💛 A quick favor, if you've got a second.
We're really happy that you chose to read one of our stories and sincerely hope you'll stick around to read more. We took our paywall down — for now — but that won't last forever, and when the gate goes back up, we'd love for you to already be on the inside.
It's free. So please enter your email here and don't forget to like and follow us on all of your favorite Social Media platforms!

John Cusack voiced backing for Mark Ruffalo over the weekend as the Marvel actor defended himself against claims from Paramount that his criticism of technology company Oracle relied on antisemitic language. Cusack posted “Solidarity — well said” on X in response to Ruffalo’s public statement addressing the allegations surrounding remarks he made about Oracle’s role in supporting Israeli military operations.
Ruffalo’s initial criticism targeted Oracle executive vice chair Safra Catz, a Paramount board member, after he shared content depicting Oracle’s advanced technology assistance to the Israeli military following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. The actor connected his objections to a proposed $111 billion acquisition by the Ellison family—Oracle founder Larry Ellison and his son David Ellison, Paramount’s chief executive—that would consolidate CNN, HBO and Warner Bros. under single family ownership.
Paramount issued a statement characterizing Ruffalo’s language as problematic, asserting that applying terms like “genocide” and “apartheid” to a corporate deal represented overreach. The company said such terminology diminishes the historical weight of those concepts and their genuine human toll.
Ruffalo countered Saturday in remarks to Fox News Digital, calling the antisemitism accusation “appalling and fundamentally dishonest.” He maintained that scrutinizing government contracts, surveillance technology and executive decision-making should remain distinct from commentary about Jewish people or the Jewish faith.
The actor emphasized that questioning the Ellisons’ business practices and the merger’s threat to editorial independence and employment represented legitimate inquiry that must proceed. He noted that bipartisan lawmakers have requested national security reviews and that regulators have not adequately explained the public interest implications of foreign financial backing in the transaction.
A coalition of 12 state attorneys general has mounted legal opposition to the merger, with both companies agreeing to delay closure until a court decides the states’ claims or until June 1, 2027, whichever arrives first. The Simon Wiesenthal Center’s executive director defended Paramount’s position, stating that distinguishing between valid criticism and prejudicial language remains essential.
More Stories
Colombia backs Trump security push while limiting U.S. role in anti-gang operations
Chicago Mayor Issues Executive Order Requiring Contractor Diversity Disclosures and ICE Ties Reporting
University of Pennsylvania Climate Scientist Demands Supreme Court Packing Pledge From Democratic Candidates