Tech billionaire Larry Ellison and his son, Hollywood producer David, have long walked the halls of the world’s elite.

But this year, their power has taken on a new dimension, as they pursue deals involving names from TikTok to CNN that would give them control over some of the biggest media companies on the planet.

If the Murdoch name is already known the world over, it may not be long before the Ellisons join them.

Paving the way for the family’s ascent is Larry Ellison’s relationship with US President Donald Trump, who has blessed the dealings, praising the elder Ellison earlier this year as “an amazing man and amazing business person”.

“It’s well beyond technology,” he said, describing him as “sort of CEO of everything”.

In some ways, it’s an unlikely path for the Ellisons.

Larry Ellison, 81, made his name mastering the arcane realm of databases and cloud computing, co-founding the software and database company Oracle in 1977.

A giant of the tech world, his fortune, which rests in part on his roughly 40% stake in Oracle, has doubled over the last 12 months, to about $370bn, as the firm takes on a key role building up infrastructure for artificial intelligence.

For a moment this month, he even ranked as the world’s richest person, taking the top spot from Elon Musk.

Ellison’s extracurricular activity to date has tended to skew toward yachting, tennis, anti-aging research and buying an island in Hawaii.

But it’s his relationship with the president that has drawn the most attention recently.

Known as a Republican megadonor, he hosted a fundraiser for Trump in 2020, though he reportedly did not attend the event and federal records show no public contributions to the president.

Oracle became involved with TikTok during Trump’s first term, acting as a host for the app’s user data in the US.

Under a deal brokered by the White House, it is now poised to become an investor with an even greater role, in charge of retraining the algorithm that serves up what we see. (Trump has said the Murdochs, a long established media dynasty, could be involved in the deal as well).

Those ties with the administration have also proved useful for his 42-year-old son, David, as he makes moves to become a major media power player.

His first foray into Hollywood, a 2006 movie about World War I pilots that he financed and co-starred in, was a flop.

But since founding his own studio, Skydance, in 2010, he has earned a name beyond his dad’s billions, producing hits movies such as True Grit, Mission Impossible and World War Z. In 2011, his sister, Megan Ellison, also founded her own production studio Annapurna Pictures, which went on to produce films American Hustle, Her, and Zero Dark Thirty.

Meanwhile, David Ellison pushed Skydance into television, gaming and sports.

But his takeover last month of Paramount, which was backed by his father, marked a significant leap into new territory. Now he’s the boss of a sprawling operation with more than 18,000 employees and new challenges, including overseeing one of America’s biggest news outlets, CBS.

The acquisition required a blessing from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates broadcasting in the US and is led by Trump loyalist Brendan Carr.

The Ellisons are also said to be preparing a bid for Warner Brothers Discovery, home to Looney Tunes, Harry Potter and Superman, as well as HBO and CNN, a combination that would create one of the biggest media giants in the US.

That deal would require sign-off from the government, in the form of clearance from competition regulators.

Larry Ellison and David Ellison did not respond to requests for comment, made via their companies.

But against the backdrop of wider White House pressure on the media, the Ellisons’ growing power and ties to Trump have stoked alarm on the left, where critics fear the president’s ability to influence news coverage of his administration.

“The Ellison duo taking over both CBS and CNN, as well as controlling a major social media network like TikTok, would be dangerous for democracy. And given their closeness to the Trump regime, that seems to be the point,” the media watch group FAIR warned recently.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for any Paramount-Warner Brother tie-up to be blocked, as a “dangerous concentration of power”. Other groups have criticised the TikTok deal as a giveaway to allies of the president.

House Democrats last month also said they were launching an investigation to see if Paramount-Skydance had made any commitments to Trump to secure approval, a potential violation of anti-bribery laws.

They noted that just weeks before the deal was approved, Paramount agreed to pay $16m to settle a lawsuit with Trump, who had accused CBS of deceptively editing a Kamala Harris interview to help Democrats.

Trump has also said “the new owners” had promised him billions worth of free advertising or programming.

David Ellison has said Skydance was not involved in the Paramount settlement and his firm is in compliance with anti-bribery laws. But he has ducked questions about a side deal, telling reporters last month: “We’re not going to politicise anything today.”

He has also already made some changes at CBS, some of which were conditions announced by the FCC when it signed off on the deal.

Those have included appointing a conservative watchdog to review complaints of bias. The company has also said CBS’s political show, ‘Face the Nation’ will only air live or unedited interviews, a break with long established journalistic practice.

“These actions are in line with what the White House has made clear that they want so I think this is really concerning,” said Rodney Benson, a media professor at New York University and lead author of the book How Media Ownership Matters.

Speaking to reporters after the merger, David Ellison, whose track record of political giving shows contributions to Democrats last year, said he wanted to avoid being associated with either the left or the right.

“We’re an entertainment company first, and I genuinely believe if you’re breathing, you’re our audience,” he said, according to the LA Times. “We want to be in the business of speaking to everybody.”

Other executives pushed back on the notion the firm’s owners would seek to sway news coverage, with Gerry Cardinale, one of Skydance’s partners and the other major investor in the deal with Paramount, calling the idea “bad business”.

“The kernel of the entire investment thesis is independence and objectivity. If you can’t get your head around that, don’t buy it,” he said, according to Variety.

“There’s no way we’re going to try to influence it.”

On Wall Street, Paramount’s potential tie-up with Warner Brothers Discovery has plenty of fans, as investors see an opportunity to create a studio with the distribution power and library to rival Disney and Netflix.

Analysts noted that David Ellison’s background in movie-making and role as chief executive sets him apart from some other tech titans, like Jeff Bezos, who have purchased media publications as a kind of hobby.

But while Ellison has expressed love for the movies – holding onto his mother’s collection of VHS tapes as recently as 2022 – he has said little about the news industry.

Analysts said they would be surprised if it were a priority, given its relatively small financial contribution to the overall business. Ellison has also said he is looking to make $2bn in cuts at Paramount.

“I don’t view this as something that says ‘I want to get bigger into news’,” said Ric Prentiss, managing director at Raymond James. “I think this is something that says ‘I want to create content’… I don’t think news is a strong part of it.”

Paul Hardart, director of the entertainment, media and technology programme at New York University’s Stern School of Business, said the push to grow suggested the Ellisons were looking to seize the moment.

“Who knows how long they will have the administration’s ear?” he said.

After all, when Elon Musk, another mega billionaire and would-be media mogul, tied himself to the Trump administration, that relationship ended up going up in flames.

Almost every household has at least one pair of shoes whose odour is impossible to ignore.

Multiply that by a family’s worth of footwear, stack them on a rack, and you have a domestic design problem that’s as pungent as it is universal.

Two Indian researchers decided this wasn’t just about stink – it was about science.

They set out to study how foul-smelling shoes shape our experience of using a shoe rack, and in doing so, stepped into the hallowed – and hilarious – halls of the Ig Nobel Prize, a tongue-in-cheek award for silly but inventive scientific endeavour.

Vikash Kumar, 42, assistant professor of design at Shiv Nadar University outside Delhi, taught Sarthak Mittal, 29, during his undergraduate years. It was at the university that the two first hit upon the idea of studying smelly shoes.

Mr Mittal says he often noticed his hostel corridors were lined with shoes, often left outside twin-sharing rooms. The initial idea was simple: why not design a sleek, aesthetic shoe rack for students? But as they dug deeper, the real culprit emerged – it wasn’t clutter but the foul smell that was driving the footwear outdoors.

“It wasn’t about space or a lack of shoe racks – there was plenty of room. The problem was frequent sweating and the constant use of shoes that made them smelly,” says Mr Mittal, who now works for a software company.

So the two embarked on a survey in the university hostels asking a truly human question: if our sneakers reek, doesn’t that ruin the entire experience of using a shoe rack?

Their survey of 149 university students – 80% of them male – confirmed what most of us already know but rarely admit: more than half had felt embarrassed by their own shoes or someone else’s stink, nearly all kept their footwear in racks at home, and hardly anyone had heard of existing deodorising products. Homegrown hacks – tea bags in shoes, sprinkling baking soda, spraying deodorant – weren’t cutting it.

The two researchers then turned to science. The culprit, they knew from existing research, was Kytococcus sedentarius, a bacterium that thrives in sweaty shoes. Their experiments showed that a short blast of ultraviolet light killed the microbes and banished the stink.

“In India, almost every household has a shoe rack of one type or the other, and having a rack which keeps the shoes smell free would give a great experience,” the authors noted in their paper.

They saw “smelly shoes as an opportunity for re-designing the traditional shoe rack for a better user experience”.

The result? Not your average ergonomics paper – and just the kind of delightfully oddball idea: a prototype for a UVC light-equipped shoe rack that doesn’t just store shoes but sterilises them. (UV covers a spectrum, but only the C band has germicidal properties.)

For the experiment, the researchers used shoes worn by university athletes, which had a pronounced odour. Because bacterial build-up is greatest near the toe, the UVC light was focused there.

The study measured odour levels against exposure time, and found that just 2–3 minutes of UVC treatment was sufficient to kill the bacteria and eliminate the foul smell. It was not simple: too much light meant too much heat which ended up burning the shoe rubber.

The researchers didn’t just point a UVC tube light at the shoes and hope for the best – they measured every whiff.

At the start, the odour was described as “strong, pungent, rotten-cheese-like”. Two minutes in, it had dropped to “extremely low, mild burnt-rubber smell”. By four minutes, the foul stench was gone, replaced by an “average burnt rubber” scent.

Six minutes later, the shoes remained odour-free and comfortably cool. But push it too far – 10 to 15 minutes – and the odour gave way to “strong burnt rubber” while the shoes got hot, proving that even in science, timing is everything.

In the end, the two proposed a shoe-rack fitted with a UVC tube light. Nothing came of it until the US-based Ig Nobel Prize took notice and got in touch.

Organised by the journal Annals of Improbable Research and co-sponsored by Harvard-Radcliffe groups, the 34-year-old Ig Nobel awards 10 prizes annually, aiming to ”make people laugh, then think… celebrate the unusual, honour the imaginative”.

“We had no idea about the prize,” said Mr Kumar. “It was an old 2022 paper – we never sent it anywhere. The Ig Nobel team just found us, called us up, and that in itself makes you laugh and think.”

“The award isn’t about certifying research but celebrating it – the fun side of science. Most research is a thankless job done out of passion, and this is also a way of popularising it.”

Keeping the two Indians company this year is a delightfully eclectic cast of winners.

There are Japanese biologists who painted cows to ward off flies, rainbow lizards in Togo with a fondness for four-cheese pizza, US paediatricians who found garlic makes breast milk more appealing to babies, and Dutch researchers who discovered alcohol sharpens foreign-language skills – though it leaves fruit bats bumbling in flight. There’s also a historian who tracked his thumbnail growth for 35 years, and physics researchers exploring the mysteries of pasta sauce.

Winning for stinky shoes, it seems, has only raised the bar for the Indian researchers.

“Beyond recognition, it’s put a burden on us – we now have to do more research on things people don’t usually think about. Ask questions,” says Mr Kumar. In other words, today’s smelly sneakers could be tomorrow’s groundbreaking science.

Follow BBC News India on Instagram, YouTube, X and Facebook.