Resistance from left-leaning circles is mounting against the proposed merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery, with California, perhaps predictably, taking a leading role in opposing the deal.

Last year, Americans observed Netflix as it circled around the struggling Warner Bros. Discovery, watching with curiosity rather than concern. Meanwhile, Hollywood speculated whether the streaming giant would transform the iconic studio into a mere content factory.

This speculation didn’t prompt political intervention at the time, but as the merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery nears conclusion, the political stakes have been raised.

And politics, particularly of a partisan nature, is at the heart of this confrontation.

In an unfolding drama earlier this year, Democratic Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar urged Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison to preserve documents related to the merger, as well as any connections to the Trump administration.

More recently, Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal, and Adam Schiff brought up “national security risks” tied to the deal’s fiscal connections with Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi.

Now, 12 Democratic attorneys general are rolling up their sleeves, filing suit to stop the $110 billion merger between the Hollywood parties, with California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta as the tip of the legal spear.

Bonta warned of dystopian results that would impact “audiences on every sofa and movie theater seat in the U.S.”

But the main threat is that Paramount Skydance’s CEO, David Ellison, is viewed as a FOT – friend of Trump. Larry Ellison, the CEO’s father, has contribued to President Donald Trump’s political campaigns, starting in 2016.

Paramount Skydance also helped bring the pro-American “Top Gun: Maverick” to theaters in 2022. That, in turn, suggests the newly formed merger might tweak Hollywood programming to placate Red State USA.

Imagine one major movie studio reaching out to the half of the country that fellow studios either ignore, disdain, or mock.

The cultural fear spreads beyond the cineplex. 

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

Paramount already flexed its editorial might over at CBS, courtesy of the new news sheriff, Bari Weiss. Under her rule, CBS covered fraud abuses the other, left-leaning programs downplayed. She also rattled the cages at “60 Minutes,” leading to veteran reporter Scott Pelley’s noisy dismissal.

Weiss could also take control of CNN. Picture a Weiss-ified CNN where Scott Jennings isn’t the only conservative on any given panel. Or a “Reliable Sources” segment tackling PBS’s extreme liberal bias, not the latest Fox News diatribe.

Losing CNN as a progressive mouthpiece, despite its ratings droop, would hurt the left.

Does that explain the zeal behind the new antitrust suit, not to mention the partisan nature of the merger attacks? Is this Trump Derangement Syndrome of the highest order?

Hollywood’s liberal elite have the Democrats’ back on the matter. In April, Ben Stiller, Rose Byrne, Javier Bardem and Emma Thompson, among others, signed an open letter skewering the deal.

“This transaction would further consolidate an already concentrated media landscape, reducing competition at a moment when our industries — and the audiences we serve — can least afford it,” they claimed.

Much of the fuss appears to be an effort to use the deal as an election year cudgel. It’s also a way to stop a more politcally-balanced movie studio and news apparatus from entering the chat.

Any time the left’s cultural dominance is threatened, the reaction is swift and punitive. Right-leaning movies get pummeled by movie critics, who lean aggressively to the left.

The 2024 movie “Reagan” earned a withering 17 percent “rotten” rating at RottenTomatoes.com, while general audiences gave it a 98 percent “fresh” score.

Bonta’s lawsuit says competition would be crushed by the merger. That might have once been the case, but the digital landscape is vastly different today. Newer platforms like YouTube now dominate the culture, while film and TV production are fleeing L.A. for redder states.

It’s more likely that Bonta and Co. fear a mega-studio that doesn’t genuflect to the left’s messaging machine.

That’s why this fight could get even uglier.

Christian Toto is the founder of Hollywood in Toto and host of The Hollywood in Toto podcast.

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Lindsey Graham’s sister, Darline Graham Nordone, has been appointed as the interim U.S. Senator, taking over the seat of her late brother.

Speaking at a Statehouse news conference on Monday, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster announced Nordone’s appointment. She will fulfill the remainder of Graham’s term, which is set to conclude in January. According to an insider who requested anonymity due to lack of authorization to comment, Nordone is expected to be sworn in on Wednesday, marking a historic moment as the first woman to represent South Carolina in the Senate.

“It’s a tremendous honor,” Nordone expressed. “Lindsey has always supported me. Now, it’s my turn to support him.”

The political landscape of South Carolina is in mourning following the passing of Graham, who died at age 71 this past weekend. Without a spouse or children, Graham’s most steadfast companion throughout his political journey was his sister, Nordone. She frequently joined him at significant events and even featured in some of his campaign advertisements.

Nordone’s bond with her brother deepened after their parents’ untimely deaths, when Graham stepped up as her guardian. Their relationship was a constant throughout his career, and she stood beside him as he filed for reelection earlier this year, accompanied by her children and grandchildren.

A special election will be held next month to pick a new Republican nominee in the general election for Graham’s seat. He had been seeking a fifth term this year.

The rare open Senate seat has ignited a scramble among South Carolina’s most ambitious conservatives, who have been eager to climb the political ladder.

Republicans just finished a sprawling and bruising contest to figure out their nominee for succeeding McMaster, who is wrapping up his second term. State Attorney General Alan Wilson won the nomination, overcoming a field that included Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, Rep. Nancy Mace and Ralph Norman – all of whom are now eyeing Graham’s seat following his death over the weekend.

How will a special primary work?

According to South Carolina law, a one-week filing period for a special primary election begins on the second Tuesday after the candidate’s death, or July 21.

The special primary election would be held on the second Tuesday after that filing period closes, or Aug. 11. Any necessary runoff would follow two weeks after that, or Aug. 25.

From that point, the new nominee would have just over two months to campaign for the general election on Nov. 3.

All of this is problematic according to federal law, which requires military and overseas ballots to go out 45 days before any federal election. For the special election primary, that would have been June 27. Federal Election Commission officials didn’t immediately return a message seeking clarity about the process.

Who could replace Graham?

Graham died on Saturday night, and a preliminary medical examiner report said he suffered a tear in his aorta, known as an aortic dissection.

In the hours after Graham’s death was announced, South Carolina’s Republican circles were already swirling with rumors about possible replacements. Given the proximity of November’s election, it’s likely that whomever McMaster appoints could be a top contender in the special primary, although it’s possible that McMaster’s choice will only serve as a temporary caretaker.

Evette, who has served nearly eight years alongside McMaster and received his endorsement in the governor’s race, is one possibility. She lost the June 23 runoff to Wilson.

A person with knowledge of Evette’s thinking but not authorized to discuss it publicly said that she was getting encouragement from across the state and feels she would have good chances in the special primary.

It’s unlikely that any House member would be appointed to finish Graham’s current term, since Republicans have such a slim majority in the chamber.

U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, a rumored replacement, said he assured Trump on Sunday that “my goal is to remain in the House to keep his two-vote majority for the American people!!!”

However, that doesn’t mean that House members won’t run for the next full term. A person with knowledge of Mace’s thinking but not authorized to speak about it publicly said she was considering the race. Mace is not running for reelection to the House.

But another Republican from the state, Rep. Russell Fry, could be a possibility. The two-term lawmaker represents the growing area around Myrtle Beach, and he’s been a top Trump ally.

Businessman Mark Lynch, whom Graham defeated in the primary, could also jump into the race. A person familiar with but not authorized to speak publicly about the thinking of Mark Sanford – South Carolina’s former governor who also served two separate stints in the U.S. House – said he was considering it, too.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who lived in South Carolina before joining the Trump administration, has fielded calls about potentially replacing Graham but doesn’t have interest in the role and enjoys working for the president, according to a person who insisted on anonymity to describe private conversations.

How does Graham’s death affect the general election?

No Democrat has won a Senate seat in South Carolina in decades, and Republicans in recent history typically take statewide seats by double digits. When he last ran in 2020, Graham defeated his Democratic opponent, Jaime Harrison, by a 10 percentage point margin.

So while history suggests that Graham was en route to a fifth term, Republicans are carefully surveying the landscape.

Charleston pediatrician Annie Andrews won the Democratic nomination last month and has raised more than $8 million in the race, and she had just under $3 million cash on hand at the end of May, according to federal filings. Graham had taken in $6 million, with just over $4 million on hand.

In a statement Sunday, Andrews called on South Carolinians to join her “in setting partisanship aside and offering gratitude” to Graham for his service.

Harrison, noting that he and Graham “had our share of political disagreements,” wrote on social media that he “always appreciated that even in our fiercest political battles, we could still share a conversation, a laugh, and a mutual respect for South Carolina and the institutions we were both privileged to serve.”

What happens to South Carolina’s Republican clout?

Graham leaves a major void in the Senate, where seniority can determine influence. He served more than two decades in the chamber, positioning himself to lead committees and set the agenda.

Scott, South Carolina’s junior senator, has been in office only since 2012 – short by the state’s standards. Fritz Hollings served for 38 years, and Strom Thurmond was there for 47.

Scott, who co-chaired Graham’s reelection effort, described his former colleague as “irreplaceable.”

“America lost a statesman, but I lost a friend,” he told ABC’s “This Week.”

___

Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein in Washington contributed to this report.

___

Kinnard reported from Charleston, South Carolina, and can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP.

An eminent Black historian is at the center of a controversy after asserting that academic critiques of her work on slavery stem from racial bias. This follows her loss of a tenured professorship, attributed to claims that her book contained numerous inaccuracies.

Kerri Greenidge released her book ‘The Grimkes’ in 2022 to considerable acclaim, as she explored the history of a slave-owning family from South Carolina. Her insightful narrative initially won her several accolades.

Though the book initially drew attention to the Grimke sisters, Angelina and Sarah, who were known for abandoning their plantation to advocate for abolition, Greenidge aimed to highlight the lives of the enslaved individuals connected to their family.

Despite the initial praise and honors Greenidge received for her publication, a number of fellow historians later expressed doubts regarding some of the assertions presented within the pages.

Myra C. Glenn, a historian who previously taught American history at Elmira College, confided to the New York Times that her first reaction upon reading Greenidge’s book was to question the sources of the author’s claims.

Glenn then wrote in a review published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2023 that The Grimkes was a ‘deeply flawed book’, and said Greenidge ‘lacks the evidence to substantiate many of her major claims.’

‘Her work is also riddled with factual errors and repeatedly omits needed endnotes,’ Glenn wrote. 

In response to the scrutiny, Greenidge told the Times that she believes the backlash was rooted in racism, saying: ‘The attack on Black women academics is real.’ 

After scrutiny on Greenidge’s work captured headlines, she lost her position as a tenured associate professor in the Department of Studies in Race, Colonialism, and Diaspora at Tufts University.

Greenidge said she felt she has never been accepted by the academic community and feels her life’s work has consistently been criticized by white scholars. 

‘I am heartbroken that a field I have given my life to can treat me this way,’ she said. 

In Glenn’s review of the book, she questioned Greenidge’s citation of letters between the Grimke sisters that were claimed to have been kept by the University of Michigan – but were actually found to not be in the college’s possession at all.

The reviewer also alleged that Greenidge distorted the story of a 1838 attack on Pennsylvania Hall in Philadelphia. 

Greenidge had claimed that the church was set upon by an anti-abolitionist mob, but the Grimke sisters ‘led thousands of antislavery women through prayer’ and allowed them to escape the ‘flaming building.’ 

In reality, Glenn said ‘numerous sources have documented no one was in the building when it was torched, since antislavery activists cancelled a scheduled meeting, fearing impending violence.’ 

Greenidge told the New York Times that she believes the criticism of her work was due to racism. 

Alongside losing her tenured position as a college professor, Greenidge also reportedly lost a book deal when scrutiny on her work was made public. 

Greenidge denied that she had stolen or made up parts of the history she wrote about.

‘I have never plagiarized anything in my life, I have never fabricated anything,’ she said. 

However, she admitted that some parts of her texts may have missed correct attributions, saying: ‘Are there citations that were misattributed? Probably.’ 

Following the criticisms of the book, publisher Liveright Publishing pulled the book from its website. The publisher, which is part of the W. W. Norton & Co. publishing house, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

When Greenidge left Tufts University, a spokesman told the Times that the college became aware that her renowned book ‘contained multiple errors of fact and failed to give appropriate credit to the work of another.’ 

The university said it became aware of the errors in December 2022, over a year before Glenn shared her scathing review. 

‘The university initiated a thorough peer review involving a panel of external scholars of American history which identified multiple errors of fact and citation,’ the Tufts spokesman said.

‘In keeping with its commitment to ethical conduct in research, the university proactively moved to correct the public record by informing publisher W.W. Norton of the peer review findings.’ 

In response to the university’s statement, Greenidge doubled down on her stance that she was being targeted because of racism. 

She said the university’s peer review panel had two senior historians who she believed were hostile toward Black women in academia, and that the review had been triggered by a complaint put forward by a white woman. 

She said she had sought a restraining order against that woman. 

The Daily Mail has attempted to contact Greenidge for comment.