Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of Strictly Business, the podcast in
Speaker 1: which we speak with some of the brightest minds working
Speaker 1: in the media business. Today, I'm Andrew Wallenstein with Variety.
Speaker 1: A new book is out that is sure to get
Speaker 1: Hollywood talking about one of its most gossiped family empires,
Speaker 1: The red Stones. Unscripted, The Battle for a Media Empire
Speaker 1: and the red Stone Family Legacy reveals the behind the
Speaker 1: scenes battles that ripped through Viacom and CBS before their merger.
Speaker 1: In I'm happy to have the book's Pulitzer winning authors
Speaker 1: with me today, Jim Stewart and Rachel Abrams. I'll be
Speaker 1: back with them in just a moment. I'm back with
Speaker 1: Jim Stewart, author of quite a few books that have
Speaker 1: penetrated the corridors of power from politics to big business,
Speaker 1: and Rachel Abrams, who was part of the team of
Speaker 1: investigative journalists who dug into the Harvey Weinstein scandal for
Speaker 1: The New York Times, where both she and Jim work
Speaker 1: full disclosure. Rachel used to work with me here at Variety,
Speaker 1: but as she knows, that doesn't mean I will take
Speaker 1: it easy on her one bit. Welcome guys, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Andy, Yeah, thanks and h thanks for having
Speaker 1: us so unscripted tells the story of both Sumner Redstone,
Speaker 1: the founding father of the Viacom Empire, and Leslie Moonvez,
Speaker 1: who had an extraordinary run at CBS. Both men, however,
Speaker 1: ended their otherwise illustrious careers in pretty messy fashion, as
Speaker 1: you document so well here and Jim, I wanted to
Speaker 1: start with you. You know, there's been a lot of
Speaker 1: inks billed on both of these gentlemen. What were you
Speaker 1: looking for that wasn't already out there? What made you
Speaker 1: think there was more story to tell? Well? I had
Speaker 1: done a lot of reporting, as had Rachel about what
Speaker 1: was going on in the scene yes board at the
Speaker 1: time of moon vezus Oustair and I knew even though
Speaker 1: we had done some reporting in this one the New
Speaker 1: York Times, there were still a lot of unanswered questions.
Speaker 1: So I was I really wanted to get to the
Speaker 1: bottom of that. I think we were both kind of
Speaker 1: thinking of it initially as the whole meat too movement
Speaker 1: collides with, you know, the boardroom culture in corporate America
Speaker 1: as we saw it as CB a guest. Then, as
Speaker 1: we worked on the story and we gained more access.
Speaker 1: First of all, we got incredible access to documents that
Speaker 1: weren't disclosed in the book from the boardroom. But we
Speaker 1: also started getting more and more information from the staff,
Speaker 1: the nurses inside the Sumner Redstone mansion that also had
Speaker 1: not been reported, and we realized at some point the
Speaker 1: story was bigger than that. Wasn't just a corporate boardroom
Speaker 1: meets me too. It was also a family drama that
Speaker 1: was very, very significant. And we had Sherry Redstone, the daughter,
Speaker 1: the much underappreciated, to put it mildly, daughter of Sumner Redstone,
Speaker 1: the rust into a world not of her choosing uh
Speaker 1: in an attempt to gain control of the companies and
Speaker 1: the family legacy. So that became the much bigger story.
Speaker 1: That kind of is a corporate story, is a me
Speaker 1: too story, but it's much bigger than that. Ultimately, I
Speaker 1: think it's a family drama. So, Rachel, could you explain
Speaker 1: from me, in light of all this documentation and other
Speaker 1: disclosures that came out and you're reporting, is there any
Speaker 1: one thing that people are going to be surprised by
Speaker 1: that they didn't know from earlier reporting new new light
Speaker 1: that this book sheds. Well, I can tell you the
Speaker 1: one thing I was not surprised by, really shocked by,
Speaker 1: was the sort of the level of alleged elder abuse
Speaker 1: that Sumner Redstone suffered towards the end of his life.
Speaker 1: And the reason why I say it was shocked by
Speaker 1: this but not surprised, is that, you know, we for
Speaker 1: somebody like him, with all of his money and all
Speaker 1: of his resources, you would think that, you know, he
Speaker 1: would be somewhat insulated from people who were trying to
Speaker 1: take advantage of him. But the fact that you know,
Speaker 1: he these two women, men Will Hurtser and Sydney Holland,
Speaker 1: were able to to insinuate themselves into his life and
Speaker 1: to his mansion, into his finances and nearly gained control.
Speaker 1: It just goes to show you that, I mean, frankly,
Speaker 1: you know, if it could happen to sun To Redstone,
Speaker 1: why couldn't it happen to to somebody in your family?
Speaker 1: And one could argue that his wealth made him a
Speaker 1: target of people who were trying to get gain an
Speaker 1: upper hand or get rich or whatever, but you know,
Speaker 1: just frankly, just the level to which people were able
Speaker 1: to succeed and siphon away millions of dollars from him. Um.
Speaker 1: I found that really really sort of amazing. And when
Speaker 1: you say millions of dollars, I think the one thing
Speaker 1: that's stuck from stuck with me from this book was
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty million dollars between Hurtzer and Holland
Speaker 1: I didn't realize it was. I was just absolutely flabbergasted
Speaker 1: by that. And I think to your point, in a way,
Speaker 1: the story of Redstone reminded me of celebrities like Michael
Speaker 1: Jackson or Whitney Houston, where the wealth that you would
Speaker 1: think would be the installation actually becomes a prison of sorts.
Speaker 1: And it just got me thinking, is there going to
Speaker 1: be a legal legacy from what has transpired here, Jim,
Speaker 1: in terms of like preventing this kind of activity from
Speaker 1: happening to moguls or whoever could be taken advantage of
Speaker 1: like this. Well, I think you see in the story.
Speaker 1: I wish I could say, yes that there would be
Speaker 1: a lot of cogress on this, but not really. The
Speaker 1: you know, the the Los Angeles Protective Service here, which
Speaker 1: supposedly investigative this did a laughably incomplete job. They never
Speaker 1: even interviewed the staff members who filed the compliance about
Speaker 1: the elder abews there were lawsuits that might have yielded
Speaker 1: some significant rulings had they gone to completion, but for
Speaker 1: reasons that are clear than the story, both sides wanted
Speaker 1: to settle this so that never jually went to trial.
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry to say, probably some of you going
Speaker 1: to read this and look at you know, what happened
Speaker 1: to the companions of Sumners, you know, Sydney and manuelas
Speaker 1: Rachel mentioned, and say, look, it paid off for them. They,
Speaker 1: by the way, a hundred fifty million, which I agree
Speaker 1: is shocking. That's kind of the bottom line. It was
Speaker 1: at least a hundred fifty million. I think there were
Speaker 1: many more millions on top of that, not to mention
Speaker 1: the shocking fact they nearly got control. I mean, at
Speaker 1: one point I said, can you imagine Sun Valley with
Speaker 1: Sydney Holland and MANUELA Hurts are parading around there. They
Speaker 1: came very close to that. I don't think people realize, um,
Speaker 1: how how much that, how close that came to happening.
Speaker 1: And Jim, You've pierced many a vail of secrecy over
Speaker 1: the course of your reporting career, and so I'm curious
Speaker 1: how this one measured up. To say a Disney Wars
Speaker 1: another book of yours. I mean, we're people willing to
Speaker 1: talk about this stuff. Yes, I think you know, we
Speaker 1: detailed many sources, uh, and there there was an extraordinary
Speaker 1: ray of people who ultimately did talk to us in
Speaker 1: various ways, some completely for attribution, some willing to fact
Speaker 1: check and but not wanting specific things attributed. And we
Speaker 1: go into that in the source. But you know, we
Speaker 1: got so much information that people really had no choice
Speaker 1: but to talk so and I have to say it's
Speaker 1: unprecedented and is now a very long career of mine,
Speaker 1: partly because Rachel, you know, developed a relationship with a
Speaker 1: confidential source who provided a call it a treasure trove
Speaker 1: is an understatement. I mean, it was a luminous amount
Speaker 1: of confidential, detailed information that able enabled us to really
Speaker 1: be a fly on the wall in it seems that
Speaker 1: I've never had that kind of immediate access. And plus
Speaker 1: we got all these texts and emails and you can
Speaker 1: kind of be there in real time as you see
Speaker 1: the struggles going on within the company with you know,
Speaker 1: moon Vest trying to decide whether to sue the red
Speaker 1: Stone family was something that nobody has ever understood why
Speaker 1: he did it? I think you will now, Um, as
Speaker 1: well as boardroom minutes, letters, UM, an incredible rad text
Speaker 1: and emails and which are you know, made it rich
Speaker 1: load of material from which to weave this tale. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'd say the texts were particularly juicy, particularly shocking, and
Speaker 1: gave you an insight that is it's it really went
Speaker 1: to the absolute center of what was going on here. UM, Rachel,
Speaker 1: I want to talk a bit also about Leslie Moonvez,
Speaker 1: who you know, looms pretty large in the in the
Speaker 1: second half of this book. UM, did you come away
Speaker 1: from your reporting with a different impression of the man
Speaker 1: than what you set out to? What? What did you
Speaker 1: learn along the way that might have changed what you
Speaker 1: thought about someone who had a pretty incredible career. You know,
Speaker 1: one thing I was really kind of surprised to learn
Speaker 1: was how indecisive he had been about you know, this
Speaker 1: nuclear option to file lawsuit against the you know, the
Speaker 1: Redstone controlling company National Amusements. You know, the text as
Speaker 1: you can see in the text messages and the communications
Speaker 1: that he's having with other board members, etcetera. He I
Speaker 1: would have thought that somebody that had risen to the
Speaker 1: upper echelons of the media world would be somebody who
Speaker 1: made decisions stuck with them, you know, showed no signs
Speaker 1: of vulnerability or waffling or anything like that. But as
Speaker 1: you'll read in the book, Um, that was not the
Speaker 1: case here, and that was not the case to sort
Speaker 1: of an extraordinary degree. I mean, just seeing the cajoling
Speaker 1: that's going on behind the scenes as he's trying to
Speaker 1: figure out whether to wage war against the Red Stones.
Speaker 1: That is not the kind of decisiveness I would have
Speaker 1: perhaps expected with somebody of his stature. And I will
Speaker 1: say that after reading this, I think any any mogul
Speaker 1: who reads this will probably never text again because it
Speaker 1: will come back to haunt you. This book will show
Speaker 1: you that much. And Rachel, you've done extensive reporting on
Speaker 1: the me too saga, and now that we're years away
Speaker 1: from the from the fall all of Leslie moon Vez,
Speaker 1: I'm also curious to get your sense of how the
Speaker 1: me too movement has played out. Has there been lasting
Speaker 1: cultural change in this business as a result of the
Speaker 1: kind of reporting you've done. Well, I think it's too
Speaker 1: early to talk about what the lasting changes are going
Speaker 1: to be. I think, not to sound overly cynical, but
Speaker 1: companies have become very good at damage control and saying
Speaker 1: all the right things in the wake of a scandal.
Speaker 1: But it takes a lot to change a culture, especially
Speaker 1: a culture where the culture has been ingrained from you know,
Speaker 1: the top for years. And one thing that I think
Speaker 1: is really interesting that you know, it's we're too It's
Speaker 1: still too early to tell, but I do wonder if
Speaker 1: we're going to see any of these guys come back, right, Like,
Speaker 1: Hollywood especially loves a redemption story. And you know, some
Speaker 1: of these guys, are they going to live in exile
Speaker 1: long enough for for people to think, well, you know,
Speaker 1: if I offer them a movie deal or an executive
Speaker 1: job like I you know, I don't think anyone's gonna
Speaker 1: cancel me. And and I sort of wonder, you know,
Speaker 1: are any of these guys going to be coming back?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's only been what five years or so
Speaker 1: less than five years, sorry, six years ish since Harvey
Speaker 1: Weinstein broke So I do wonder, you know, if, if,
Speaker 1: if we're going to see any comebacks, um, and I
Speaker 1: think that'll be really telling in terms of figuring out
Speaker 1: what's changed, what hasn't you know, Andy, I M I
Speaker 1: wish I could say that there's been a huge change there.
Speaker 1: There's no doubt there has been changed, For example, against
Speaker 1: shocking things, the idea that less Moon bez as he
Speaker 1: himself disclosed, and we reveal there was a there was
Speaker 1: a woman on the CBS payroll who was in the
Speaker 1: pool of people sitting outside his office. Part of his
Speaker 1: job was to administer oral sex to him whenever he wanted.
Speaker 1: I would like to think that that almost unbelievable thing
Speaker 1: is not happening anymore. On the other hand, I was
Speaker 1: also very strong, as was Rachel. And how fearful people
Speaker 1: still are about coming forward. I mean, we have women
Speaker 1: in the in the book who had not previously spoken
Speaker 1: to the press, who I don't think people were aware of,
Speaker 1: had undergone some of these things, and me too has
Speaker 1: not changed much. There's still afraid of their careers. There's
Speaker 1: still afraid that they'll be black ball there's still afraid
Speaker 1: that that Hollywood in particular and entertainment is a very
Speaker 1: male dominated um industry in which their careers would be ruined.
Speaker 1: And really, there were people we talked to who would
Speaker 1: not agree. They ultimately they said, no, we're not going
Speaker 1: to put our neck on the lawn for this so
Speaker 1: that is still a serious problem in my view. Well,
Speaker 1: so to that point, I mean, this was something that
Speaker 1: woul occurred to me as I read the book as well,
Speaker 1: which was how many other women either didn't want to
Speaker 1: speak or how many other women you may not even
Speaker 1: have known of that were implicated in this And obviously
Speaker 1: you can't disclose who, what went and why, but give
Speaker 1: a sense of the scale here, In other words, was
Speaker 1: there even was there you know, many many more women
Speaker 1: who wouldn't speak, or many many more women that you
Speaker 1: heard things about but couldn't confirm. I just perhaps this
Speaker 1: is even more the scale here is even greater than
Speaker 1: you guys have reported. I mean, Andy, you know this
Speaker 1: also being a journalist, Like whenever you report something, the
Speaker 1: question is always, well, this is what I know? What
Speaker 1: don't I know? And you know, I don't really want
Speaker 1: to speculate about the universe of how, you know, how
Speaker 1: big big, how many women might be out there, because
Speaker 1: you know, I don't want to cast dispersions with information
Speaker 1: I haven't confirmed myself, but but I will say that,
Speaker 1: like I have talked to people who are related to
Speaker 1: this story who say there is no upside for me
Speaker 1: talking to you and I just want to emphasize what
Speaker 1: Jim said, which is that, you know, frankly, as a
Speaker 1: woman covering some of this stuff the last few years,
Speaker 1: one of the I would argue kind of sexist criticisms
Speaker 1: for women coming forward in these stories is well, they
Speaker 1: just want attention, you know, the floodgates of open. People
Speaker 1: just want attention. And I can tell you that like
Speaker 1: more often than not, when I talk to somebody, they
Speaker 1: see no upside moon best CBS or regardless. There's the
Speaker 1: response I get is there is no upside for me
Speaker 1: talking to you. What do I get out of this?
Speaker 1: My career will be ruined, my children will find out,
Speaker 1: you know, why would I want this out there? And
Speaker 1: so I think if anybody thinks that that people are
Speaker 1: everyone is eager and embraces calls from me or Jim
Speaker 1: with open arms, I mean, that is really a misconception.
Speaker 1: Ye Andy, I'd also like to add an important theme
Speaker 1: in this book that hadn't been explored much is the
Speaker 1: intersection of sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and money. Um, there
Speaker 1: are there are many examples here of women. Yes, they
Speaker 1: did undergo pretty horrific behavior on the part of men,
Speaker 1: but they also got a lot of money. I mean,
Speaker 1: Sydney Manuela may have walked away with a hundred fifty
Speaker 1: million plus, but there are many many other women that
Speaker 1: we ran into in this story who left with many
Speaker 1: millions of dollars in their bank account with you know,
Speaker 1: with CBS and Viacom shares that just mysteriously showed up
Speaker 1: in their brokerage accounts. And you know, frankly, a lot
Speaker 1: of those people they didn't want to talk to us,
Speaker 1: They didn't want to do anything would put those millions
Speaker 1: of dollars at risk, like somebody may be sailing them
Speaker 1: or something. So I think that combination, when you're when
Speaker 1: you're dealing with very wealthy and powerful people with money
Speaker 1: to spread around, you're you're e veneering a new area
Speaker 1: of sexual harassment interviews in my view. But what do
Speaker 1: you guys as reporters do when you have to encounter
Speaker 1: people like this who have no incentive? What are the reporting,
Speaker 1: for lack of a better term, tricks of the trade
Speaker 1: to coax these people to speak to you. I mean,
Speaker 1: it just sounds very difficult. I think it really depends
Speaker 1: on what the person's motivations are for picking up the
Speaker 1: phone and talking to you. Is somebody talking to you
Speaker 1: because they don't want this whatever happened to them to
Speaker 1: happen to other people, in which case you can say, look,
Speaker 1: you know, I getting your story out there might be
Speaker 1: able to I mean Megan Megan too, who is one
Speaker 1: of the reporters on the Weinstein story, UM, has this
Speaker 1: great line where she talks about saying to women, I
Speaker 1: can't change what happened to you, but maybe I can
Speaker 1: prevent it from happening to other people. And I have
Speaker 1: to confess I've stolen that on more than one occasion. UM.
Speaker 1: And And but some people also, you know, I feel
Speaker 1: that that that nobody has ever been held accountable to
Speaker 1: what happened to them. And you have to just reassure
Speaker 1: folks that, like, we work at the New York Times
Speaker 1: and we handle all kinds of sensitive information every day,
Speaker 1: and we know how to keep keep keep people confidential.
Speaker 1: And you have to just reassure folks that, like you
Speaker 1: can take action with the information that they give you
Speaker 1: to maybe you know, shed a light on something, UM
Speaker 1: and keep them safe. You know, I think it's it
Speaker 1: all comes down to how would you feel if a
Speaker 1: stranger called you out of the blue and asked you
Speaker 1: about really sensitive info that you just going to want
Speaker 1: to know that that they know how to treat you
Speaker 1: and treat you with respect and and keep and and
Speaker 1: hold your confidence. So there's no one one size fits all, um,
Speaker 1: But I guess those are a couple of things that
Speaker 1: I like to keep in mind. I think it was
Speaker 1: a big advantage there were two of us and um,
Speaker 1: and you know, Rachel was able to relate, I think,
Speaker 1: and you know, bond with a lot of these people
Speaker 1: in a way that I probably couldn't do. And then
Speaker 1: there were some some examples where maybe it was good
Speaker 1: that I was not, you know, immurse so much in
Speaker 1: the me too reporting because we did sort of Rachel
Speaker 1: did a lot of the women who experienced sexual viies
Speaker 1: and I did some myself, and she was right. You
Speaker 1: never knew what approach it was. But I have to
Speaker 1: admire the people have spoke because in no case did
Speaker 1: it really bring them any immediate advantage to be able
Speaker 1: to tell the stories. Yeah, I think one of the
Speaker 1: great things about this book. I mean, this process was
Speaker 1: so interesting and Jim and I, you know, really I
Speaker 1: had obviously the subject matter was dark at times, but
Speaker 1: also some of it was quite lighthearted, and Jim and I,
Speaker 1: you know, really enjoyed this process in working together, and
Speaker 1: we really played to our strengths. You know, Jim is
Speaker 1: obviously a very U steven business reporter, and there are
Speaker 1: people that are going to answer his phone call that
Speaker 1: might be more reticent to call me back. And there
Speaker 1: are people that I might be able to relate to
Speaker 1: as a thirty five year old woman that would be
Speaker 1: better for me to call. And it's not like I
Speaker 1: haven't done corporate investigations, It's not like Jim hasn't spoken
Speaker 1: to women who have made sexual assault allegations. But you know,
Speaker 1: this book being the collision, as Jim said, of Me
Speaker 1: Too and corporate governance, the two of us really were
Speaker 1: able to cover a lot of ground and we really
Speaker 1: embraced that. We'll be back in just a moment with
Speaker 1: more with Rachel Abrams and Jim Stewart, and we are
Speaker 1: back with the authors of the new book Unscripted, the
Speaker 1: Battle for a Media Empire and the red Stone Family
Speaker 1: legg See, Rachel, I want to go back to something
Speaker 1: you had said earlier that reminded me of I was
Speaker 1: reading the epilogue just last night, and I think I
Speaker 1: howled out loud at the part where you guys reported
Speaker 1: that peers of Leslie Moonvez wondered whether he would return
Speaker 1: to the industry at some point. I can understand why
Speaker 1: his friends might think that. Do you really think that
Speaker 1: something like that as possible? As I think you suggested
Speaker 1: earlier in this conversation. I just really feel as though,
Speaker 1: again Hollywood loves a redemption story, and Leslie Moonvez has
Speaker 1: helped many people in their careers. Are a lot of people,
Speaker 1: as Jim said, that feel very grateful to him, And
Speaker 1: I would have to imagine that there is a world
Speaker 1: where the combination of time, distance, gratitude, perhaps people feeling
Speaker 1: like they owe him something like all of those things,
Speaker 1: I could imagine a world in which they all combine
Speaker 1: were so somebody's willing to give him another shot, And um,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't. I don't know if it's likely
Speaker 1: or not, but I you know, he's done a lot
Speaker 1: of favors for a lot of people, He's made a
Speaker 1: lot of careers, and you know, scandals fade with time,
Speaker 1: So there's a world in which it could be possible.
Speaker 1: I suppose. I mean, he's already set up an LLC
Speaker 1: for his media ventures. Um, I believe in West Hollywood, right, So,
Speaker 1: but has this company actually done anything? Do we do
Speaker 1: we know anything about his mindset these days? Is he
Speaker 1: angling for a comeback or maybe he's just done. He's
Speaker 1: been keeping a low profile. But you know, I just
Speaker 1: I just think I would be wary of saying never,
Speaker 1: you know, never say never. And and you know, I
Speaker 1: think it's fairness to to Moonvez. He's not a Harvey Weinstein. Um.
Speaker 1: He was immensely well locked, he was very popular, He
Speaker 1: helped many people in their careers. He was an extremely
Speaker 1: successful chief executive re civs over all those years. And
Speaker 1: I've talked to friends of mine in the business in
Speaker 1: Hollywood have said, you know, look, I don't really know
Speaker 1: what happened there, but you know I don't want to
Speaker 1: run a foul of him or across him. I bear
Speaker 1: him nothing good will. Plus you said that staunch support
Speaker 1: of his very popular wife, Julie Chance. So I would
Speaker 1: never count him out. And by the way, he's never
Speaker 1: in charge of the crown, He's never ensued civilly. Most
Speaker 1: of these incidents happened too long ago. The statute of
Speaker 1: limitations is run. Um, So you know, I would never
Speaker 1: count him out. I'm wondering whether we should be counting
Speaker 1: out Philippe Domant, who of course was red Stones right
Speaker 1: hand man. And Karen, tell me if I'm getting this wrong,
Speaker 1: comes off as much of grifter in this book as
Speaker 1: Sydney Holland or Manuela Herzer. I mean, do we have
Speaker 1: we heard a peep from him since he exited stage left? Well,
Speaker 1: he shows up at some charity balls in Palm Beach
Speaker 1: with his wife, But no, I don't think he shows
Speaker 1: any interest in the business. I honestly I don't know. However,
Speaker 1: how interested he ever really was um in the movie
Speaker 1: business or entertainment per say, he was a corporate lawyer.
Speaker 1: He became very close to Sumner. He was known as
Speaker 1: his surrogate son, which he encouraged. And again you see
Speaker 1: in the book there's some testimony from him. He knew
Speaker 1: what was going on. He knew about all these women,
Speaker 1: he knew the millions of dollars that were being paid
Speaker 1: out to him. He was a trustee of the Redstone Trust.
Speaker 1: And you know, didn't he ever say anything about this?
Speaker 1: Did he ever evenything to stop it? No? Um, He's
Speaker 1: walked out of there with you know, many many millions
Speaker 1: of dollars. Um you know, and I'm sure that you
Speaker 1: know he's from his point of view, this all worked
Speaker 1: out very well, and he presided over a period for
Speaker 1: a company that used to have i'd say probably the
Speaker 1: most valuable brands and media that by the time he left,
Speaker 1: the likes of MTV, Comedy Central or were diminished to
Speaker 1: the point where we may never see them recover. And
Speaker 1: something that certainly comes across in the book as well. UM,
Speaker 1: simple question here, is this story really over? I mean,
Speaker 1: I still feel like we're seeing headlines and we saw
Speaker 1: recently the New York Attorney's Office, uh, disclosing about additional
Speaker 1: payments Moonvez agreed to make with regard to a cover
Speaker 1: up at the l a p D. Moonves being tipped
Speaker 1: off by the l a p D with regard to
Speaker 1: something in that case. Uh. Is this even over? It
Speaker 1: certainly seems like there are still reverberations from this, and
Speaker 1: we know that they're the you know, there's the the
Speaker 1: l A p D angle, But also what is the
Speaker 1: fate of these two companies? Um? And and was Sherry
Speaker 1: ultimately right with her plans for a merger? I mean,
Speaker 1: I think there are still a lot of open questions about, um,
Speaker 1: what the effects of this are going to be. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I've learned over the years any you can't write a book,
Speaker 1: or even really a long story if you wait until
Speaker 1: every single aspect of it laid out. There's a lot happening,
Speaker 1: but it is over in the sense that the arc
Speaker 1: of the story is shared, residunding, drawn back into the
Speaker 1: family business and the family drama, and having to confront
Speaker 1: one incredible obstacle to another, starting with the women in
Speaker 1: the mansion, continuing with Phillip Doma, then having to deal
Speaker 1: with Lessman invest suing her, and ultimately she emerges in charge.
Speaker 1: And so in that sense, you've got a woman protagonist
Speaker 1: first I've ever had one of my books confronting all
Speaker 1: these obstacles, and she does emerge on top and the end,
Speaker 1: And in that sense, I think it's a very satisfying narrative.
Speaker 1: Although and I would say Sherry probably emerges is the
Speaker 1: most fascinating, multifaceted character in the book. The thing that
Speaker 1: struck me was how she was repeatedly being undermined over
Speaker 1: and over by people that were on the board leaders
Speaker 1: of the respective companies that she controlled. It begs the
Speaker 1: question where things stand today with her and the combined
Speaker 1: Paramount Global company um Rachel, how do you see this
Speaker 1: company faring in this world we're in now, where the
Speaker 1: streaming wars are at full roar, much bigger companies battling
Speaker 1: to the death, consolidation, UH, anticipation always around the corner.
Speaker 1: How do you see Sharry faring in all this? Well?
Speaker 1: Jim can Jim. Jim can probably answer some of the
Speaker 1: corporate questions. But the one thing I would love to
Speaker 1: just talk about is the sexism that Sherry faced, because
Speaker 1: you know, one, this stuff doesn't just change overnight. You know,
Speaker 1: as detailed in her books, some of the things that
Speaker 1: she had to put up with. I mean, my jaw
Speaker 1: hit the floor. I could not believe that that that adults, experienced,
Speaker 1: adult executives would treat her and say things to her. Uh,
Speaker 1: that anybody with two brain cells to rub against each
Speaker 1: other would know better. I mean, it just and it
Speaker 1: makes me think, like, you know, it's not like it's
Speaker 1: not like, oh, the Me Too movement happened, and none
Speaker 1: of those people work in media anymore, and nobody's sexist anymore,
Speaker 1: and everybody's you know, everything's happily ever after. It's not
Speaker 1: like the entire companies got rid of everybody that ever
Speaker 1: worked there and replaced them. So um, I can't. Even
Speaker 1: though she she she has gained control of her family empire,
Speaker 1: I still wonder frankly about what kind of indignity she
Speaker 1: faces and the level of respect that she gets on
Speaker 1: a daily basis um and as the future of the company,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, consolidation is obviously really important. Jim can
Speaker 1: probably Jim, why don't you answer that? Well? I can
Speaker 1: certainly say that from a wall seat perspective, even the
Speaker 1: merged companies which probably should emerge, you know, long before
Speaker 1: if Sherry had her way, they would have, but they're
Speaker 1: not big enough. They don't have the scale to compete
Speaker 1: compete with the big streaming companies in this radically changed
Speaker 1: media landscape. So there's much speculation that the company will
Speaker 1: be sold. Sharry herself has said that under the right circumstances,
Speaker 1: she would not oppose that. I don't believe the next
Speaker 1: generation in the Redstone family is eager really to take
Speaker 1: over in it and run the company. So the stock
Speaker 1: has run up lately after thinking to you know, pretty
Speaker 1: shockingly low level and I think large that's largely on
Speaker 1: speculation that some kind of deal will be in the future. Well,
Speaker 1: correct me if I'm wrong. Sherry is also still facing
Speaker 1: shareholder lawsuits over this merger. Is that something that you
Speaker 1: think will play a part in its future. I think
Speaker 1: those will ultimately be resolved. I you know, I strongly
Speaker 1: suspect that they'll They usually do settle. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think the respected boards have been very resistant to any
Speaker 1: kind of settlement, seeing this as kind of a shakedown
Speaker 1: by the planetts Um. Honestly, I think in the long
Speaker 1: term this may yield some very interesting information, but I
Speaker 1: don't think it's going to affect the long term trajectory
Speaker 1: of the companies. I also wonder whether we may even
Speaker 1: be underestimating Sherry and Paramount Global, and we should, of
Speaker 1: course note their CEO, Bob backish Um. Is it possible
Speaker 1: that they could emerge as an acquirer instead of being
Speaker 1: the one acquired or is it just more likely maybe
Speaker 1: they spin off CBS. Uh. Can I get a prediction
Speaker 1: out of you, Jim, I'd be very surprised if they
Speaker 1: are going to be a buyer. Um. It would be
Speaker 1: very unusual, being the companies that are the most obvious
Speaker 1: matches for them are all much larger. It would be
Speaker 1: very highly unusual for a relatively small market capitalization like
Speaker 1: Paramount Global to be the one eating up somebody really big. Hmm. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I would not be surprised if by this time next
Speaker 1: year we were in a very different situation with this company. Um.
Speaker 1: I mean, you want to see an interesting merger, you know,
Speaker 1: you know the Discovery Warner Brothers is very interesting UM precedent,
Speaker 1: although I think that one is fairly unusual where the
Speaker 1: Discovery managers ended up running a much bigger operation. But
Speaker 1: that I think that's the exception rather than the Ruble
Speaker 1: you know. I wondered what Rupert Murdoch would think after
Speaker 1: reading this book. What what lessons do you think he
Speaker 1: could take away as he sort of navigates his own
Speaker 1: complexities of succession and a family empire. What should he
Speaker 1: take away from your book? I think that he is
Speaker 1: probably very pleased at the idea that people think succession
Speaker 1: is not based on him. Yeah, I would second that.
Speaker 1: And speaking of succession, and my last question, color me crazy,
Speaker 1: but do you guys have a movie on your hands
Speaker 1: with this book? Is this something you've got agents out
Speaker 1: there pitching because I'm not joking. I could so see it. Well,
Speaker 1: I think we can't say too much about that at
Speaker 1: this point, Um, but it occurred to us maybe we didn't.
Speaker 1: We didn't call them chapters. We called him episodes and
Speaker 1: and really we were just kind of having fun with
Speaker 1: We named it unscripted because it seemed like a you
Speaker 1: could never make it up and be it's beyond any
Speaker 1: reality TV I've seen. Uh, but you know, I've never
Speaker 1: written a book expecting it to turn into movie. By
Speaker 1: the way, none of my books have turned into movies. Um,
Speaker 1: and I think Rache and I both agreed, let's can
Speaker 1: we just write a really really good saga, a good story,
Speaker 1: and be unsparing with it, and and then let the
Speaker 1: chips hold they will something happens great. Well, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: end with the prediction saying Succession has primed the market
Speaker 1: for this kind of story. I'm looking forward to the
Speaker 1: Netflix limited series coming soon. Jim Rachel, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for taking the time out. Good luck with the book.
Speaker 1: It was a great read. Thank you so much. And
Speaker 1: this has been another episode of Strictly Business. Tune in
Speaker 1: next week for another helping of scintillating conversation with media
Speaker 1: movers and shakers, and please make sure you subscribe to
Speaker 1: the podcast to hear future episodes. Also leave a review
Speaker 1: in Apple Podcasts and let us know how we're doing.
Speaker 1: H