobile doesn't work in the kitchen! Perhaps this eruption of Steve Carell dancing on my phone is evidence of sinister controlling influences at work. If so, THE JOKE'S ON INSTAGRAM because I enjoyed the footage! I love Steve Carell! I'd watch him do anything! The Four Seasons is an eight-part TV adaptation of Alan Alda's 1981 film of the same name, about a group of college friends who meet for regular holidays. In the first episode, one of the friends (Steve Carell) confides that he's planning to leave his wife, while his wife (Kerri Kenney-Silver) reveals that she's planning a surprise vow renewal to mark their 25th wedding anniversary. And we watch the fallout from there. So it's a copy of an old film, it's broken into a simplistic four-season structure and it hasn't been tremendously well received (60 per cent on the 'popcornometer' at Rotten Tomatoes, a review site I find reliable and trustworthy). And yet I loved it, I loved it. I watched it quickly, one episode at a time but near-nightly over a fortnight, and looked forward with such delight to each evening's instalment. You know the kind of show where you plan your dinner with a bit of celebratory flair, to go with the programme? It was like that. I remember popping to the butcher's for a rack of lamb to accompany episode seven (roasted pink with a garlic and rosemary crumb, Greek salad on the side: perfect for the hot weather) and thinking, 'This is like lockdown all over again.' A lot of the joy is down to the performers. I was familiar with only three of them in advance, but those three were Steve Carell, Tina Fey and (in a cameo) Alan Alda. I could probably come up with 10 actors currently alive whom I'd find equally likeable and watchable as those three, but maybe none that I find more so. The sheer pleasure of slipping into these people's company bought enough time to get used to the ones who were unknown to me and, by the end, I loved them all. If you're happily married, as I think I am, there's additional glee in being reminded how awful divorce must be. If your marriage is wobbly, this might buy you a few more years together, as the view from the parapet is not a pretty one. Steve Carell's character is besotted with his new young girlfriend, but he's required to go skiing with her mindless young chums, can't mention Woody Allen for fear of offence, and has to eat vegan paella. I watched the programme with an anonymous media source whose mind I wouldn't seek to read but, if I did, I would bet that the whole thing acted as a salutary reminder to eat your rack of lamb and be grateful for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch, even a vegan one; as Tina Fey observes, 'Even in a throuple, somebody's got to clean the air fryer.' I can't read your mind either, and I'm probably not even as smart as a smartphone, but I enjoyed this series as much as anything I've seen all year.
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump attack on Left-wing bias on TV sparks ‘constitutional crisis'
Elon Musk may have stepped aside, but Donald Trump still has a Doge problem. The US president's plan to run a scythe through up to $425bn (£316bn) of government spending could be gutted or even vetoed in the Senate, where just a few rebel Republicans could scupper the cuts. But Trump and Russell Vought, his budget tsar, have hatched a scheme, called a 'pocket rescission', that might keep the Doge (department of government efficiency) dream on track. And it could even shift the constitutional balance of power between president and Congress towards a testy Trump. It's a high-risk, high-stakes strategy. The outcome will determine whether the Doge spending reductions can go ahead, helping to pay for Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax cuts without blowing out the budget and rattling the bond markets. But the unprecedented procedure takes the White House and Capitol Hill into uncharted legal waters. So it is likely to end up in the courts – joining a raft of litigation that will either reinforce the institutional checks on the president's power or unleash him. 'It's a challenge to Congress,' says Sarah Binder, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution and George Washington University. 'I don't like to throw around the term 'constitutional crisis', but it's not a great position for lawmakers and institutions.' Under the constitution, Congress has the so-called power of the purse, meaning that lawmakers, not the president, are the final arbiter of what the government spends or does not spend. If the president wants to cut funding or programmes that Congress has already authorised, his only option is to launch a rescission procedure – a formal request for the cuts, which both houses of Congress must approve. The rescission process was introduced in a law called the Impoundment Control Act, which had the overall aim of making it hard for Richard Nixon, the then-president, and his successors from delaying or withholding funds once Congress had green-lighted them. Rescission has seldom been used. Ronald Reagan used it to secure $15.2bn of spending cuts as president in the early 1980s, but later in the decade, Congress tended to ignore or refuse his rescission messages. Trump tried it on with a $15bn-plus request in his first term, but was stymied in the Senate. The Democrats then got control of Congress in the midterms and pushed back another $27bn salvo. Now Trump is trying again. The initial proposal – Vought says it will be 'the first of many' – is to scuttle $9.4bn of spending on public broadcasters and international aid programmes. This rescission was flagged back in March but formally put to Congress only this month. In an executive order early last month, Trump said he wanted to terminate all public funding of National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which accounts for about $1bn of this first rescission package. 'Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens,' Trump said. 'Today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' The White House has until July 18 to persuade Congress. The rescission scraped through the House of Representatives by 214 votes to 212, but the Senate is the real test. If just four Republicans in the 100-seat upper house swap sides, the spending stays in place. It's not looking promising for Trump. Several Republicans have already voiced concern about at least some of the cuts. The dissenters include Senator Susan Collins, who chairs an influential Senate finance committee that will consider the cuts at a session on June 25. There could be fireworks. Vought will appear before the committee and, in recent weeks, he has started airing the possibility of bypassing Congress altogether through an untested and almost unknown variant of rescission: the so-called pocket rescission. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used, but it is there,' Vought told CNN. 'And we intend to use all of these tools.' The trick with the pocket rescission is to make the request to Congress right before the end of the fiscal year, which runs to Sept 30. The White House reckons that the Impoundment Control Act's wording creates a loophole: if Congress does not act on the request before Sept 30, then even if the window is well short of 45 days the spending approval will lapse automatically on that date. The case for pocket rescissions was made recently by Wade Miller, of the Center for Renewing America (CRA), a Right-wing think tank. 'A rescission is a viable tool for carrying out the broader political mandate to curb unnecessary spending,' he wrote in a briefing paper. 'If the executive branch decides to use this process, the deployment of a rescission with fewer than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year is a statutorily and constitutionally valid strategy.' The CRA was set up by Vought himself, after he served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the final six months of Trump's first term. He returned to the White House with the president this January, in the same role. But other Washington think tanks trenchantly oppose the CRA's position. 'Calling it a pocket rescission implies that it's like an actual functional tool under the law, in a way that it's actually not. It is a strategy that the person who is running the Office of Management and Budget has articulated to evade the law,' says Cerin Lindgrensavage, a lawyer at Protect Democracy. She says the whole purpose of the Impoundment Control Act was to stop any presidential ploy to skirt its strictures. 'One of the reasons why they might want to do this is because they're afraid they don't have the votes to actually make the cuts the legal way.' Binder, from Brookings, says that the Act doesn't explicitly deal with what happens if a president makes the request right before the end of the fiscal year. 'There's certainly room here for an aggressive Office of Management and Budget and an aggressive administration to try to stretch – others might say manipulate – the silence in the budget law,' she says. 'But the logic of the matter suggests that pocket rescissions are not legal under the Act and I would imagine there's a strong argument that they are unconstitutional under Congress's power of the purse.' Binder suspects Vought is looking to get a test case into the courts. Given there could be a constitutional principle at stake, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, where a majority of judges are Republican appointees. In the meantime, litigants could get restraining orders or injunctions to prevent the Doge cuts. But they can't necessarily get the White House to respect these. The stage is set for a constitutional showdown. The question is whether Trump and Vought will really pull the trigger. And then, whether the weapon will actually work.
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Six great reads: tradwives v radwives, hollowed-out London and the last musical genius?
'Like many people, reaching the age of 40 inspired Matt to do some self-reflection. He had achieved many hallmarks of adulthood: a college degree, a career he enjoyed, and two beloved dogs. But he'd never had a relationship, or even a sexual partner.' Scores of Christian men in the United States have been raised on ideas of abstinence and 'purity' – what, asked Jessica Bateman, does that mean for their sex lives later on? Read more The Prince Charles Cinema is beloved by film-lovers and counts the like of Christopher Nolan as a fan. But its future is at risk due to a David v Goliath battle with its billionaire owner. Writes Will Coldwell: 'To many, what was happening to the Prince Charles Cinema was about something bigger than a negotiation over rent. It was about the persistent threat of closure that so many cultural and community spaces in London face, the impact of rampant commercialism on the city's cultural diversity, and the seemingly unchecked power that developers wield.' Read more In pop, which equates genius with innovation, recent artists have not pioneered new forms like those from the 60s. Has, asks Rachel Areosti, the digital age sidelined invention and promoted the derivative for ever? Read more 'Height is often seen as a dealbreaker when it comes to romance, particularly within heterosexual relationships. But when Tinder recently said that it was trialling a feature that allows some premium users to filter potential matches by height, it quickly proved controversial. 'Oh God. They added a height filter,' lamented one Reddit thread, while an X user claimed: 'It's over for short men.'' What is behind the '6ft fixation' in dating – and could it be scuppering the chance of true connection? Leah Harper set out to find out. Read more Slick Rick, writes Alexis Petridis, 'remains the rapper's rapper, the most-sampled hip-hop artist in history'. In this brilliant interview the British-born artists explains why it's been more than quarter of a century since his last album and why he was inspired by the production techniques of Alvin and the Chipmunks. Read more 'For the uninitiated: the tradwife is a married woman, usually conservative and/or Christian, usually white (though not always), of the belief that her place is in the home. She is feminine, usually kempt, often dressed like Betty Draper, but increasingly workout gear in neutral tones too. Though at home, she is not a stay-at-home mother, rather someone who performs as if she is, documenting her life in dizzying, up-close fashion for us to wonder: who's doing the potty training?' Morwenna Ferrier isn't, she writes, the first wrung-out mother to take umbrage with this sort of performance. But, as the cost of living crisis squeezes, the fantasy of escaping into being a wife and mother becomes more vivid and, for realistic mothers whose life is a delicate balance between task and failure, app-reliance and guilt, maybe we should lean in to the term 'radwife'. Read more
