That is exactly what is going on. Everyone at WB management knows that the Ellisons want to weaponize CNN before the midterms runoffs start in spring.

▲

dawnerd 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Netflix isn't buying CNN though, Paramount can just pick up Discovery on the cheap when its split off. There's no reason for them to even be trying to do a hostile bid either. I think this is just purely an ego/power trip thing.

▲

dragonwriter 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the midterms runoffs

Do you mean primaries? Runoffs are a thing in some elections in the US, but not a thing that would start in spring for the congressional midterms.

▲

ls-a 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Doesn't that imply that Netflix was planning to do the same (for their party)? Or are you saying Netflix is innocent here

▲

rjmorris 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, it doesn't imply that. Saying party X plans to do something implies nothing about what party Y plans to do.

▲

chii 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> Saying party X plans to do something

but that's not the whole thing being said.

Party X may have been planning on something, but party Y threw a wrench in the middle, causing party X to have to make some response. By implication, party X believes party Y to be throwing a wrench, hence, party X must act. Therefore, party Y also must be planning something that counteracts party X's desires. If it weren't so, party X would not act (as that costs money).

	▲	dragonwriter 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The thing that contradicts Party X's desires can just be not doing the thing Party X wants done, it doesn't have to be doing an equal and opposite thing. This seems like a variation on the fallacy of the excluded middle.

▲

qbit42 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Netflix wasn't buying CNN.

▲

pylotlight 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Didn't you know? It's only bad when the people I don't like are doing it.

▲

raw_anon_1111 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Well Netflix hasn’t given Trump a $15 million bribe or any other politician yet.

	▲	bdangubic 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		his son-in-law is outbidding netflix so $15bn maybe would do it :)

▲

salawat 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Netflix and those involved hasn't conclusively metamorphosed into a Larry Ellison-esque state of Lawn Moweriness.

Make no mistake, it (Netflix) is still a billionaire corp; on the humanity scale, it scores quite low, but not lawn mower low. They're still outside the Ellison event horizon.

	▲	andsoitis 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> it (Netflix) is still a billionaire corp What does that mean?