| ▲ | moffers 20 hours ago |
| I think the political angle of this should not be discounted |
|
| ▲ | dyauspitr 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The political angle is the whole ball game |
| |
|
| ▲ | perihelions 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46000977 ("Larry Ellison discussed axing CNN hosts with White House in takeover bid talks (theguardian.com)") https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46048351 ("Larry Ellison Met with Trump to Discuss Which CNN Reporters They Plan to Fire (techdirt.com)") Viewing this acquisition in terms of simple revenue alone is like positing Musk bought Twitter for its ad revenue. Total information control is priceless. (In case anyone hasn't kept up with the plutocratic oligarchy in the US: Oracle's Larry Ellison currently owns Paramount (since July 2024), and Warner Bros. Entertainment owns CNN. This isn't explained in the CNBC OP: David Ellison is Larry's son and the token CEO). |
| |
| ▲ | next_xibalba 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Total information control is priceless. Except there is robust competition in media —be it news, social, etc. I think the political angle in terms of motivation is overstated. In terms of closing the deal though, it’s huge. David Ellison has been producing movies for quite some time. So his desire to become a big time player in that space would be a believable motivation. But he can use his father’s connections to Trump to sink the Netflix bid (or create enough FUD to convince shareholders to favor his bid). | | |
|
|
| ▲ | clumsysmurf 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Some context: "Affinity Partners, the private equity firm led by Jared Kushner, is part of Paramount's hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros Discovery, according to a regulatory filing." https://www.axios.com/2025/12/08/jared-kushner-paramount-war... |
| |
| ▲ | brandensilva 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The dark side of all this is a propaganda network. The government and who runs it should not be in business I'm sorry. This isn't free markets, it's manipulation and corruption. | | |
| ▲ | baq 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is what happens in markets without a functional regulatory body - when the regulator turns into a market participant. It’s closer to a jungle than anything else. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > This is what happens in markets without a functional regulatory body It's almost more that we have semi-functional regulation. Trump's influence over this transaction entirely stems from his antitrust powers. |
| |
| ▲ | taurath 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This really isn’t the free market, this is de facto cartels when like 90% of media properties are owned by 3 or 4 companies. | | |
| |
| ▲ | kulahan 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thank you, I had no idea how this was politically related, and honestly cannot keep track of all the corruption these days anyways. How does anyone? This is pretty much a genuine question. | | |
| ▲ | red-iron-pine 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | are executives breathing? then there is corruption. start following the money and you'll find it, we're in the new gilded age | |
| ▲ | renegade-otter 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The Bulwark is fairly on top of the pillaging that's happening in the US government. | |
| ▲ | mmooss 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "all" is a high standard. This issue has been in the news for awhile. Read a major, serious news source like The Economist or NY Times. | | |
| ▲ | renegade-otter 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The news are flooded with these stories, for anyone who cares, but I imagine what we don't know is even more shocking. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | softwaredoug 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Stage AGs have a strong role to play in anti-trust law. And the other party they're suing _isnt_ a Federal agency this time. Now maybe nothing matters. But conflicts of interest will come up in those cases. Trump doesn't win _everything_. Trump wins at places where the Supreme Court is using him for their own project of reworking the constitutional order. Basically Trump shoots up a volley with some absolutely batshit PoV, they interpret the topic in some saner (still crazy) right wing legal idea. And the Supreme Court fast track's these cases about executive power. This case would be State AGs having independent standing to challenge major M&A. It will drag things out at a minimum, in a way the Supreme Court's rapid resolution of executive branch cases is not dragged out. |
|
| ▲ | Spivak 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I mean it's not even politics in the way most people think about it—like this is just blatant corruption. Trump moved in and said this is my swamp. We're not even gonna get a good investigative journalism podcast about the corruption because it's just right there in front of you. There's not much to uncover. |
| |
| ▲ | softwaredoug 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | We need some kind of independent anti-corruption agency, like the one we told Ukraine they had to have to receive aid. | | |
| ▲ | jshier 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | All independent agencies are dead, according to SCOTUS fiat. If we want anything to survive they'll have to be rebuilt, either with an enlarged court that won't strike them down again, or as section 1 agencies that Congress has to power directly (which will also be hugely corrupt). Either that or an amendment that creates a branch that straddles the legislative and executive, to be truly independent. | | | |
| ▲ | Muromec 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It wasnt US, it was EU who did that, then gave us visa free travel and a few BN for it. Then monitored the whole thing and imlementation of it. Anticorruption agency head cant be removed even by parliament vote, not even the executive. But then again, every governmemt and political person has their taxes published by default | |
| ▲ | heurist 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Didn't that anti-corruption agency end up being corrupt too? Hard to follow all this stuff. | | |
| ▲ | Muromec 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nah, they are fine. They ate head of presidents office alive last week. Add: it's also not one anticorruption agency, but the whole bunch of them -- law enforcement one (think of FBI, but investigating corruption in government), special prosecutors office, another agency monitoring assets of anyone close enough to government (including immigration officers on a country level) and their family and a whole separate court with judges vetted by independent panel. It's elections of Doge of Venice level of indirection. | | |
| ▲ | perihelions 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > "Nah, they are fine. They ate head of presidents office alive last week." That's the same guy who tried to take over that anti-corruption office. He would be controlling it now, if it weren't for the massive country-wide protests about it. I'm not sure that they're doing fine. Economist, July 2025: > "On July 22nd the Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, passed a bill that would place the country’s two main anti-corruption bodies—NABU, which investigates wrongdoing, and SAPO, which prosecutes it—under the control of the presidency. This was not the work of rogue MPs. It was orchestrated from the top by President Volodymyr Zelensky and his all-powerful chief of staff, Andriy Yermak." https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/07/23/volodymyr-zelen... ( https://archive.is/kYh4w ) BBC, last week: "...was forced to U-turn after mass demonstrations", https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz0nljm4y74o ("Andriy Yermak: How Zelensky's right-hand man fell from power" / "Fall of Zelensky's top aide - reboot for Kyiv or costly shake-up?") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_anti-corruption_protests_... | | |
| ▲ | Muromec 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >That's the same guy who tried to take over that anti-corruption office. He would be controlling it now, if it weren't for the massive country-wide protests about it. I'm not sure that they're doing fine. Well, they won for now, that's what matters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nutjob2 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I think it gives Netflix an advantage. When it comes up in front of a judge he'll note the obvious conflict of interest and Trump's idiotic pronouncements, like the fact that he said he will be personally involved, and rule for Netflix. |
| |
| ▲ | zoeysmithe 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This will go to SCOTUS, which typically gives the administration preferential treatment. The US's current level of corruption is way too high to assume your scenario. | |
| ▲ | sleepybrett 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | HA hardly. Balance that against two of the top four streaming platforms (youtube, hbo, disney, netflix) trying to merge, probably should worry about some anti-trust there, but not under this administration. | | |
|
