Tag: Media

  • President Trump signed an executive order designed to cut federal funding to NPR and PBS

    President Trump signed an executive order designed to cut federal funding to NPR and PBS

    President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday evening seeking to prohibit federal funding for NPR and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The order, which could be subject to legal challenge, called the broadcasters’ news coverage “biased and partisan.”

    It instructs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to cease providing direct funds to either broadcaster. It also orders CPB to cease indirect funding of the services through grants to local public radio and television stations.

    CPB is the main distributor of federal funds to public media. It receives about $535 million in federal funds per fiscal year, which it mostly spends on grants to hundreds of stations nationwide. The stations spend the grants on making their own programming or on buying programming from services such as NPR and PBS.

    CPB, created by an act of Congress in 1967, also sometimes provides direct grants to NPR and PBS to produce national programs.

    Thursday’s order instructs the CPB board to ensure that stations receiving its grants “do not use Federal funds for NPR and PBS.”

    The board must “cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law” to NPR and PBS and “decline to provide future funding,” it says.

    It also instructs all federal agencies to “identify and terminate” any funding to the two broadcasters.

    Trump and his allies have long accused NPR and PBS of favoring progressive positions. The heads of each network were grilled in March over alleged liberal bias at a congressional hearing titled “Anti-American Airwaves,” led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia). Both executives rejected the accusation.

    “Each month, over 160 million television and online viewers explore the world through our trusted content,” Paula Kerger, president and CEO of PBS, said during the hearing.

    DNARFP7R2ITE7OCMNBBNLU6P7A size normalized
    People rally outside the NPR headquarters in Washington on March 26 to demand Congress protect funding for public broadcasters. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

    In an emailed statement, an NPR spokesperson said early Friday that “NPR’s editorial practices and decision-making are independent and free from outside influence.”

    “For more than 50 years, NPR has collaborated with local nonprofit public media organizations to fill critical needs for news and information in America’s communities,” the statement said, adding that “millions of Americans depend on NPR Member stations for rigorous, fact-based, public service journalism.”

    “Federal funding is essential to the work of public media and all public media stations,” it said.

    This week, CPB sued the Trump administration after it sent a letter to three board members attempting to terminate their positions. The lawsuit argues that the White House does not have authority over CPB because it is a nonprofit private corporation, not a federal agency. The lawsuit is ongoing, and Thursday’s order could be subject to a similarlegal challenge.

    Last month, White House officials said the administration would ask Congress to rescind funding that had already been allocated to CPB. In a statement at the time, the White House provided a list of examples of what it called biased content, such as an NPR article with facts about “queer animals” and a PBS documentary about a transgender teenager. It also accused the broadcasters of having “zero tolerance for non-leftist viewpoints.”

    PBS and CPB did not immediately respond to an overnight request for comment.

    Last month, Kerger said in a statement in response to Trump administration threats to rescind federal funding that “there’s nothing more American than PBS, and our work is only possible because of the bipartisan support we have always received from Congress.”

    CPB contributes about 1 percent of NPR’s budget and funds a portion of the hundreds of stations that license NPR content, according to the broadcaster. PBS is owned by its local member stations, which are usually partially funded by CPB grants. About 16 percent of its funding comes from the government, the service told The Washington Post in January.

    An average of about one-eighth of local public-station funding comes from CPB, according to the corporation, with the remainder coming from sources such as donations and sponsorships.

  • “60 Minutes” publicly criticized its parent company, Paramount Global, in an unusual on-air statement.

    “60 Minutes” publicly criticized its parent company, Paramount Global, in an unusual on-air statement.

    In an extraordinary on-air rebuke, one of the top journalists at “60 Minutes” directly criticized the program’s parent company in the final moments of its Sunday night CBS telecast, its first episode since the program’s executive producer, Bill Owens, announced his intention to resign.

    “Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways,” the correspondent, Scott Pelley, told viewers. “None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires.”

    A spokesman for Paramount had no immediate comment, and has previously declined to comment on Mr. Owens’s departure.

    Mr. Owens stunned the show’s staff on Tuesday when he said he would leave the highest-rated program in television news over disagreements with Paramount, CBS’s corporate parent, saying, “It’s clear the company is done with me.”

    Mr. Owens’s comments were widely reported in the press last week. The show’s decision to repeat those grievances on-air may have exposed viewers to the serious tensions between “60 Minutes” and its corporate overseers for the first time.

    Shari Redstone, the controlling shareholder of Paramount, has been intent on securing approval from the Trump administration for a multibillion-dollar sale of her media company to a studio run by the son of Larry Ellison, the tech billionaire.

    President Trump sued CBS last year, claiming $10 billion in damages, in a case stemming from a “60 Minutes” interview with the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, that Mr. Trump said was deceptively edited. Ms. Redstone has expressed her desire to settle Mr. Trump’s lawsuit, although legal experts have called the case far-fetched.

    In his remarks on Sunday night’s telecast, Mr. Pelley presented Mr. Owens’s decision to resign as an effort to protect “60 Minutes” from further interference.

    “He did it for us and you,” Mr. Pelley told viewers of the show, which began airing in 1968. “Stories we pursued for 57 years are often controversial — lately, the Israel-Gaza War and the Trump administration. Bill made sure they were accurate and fair. He was tough that way. But our parent company, Paramount, is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it.”

    After “60 Minutes” ran a segment in January about the war between Israel and Hamas, Ms. Redstone complained to CBS executives about what she considered the segment’s unfair slant. A day later, CBS appointed a veteran producer to a new role involving journalistic standards. She reviewed certain “60 Minutes” segments that were deemed sensitive.

    Representatives for Mr. Trump and for Paramount are involved in settlement talks, and mediation is expected to start this week.

    Mr. Pelley’s on-air monologue on Sunday night evoked a previous moment of public discord between “60 Minutes” and its corporate overseers.

    In 1995, also in a closing note to viewers, the correspondent Mike Wallace said on air that the program had chosen not to broadcast an interview with a former tobacco industry executive because managers at CBS News had given in to legal pressure. “60 Minutes” ultimately aired the interview, and the episode was later dramatized in “The Insider,” a 1999 movie starring Al Pacino as Lowell Bergman, a “60 Minutes” producer.

    Sunday’s “60 Minutes” episode also featured a segment that examined the Trump administration’s decision to reduce funding to the National Institutes of Health, including an interview with a former director who expressed his concerns about adverse effects on Americans’ health.

  • According to the WGA, TV writing positions dropped by 42 percent in the 2023‑24 season.

    According to the WGA, TV writing positions dropped by 42 percent in the 2023‑24 season.

    Even with the 2023 strikes in Hollywood’s rearview mirror, writers are still feeling the pinch.

    On Friday, the Writers Guild of America released new job statistics highlighting recent declines in television-writing jobs across various levels of the hierarchy. Post-Peak TV, those at the peak of profession were the largest casualties (in numbers).

    Of the 1,319 fewer TV writer jobs for the 2023-24 season (vs. 2022-23; pre-strikes), 642 jobs were lost — a decline of 40 percent — at the co-executive producer or higher (up to showrunner) level. Lower-level writers (staff writer, story editor, executive story editor) were the next most affected with 378 fewer jobs versus the prior season, down 46 percent. Mid-level positions (co-producer through consulting/supervising producer) declined by 299 (-42 percent).

    All told, there were 1,819 television writing jobs last season, a 42 percent decline from the 2022-23 season. Last season’s numbers are far fewer than even the COVID season of 2019-20, which employed 2,722 writers.

    Cord-cutters and corporate greed are to blame, the WGA says.

    “With an industry in transition — cable TV subscriptions and cable programming declining, a massive run-up and then pullback in streaming series as Wall Street demands quicker streaming platform profits — the number of TV jobs has declined,” the WGA’s latest jobs report reads.

    The report said the “studios’ prolonged unwillingness to negotiate a fair deal in 2023” was also to blame as it shortened the 2023-24 TV season.

    The WGA writers strike ran from May to September 2023. The Directors Guild of America reached a deal with media companies, but actors also took to picket lines as the SAG-AFTRA strike ran from July to November. Seasons of scripted shows were trimmed and some pickups were canceled. Approximately 37 percent fewer WGA-covered episodic series aired in 2023-24, per the report.

    The report was sent to WGA members Friday morning by the WGA West board of directors and WGA East council; The Hollywood Reporter obtained the email.

    “Writing careers have always been difficult to access and sustain, but the contraction has made it especially challenging,” the email to members reads. “We are all subject to the decisions of the companies that control this industry, who have pulled back spending on content based on the demands of Wall Street. Compounding that, the current administration seems intent on causing economic chaos and undermining our democracy.”

    Solid WGA data for the still-ongoing 2024-25 television season is still months away, the guild said. The WGA’s new contract with the studios should help employment bounce back — to some degree.

    It’s not just about needing more jobs, though that’s certainly a part of the WGA’s current mission. The 2023 negotiations were an attempt to thwart downsizing, yes, but also about “ensuring that however many projects the companies make, the jobs are good ones,” a WGA spokesperson told THR for this story.

    Television Writing Jobs Chart

    Television Writing Jobs, by Level

    Job Level2018-20192019-20202022-20232023-2024
    Lower Level Jobs (Staff Writer, Story Editor, Exec. Story Editor)795741824446
    Mid-Level Jobs (Co-Producer through Consulting/Supervising Producer)708649720421
    Upper Level Jobs (Co-EP through Showrunner)1,5081,3321,594952
    SOURCE: WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA

    Lest writers think movies are a safe haven in this post-Peak TV period, they are not. Though the number of WGA-covered films has been pretty stable over the past few years, the number of screenwriters working is down 15 percent. Screenwriter earnings are down 6 percent.

  • Robert W. McChesney, Who Warned of Corporate Media Control, Dies at 72

    Robert W. McChesney, Who Warned of Corporate Media Control, Dies at 72

    From 2002 to 2012, McChesney hosted the radio program Media Matters on Sunday afternoons on WILL-AM.
    From 2002 to 2012, McChesney hosted the radio program Media Matters on Sunday afternoons on WILL-AM.

    Robert W. McChesney, an influential left-leaning media critic who argued that corporate ownership was bad for American journalism and that Silicon Valley billionaires who dominated online information were a threat to democracy, died on March 25, at his home in Madison, Wis. He was 72.

    The cause was glioblastoma, an aggressive brain cancer, his wife, Inger Stole, said.

    Professor McChesney was grounded both in academia — he had a Ph.D. in communications and taught at universities — and in ink-on-paper journalism: He was the founding publisher of The Rocket, a Seattle music magazine that reviewed Nirvana’s first single.

    His primary thesis, expressed in more than a dozen books and in scores of articles and interviews, was that corporate-owned news media was overly compliant with the political powers that be and that it restricted the views Americans were exposed to. He further argued that the promise of the internet — of a Wild West market of opinions — had been throttled by a few giant owners of online platforms.

    An early book, “Rich Media, Poor Democracy” (1999), warned that consolidation in journalism would undermine democratic norms. In perhaps his best-known work, “Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet Against Democracy” (2013), he rejected the utopian view that the digital revolution would usher in an open frontier of information sources and invigorate democracy.

    Instead, he showed how the internet was devastating the business model for newspapers, while supplanting civically minded coverage of local government with lowest-common-denominator fluff: celebrity gossip, cat videos and personal navel gazing.

    Professor McChesney blamed capitalism.

    “The profit motive, commercialism, public relations, marketing, and advertising — all defining features of contemporary corporate capitalism — are foundational to any assessment of how the Internet has developed and is likely to develop,” he wrote.

    08McChesney fkbv jumbo
    In “Digital Disconnect,” Professor McChesney rejected the utopian view that the digital revolution would usher in an open frontier of information sources and invigorate democracy.Credit…The New Press

    An unapologetic socialist, Professor McChesney argued that the government should give all Americans $200 vouchers to donate to nonprofit news outlets of their choice.

    He campaigned for Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential races. Mr. Sanders returned the favor by writing a forward to Professor McChesney’s book “Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex Is Destroying America” (2013), written with John Nichols.

    In an interview with Truthout, a nonprofit news site focused on social justice, Professor McChesney attacked the mainstream media’s coverage of Mr. Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary that he lost to Hillary Clinton. CNN and MSNBC, he said, were deeply biased in favor of “centrist” candidates representing the status quo.

    “One can only imagine how Sanders would have done if he had coverage from MSNBC similar to what Obama received in 2007-08,” Professor McChesney said.

    The conservative writer David Horowitz put Professor McChesney on a list of the “101 Most Dangerous Academics in America” in 2006, including him among “tenured radicals” who were indoctrinating U.S. students.

    On the other hand, in 2008 Utne Reader named Professor McChesney as one of the “50 Visionaries Who Are Changing Your World.”

    Professor McChesney warned in 2016 that when corporate giants dominate online information — at the time, those giants were Facebook and Google — they hold too much power over what people know of the world.

    “This is really antithetical to anything remotely close to a free press and a free society,” he said in an interview with the left-leaning news outlet “Democracy Now!”

    The way to deal with such monopolies was to nationalize them, he said. He suggested a government takeover that would make internet behemoths into a quasi-public service, like the Post Office.

    Professor McChesney was also one of the founders, in 2003, of a public interest group, Free Press, that opposed corporate consolidation in the news business and that led a national campaign for net neutrality, calling for equal access to the internet for all content producers, from giants like Netflix to individual bloggers.

    08McChesney 02 kmhw superJumbo
    Professor McChesney in 2024. “Capitalism as we know it is a very bad fit for the technological revolution we are beginning to experience,” he observed.Credit…Inger Stole

    Robert Waterman McChesney was born on Dec. 22, 1952, in Cleveland, one of two sons of Samuel P. McChesney Jr., an advertising executive at This Week, a syndicated magazine inserted in Sunday newspapers, and Edna (McCorkle) McChesney.

    He grew up in the Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights and attended Pomfret, a prep school in Connecticut. In 1977, he graduated with a bachelor’s degree from Evergreen State College, in Washington, where he studied politics and economics.

    In 1979, after working as a sports stringer for U.P.I. and an editor at The Seattle Sun, an alternative weekly, he became the publisher of The Rocket, which charted the emergence of the Seattle grunge-rock scene in the 1980s and ’90s.

    Intellectually restless, he then enrolled in graduate school at the University of Washington, earning a Ph.D. in communications in 1989. For a decade, he taught in the journalism and mass communication department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    He and his wife, Dr. Stole, who also had a Ph.D. in communications, then moved to the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, where he was the Gutgsell Endowed Professor in the communications department.

    08McChesney mgjw superJumbo
    An early book, “Rich Media, Poor Democracy” (1999), warned that consolidation in journalism would undermine democratic norms.Credit…The New Press

    Professor McChesney’s books also include “Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights?” (2011), with Victor Pickard, and “Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy” (1997).

    In addition to his wife, he is survived by their daughters, Amy and Lucy McChesney; and a brother, Samuel P. McChesney III.

    In a late book, “People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy” (2016), written with Mr. Nichols, Professor McChesney argued that artificial intelligence and the digital revolution would wipe out numerous categories of jobs.

    08McChesney lphz superJumbo
    “People Get Ready” (2016) argued that artificial intelligence and the digital revolution would wipe out numerous categories of jobs.Credit…Hachette

    “Capitalism as we know it is a very bad fit for the technological revolution we are beginning to experience,” he said in an interview about the book.

    “Our argument is that we currently have a citizenless democracy,” he went on. “By that we mean a governing system where all the important decisions of government are made to suit the interests and values of the wealthiest and most powerful Americans, and the corporations they own.”

  • Radhika Jones, Vanity Fair’s chief editor, steps down

    Radhika Jones, Vanity Fair’s chief editor, steps down

    Radhika Jones, the editor of Vanity Fair since 2017, said on Thursday that she would step down, a surprise decision that opens up one of the most highly visible jobs in American journalism.

    Ms. Jones, 52, said in an email to Vanity Fair’s staff that she was leaving to take on new challenges, adding that she didn’t want to experience the “horror of staying too long at the party.”

    “I began to feel, more powerfully, the pull of new goals in my life, around family and friends and writing and other ways to make an impact,” Ms. Jones wrote.

    She addressed Vanity Fair’s staff in a short meeting at the magazine’s offices at One World Trade Center on Thursday, joined by Anna Wintour, the chief content officer at the magazine’s publisher, Condé Nast, who gave Ms. Jones an emotional farewell, according to a transcript of the gathering.

    Ms. Jones said in her email that her last day would be in the spring. She did not comment on her future plans.

    Ms. Wintour told staff at the meeting that Ms. Jones would help with the transition “as we start the search for a new editor.”

    “We look forward to Vanity Fair’s exciting next chapter,” Ms. Wintour said. She added: “Radhika, we are so grateful for your high standards of journalism, your fearlessness and your empathetic leadership. You will be much missed.” David Remnick, the top editor of The New Yorker, another Condé Nast magazine, called Ms. Jones an editor of “incredible intelligence and grace” in an email.

    “She brought enormous humanity to Vanity Fair and into every meeting of Condé Nast editors,” Mr. Remnick said. “I’ll miss her enormously.”

    Ms. Jones is leaving one of journalism’s top jobs at a time of profound disruption in the magazine business. Though many magazines have been shuttered or sold over the last decades as advertising pages have shrunk, Vanity Fair has held on as a staple of Condé Nast, which also publishes Vogue.

    The magazine’s paid circulation held steady at around 1.2 million from 2017 to 2025, according to figures from the Alliance for Audited Media, with growth in digital subscriptions offsetting a decline in print. Web traffic has declined 39 percent over the last four years, according to the digital analytics firm Comscore.

    Ms. Jones started the job in December 2017, succeeding Graydon Carter, who retired that year after 25 years at the helm. A former editorial director of the books department at The New York Times and a former top editor at Time magazine, she was something of a surprise choice, picked over many of Mr. Carter’s top lieutenants.

    Once her tenure as editor got underway, Ms. Jones had to compete with some of Vanity Fair’s best-known alumni. Mr. Carter launched Air Mail, a digital weekly, after he left, persuading some of his former writers and editors from Vanity Fair to join him. Jon Kelly, a former senior editor at Vanity Fair, launched Puck, a digital start-up that covers much of the same ground as the magazine.

    Ms. Jones was the fifth editor of the modern incarnation of Vanity Fair, a Jazz Age relic that Condé Nast relaunched in 1983 and that became a definitional publication of late-century American excess, celebrity and materialism. Under the editor Tina Brown and later Mr. Carter, the magazine grew into a global brand that was epitomized by its annual Oscar party, where moguls and movie stars mingled over Michelin-starred canapés and an appearance was tantamount to joining the Hollywood elite.

    Mr. Carter, who left the magazine when he sensed that the industry’s glory days were over, released a memoir last week chronicling his years of abundance at Vanity Fair. The tales of Concorde flights and limitless expense accounts only highlighted the diminished state of Condé in an era when social media influencers and digital upstarts have gutted the advertising base that once sustained its printed glossies.

    Ms. Jones’s appointment also coincided with a cultural reckoning within Condé Nast. She lamented that Vanity Fair, which for years had the ability to mint new stars, had overwhelmingly featured white actors on its covers, and her debut issue featured Lena Waithe, the Black actress and screenwriter. Ms. Jones was applauded for her efforts to diversify the magazine’s stable of writers and celebrities, but she also faced pushback from some colleagues who believed that her editorial vision lacked focus and panache.

    The appeal of the Oscar party itself became litigated in the Manhattan and Hollywood press. “When invitations went out this year, one of my big clients asked me, ‘Is Vanity Fair still a hot invite?,’ which tells you everything you need to know,” one publicist said in 2019. (The party remained a coveted ticket under Ms. Jones, generating record revenue this year, and still attracts a high-wattage tier of celebrity.)

    Ms. Jones notched scoops (Beto O’Rourke’s presidential announcement in 2019) and commissioned an Amy Sherald painting of Breonna Taylor, a Black woman who was killed by police officers in Kentucky, that made waves when it appeared as the magazine’s cover in September 2020. Katherine Eban, a correspondent for Vanity Fair, won a Polk Award this year for her reporting on bird flu. But like other modern editors in chief, Ms. Jones was forced to contend with shrinking budgets, layoffs and emboldened story subjects who no longer rely on traditional magazines to reach the public.

  • German Billionaire Eyes Wall Street Journal Buyout

    German Billionaire Eyes Wall Street Journal Buyout

    In the cutthroat arena of global media mergers, few names evoke the blend of ambition and audacity quite like Mathias Döpfner, the silver-haired CEO and co-owner of Axel Springer SE. The 62-year-old German billionaire, a board member at Netflix and a self-proclaimed Elon Musk confidant, has long harbored designs on American journalism’s crown jewels. In a candid Financial Times interview this week, Döpfner openly acknowledged his interest in acquiring The Wall Street Journal from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp empire—a tantalizing prospect that could catapult Axel Springer into the elite echelon of U.S. media powerhouses, even as he navigates a high-stakes corporate breakup and a frosty family feud at News Corp.

    Döpfner’s flirtation with the Journal comes at a pivotal juncture. He’s on the cusp of sealing a €13.5 billion ($14.2 billion) divorce from private equity giant KKR & Co., which will hand him and the widow of Axel Springer’s founder, Friede Springer, a commanding 98% stake in the company’s vaunted media portfolio. The deal, expected to finalize in early 2026, severs the classifieds arm—home to sites like StepStone and Aviv—leaving Döpfner with unencumbered control over tabloid juggernauts like Bild and Die Welt, alongside U.S. darlings Business Insider (acquired for $343 million in 2015) and Politico (snapped up for $1 billion in 2021). “This split gives us new freedom and opportunity,” Döpfner told the FT, though he candidly admitted the “higher risk” of ditching KKR’s financial ballast. To offset that, he’s slashing costs at his German titles amid a print ad slump, while doubling down on transatlantic growth.

    The Wall Street Journal, with its 3.8 million subscribers and a digital paywall that’s become a Wall Street must-read, represents the ultimate prize. Valued at $5.6 billion when Murdoch scooped it up in 2007, the paper’s worth has likely swelled to $8-10 billion today, fueled by a 15% revenue bump to $1.2 billion in fiscal 2025, per News Corp filings. For Döpfner, who unsuccessfully bid for the Financial Times a decade ago, it would crown his U.S. foray: Axel Springer’s American revenue has tripled to €800 million since the Politico buy, driven by premium subscriptions and event tie-ins like the Semafor World Economy Summit. Yet, caveats abound. Döpfner stressed the Journal “doesn’t appear to be up for sale,” pegging his odds at “close to zero.” Insiders at News Corp, however, whisper of opportunity amid the octogenarian Murdoch’s acrimonious succession battle. With eldest son Lachlan at the helm but siblings James and Elisabeth chafing at the conservative tilt, a sale could sidestep inheritance woes—especially if it nets billions to fund pet projects or buy peace.

    Financing the deal? That’s the rub. Axel Springer’s media unit was pegged at €3.5 billion in the KKR split, leaving scant dry powder for a blockbuster bid without debt or equity partners. Döpfner, ever the networker, has wooed U.S. tech titans—Musk dined at his Mar-a-Lago wedding last year—and sits on Netflix’s board, but skeptics question his firepower. “He’s a charmer with connections from Berlin to Silicon Valley, but €10 billion? That’s Musk money, not Springer scale,” quipped one media banker at a London drinks bash. Still, underestimation is folly: Döpfner’s track record includes outmaneuvering rivals for Politico during a bidding war and pivoting Bild to a profitable digital fortress despite Germany’s ad woes.

    Mounting Woes at Wood Group: CFO Exit Amid Takeover Ghosts and Cash Crunch

    As Döpfner’s empire eyes blue-sky expansion, across the Channel, Scotland’s Wood Group PLC is mired in a cautionary tale of M&A mishaps and executive missteps. The FTSE 250 engineering firm, a North Sea oil survivor turned renewables hopeful, saw its shares crater another 8% to 45p on Wednesday—valuing it at a mere £170 million—after chief financial officer Arvind Balan abruptly resigned, admitting to “misstating” his professional qualifications. The board, tipped off by an FT inquiry, accepted his immediate departure, leaving CEO Ken Gilmartin to steady a ship already listing from two botched buyouts and a grim cash outlook.

    Balan’s exit, just weeks after Wood’s bombshell November warning of up to $200 million in negative free cash flow for 2025 (flipping prior positivity), piles fresh ignominy on a company once hailed as Britain’s engineering export success. Apollo Global Management ditched a £2.2 billion ($2.9 billion) takeover in 2023 over valuation spats, followed by Dubai’s Sidara bailing on a £1.7 billion pact last year—each time sending shares into freefall. Now, with a market cap slashed 70% from 2024 highs, takeover whispers abound anew: Analysts at Peel Hunt speculate a third suitor could emerge at 150-200p a share, lured by Wood’s 40,000-strong workforce and contracts in LNG and hydrogen. “To lose one bid is misfortune; two, carelessness; three? Opportunity,” one investor quipped, channeling Oscar Wilde.

    Yet, the rot runs deeper. Wood’s pivot from fossil fuels—amid a 20% drop in oilfield services demand—has faltered, with Q3 revenue flat at $1.8 billion and debt ticking up to $1.2 billion. Balan’s fibs, reportedly inflating his CFA credentials, erode trust at a firm already under UK Listing Rules scrutiny. Investors, nursing 40% losses since Sidara’s snub, demand clarity: Will the board launch an qualifications audit? And could this nadir finally seal a deal, perhaps with a U.S. PE player eyeing Europe’s green transition?

    In broader dealmaking ripples, Howard Lutnick’s ascension to U.S. Commerce Secretary has reshuffled Cantor Fitzgerald, with sons Brandon (a DJ) and Kyle named chair and vice-chair, respectively—nepotism headlines be damned. Meanwhile, AlbaCore Capital elevated Davide Chiesa to partner, and Weil Gotshal tapped Michael Aiello for a new leadership committee ahead of Barry Wolf’s 2027 retirement.

    As media titans like Döpfner chase legacies and industrials like Wood grapple with survival, 2026 looms as a year of bold bets—and brutal reckonings—in tech-infused dealmaking.