Paramount

===

CORP BAD ACTOR CBS SETTLE CANCEL COLBERT BRIBERY

ROLL BACK DEI

---

an 12 25

Donald Trump's Department of Justice is getting in on the push to force diversity programs out of American businesses with a "novel" interpretation of an 1863 fraud law, but an analysis from MS NOW found that this new "bullying" tactic amounts to "a complete waste of resources."

According to a recent report from the Wall Street Journal, the DOJ is now attempting to use the 1863 False Claims Act to go after companies that receive government money through federal contracts to make sure they do not have "diversity, equity and inclusion" programs in place. The report specifically singled out Verizon and Google's parent company, Alphabet, as some of the initial targets.

Trump issued an executive order in March calling for the end of all DEI initiatives in the federal government. His administration has also been aggressive in targeting such programs at private businesses with any means available to it, and major companies like Amazon, Target and Paramount opted to roll them back in response.

Examining the new legal tactic at the heart of this push, MS NOW's Hayes Brown explained that the False Claims Act was first introduced to take on defense contractors attempting to bilk the Union government for more money during the Civil War. Recently, it's mostly been used to go after healthcare companies suspected of overcharging the federal government.

This new intended use of the law by the Trump administration, holding companies liable and potentially leveling fines against them for having DEI programs in place while taking government money, would be a "novel" interpretation, Brown wrote, and one that "hasn’t been tested in court and could easily fall flat." Still, he argued, "the mere fact that DOJ is pursuing this route is chilling in and of itself."

Brown also noted that, by utilizing this novel approach to the False Claims Act, the Trump administration is shifting responsibility for its anti-DEI crusadeonto the DOJ from the department's civil rights division to its fraud division, which has been ordered to "aggressively" pursue the matter. Aside from being "clear politicization of the legal system," Brown also argued that it represents "a major waste of resources" for the DOJ, which has recently "been struggling with its workload" under Attorney General Pam Bondi's remaking of the department.

"Even if the cases go nowhere, or don’t result in charges, businesses with less money than Google may step up efforts to roll back their diversity programs," Brown concluded. "MAGA pours a lot of resources into achieving its goals, but it prefers that its targets for bullying comply in advance."

---

mma

### Sean Hannity dismisses Trump’s involvement in Kimmel suspension: “Trump was in England when all of this happened”

09/19/25 7:38 PM EDT

### Right-leaning podcasters of self-categorized nonpolitical shows are split over Jimmy Kimmel's suspension

09/19/25 6:43 PM EDT

### Fox News guest on Jimmy Kimmel: “It's an attack on the First Amendment for the FCC chairman to speak almost like a mafia boss”

09/19/25 5:09 PM EDT

### Steve Bannon: New Paramount boss David Ellison “should pull Colbert tonight from CBS for his arrogance and his hate”

09/19/25

===

an 925

After Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem complained that several minutes of her August 31 Face the Nation interview had been “shamefully edited…to whitewash the truth,” CBS News announced that its flagship Sunday morning program will no longer edit its interviews, except for “legal or national security” reasons.

According to AP, CBS said it had edited the interview, which ran 16 minutes and 40 seconds in its original form, for length, and posted the full interview on its website and YouTube. As the AP correctly noted, Noem “made a series of unproven accusations about Abrego Garcia” in the portion of the interview that was cut. This is a pattern of behavior by the administration with respect to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran refugeewho had been illegally deported to the CECOT concentration camp in his country of origin.

In the context of the recent capitulations by CBS News and its parent company Paramount in the face of Trump administration demands, the announcement is noteworthy—and dangerous.

Uneditable propaganda

As Varietysays, “Making decisions that seem to come in response to backlash from public officials is not seen as sound journalistic practice.”

IFrame Content

Writing for FAIR, Ari Paul noted in July (https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/cbs-news-face-the-nation-interviews-no-edits-backlash-1236509301/that, in order to facilitate a merger with Skydance,

Paramount has settled what is widely regarded as a frivolous lawsuit from President Donald Trump for $16 million over a CBS 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris; it has also canceled its highly successful and long-running Late Show With Stephen Colbert, whose host was critical of the settlement.

Varietyargued that CBS‘s promise not to edit Face the Nation‘s interviews, which overwhelmingly feature government officials,

is an unorthodox one, potentially leaving show moderators and producers unable to remove false statements or propaganda uttered by political operatives and officials and undermining the authority and credibility of Margaret Brennan, the moderator of the Sunday public affairs program.

An anonymous CBS source weakly protested to the AP that Face the Nation‘s Brennan would “still be able to factcheck or challenge claims made by interview subjects.” But corporate media outlets have never been good at stopping political figures from spewing propaganda (FAIR.org, 6/28/11, 6/26/24, 2/28/25, 7/31/25), particularly those from Trump and his minions, who produce falsehoods at such a rapid clip that it’s impossible to challenge each one. Now CBS will have even fewer tools to do so.

Installing a commissar

AP points out that Kenneth Weinstein will not actually be an ombud, i.e., a person who resolves complaints from the public; “Paramount said it does not envision Weinstein having any public-facing role.”

In yet another move to the right, days after its editing announcement, CBS News announced that, to fulfill part of its settlement with Trump, it would be appointing Kenneth R. Weinstein to serve as an ombud. In addition to being a prominent conservative—Weinstein previously headed the Hudson Institute for over a decade—the new appointee was nominated by Trump for ambassador to Japan in 2020 (though his nomination was never confirmed—Reuters,). Weinstein “will review editorial questions and concerns from outside entities and employees,” CBS said.

While FAIR has lamented the gradual disappearance of ombuds from major journalistic outlets over the years, and the loss of accountability to their audiences that that entails, it’s critical that ombuds be independent. Weinstein’s clear ideological tilt, his connection to the Trump administration and his position’s creation at the command of that administration stand as obvious obstacles to him performing any role but state censor.

FAIR also pointed out that Paramount was looking to give right-wing journalist and censorious “free speech” activist Bari Weiss a top role at CBS News. It has since been reported that the company is looking to buy her publication, the Free Press, for as much as $200 million.

---

mma

How CBS News’ Trumpy new ombudsman fits into the right's anti-media campaign

Written by Matt Gertz

Published 09/09/25

The new owners of CBS News announced Monday that they have selected Kenneth R. Weinstein — a Donald Trump supporter and right-wing think-tanker with no apparent newsroom experience who often criticizes the news media’s purported liberal bias — to scrutinize the network’s coverage as its ombudsman.

The position will allow Weinstein to serve as a conduit for the MAGA movement’s complaints about CBS News’ coverage and personnel, allowing Trumpist operatives and right-wing media to discipline the network’s journalists.

David Ellison’s Skydance Media promised to appoint a CBS News ombudsman as part of the shakedown Trump and his administration put it through in order to secure its acquisition of CBS parent company Paramount. When Brendan Carr, the Trumpist head of the Federal Communications Commission, finally blessed the Skydance deal in July, he touted its pledge to “root out the bias” at CBS News.

With Weinstein’s appointment, Trump and Carr are getting exactly what they wanted

A former chief executive of the right-wing Hudson Institute who Trump nominated to serve as ambassador to Japan in 2020, Weinstein is also a GOP partisan who “donated roughly $40,000 to Republican and pro-Trump political groups last year,” The New York Times reported. He has never worked in journalism, though he did serve on the Broadcasting Board of Governors in both the Obama and Trump administrations.

Weinstein’s recent commentary provides more reasons for concern, Oliver Darcy found when he reviewed it for his Status newsletter. Darcy reports that the former Trump appointee had “lavished Trump with praise” in a July column; “fiercely advocated for Trump to win reelection” during an October 2024 $_{panel}_$ ; and cheered Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch while issuing innumerable digs at “media elites” for their purported left-wing coverage.

The description of Weinstein’s role that Paramount provides suggests that CBS News’ editorial independence has effectively been terminated. Weinstein will funnel complaints he believes require “further action” above the head of current CBS News president and Executive Editor Tom Cibrowski to Paramount’s president and its chair of TV media. Cibrowski will be consulted only to “recommend and implement any necessary action steps” that Weinstein and Cibrowski’s corporate superiors agree on.

Steve Capus, a former CBS News executive producer who worked with Weinstein at the Broadcasting Board of Governors, told the Times that Weinstein is a “fair arbiter” who deserves “the benefit of the doubt” in the role.

This assessment seems painfully naive. The reason CBS News now has an ombudsman now is because its parent company was trying to assure Carr that if he approved their merger, the network’s coverage would change in a way that the FCC’s Trumpist chair would approve. The president subsequently touted Ellison as a “great man” who would “do the right thing with” CBS. And when Paramount filled the role, the company didn’t pick a journalist with a reputation for neutrality — it went with a right-wing think-tanker and Republican donor with no newsroom experience.

Weinstein has been installed at CBS News to help fulfill Paramount’s promise to move the network’s political coverage to the right.

Weinstein will integrate with the right’s existing anti-media campaign

President Trump regularly attacks and even sues traditional media outlets for providing critical coverage of himself and his administration, as part of a deliberate strategy to keep his supporters from trusting their journalism. He is backed by a massive parallel infrastructure of right-wing media outlets, organizations, and operatives who are constantly on the hunt for instances of purported liberal media bias that they can use to undermine legacy news outlets. And his administration corruptly leverages such claims to threaten and punish the outlets’ owners with adverse regulatory actions.

This campaign’s purpose is not to improve the standards of legacy outlets, but to cudgel them into compliance with Trump’s demands for fawning coverage of his presidency in order to secure right-wing policy objectives. And with Weinstein's appointment, that effort will now have a man on the inside at CBS News who is predisposed to agree with such complaints and aid the right-wing attacks.

There will now be additional steps to the smear cycles in which the right attacks CBS News with preposterous gripes — for example, claiming that its editing of a Kamala Harris interview purportedly concealed her “word salad” responses. After the salvos from MAGA influencers, the endless denunciations on Fox News, and harangues from Trump and other administration officials and Republican notaries, there will now be a push for the ombudsman to step in and compel changes in the CBS newsroom.

It’s also not difficult to imagine someone like Laura Loomer, the notorious conspiracy theorist who regularly gets Trump administration officials fired for insufficient loyalty, scrutinizing the backgrounds and social media activity of CBS staffers and urging Weinstein to ensure their dismissals.

If Weinstein doesn’t take up the right’s cause, or if he does but is then overruled by Paramount’s corporate leadership, that will trigger a new round of right-wing denunciations. It could also lead to painful regulatory retaliation from Carr, who would argue that the company has failed to live up to its pledge. And David Ellison, the son of billionaire Silicon Valley mogul and close Trump ally Larry Ellison, might find the president no longer wants to shower him with praise and sit with him at UFC fights.

What’s happening to CBS News is neither complicated nor subtle: The billionaire son of a Trumpist oligarch is remaking a U.S. news institution to be less of a thorn in the president’s side, installing right-wing leaders and eliminating its independence in response to his grievances. Hoping for the best won’t change that.

---

MMA

Trump calls for FCC retribution against “FAKE NEWS” ABC and NBC — while touting the “great man” who “just bought CBS”

How to get off Trump’s media shit list

Written by Matt Gertz

Published 08/25/25

President Donald Trump sent a clear message over the weekend that media companies can forestall his vicious denunciations and threats of federal retribution. All their owners have to do is bend the knee and grant his administration sufficient reassurance that their news outlets won’t prove troublesome.

Trump urged the Federal Communications Commission to punish two of the “Big Three” national broadcast networks for their political content, a straightforward assault on the First Amendment, in a pair of Sunday night posts.

The president condemned ABC and NBC as “FAKE NEWS” and an “actual threat to our Democracy” because they purportedly run too many “BAD STORIES” about him and provide “unfair coverage of Republicans.” He added that in response, these outlets should either “HAVE THEIR LICENSES REVOKED BY THE FCC” or be forced to pay “Millions of Dollars a year in LICENSE FEES.”

CBS, the third of the “Big Three,” escaped Trump’s malice.

As recently as April, Trump denounced CBS as “out of control, at levels never seen before,” and called upon FCC chair Brendan Carr to “impose the maximum fines and punishment, which is substantial, for their unlawful and illegal behavior.” Carr at the time was corruptly delaying the purchase of CBS parent company Paramount by Skydance Media, owned by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Silicon Valley mogul and close Trump ally Larry Ellison, in response to Trump’s frivolous lawsuit over CBS News’ handling of a 60 Minutes interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in October 2024.

But since then:

Trump got his payoff. Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to Trump’s presidential library to settle the lawsuit and resolve “a threatened defamation action concerning a separate 60 Minutes report,” the company announced on July 1. The president subsequently claimed there is a side deal in which Paramount will air $16-19 million in free public service announcements.

CBS canceled Stephen Colbert’sThe Late Show.Colbert, an outspoken Trump critic, announced on July 17 that CBS was ending his program. While CBS insiders argued that “the move was financially driven, not politically motivated,” the announcement came the same week Ellison met Carr and other FCC officials in hopes of securing the merger. Trump, for his part, responded the following morning, “I absolutely love that Colbert’ got fired.”

Reports circulated over a possible Bari Weiss role with CBS. The Status newsletter’s Oliver Darcy reported in late June that Ellison was seeking to recruit Weiss, the conservative journalist whose outlet The Free Press provides a sort of permission structure for centrists to support Trump over Democrats, “to work in some capacity” at CBS. In mid-July, several outlets reported that Ellison and Weiss were discussing a possible deal in which Skydance would buy The Free Press.

The FCC approved Skydance purchase of Paramount late last month, citing Skydance’s “commitment to make significant changes” at CBS News.The FCC announced on July 24 that it had approved the acquisition. Carr cited in an accompanying statement “Skydance’s commitment to make significant changes at the once storied CBS broadcast network,” its provision of “written commitments to ensure that the new company’s programming embodies a diversity of viewpoints from across the political and ideological spectrum,” and its pledge to “root out the bias that has undermined trust in the national news media.”

Massive layoffs are looming over CBS. It would be difficult to convince or compel CBS News’ current slate of journalists to lay off the president — but it’s easy to fire them. After Variety reported last week that CBS News staffers “are worried about the potential for a new round of layoffs,” the New York Post reported Friday that a “bloodbath” of layoffs at Paramount Skydance is expected in early November.

The moves were more than enough to get CBS off Trump’s media shit list. In fact, the president recently lavished praise on its new owner, Paramount Skydance chief executive David Ellison.

“CBS was just sold to a great person that I know very well,” Trump told reporters on Friday. “A great man. He actually just bought CBS. And I think he‘s going to do the right thing with it.”

Trump’s authoritarian assault on the free press offers media moguls both sticks and carrots — and too many of them have decided they would rather submit to his will than fight. Just seven months into his administration, he’s already forced one of the major broadcast networks to yield. Two to go.

### The Trump administration's war on the press is heating up

04/28/25 1:22 PM EDT

### As Trump struggles to deflect from reporting on his Epstein ties, MAGA media set their sights on the press

07/23/25 11:57 AM EDT

### Trump is trying to throttle the free press — and U.S. moguls are going along with it

02/04/25

---

AN 7 25

'Insane!' CBS blasted for cancelling Colbert's 'Late Show' days after he ripped settlement

Carl Gibson

---

PRESS SUPPRESS MAFIA DON SHAKEDOWN

AN 7 25

On July 1, CBS News' parent company, Paramount, agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit from President Donald Trump —who claimed that CBS edited a 2024 interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in a way that amount to election interference. Many Trump critics attacked the lawsuit as frivolous and baseless, arguing that Paramount was submitting to a shakedown just to be done with the matter.

Now, Fox News is drawing criticism for its editing of a 2024 interview with Trump, and critics argue that it was edited in a way to make Trump look good — not edited for journalistic purposes.

CNN's Andrew Kaczynski, in a July 14 post on X, formerly Twitter, tweeted video of the Fox News interview and noted their editing of comments on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Kaczynski posted, "I had not seen this Fox News extended interview with Trump from 2024 — where they deliberately edited his (Jeffrey) Epstein answer — where he won't commit to releasing the full files because of 'phony' stuff in it."

IFrame Content

Kaczynski, comparing the unedited interview to Fox News' edited version, tweeted, "Check out what Trump said vs what Fox edited."

In response to Kaczynski's tweets, Media Matters' Matthew Gertz — obviously mindful of Trump's CBS News lawsuit — posted, "My understanding based on the CBS News precedent is that this is an illegal interference with the 2024 election that should result in Fox News paying tens of millions of dollars to orgs chosen by Kamala Harris and facing an FCC probe. Quote Andrew Kaczynski @KFILE."

In a separate tweet, Gertz posted, "At least that's the result when the president is engaged in a corrupt abuse of power crying out for more scrutiny."

Former Trump supporter turned Trump critic A.J. Delgado tweeted, "Yup, I was tweeting about this last October, as were others, and no one seemed to care. It's insane that Fox edited the answer (the only reason the full answer came out is, I believe, that Will Cain later absentmindedly shared the full answer on his own show. That's the only reason we even know.)"

The Trump War Room account on X posted Fox News' edited version of the interview in June 2024.

Observations from Kaczynski, Gertz and Delgado's tweets on Fox News' 2024 interview with Trump are drawing a lot of discussion on X.

Former Obama Administration official Tommy Vietor wrote, "Time for Kamala to sue Fox News???"

X user Michael Serdikoff tweeted, "This is same (guy) suing CBS for editing Harris' remarks."

Another X user, Cindy Cooper commented, "So the Fox News network via Fox News Radio did air the entire answer. Thanks."

Watch the video belowor at this link.

---

MMA

Trump is trying to throttle the free press — and U.S. moguls are going along with it

Written by Matt Gertz

Published 02/04/25

President Donald Trump is wasting no time in carrying out his goal of throttling the free press. Over the first two weeks of Trump’s presidency, his appointees have wielded federal regulatory authority to punish outlets the president dislikes — and American media moguls are responding with submission.

Trump has turned standard conservative attacks on journalists into one of the hallmarks of his political agenda.

He takes as his model Hungary’s autocrat Viktor Orban, who has “effectively dismantled the news media in his country” as “a central pillar of Orban’s broader project to remake his country as an ‘illiberal democracy,’” as New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger noted in an extraordinary warning last year.

During his first term in office, Trump repeatedly tried to leverage state power against his despised “fake news,” and together with his Project 2025 allies has developed a playbook to attack, defund, and delegitimize news outlets in his second.

Major media companies began signaling before Trump took office that they were willing to play ball with his administration in order to preserve their business interests. But since Inauguration Day, as Trump’s appointees have begun showing their intentions, executives at several news outlets have gone into full retreat.

CBS News preps for a Trump settlement

In the final weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump denounced CBS News’ editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Vice President Kamala Harris as “the biggest scandal in broadcast history” and declared that CBS should be stripped of its broadcast license. But in addition to invective and threats, Trump also filed a lawsuit against the outlet for producing journalism which displeased him.

The suit, which alleged that CBS airing different portions of Harris’ answer to a question in different venues constituted “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference,” drew derision from First Amendment attorneys, who described its legal theory to CNN as “ridiculous junk” and “a frivolous and dangerous attempt by a politician to control the news media.”

But over the past few weeks, reports have indicated that CBS News’ parent company, Paramount, may be preparing to settle the suit with Trump. Such a settlement would be “an extraordinary concession by a major U.S. media company to a sitting president, especially in a case in which there is no evidence that the network got facts wrong or damaged the plaintiff’s reputation,” as The New York Times put it.

But Paramount needs federal approval for its proposed merger with Skydance Media, the production company founded by filmmaker David Ellison, and apparently sees giving the president a payoff as a valid way to smooth the path. Pressure for the settlement is coming from top Paramount shareholder Shari Redstone, the Times reported, who “stands to clear billions of dollars on the sale of Paramount.”

LA Times’ biotech industry owner goes all-in for RFK Jr.}:

Billionaire doctor Patrick Soon-Shiong once drew plaudits for using a small fraction of the vast fortune he made in the biotech industry to purchase and sustain his hometown newspaper, the Los Angeles Times.

But Soon-Shiong’s involvement in the paper’s operations has become more heavy-handed since the final months of the presidential campaign, with the owner repeatedly weighing in on Trump’s behalf. Over the past few weeks, Soon-Shiong, whose medical patents are subject to federal oversight, has begun cheerleading for the confirmation of the anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of health and human services.

“‘I truly believe [Kennedy] has the American public's best interests at heart,’ Soon-Shiong tweeted Tuesday in a post he pinned to the top of his account on X, formerly Twitter, for much of last week,” NPR reported. “It was one of 18 messages promoting Kennedy that Soon-Shiong — a billionaire surgeon and medical inventor — posted over the course of four days, which included Kennedy's confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill.”

Soon-Shiong’s support for Kennedy appears to have bled into his paper’s operations as well. On Friday, an op-ed contributor accused the paper of deceptively editing the piece he submitted in order to remove his criticisms of Kennedy’s nomination.

### CNN tries to move on

Journalists at CNN regularly drew vicious attacks from Trump and his supporters during the president’s first term. During a tone-setting press conference shortly before he took office, Trump lashed out at then-White House correspondent Jim Acosta as “fake news” and “terrible.” And Trump’s salvos at the network went beyond just words — his Justice Department tried to block a merger involving CNN’s then-parent company..

This time, CNN’s corporate leadership appears less willing to leave the network vulnerable to Trumpian retribution. Network chief Mark Thompson led an editorial meeting the day before Inauguration Day in which he instructed CNN talent “to be forward-thinking and to avoid pre-judging Trump” and to avoid “expressing any outrage of their own” or “relitigat[ing] the past,” former CNN reporter Oliver Darcy reported in his Status newsletter.

As for Acosta, he left CNN last week rather than accept Thompson’s offer to anchor the network’s coverage from midnight to 2 a.m. ET.

### Trump’s FCC targets ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and PBS

The tip of the president’s anti-press spear is Brendan Carr, a Republican member of the Federal Communications Commission whom Trump elevated to chair. Carr authored Project 2025’s chapter on the FCC and has notably refused to reject Trump’s repeated calls for the commission to yank the licenses of broadcast networks whose reporting he dislikes.

Following his promotion, Carr sent a letter to Bob Iger, the CEO of ABC parent company Disney, in which he denounced the network for having “contributed” to the “erosion in public trust” and pointedly referenced the FCC’s regulatory power.

Carr also restored a right-wing group’s bias complaints targeting NBC, CBS, and ABC for purportedly biased coverage of the presidential campaign, which his predecessor had dismissed. In response to the CBS complaint, the FCC demanded that CBS News provide the unedited transcript and tapes of Harris’ 60 Minutes interview, adding government pressure to the benefit of Trump’s private lawsuit. The network ultimately submitted to what one legal expert described as a “highly partisan intervention” with “no historical antecedent.”

And on Wednesday, Carr announced a new FCC probe of underwriting announcements produced by NPR and PBS, “with an eye toward unraveling federal funding for all public broadcasting.”

### Defense Department retaliates against news outlets

The Pentagon announced Friday night that the defense correspondents at NBC News, The New York Times, Politico, and National Public Radio are all required to vacate their dedicated workspaces. Their spots will instead go to the right-wing One America News Network, New York Post, and Breitbart — and theoretically to the progressive HuffPost, which does not have a Pentagon reporter and did not request space.

The move came a week after the Senate confirmed former Fox News host Pete Hegseth as defense secretary.

Take Trumpist threats to jail journalists seriously

:{:{09/23/24}:

Donald Trump’s authoritarian playbook to crush the free press in a second term}:

:{:{10/29/24}:

“Fake News Networks”: Trump and Project 2025’s goal to attack, defund, and delegitimize the press}:

10/16/24

---

QB IF NOT BURN GAS IT EXPLODES; GOVT WANTS YO GET RID OF CATTLE BC FARTS

MICHELOBE ULTRA ANS BUD LT = ALCOHOL

POPCORN FART IN CHURCH

API 5M ONE YR JUST IN FED LONNY OS?

HAMM VS UK GUY: WORLD HAS ALREADY DECIDED that you and i are evil for givingthem the only thing they interact w every day and we can never conv otherwise;

38% uk gas fron norway; i have no control on what cust do w/ our pRoduct; i can’t design A CLEANER ENGINE; DO NOT CARE WHat gov of ca say;

// ca tax so always 4$ no maTTER CRUDE PRICE;

TAYLOR SHERIDAN BOOMTOWN PODCAST

GGL AI

As of 2019, Texas Monthly is owned by Randa Duncan Williams. Williams is an oil and gas heiress whose late father, Dan Duncan, founded Houston-based Enterprise Products Partners, a publicly traded midstream energy company. Williams is the chair of Enterprise Products Partners and holds an active role within the company. Her net worth was reported at $6.3 billion in 2019, making her the ninth wealthiest person in Texas at that time. Texas Monthly operates as an affiliate of EPCO, the Duncan family holding company that also has investments in commercial real estate and ranching, and holds a substantial stake in Enterprise Products Partners.

Williams expressed her enjoyment of Texas Monthly's longform storytelling and stated that her family is "delighted to provide the resources to support this iconic Texas institution". She also affirmed that the magazine's journalistic integrity and quality would remain unchanged under her ownership.

The magazine was purchased from Genesis Park LP for an undisclosed amount, though Genesis Park had acquired it for $25 million in 2016. Paul Hobby, the head of Genesis Park, noted that Williams was identified as the ideal permanent owner due to her enthusiasm for the magazine and her commitment to editorial independence.

---

GGL AI

The Paramount+ series "Landman" is facing criticism for allegedly being a propaganda piece funded by the oil and gas industry, with some arguing it humanizes the industry while glossing over its negative impacts. The show, created by Taylor Sheridan, is set in the oil fields of West Texas and follows a "company man" landman (played by Billy Bob Thornton) as he navigates the complexities of the industry. Critics point to the show's portrayal of oil and gas companies as working stiffs humbly meeting consumer demand, while ignoring their lobbying efforts against fuel efficiency and climate policy. Some commentators on the Internet suggest the show's funding by Big Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API) as evidence of its pro-industry bias.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Funding and Propaganda:

Critics argue that the series is funded by oil and gas interests, specifically mentioning the involvement of Paramount, and is essentially a promotional tool for the industry.

Misleading Portrayal:

The show is accused of downplaying the negative aspects of oil and gas production, such as its environmental impact and lobbying against climate action.

Focus on "Working Stiffs":

The series emphasizes the hard work and dedication of landmen and other industry workers, potentially obscuring the industry's broader impacts and motivations.

API's Role:

The American Petroleum Institute (API), a powerful industry lobby group, has been running ads on Paramount+ to counter negative portrayals of the industry and promote its narrative.

"Landman" as a Family:

A central myth of the show is the idea that the oil and gas industry is a family of hard-working individuals, a narrative that API has actively promoted, according to The New Republic.

Challenging the Growth Paradigm:

Critics argue that the show avoids addressing the larger questions of sustainability and the need to challenge the growth paradigm that fuels industries like oil and gas.

Accuracy Concerns:

While some details of the show are based on real-life events and the "Boomtown" podcast, critics claim that the show takes creative license and presents a biased view of the industry.

---

NEWSWEEK

LAndman, a new TV series from Yellowstone writer Taylor Sheridan, includes examples of false and misleading writing about renewable energy and climate change technology, Newsweek's Fact Check team has discovered.

The show, streaming on Paramount+, stars Billy Bob Thornton as a crisis manager in the Texas oil industry. The cast also includes Demi Moore, Jon Hamm, Michelle Randolph, Ali Larter and Jacob Lofland.

While reviews among critics and audiences have been mixed, the show's debut episode, released on November 17, scored 14.6 million viewers during its first seven days across its streaming service and linear premiere, TheWrap reported, making it the biggest global premiere week for a Paramount+ original show.

A scene in a later episode has also been a hit with conservatives, going viral on social media.

Billy Bob Thornton as a crisis manager for the oil industry in Taylor Sheridan's "Landman." The show, which has attracted a large audience, perpetuates falsehoods about the energy industry. Emerson Miller/Paramount+

In episode three, Thornton's character, Tommy Norris, invectively describes the lifespan of renewable energy tech to attorney Rebecca Falcone, played by Kayla Wallace.

After Norris drives Falcone to take a look at a wind farm up close, he says: "Do you have any idea how much diesel they have to burn to mix that much concrete?

"Or make that steel and haul this s*** out here and put it together with a 450-foot crane? You want to guess how much oil it takes to lubricate that f****** thing, or winterize it? In its 20-year lifespan, it won't offset the carbon footprint of making it.

"And don't get me started on solar panels and the lithium in your Tesla battery.

"And never mind the fact that if the whole world decided to go electric tomorrow, we don't have the transmission lines to get the electricity to the cities. It would take 30 years if we started tomorrow."

Norris also claimed that oil giants such as Exxon Mobil would have built more wind farms if they saw their benefit.

"In its [wind farms'] 20-year lifespan, it won't offset the carbon footprint of making it."

This is not true.

Research on this topic has repeatedly found that wind energy recoups the carbon footprint it creates within a matter of months, not years—certainly well within its lifetime.

Research from 2016 in the Journal of Fundamentals of Renewable Energy and Applications found that while turbines with a large kilowatt output may have a greater "embodied carbon output," referring to the emissions created during construction, the greater the amount of energy a turbine produces, the quicker its offset. Researchers reported a 64-day offset for a 3.4-megawatt turbine compared to 354 days for a 100-kilowatt one.

Research from 2024 published in the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealandassessed a 176-megawatt wind farm, comprising 41 turbines, and found that the plant recouped its energy costs in half a year, with a greenhouse gas (GHG) payback of 1.5 to 1.7 years. The report did, however, note the difficulty in recycling the turbines at the end of their lifetime.

A 2019 study published in Environmental Science & Technology assessed 4,161 wind turbines built over 35 years and determined how long it took for GHGs emitted during the construction and use of a turbine to equal the total GHG savings from replacing a fossil fuel energy source with wind. The payback time varied from 1.8 to 22.5 months, averaging at 5.3 months.

Kayla Wallace as attorney Rebecca Falcone. She comes up against Tommy Norris' invective on wind power in the third episode of "Landman." Emerson Miller/Paramount+

Newsweekspoke with a group of experts on renewable technology and carbon offsetting, all of whom said the offset of wind farm production was a matter of months, not years.

Alasdair McDonald, a professor in the Institute for Energy Systems and Mechanical Engineering Discipline at the University of Edinburgh, told Newsweek: "Billy Bob Thornton is very good at portraying a common character that one meets when talking about wind energy; unfortunately, that character is misinformed and wrong."

McDonald said that Vestas, one of the world's leading turbine manufacturers, had publicly available life cycle assessments of its turbines, including the time it takes to offset its initial carbon cost.

For a medium-size wind farm—which would be slightly smaller than most wind farms in Texas, whereLandman is set—Vestas said the payback of energy involved in the manufacturing, operation, service and disposal of a 2-megawatt turbine, in medium wind, would be about seven months, and it would return initial energy output 35 times over 20 years.

"For a good Texan wind farm, I'd expect the farm to operate for longer, and the energy production to be higher, so I'd treat that 35 times as a lower bound," McDonald added.

Vestas' data showed that for every 1 kWh of energy produced, it needed about 0.09 megajoules of primary energy.

"For one turbine that would be 15,121,800 MJ of primary energy resource—that's about 103,206 U.S. gallons of diesel equivalent," McDonald said.

"It sounds like quite a big number, but quite small when you will generate energy worth 3,612,223 U.S. gallons of diesel equivalent over 20 years," he added.

Paulina Chavez, Michelle Randolph, Billy Bob Thornton, Demi Moore and Ali Larter at the Los Angeles premiere of "Landman" on November 12. The new Taylor Sheridan series has been a hit. UNIQUE NICOLE/AFP via Getty Images

Cristina L. Archer, the director of the Center for Research in Wind at the University of Delaware, echoed these findings: "My understanding is that it takes at most two years for a wind turbine to completely offset all of the carbon that was used to create it and maintain it.

"Including everything—the concrete, the crane, the lubricants. Obviously, there is a spread that depends on where the turbine was made. If in China, it's probably two years. If in Europe, probably one year."

Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and the director of the Atmosphere/Energy program at Stanford University, told Newsweek: "The energy payback time of a wind turbine even 15 years ago was 1.6 to 4.3 months, nothing close to what is claimed [in Landman].

"Thus, a wind turbine (with a 30-year lifetime) is 98.8 to 99.6 percent carbon-free. Even with a 20-year lifetime, the payback time ranges from 4.2 to 6.4 months, making it 98.2 to 98.8 percent carbon-free."

Research for offshore systems also falls below the estimates given by Norris. A 2017 study in RenewableEnergythat simulated the environmental impact of two offshore wind power systems found that it took 12.8 and 14.4 months to pay back the energy consumed in construction. A further four months were taken from those figures when the recycling of waste materials was added to the calculation.

"And don't get me started on solar panels and the lithium in your Tesla battery."

Norris made this argument, though with less specificity, as he discussed the carbon costs of building a wind farm.

According to research and experts Newsweekspoke with, this claim is also incorrect.

A 2024 comparison by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) of solar photovoltaic systems installed in the United States assessed the carbon payback time (CPBT) of various solar farms across the country.

NREL, a national laboratory of the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, found that the CPBT spanned from 0.8 years to 20 years. However, the larger figure was based on a scenario where turbine technology was produced in high-carbon areas, farms were set up in locations with low irradiated energy from the sun and parts were sent to a landfill at the point of disposal.

"The benchmark system was determined to have a CPBT of 2.1 years, which is on the lower end of estimates from recent literature," the review said.

Energy payback time varied between 0.5 to 1.2 years in the U.S., depending on supply chain and location.

Jacobson provided Newsweekwith a copy of a 2008 review he authored, published in Energy & Environmental Science, that assessed the payback of technologies, including solar panels.

"Solar PV panel payback times 15 years ago were longer, 1-3.5 years, depending on the solar resource available at the location (e.g., one year would be Arizona)," Jacobson said.

"That means solar PV panels are 88.3 to 96.7 percent carbon-free," he continued, adding, "Payback times today for both are lower due to greater efficiencies of both wind turbines and solar PV panels."

Wind turbines at a wind farm and solar panels near Palm Springs, California. A "Landman" scene involving wind farms has gone viral on social media. Mario Tama/Getty Images

James Manwell, an emeritus professor of mechanical and industrial engineering and the founding director of the Wind Energy Center at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek: "I did look into solar PV panels a few years ago and their energy payback was not as good as wind turbines, but the energy return was greater than the energy invested.

"As PV panel prices drop, which they have been doing, I expect that the energy return on investment is similarly improving."

The payback of a lithium battery in a car depends on its manufacture and materials and the grid it's using to recharge. A car connected to a grid that uses energy sources with more greenhouse gas output will take longer to offset the carbon footprint from its production and maintenance than one that plugs into a grid with renewable energy.

A 2018 briefing produced for the think tank the International Council on Clean Transportation said high emissions produced during an electric vehicle's manufacture drop after two years compared to an "average conventional vehicle."

As reported in a PolitiFact analysis from 2022, researchers estimated a break-even point for EVs of between 13,500 miles and 26,000 miles. While other research posits figures higher than these, the number is affected by how and where batteries are manufactured, their strength and the grids they are plugged into.

The environmental impact of electric vehicles is nonetheless considered better than that of conventional combustion engines. Writing in 2022, the MIT Climate Portal cited 2019 research from MIT showing that in their life cycle—including production, use and disposal—gasoline cars emit more than 350 grams of carbon dioxide per mile driven over their lifetimes. Hybrids scored more than 250 grams per mile, while fully battery-electric vehicles emitted the equivalent of 200 grams.

Even EVs that spend less time on the road still produce less carbon than other cars. The 2019 research found that EVs with 90,000 miles on the road, rather than 180,000 miles, were still 15 percent less carbon-polluting than the hybrids and gas cars studied.

"And never mind the fact that if the whole world decided to go electric tomorrow, we don't have the transmission lines to get the electricity to the cities. It would take 30 years if we started tomorrow."

The International Energy Agency reported in 2023 that the world would have to add or replace 49.7 million miles of transmission lines by 2040 to meet global climate and energy goals, a number equal to the "entire existing global grid."

Annual investments in grids, it added, would also have to double to more than $600 billion a year by 2030.

Many nations, including the U.S., have committed to reaching the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. While achieving that means more than new transmission lines, it shows that leaders, at the very least, are optimistic about creating cities capable of handling more renewable and non-fossil-fuel energy sources within 30 years.

That doesn't necessarily mean that will happen. Jacobson said the time it will take is based on factors beyond technological or practical limits.

"The speed of a transition depends on social and political limitations, not technical or economic," Jacobson said.

"We could transition 80 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2035 if we have the political willpower," he added.

One such solution may be to use power-to-X technologies, where renewable energy is converted into a type of electrical fuel, as Manwell told Newsweek.

"Building transmission lines is indeed a challenge, but the difficulties are at least as much social and political as they are technical," he said.

Manwell added: "Getting close to 100 percent solar and wind is also a challenge and likely will require use of synthetic fuels, based on hydrogen from electrolysis. This is the subject of what is known as 'power-to-x' and is a topic that could be of interest to the oil companies. Much of the technology is similar.

"I presume that the oil companies like oil now because it's very profitable for them."

"Believe me, if Exxon thought them f****** things [windmills] right there were the future, they'd be putting them all over the g****** place."

This appeal to authority fallacy bets on the idea that because an energy giant such as Exxon Mobil has not invested more in wind farms or renewable technology, wind farms are therefore not a reliable energy producer. It suggests Exxon has not invested significantly in wind farming solely on the virtue of the technology without considering other motives, such as profit or cost cutting.

As reported by climate journalists at Grist, within the past three years, Exxon and other major oil producers have pulled back on emissions and renewable energy projects as their profits from barrels of oil sold have soared. While rolling back green projects may have been driven by factors beyond profitability, Landman omitted the influence entirely.

Exxon Mobil, Shell and BP have also contributed to lobbying efforts supporting oil and gas over renewable or cleaner energy. In 2021, an Exxon lobbyist was recorded on camera saying the company had "aggressively" fought climate science.

"Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes. Did we hide our science, absolutely not," lobbyist Keith McCoy told an undercover reporter working for Greenpeace.

He added: "Did we join some of these 'shadow groups' to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that's true. But there's nothing illegal about that.

"You know, we were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders."

The "shadow group," as reported by Greenpeace's journalism outlet, Unearthed, was likely related to the network of think tanks and other groups influencing political action on climate change.

Exxon said McCoy's comments did not represent the company's views and were "inconsistent with the way we expect our people to conduct themselves."

"We were shocked by these interviews and stand by our commitments to working on finding solutions to climate change," it added.

McCoy, who apologized on LinkedIn, left Exxon later that year.

Furthermore, companies like Exxon have spent decades investing in oil-driven infrastructure and delivery, not wind farms, solar energy or other renewable technology, Jacobson said.

"Exxon has no expertise in wind energy," he continued, adding, "Wind energy companies are far superior to Exxon at building and operating wind turbines and farms."

Archer told Newsweek: "The argument about Exxon is ridiculous. Exxon's strategy is to look for more oil because it is their core value and because for the short term (dozens of years) they will still make profits that way. They are not an energy company; they are an oil company."

McDonald added, "There's still lots of money in oil and gas and will continue to be so for a while."

"Renewables development is a different skill set and business, so it isn't such an easy transition," he continued.

Not all the arguments in the viral Landman monologue are based on bad science or research. At one point, Norris mentioned the many vital plastic products were created from fossil fuels.

"And unfortunately for your grandkids, we have a 120-year petroleum-based infrastructure. Our whole lives depend on it. And hell, it's in everything. That road we came in on. The wheels on every car ever made, including yours. It's in tennis rackets, lipsticks, refrigerators and antihistamines. Pretty much anything plastic."

This chimed with Archer, who said it was still a valid argument "to stop burning petroleum."

"Plastic is everywhere, and it comes from petroleum for the most part," Archer said.

She added: "I do not think we could survive without plastic. So why burn petroleum (as gasoline/diesel, etc.) when we need it for plastic?

"I think it's actually an argument for renewables. Let's use them for energy and transportation and save the petroleum for plastic."

Energy, misinformation and the Trump administration

The false claims made in Landman echo wider conservative disdain for wind and other types of renewable energy—a view held by the incoming president.

President-elect Donald Trump's plans for energy development in the U.S. are driven by the promotion of fossil fuel extraction and the dismissal of clean energy projects, particularly wind. He previously said he would kill offshore wind energy development on Day One of his second term.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump spread false claims about the number of bald eagles killed by turbines. In 2019, FactCheck.org debunked claims the then-president made. Trump said turbines caused cancer and reduced the prices of nearby houses by 75 percent. The BBC similarly found no evidence for a claim Trump made in 2023 that turbines killed whales.

IFrame Content

In May, *The Washington Post* reported that Trump told a group of oil executives and lobbyists that they should give his campaign $1 billion because he would end environmental rules.

According to the report, Trump said the $1 billion donation would be a "deal," given the relaxation of taxes and regulations he would implement to their benefit.

---

CLEANTECHNICA

Why Is Paramount Plus Promoting Big Oil With Its Landman Series?

6 months agoCarolyn Fortuna[

“Landman” is a television series broadcast on Paramount Plus, the digital subscription video on-demand and live streaming service. I’ve watched most of the other Taylor Sheridan series, somehow hoping that a romanticized Old West culture can be combined with positive representations of females. What I didn’t expect from him was a running narrative about the weakness of renewable energy and the gift of Big Oil for everyday citizens. The series presents uneven, almost always one-sided arguments against renewable energy and the work of climate activists.

Core social media narratives like these on Paramount Plus are shaping discourse around the climate crisis due to the persistent “stickiness” of mis- and dis-information — and they’re influencing people to disregard the danger of fossil fuels. Sheridan’s characters boast how the Texans around them could never maintain their lifestyles without ample amounts of oil and gas. Evidence to the contrary points to a robust ability for renewables to substitute for fossil fuel power, thank you.

It’s not just within the US media complex that climate misinformation confuses everyday folks. Renewables like rooftop solar, gridscale wind and solar, and advanced storage now provide around 40% of the electricity in Australia’s main grid. The catch? Fewer than 1 in 10 Australians know it, according to a survey by the Climate Council.

Here are some examples of the “Landman” energy mis-/disinformation. Sammy Roth of the LA Times calls such examples part of a larger “propaganda that serves to lionize the oil industry.”

Lithium is Worse by Implication than Fossil Fuels

“Well, I can promise you all those Chinese lithium mines are bad for the environment.”

The race toward net-zero emissions depends heavily on lithium to power electric vehicles as well as to store wind and solar power. Yes, new battery technology needs to be developed using more common, environmentally-friendly materials. The sourcing, building, and disposal of lithium-ion batteries does have supply chain pollution, yes, but it does not ultimately compare to what we’re currently doing with fossil fuels.

A much more nuanced approach that Sheridan could have chosen would have been to declare that, to meet sustainability goals, we need to strike a balance between energy sourcing and renewable advancements. Think of it this way: once you burn gas, it’s gone. Meanwhile, you can recharge a battery multiple times.

(Note the Othering in the “Landman” quote that cites China’s contribution to lithium mining.)

Cows are So Cute — So What if They Burp?

ENDS RANT WITH SUGGESTING A PLOT TO GET RID OF HUMANS; SHE PLAYFULLY SAYS OH YOU’RE ONE OF THOSE

“They say that a cattle burp is bad for the environment. Now they want to get rid of all the cattle.”

Cattle burps generate significant amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas (GHG) that is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide in warming the planet. In fact, animal agriculture produces more GHG emissions than all the world’s cars and trucks combined. Methane has a much higher global warming potential (GWP) than carbon dioxide.

Capturing enteric methane emissions from cows running loose in the fields is a challenge of epic proportions. Yes, the culture of food must necessarily continue to morph with the times — about three-quarters of all global agricultural land is vulnerable to substantial climate disruptions. Like many hog farmers, cattle ranchers may find themselves struggling to support their herds, whether it is from destructive storms or consumers’ shifting preferences to plant-based diets.

Do Solar Panels Actually Kill Birds and Whales?

“They put solar panels and wind turbines on these lands that kill these birds, disrupt their patterns. Then they stick ‘em in the ocean and kill the whales.”

Bird species and whales are under threat from climate change. Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants actually cause more bird deaths than solar or wind power. They also threaten the very ecosystems bird species rely on. Furthermore, bird deaths from wind turbines have dropped considerably (per kWh) as the technology has matured, and annual bird death totals from cats, windows, and vehicles each dwarf annual bird death totals from wind power.

North Atlantic right whales are highly endangered, and their survival is at serious risk due to a combination of vessel strikes and entanglements in fishing gear. And, contrary to a highly publicized article filled with disinformation, NOAA Fisheries does not anticipate and has not authorized — or proposed to authorize — mortality or serious injury of whales for any wind-related action.

Are Wind and Solar More Expensive than Natural Gas?

Wind energy “is twice as expensive as natural gas, and solar four times as expensive.”

A LCOE study from Lazard says it clearly — renewable energy from wind and solar resources is cheaper than electricity from thermal generators powered by coal, oil, or methane gas. Period. And that’s without counting the carbon cost of their competitors and the impact of President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which has added tens of billions of new financial incentives to the mix.

Solar and wind power have relatively low capacity factors, and making them really useful and comparable to a fossil gas power plant in utility means adding stationary energy storage as well. Adding in storage, onshore wind power has the same low cost as combined cycle gas power plants, and utility-scale solar is not far off.

Solar is Only Good for 8/24 Hours in the Day — Really?

“On its best day of the year, a solar power plant generates electricity for about 8 hours.”

Misinformation about solar is rampant. The value of adding batteries to wind and solar plants located in areas that face transmission congestion is forgotten in this “Landman” statement. Climate scientist Mark Jacobson deconstructed a recent study for us at CleanTechnicathat discussed this point.

*“This paper shows that the main grid in the world’s fifth largest economy was able to provide more than 100% of the electricity that it used from only four clean renewable sources – –solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal — for anywhere from 5 minutes to over 10 hours per day for 98 out of 116 days during late winter, all of spring, and early summer, as well as for 132 days during the entire year of 2024, without its grid failing. The growth of solar, wind, and battery storage, in particular, resulted in fossil gas use dropping 40% during the 116 day period and 25% during the entire year of 2024 relative to 2023.”

But the disinformation continues nonetheless. Michigan climate advocates have had to refute a breathless viral meme told the story of devious deep-state plotters who were conniving with greedy globalist solar developers to cut down a pristine tract of virgin old growth forest — nope, false, a lie.

Is Wind Power Clean, or Isn’t It?

“There’s nothing clean about this” wind power.

A “Landman” character outlines how a whole lotta fossil fuel is used to manufacture, transport, and assemble each turbine, so that, “in its 20-year lifespan, it won’t offset the carbon footprint of making it.” What he’s not saying is that wind is an energy source that is a viable and clean alternative to fossil fuels, and the worldwide installed capacity of wind power has many economic and environmental advantages.

Wind turbines do not produce any pollutants or emissions during operation that could harm the environment, except those required for maintenance (which are minimal). The major drawbacks of wind energy are high upfront costs, variability in wind speeds, and unsuitability in regions that do not have constant winds. Wind also reduces power-sector emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. These reductions, in turn, provide public health and climate benefits that are larger than wind’s grid-system value. Big Oil has more upfront pollution and zero environmental benefits when it’s burned.

Instead of doing a deep dig, Sheridan lies in the voice of a “Landman” character, “Getting oil out of the ground’s the most dangerous job in the world. We don’t do it ‘cause we like it. We do it ‘cause we run out of options.”

Can’t Electrify Everything because We don’t have the Transmission Lines

“If the whole world decided to go electric tomorrow, we don’t have the transmission lines to get the electricity to the cities… It would take 30 years if we started tomorrow.”

There’s a kernel of truth to this position. However, a visionary filmmaker could have described the value of adding batteries to wind and solar plants located in areas that face transmission congestion. Sure, optimal configurations of hybrid VRE+battery plants might vary between areas types and between solar and wind, yet the plants can contribute to both energy and capacity markets.

It’s important to refine long term planning processes and provide insight into future conditions as renewable energy and battery deployment expands over time.

Final Thoughts about Landman: The Power behind Paramount Media

Paramount Global—the sprawling media empire behind CBS, MTV, and one of Hollywood’s most storied movie studios— was acquired by Skydance Media in late 2024. The complex deal, worth over $8 billion, happened in a two-step transaction that involved Skydance first acquiring Paramount’s controlling company, Shari Redstone’s National Amusements, and then merging Skydance and Paramount. Founded by David Ellison in 2006, Skydance specializes in films, animation, television, video games, and sports.

The week after the November election, once-and-future President Donald J. Trump gathered his top advisers in the tea room at his Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, to plan the transition to his second-term government, as reported by the New York Times. Two valued houseguests were the billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the billionaire co-founder of Oracle, Larry Ellison.

“I brought the two richest people in the world today,” Trump told his advisers, according to a person who was in the room. “What did you bring?”

Ellison brings a vast communications conglomerate to Trump’s feet. Is he, like the “Landman” billionaire, someone who has helped to elect friendly politicians and to provide lobbying to maintain billions of dollars in subsidies to Big Oil? It’s hard to explain otherwise.

Mr. Ellison, please rein in your boy Taylor and use your ample billions for clean energy, the common good, and truth.

---

PPL WORLD

Billy Bob Thornton has always been one of my favorite actors. Part of the reason I favor him is because of his technical skills: his great range; his ready access to emotion; the unassuming, underdog characters he plays; and his willingness to project vulnerability. Thornton has sympathetically fought for the less powerful in Goliath, Sling Blade, A Simple Plan, and so many other movies and programs.

In his new television series Landman, it seems Thornton has abandoned the underdog. He has a new dog in the fight; Thornton has thrown in his lot with the powers that be, the rich and powerful, the corporate interests of Big Oil.

In scene after scene, we learn from Billy Bob and Landman how powerful the fossil fuel barons are. It is hopeless to fight them and foolish to try.

They are so important to the economy. Their product is so necessary to maintain our standards of living. They are such a well-developed source and wielder of power. We need them. So, it is actually socially and economically useless and even harmful to seek alternative energy sources. It is Big Oil’s world. They just let us live there. We need to play by their rules.

Of course, their rules do not always work. So, big oil changes the rules to benefit themselves and maintain their power. Most immediately important is that Big Oil funds the Landman series, which demonstrates the importance of their empire.

Landman is the story of that power. And in case you somehow don’t get the story’s contextual message, abundant American Petroleum Industry advertisements preceding and all too often interrupting the shows will drill it into your consciousness.

When they are not shilling for the fossil fuel industry, landmen are the managers who grease the wheels of production in the actual oil fields. They supervise the crews that develop the wells and keep them running. They supervise all manner of ground operations. They do the myriad legal and illegal, above and below board machinations that are vital to their industry, their power structure.

Thornton’s Tommy Norris is quite good at his job. He’s more at home in the oil field than he is in the almost as dangerous field of his actual home. Apparently landmen have little time, skill, or judgement to deal with domestic energy management.

The Norris family is constantly unraveling amid a range of small squabbles to full blown crises. His marriage is broken, and relationships with his son and daughter hang on by a thread. Landmanish work, at least as practiced by Tommy, does not allow the time or resources necessary for adequate family maintenance.

Meanwhile, out in the oil fields, government regulators and even the cartels threaten. Tommy’s boss, well-owner Monty Miller (Jon Hamm lurks and scowls as the enigmatic villain) pressures him and the workers, including Norris’ own son (Jacob Lofland as Cooper), constantly court disaster.

Even Tommy may not be up the task of reconciling his personal and professional conflicts. Dramatic tensions run back and forth through his worlds, frequently intersecting to threaten violence as well as domestic implosion.

But do not mistake the Landman for a modern cowboy, the American icon which writer Taylor Sheridan celebrates in his many other television enterprises. That hero of the old west was a frontiersman and farmer. His self-sufficiency and remoteness had vastly less impact on a smaller, more distant society. He grew crops and rode herd to provide food.

The roots of the landsman were instead found in the early development of the extractive industries. They required more investment capital and generally more labor. The larger workforces were exposed to more hazardous working conditions with less chance of their workers actually owning the means of production.

The only way this labor force could seek to control or even mitigate the dangers and harsh working conditions was to organize. Still, labor organizing in the vast southwest oil fields was not as successful as in the factories of the northeast. Workers were thus more dependent on the almost feudal structures that Big Oil developed.

Landman is certainly a well-acted series. If one can ignore workplace danger and environmental issues, it is a compelling story. The show has already garnered a Golden Globe Best Actor nomination for Billy Bob Thornton. Dramatic tensions are well structured, as we wonder if Tommy will be able to hold his family together while battling to keep oil wells open and generate profit for owner Monty Miller.

But it is awfully hard to have a rooting interest in a show which bull-headedly ignores both real solutions to workplace dangers and defends the disastrous status quo of an industry which will, without change, end life on this planet. Any such treatment is not honest in its refusal to explore the real costs of the industry.

To the extent that it refuses to engage in an honest discussion of the inevitable consequences of Big Oil development, the series serves only as an attractive shallow entertainment. Landman is ultimately cynical propaganda.

Landman is streaming on Paramount television.

---

MEDIUM

Oil, Grit, Propaganda a Deep Dive Into Landman

Mohammed Brückner

Jan 1, 2025

There’s a (somewhat?) new drama setting the world ablaze, and not just the climate; it is called “Landman”. It pulls you in with West Texas oil rigs, it is packed with drama and a certain star power but raises eyebrows and hard questions along the way, many of which will stick like black gold on your favourite pair of jeans. It’s less “Dallas” with JR Ewing, and more of a dusty, dirt-under-your-nails type tale featuring complex personalities making it almost impossible not to binge it all.

West Texas Where Fortunes are Forged (And Broken)

First, let’s dive into the well, as it were. The show paints a picture of a modern-day fortune rush, where roughnecks and billionaires are dancing around oil fields like moths to a flame. The backdrop is not pretty: dusty plains, pumping oil wells and high stakes business meetings in remote locations. We’ve got Billy Bob Thornton leading the charge playing Tommy Norris who is less a “good guy” and more of a pragmatist with a unique perspective on all of this. Some praise his complex character while others call his perspective, one influenced mostly by money and status, plain “disturbing” and simply wrong. Now the series is not just about gushing oil, it seems more focused on the business deals and moral mazes than the physical side of oil and gas exploration.

Then the writing: well, it does not shy away from hard questions — as least on the surface — where wealth inequalities clash with basic questions of human nature. Landman offers not just simple entertainment, rather more a view of our dependence on this highly contentious industry, so everyone is somehow invested (no pun intended!). Critics call it all out for its lack of insight and more just an illustration, rather than an in-depth exploration, making the whole endeavour somewhat superficial. The result, critics say, falls flat compared to what the show could and perhaps should have been!

Now if the whole theme and scenery sound a little familiar, well, “Landman” keeps getting compared to Taylor Sheridan’s other universes, such as “Yellowstone”. Sure they have some shared DNA but it’s really trying to carve out its own identity with its depiction of the West Texas oil business. One might say the result is, in some places at least, really quite spectacular. It’s aiming to do its own thing, with all its imperfections, for better or for worse. Some reviewers said its a wild ride with all the desired drama, action, twists and sprinkles of comedy one expects. All of which might make you forget some of its obvious weaknesses or not — depending how much critical review and how many late night binges your soul can actually endure.

The Money Behind the Mess Oil Money

Here we must start raising real questions of how we, as a society, see and perceive such productions. The first issue has to be the money — not what the protagonists earn but who is bankrolling the show. Yes you have probably guessed right: “Landman” receives its fuel, as it were, straight from the oil industry. A number of very loud critics and viewers alike were quick to call this out for what they perceive it is, propaganda wrapped in dramatic dialogues and impressive video scenery. Abundant American Petroleum Industry advertisements, placed at various occasions before and during episodes do nothing but validate this obvious observation. This all leads to significant skepticism regarding the narrative being displayed. Some simply see it all as pure spin for an industry desperately trying to polish its reputation which, let us be frank, is anything but stainless at the moment.

If it looks and feels like product placement on steroids, some reviews argue, it’s because it is. The presence of such obvious and constant marketing gives the series a clear whiff of “not to be trusted” and it really becomes harder and harder to separate the series from its obvious real life agenda. You’ve heard it all before: big corporations influence narratives and public opinion. Some even accuse the show of not really engaging in an authentic and well researched way with the very hard realities of the costs and the consequences this industry is causing every single day. One critic sums up that this is the story of that power being exerted — an uncomfortable truth that is very difficult for a large part of the audience to simply swallow with their evening meal. One really starts wondering: whose stories are these? And who controls the narrative being told?

Roughnecks and Rich Folks — And Where We Stand on it All

It really is not just all doom and gloom and questions of “corporate greed”. No series would be much watch, after all, if that was its only topic. So on a pure entertainment level one can still give “Landman” credit for delivering a lot to those that just wish to turn off their brain for a couple of hours every day. Many were impressed with the way this story takes one into that “morally ambiguous space of oil extraction”. The writing, many believe, is at least partially attempting to show contradictions, grey zones and other difficult to assess parts of human nature. It is all too easy to pick simple answers where there is no simple answer. That alone deserves some accolades.

And we simply must mention Tommy Norris (played with an unbelievable authenticity by Billy Bob Thornton), a classic example of someone one may love or hate in equal measure, as many have been quite keen to point out. He’s this interesting “oil patch manager” who deals with drug cartels and tries to pay compensation to the bereaved family members after tragic oil rig accidents, all at the same time. Critics call him a character that “perfectly embodies redneck charm and instinctual subversiveness”. The moral angle remains very much up for debate, of course, but one can not easily deny the magnetic pull of Tommy.

Yet the big question remains: is this show any good if all we get are complex character wrapped up into simplistic plots that have been “paid for” by an oil industry desperately seeking an easy fix for the damage it has been causing for too long? Some say the plot twists keep you guessing. While the “storyline and performance” seem very appealing and can keep the viewer hooked, at the same time many reviewers say that the series “fails to engage in a legitimate and well-researched manner with complex subjects”, as one commentator famously put it. So it really is one side praising it for an “engaging story”, and others calling it all an “egregious waste of resources”. This very difficult “in-between” space the series forces you into may make you uneasy, or actually inspire you for critical reflection. Perhaps both?

The Other Side Of The Well — Criticism of “Landman”

It really does not take an expert of the media space to point to obvious weaknesses the show does have. And there are more than a few which do not need much looking for. One particularly pointed one has to do with female character, as one critique summed it: they simply portray women “as caricatures, lacking any kind of fully developed personality”. So what could have been an equal story ends up being yet another story where it all comes down to men and the stories about men — and the women exist merely in the context of men and their narratives! Even a strong voice among critics admits that were there just “one woman as well drawn” as Tommy, the entire thing could have been called “captivating” — instead the critique remains that of something that is really more “just an entertaining drama”. The wasted talents of Ali Larter and Demi Moore with very limited screen time add to the general impression that this production really did not explore some of the hidden story treasures along the way, making for what some critics claim, another wasted opportunity.

Then there are comments that it barely scratches any “surface” on all the “wealth inequality and racism” it throws at the viewer with its narratives, making it all somewhat a surface-level storytelling with characters who all act with little to none deeper motives. As one well-known media analyst called it: it fails to fully “grapple with the interconnected ecosystem” it should try to portray — which then creates an opportunity loss for everyone involved — producers and viewers alike. And the pacing seems off, they say with some “baffling subplots”.

Let us not also forget the real world context. A viral moment where Tommy Norris goes on a rant about renewable energy sources does come over as very controversial in this day and age of environmental consciousness. His monologue — it might feel to some — simply throws “mud” onto the topic without trying to discuss facts and the obvious truth. Statements made by the character “there is nothing clean about this (referring to wind turbines)” were widely discussed all over the Internet. And this moment also showcases a deeply troubling issue: some viewers think this show is nothing more than an extended ad of a company that is a well know lobby group, fighting clean energy for its own vested interests, that does, as history has clearly shown, not care one bit about long term impacts it has on the natural environment, on communities, and human lives in general.

The point is this. And this will probably be more memorable after a glass or two (of organic juice, of course): “Landman” does come across more like a necessary “evil”, at least for those on the other side of oil extraction businesses. The way the show goes about “satisfying the demands for a product that is actually damaging all of us” is another big critique that many found difficult to simply ignore. All those morally questionable issues that get raised then seem more a distraction than actually contributing anything new to the global discussions. So where are we then? Have we made progress or are we simply spinning in circles, just like an oil drill machine, not really producing anything but smoke, fumes and bad air? The viewer really needs to be an active and critically reflecting one. Otherwise “Landman” may be simply reinforcing already questionable thinking rather than inspiring real progress.

So while “Landman” tries very hard to present a complex issue, it often stumbles to capture its depths, just like a landman trying to drill for oil in the middle of the night, and does more “showing” than any real in-depth critical questioning. And here is where, we all agree, some viewers may actually find a unique appeal of it all. Others simply see the cracks in the pavement too vividly. All in all “Landman”, despite of its great setting, performances and dialogues, has been rated in the medium to lower range which is telling, all things considered.

Now here is a big learning in all this mess! We can be, at any point in our own lives, just like Tommy Norris from “Landman”, doing our thing with little critical self reflection — thinking it’s enough to act on what seems as “instincts” alone! Instead of simply accepting things at their face value and “do our thing” — we need to dig deeper, we have to act critically in all our everyday actions. In all those many decisions, and big and small, we have to ensure our efforts, and the efforts of others are in service to good in some form, and not merely to our own self interests.

The point really is this: are we building something better and useful, or are we simply “drilling for something” with the wrong end goal? What side of the energy equation are we truly on?

Find more great things that fit to the use of AI other than the images in this article over at https://platformeconomies.com

---

WIKI 7 25

Landman is an American drama television series created by Taylor Sheridan and Christian Wallace, inspired by the podcast Boomtown hosted by Wallace. Starring Billy Bob Thornton as a landman for an oil company, the show premiered on November 17, 2024, on Paramount+.

In March 2025, the series was renewed for a second season.

Synopsis

Landman is set within the world of oilfields in West Texas, where "roughnecks and wildcat billionaires are fueling a boom so big it's reshaping our climate, our economy, and our geopolitics."^[1] The lead character, Tommy Norris, can be abrasive, as is the out-of-town lawyer investigating a fatal accident early in the season.^[2]

Production

Development

In February 2022, Paramount+ ordered a television series inspired by the podcast Boomtown titled Landman from screenwriter Taylor Sheridan. Billy Bob Thornton stars in the series.^[9][10] In May 2023, Jacob Lofland, Ali Larter, and Michelle Randolph joined the series.^[11] In January 2024, Kayla Wallace, James Jordan, Mark Collie, and Paulina Chávez joined the series as series regulars.^[12] In February 2024, it was reported that Jon Hamm joined the series.^[13] In April 2024, it was reported that Octavio Rodriguez and J.R. Villarreal joined the series as recurring characters.^[14]

In May 2024, it was confirmed by Demi Moore that a second season was planned, with production set to commence in early 2025.^[15] In March 2025, Paramount+ renewed the series for a second season.^[16]

In April 2025, it was announced that Sam Elliott joined the cast as a series regular for the second season.^[6] In June 2025, it was reported that Stefania Spampinato was cast in a recurring role for the second season.^[7]

Filming

Filming started in and around Fort Worth, Texas, in February 2024 and concluded in June 2024.^[17][failed ^verification] Filming locations included the headquarters of the American Association of Professional Landmen, the national association that represents land professionals, as well as the Fort Worth Petroleum Club, Rivercrest Country Club, and Texas Christian University. Filming for the second season started in April 2025.^[18]

Music

Andrew Lockington who worked in Mayor of Kingstown & Special Ops Lioness, has composed the music for the series, marking his third collaboration with the series' creator. UMG Nashville has released the series' soundtrack.

Release

The first season launched with two episodes on Sunday, November 17, 2024. Subsequent episodes of the 10-episode first season were available weekly on Sundays through January 12, 2025.^[19][20]

Critical reception

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the series has an approval rating of 78% based on 36 critic reviews, with an average rating of 6.4/10. The website's critics consensus reads, "Landman plumbs much of the same territory as other Taylor Sheridan-penned series, but having Billy Bob Thornton on hand turns this Texas crude into highly watchable fuel.^[21] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned a score of 60 out of 100 based on 20 critics, indicating "mixed or average" reviews.^[22]

Criticism

Dialogues that included a narrative about renewable energy have been criticized.^[23][24] Norris makes a rant about wind turbine, claiming that the amount of steel, oil and concrete needed to construct a wind turbine produces such a high carbon footprint, that it will not offset the costs in its 20-year lifespan. This led many right-leaning users (including fossil fuel advocates, oil executives and a US senator) on social media to repost the clip.^[25][23] However, the scientific veracity of such claims have been challenged.^[24]

A 2019 study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, assessing 4,161 turbines, estimated that the GHG payback time for wind varied from 1.8 to 22.5 months, averaging at 5.3 months compared to fossil fuels.^[26] A 2024 paper from the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, assessing a 41 turbine 176Mw farm, found an approximately 1.5–1.7 year GHG payback time. It also acknowledges difficulties with end-of-life recycling.^[27]

The program has also been criticized for presenting female characters as caricatures and negative stereotypes of women.^[28][29]

---

Sheridan Taylor Gibler Jr. (born May 21, 1970),^[1][2][3] known professionally as Taylor Sheridan, is an American writer, producer, director and actor. He is best known as the co-creator of the television series Yellowstone and creator of its prequels 1883 (2021) and 1923 (2022).

Sheridan has written several films, including the screenplay for Sicario (2015), for which he was nominated for the Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay. He was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay for Hell or High Water (2016), which was nominated for three other Oscars, including Best Picture. Sheridan also wrote and directed the 2017 neo-Western crime film Wind River and wrote the 2018 sequel to *Sicario*.

Sheridan got his start portraying Danny Boyd in Veronica Mars (2005–2007) as well as portraying David Hale in the FX television series Sons of Anarchy. He has since created several series for Paramount+, including the crime thriller Mayor of Kingstown, and the crime drama Tulsa King, (which he co-writes with Terence Winter),^[4] the espionage thriller Lioness, and the drama Landman.

In 2021, Sheridan was inducted into the Texas Cowboy Hall of Fame.^[5] In 2024, Sheridan was inducted into the Texas Business Hall of Fame.^[6] He is an Honorary Graduate at Texas Christian University.[citation ^needed]

Early life and education

Sheridan was born in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.^[7] Several news articles have reported that he grew up on a ranch in Cranfills Gap, Texas, but he was raised in Fort Worth, Texas, the son of a cardiologist.^[7] His cowboy identity comes from his mother, who was originally from Waco and loved visiting her grandparents' ranch in that area.^[8] When Sheridan was eight years old, his mother insisted on buying a ranch in Cranfills Gap so that her children would "learn firsthand about the peaceful feeling of freedom in nature".^[8] Sheridan learned how to be a cowboy during his family's frequent visits to the Cranfills Gap ranch when he was growing up in the late 1980s.^[7] Meanwhile, he attended and graduated from R. L. Paschal High School, where he was "the rare weekend wrangler who was also a theater kid".^[8]

---

GGL 7 25

5:08

YouTube · Paramount Plus

Landman | Tommy Explains Why Even Wind Turbines Depend ...

YouTube · Paramount Plus

Nov 27, 2024

We have 120-year petroleum-based infrastructure our whole lives depend on it.

2:36

TikTok · landmanpplus

Understanding Oil and Wind Energy in Texas

TikTok · landmanpplus

Dec 2, 2024

We have 120 year petroleum based infrastructure our whole lives depend on it.

3:43

YouTube · Paramount Plus

Landman | Monty Argues with Oil Execs (S1, E5) | Paramount+

YouTube · Paramount Plus

Dec 12, 2024

9:26

YouTube · BAFTA

Billy Bob Thornton's Shocking Landman Filming Secrets ...

YouTube · BAFTA

Nov 18, 2024

7 key moments in this video

Feedback

View all