• by Steven Rosenbaum , Featured Contributor, December 15, 2025

CNN is back in play, and almost immediately the conversation drifts toward two bad answers. Netflix doesn’t want live news, and CNN comes with daily political heat. Paramount doesn’t solve this, either. Folding CNN into CBS News would just accelerate the slide toward a muddled hybrid that conveniently has Team Trump on speed-dial. That’s not a strategy. It’s a slow collapse disguised as consolidation.

So, how about some new names? Here we go. The basics matter here, starting with price.

The realistic number is about $3 billion. That reflects a network with global reach, a still-powerful name, and shrinking linear revenue. CNN is no longer priced as a growth engine. It’s priced as a public-facing news institution with real costs, real obligations, and very little tolerance for owner drama. Plenty of people can afford it, but very few should own it.

Bloomberg Is the Cleanest Fit

Michael Bloomberg remains the cleanest fit from a capability standpoint. He can write the check without partners, leverage, or financial gymnastics, and Bloomberg LP already runs the kind of newsroom CNN needs to become: global, fast, deeply digital, and focused on accuracy over outrage, with live news, streaming, newsletters, audio, events, and a culture built around usefulness rather than performance.

CNN’s remaining strength is mass reach, those moments when something breaks and people still instinctively turn it on in airports and hotels. Bloomberg’s weakness has always been exactly that. Put the two together and you get scale plus authority, not a reinvention fantasy.

The complication, of course, is politics. Bloomberg is a public figure and major donor, and ownership would invite questions about influence no matter how real the firewalls were. Historically, he’s preferred owning the infrastructure rather than the loudest megaphone. Still, if the question is who could buy CNN without immediately distorting it, Bloomberg is at the top of a very short list.

SoftBank + Emerson Collective

Laurene Powell Jobs, founder of Emerson Collective, belongs in the same tier, though for different reasons. She treats journalism as civic infrastructure, not product, and she has the receipts. The Atlantic didn’t get louder or more chaotic under her ownership; it got healthier. Trust increased. The institution strengthened. Emerson Collective brings patient capital and a long view, which is exactly what CNN needs right now. Its decline is economic, not journalistic, and that’s a fixable problem if the owner is willing to think in years instead of quarters.

This is also where SoftBank quietly fits, not as a solo buyer but as a capital partner. SoftBank understands scale, infrastructure, and long-term bets, and it has shown a willingness to back foundational platforms rather than chase immediate returns. Paired with Emerson’s governance and editorial restraint, that kind of capital could help CNN rebuild its digital future without turning it into an entertainment product or a political weapon. It wouldn’t be fast, and it wouldn’t be flashy, but CNN doesn’t need drama. It needs stable ownership and a roadmap to build trust as a modern, digital platform. 

James Murdoch + Uday Shankar + Blackstone

The most interesting, non-obvious option is a James Murdoch, Uday Shankar, Blackstone consortium, particularly when CNN is sold as a carve-out.

Each piece solves a different problem. Murdoch brings credibility and a clear break from Fox’s editorial direction, which would be read as reform rather than continuation. He also understands cable news and is willing to absorb the political heat CNN ownership guarantees. Shankar is the operator, someone who has built and run massive media businesses under real pressure across news, sports, and streaming.

CNN doesn’t need another vision speech. It needs execution, discipline, and a digital strategy that actually ships. Blackstone brings the capital and deal mechanics, the ability to structure a complex transaction and close it quickly.

The risks here are obvious. The Murdoch name raises suspicion. Private equity triggers alarms. That means governance would have to be explicit and public from day one, with real editorial firewalls and no short-term flip narrative. If done right, though, this model separates trust, operations, and capital in a way few single buyers can.

Why Others Don't Work

Most of the other names don’t survive even a light look. The Associated Press is a membership cooperative without the mandate or the cash. Thomson Reuters is deliberately built for professional infrastructure, not mass-audience political conflict, and CNN would drag it straight into one. Hearst is a maybe, but a slow one, and CNN needs decisive ownership. The New York Times stays out for good reason. It has already won its lane, and CNN would add cost and confusion, not leverage.

CNN and the Streaming Question

CNN absolutely does need to change. Cable is declining, and everyone involved knows it. Subscriber revenue matters. Streaming matters. Advertising still matters, just in more targeted, accountable forms. CNN has to build modern digital businesses that people actually pay for and advertisers trust. That work is unavoidable.

What CNN does not need is an owner who treats that transition as a product pivot or a branding exercise. News doesn’t modernize by chasing the last platform trend or copying entertainment economics. It modernizes by earning daily utility, building viewer habits, and being worth paying for when the noise gets loud.

That’s why buying CNN isn’t a flex or a shortcut into relevance, but a long-term operating commitment. The next owner has to invest in subscribers, streaming, and digital ads while protecting the one asset CNN can’t replace: trust. Get that balance wrong and the modernization accelerates the decline. Get it right, and CNN can become something rarer than a legacy cable channel: a modern news institution that actually works.

That’s why the list of real buyers is short, and the timing is urgent. Having Warner Bros. Discovery lump CNN into old, declining cable channels seals its fate, at a time where we need more serious journalism, not less.