Should the current U.S. president ever leave office (either by his demise or by other means) or the other party take control of one or both Houses of Congress, one of the things that will need to be investigated is the relationship between this president and the Ellison family and whether or not Trump money was used to ensure that the Ellisons purchased Warner Brothers, including CNN. I'm not convinced (as @michael hagerty seems to be) that there was no foul play here, especially given the current president's diatribes both vocally and on social media against CNN.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Paramount Skydance wants WBD
- Thread starter michael hagerty
- Start date
Should the current U.S. president ever leave office (either by his demise or by other means) or the other party take control of one or both Houses of Congress, one of the things that will need to be investigated is the relationship between this president and the Ellison family and whether or not Trump money was used to ensure that the Ellisons purchased Warner Brothers, including CNN. I'm not convinced (as @michael hagerty seems to be) that there was no foul play here, especially given the current president's diatribes both vocally and on social media against CNN.
He didn't say there was no foul play, just that Ellison is rich enough for it to happen.
The California AG says he will do an anti-trust review:
variety.com
Both companies are based in California, so there is some state jurisdiction.
California Attorney General Warns Paramount That Warner Bros. Discovery Acquisition is ‘Not a Done Deal’
Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, is promising to conduct a 'vigorous' review of Paramount Skydance's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.
variety.com
Both companies are based in California, so there is some state jurisdiction.
Its very strange I think. This thread started in September just one month after Skydance closing Paramount. We haven't really seen "them" (meaning the Ellisons) in action much yet, so its hard to get a reading on how they even run things like you would after a few years. Most of what people think of Paramount comes from the old regime, but its strange to buy two big studios in such a short time.The California AG says he will do an anti-trust review:
California Attorney General Warns Paramount That Warner Bros. Discovery Acquisition is ‘Not a Done Deal’
Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, is promising to conduct a 'vigorous' review of Paramount Skydance's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.
Both companies are based in California, so there is some state jurisdiction.
Actually, what we need is for those in power to enforce current antitrust laws. Those laws would have stopped this purchase (as well as possibly Paramount's purchase of CBS) if they had been strictly enforced.
Do you mean Skydance?
This administration has openly disregarded state jurisdictions before, so I have doubts that this will be much more than a symbolic action.The California AG says he will do an anti-trust review:
California Attorney General Warns Paramount That Warner Bros. Discovery Acquisition is ‘Not a Done Deal’
Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, is promising to conduct a 'vigorous' review of Paramount Skydance's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.
Both companies are based in California, so there is some state jurisdiction.
c
Symbolic or not, it will be important. Keep in mind that the current U.S. administration doesn't even like "symbolic" investigations of its behaviors.
Adam Schiff Says Paramount-WBD Deal Should Be Subject To “Highest Levels Of Scrutiny” And “Free From White House Political Influence”
The senator is concerned about job loss from the transaction.
deadline.com
Here is more this time from Senator Schiffs response to the WB/Paramount merger.
Democratic lawmakers are expressing concern about Paramount taking over WBD.
www.nbcnews.com
They were going to object regardless of who ended up winning.
Democratic lawmakers push back on Paramount's potential takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery
Sen. Elizabeth Warren called the deal an “antitrust disaster,” while California’s attorney general vowed a “vigorous” investigation.
www.nbcnews.com
They were going to object regardless of who ended up winning.
Can you blame them??Democratic lawmakers are expressing concern about Paramount taking over WBD.
Democratic lawmakers push back on Paramount's potential takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery
Sen. Elizabeth Warren called the deal an “antitrust disaster,” while California’s attorney general vowed a “vigorous” investigation.
They were going to object regardless of who ended up winning.
Agreed.
I just wish something serious would, you know, stick?
Everything seems to slide off these teflon coated jerks.
At least SCOTUS truck down the tariffs. I was not expecting that, given their track record in recent years.
How does this involve broadcasting? I hope the regulators still have some sense and apply the maximum possible amount of scrutiny to the PSKY <-> WBD deal.
c
The Ellisons are worth about 60 times what the Trump businesses are valued at. There is no way that Trump´s money could have had any influence of what looks like a $50 to $70 billion dollar transaction, most of it financed through Elison senior's preferred lenders.
It's very simple. A company with some considerable value was open to "bids" and they ended up taking the better one. The market has reactided by rewarding Netflix for not overpaying by taking its shares up by about 10% in post closing trades.
They did not "lose". They chose to not up their bid because that, in their opinion, overvalued WBD. No different than when two or more families put in offers for a house.
Netflix is big and profitable. They do not have to buy as big a company as WBD. In fact, if they acquire smaller more industry specific companies, they don't have to buy things they eventually would have to sell at a loss.
There are significant differences in the corporate philosophies (NOT talking about partisan politics here), so what was not of as much value to Netflix may be of greater value to the apparent buyer.
And radio consolidated because over half of all station in 1995 were not profitable. This is why Disney is putting lots more money into theme parks and cruise lines and hotels rather than the movie business.
That is oversimplification. Those three own just over 10% of all U.S. radio station. Sure, most are "bigger" stations but the industry is still shrinking dramatically. For example, SBS has a huge near-billion dollar debt now due and has no cash to pay it. There has to be further consolidation for radio to compete with the vastly larger streaming industry.
The issue here is that OTA radio and TV are in decline. So, for the future of entertainment, radio is irrelevant... as is the current network TV model.
Remember, in the 50's into the 90's, the three big TV networks were totally dominant. The technology changed and on-demand beats "you listen or watch when we tell you to".
Same happened with auto makers. Go back to the 20's and 30's and look how many US companies there are now by comparison. Or the near-total disappearance of the American consumer electronics business in the last three decades.
This makes me laugh. So many here criticize the size of iHeart, when they own only about 5% of American radio stations. That is not a definition of a monopoly. Add in Cumulus and Audacy and Hubbard and Beasley and it is still not much over 10%.
The real issue is that those named companies are small compared with the streaming audio and video alternatives.
In the case of "radio" we need to stop thinking of AM and FM and only think of "audio"... including streams, on demand and podcasts and even satellite.
Not exactly. Keep in mind that President Trump was publicly cajoling his ally, Larry Ellison, to purchase WBD with the hope of removing the journalists of CNN from criticizing him. That in and of itself needs to be investigated regardless of whether or not any money from the Trump organization changed hands during this deal (and I will maintain that that action occurred until such time as written records and reporters' and Congressional investigations show otherwise).
Rule #1: Trump never spends his own money. Even when he invested in Intel, he used taxpayer funds. When he goes after journalists, he uses taxpayer funds. His lawyers work for the government. There is no chance that any money from the president was used in this deal. None. He likes rich people because they spend money on him, not the other way around.
My other question is: Who would do such an investigation? The FCC? The DOJ? The congress? Really?
Regarding your last question, you are thinking in terms of today's Congress. Elections for the next Congress are scheduled, unless the executive branch does something bizarre, to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in the month of November. And *that* Congress, whatever the makeup, will be the Congress that President Trump will be dealing with come next January.