• 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

WB+Netflix=$82.7 billion shocker!

only1moore said:
This from THR…
www.hollywoodreporter.com

Meet the Gambler on the Verge of Getting Jeff Shell Fired — Again

In his first sit-down interview, provocateur R.J. Cipriani lays out his $150 million case against Paramount and its president, as well as his scorched-earth history in Hollywood: "I'm a master of cognitive warfare."
www.hollywoodreporter.com www.hollywoodreporter.com
Click to expand...
Well, he certainly has an outsized view of himself. The company had to investigate since potential securities fraud was alleged, but it's unlikely to amount to anything. If, however, Paramount is looking to an excuse to ax Shell without paying his contract, this may serve as a pretense for doing so.
 
only1moore said:
“This isn’t over.” Says state AGs
deadline.com

Paramount-Warner Bros Deal Has States Eyeing More Than Just Antitrust Issue

In a tough election year for incumbents, Paramount’s $111B acquisition of WBD has become a political football in California and across the nation.
deadline.com deadline.com
Click to expand...
Wow, that is an unhinged piece.

I doubt the AGs can preclude the merger from being executed but as this opinion piece notes, at least some basis for any legal action would be less driven by preventing it than it would to "fire up the base" and score political points.
 
umfan said:
I doubt the AGs can preclude the merger from being executed but as this opinion piece notes, at least some basis for any legal action would be less driven by preventing it than it would to "fire up the base" and score political points.
Click to expand...

I don't see how "the base" is "fired up" by any of this. The history of anti-trust is based on conservative republicans who fought against big business.
 


Back
Top Bottom