Democrats Warn Their Party May Try To Unravel Any Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Deal (semafor.com) 206
As the battle over Warner Bros. Discovery grows, two Democratic lawmakers are warning that their party may try to block or unravel any
acquisition by Paramount when it returns to power. Semafor: In a letter to the WBD board and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent first shared with Semafor, Reps. Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said they were concerned about the national security risk of letting foreign entities control a large portion of the US entertainment and media industry.
They also hinted that a future Democratic Congress and administration could try to unravel any Paramount-WBD deal. "Future Congresses ... will review many of the decisions of the current Administration, and may recommend that regulators push for divestitures, which would undermine the strategic logic of this merger," they wrote. "We urge the Board to weigh these national security and regulatory liabilities in evaluating a transaction burdened by uncertain but potentially extensive mitigation obligations, foreign influence risks, or adverse regulatory action."
They also hinted that a future Democratic Congress and administration could try to unravel any Paramount-WBD deal. "Future Congresses ... will review many of the decisions of the current Administration, and may recommend that regulators push for divestitures, which would undermine the strategic logic of this merger," they wrote. "We urge the Board to weigh these national security and regulatory liabilities in evaluating a transaction burdened by uncertain but potentially extensive mitigation obligations, foreign influence risks, or adverse regulatory action."
Given (Score:3)
Given Trump's past actions it seems almost guaranteed he will try to interfere given who is backing Paramount. Let's see if the Democrats can actually accomplish something meaningful now.
Re: Given (Score:4, Insightful)
He's clearly looking for a bribe from Netflix. I hope their executive team figures this out and promises to produce a show for him.
Future Congresses? What? (Score:2)
Is this some kind of toothless threat? Either you have the power to block a deal now, or you don't. The likelihood any court will let you call 'takebacksies' on a multibillion deal that affects tens of thousands of employees is... unlikely.
Re:Future Congresses? What? (Score:5, Informative)
Congress and courts have un-merged companies in the past. It could happen again.
Rare (Score:2)
Also, given the rubber-stamping of the last dozen or so media mergers, it would be difficult for the government to explain why this particular merger would be harmful, while the last dozen mega-mergers and divestitures were just fine.
Re: Future Congresses? What? (Score:2)
It is a toothless threat, but not because of the courts, pah. The Democrats always defend the new normal, no matter how bad it is. Nothing bad ever gets rolled back.
Re: Future Congresses? What? (Score:3)
Making Democrats the party of conservatives.
Re: Future Congresses? What? (Score:3)
This is true. And the Republicans are the party of Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but business leaders should consider the pain of government crawling all the way up their ass when this gross spell finally breaks.
Right now we're so far right we're taking swastikas off the hate symbols list and rolling people up in the streets. When the pendulum swings its gonna swing just as far in the other direction- but it's actually be done with laws and legislation. The Orange empower is ruling by EO.
Nearly every single dumbass thing we've been doing in the past 9 months can be unrolled with
Re: (Score:2)
Is this some kind of toothless threat? Either you have the power to block a deal now, or you don't.
I found this article [bloomberg.com] (paywalled so I can't read it) talking about how Senator Warren wants to do exactly that, re-review previously approved mergers. Sanders and Warren have also lobbied to un-approve Meta's acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram, Google's acquisition of DoubleClick and Waze, and Amazon's acquisition of Whole Foods and Zappos. If the Democrats get a trifecta in DC, they might get this passed.
Personally, I think this would be a disastrous policy. We limit the amount of time we can debate elec
Jared Kushner (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the main reason is that "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."
Re:Jared Kushner (Score:4, Informative)
Also how bullshit is it that Kushner get's to be effectively a cabinet member, working person in the admin, represents the admin in negotiations but is also allowed to effectively represent Saudi, Qatari and Emirati interests in this deal?
Kushner and Saudis back hostile takeover of Hollywood giant [popular.info]
Kushner’s involvement in the deal highlights the ongoing legal and ethical problems with his dual role. On the one hand, Kushner is operating as a high-ranking official representing the Trump administration in the most sensitive foreign policy matters. On the other hand, he is being paid by and partnering with Middle Eastern governments as they seek to expand their political, economic, and cultural interests.
*Everything* this admin does has to be viewed as glad handing and self serving. It's all they know how to do.
Someone Ought to Stop It (Score:5, Interesting)
The Paramount offer has substantial backing from Saudi Arabi and other Gulf nations.
This is the same royal family that funds Wahhabist groups. While some people are quick to point out that "not all Muslims are extremists", this is specifically an extreme branch of Islam with deeply anti-American sentiment.
We do not need to entangle this country with such a grotesque regime. We do not need our economic success to line their pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun part: Saudi royal family has been trying to remove wahhabists for at least two decades at this point. If you want to see how serious they are, read up on their latest relaxing on alcohol sales in Saudi Arabia.
Current generation is desperate to get rid of the islamists. They're the single biggest threat to their rule. Most of the support is in the rank and file bureaucracy and citizenry, who are much less cosmopolitan than the rulers.
If you want to fight islamic extremism, Xers and Millenials among royal
Re: (Score:3)
Still a murderous regime, just getting into bed with more profitable partners. They are motivated by greed and power, nothing else. They are not better people all of sudden; they are making better friends to move up in the world.
If private citizens were investing, that would be different. But fuck the concept of a royal family, and fuck this royal family in particular.
Re: (Score:2)
I have bad news: values you listed are universally human. If that is your criteria for "partners", all humans are out.
For that matter, all life on this planet is out, because all life on this planet is motivated by greed and power. Because having a territory (power) from which you can gain nourishment (greed) is a prerequisite for everything else in life.
Re: (Score:2)
Saudi Arabia still has plenty of other qualities that make them highly unattractive for ownership of any news media in a Democratic nation.
Re: (Score:2)
All nations and all peoples have plenty of "other qualities that make them highly unattractive for ownership of any news media in a Democratic nation".
Including all of "democratic nations".
Reminder: when your measuring stick returns same result of "has other qualities...", your measuring stick is unsuitable for purpose of determining what would a good fit.
Re: (Score:2)
All nations and all peoples have plenty of "other qualities that make them highly unattractive for ownership of any news media in a Democratic nation".
Right, so that means Saudi Arabia owning part of an American news organization is just as good as the UK. Then you go on to lecture me about measuring sticks? Your response here is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Going by the number of arrest for speech offenses in UK, yes by a massive margin.
Right, UK speech offenses are worse than executing journalists critical of you or any one of the far worse actions done by the Saudi's.
I forgot how absurd conversations with you got. Thanks for the reminder.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we as a democracy as more than in our rights to say that other democracies are more fit to own news.
We don't have to give a shit what non-democracies decide to use as measuring sticks, it's irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Measuring stick in question doesn't differentiate and condemns both.
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't it already fails on the first and most important point: it itself is not a democracy with a protected freedom of press. Fish in a barrel.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a fundamental problem with Netflix ownership. I'm not a fan of the idea, but it's just typical corporate money-grubbing.
The government can impose requirements to ensure the availability of the WBD catalog, either in streaming form or via other media. The US has imposed requirements on large-scale mergers in the past, so it would not be unusual here.
As for Hollywood and the theater industry, I don't particularly care about the impact. I liked going to movies as a kid, but I rarely do it anymore.
"risk of letting foreign entities control" (Score:2)
Much xenophobe
So Trump
Wow
Are there any good choices? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like Paramount is owned by a scumball and Netflix makes a lot of crappy shows
I wonder which option sucks less?
I wonder if any mega-corp can make good art?
Re: (Score:2)
Just about every movie today is subject to meddling from the studios and management. There's probably a handful of directors who are immune, Cameron, Speilburg, and Lucas come to mind. Kubrick too in his day.
@#$* The politicians (Score:2)
If one crappy company wants to sell to another crappy company - let them. Let people vote with their $$$$. If they don't like the gaining platform - cancel subscriptions en mass. The ONLY thing companie
Re: (Score:2)
The only lesson AB learned is "the public is fickle and news cycles last only days or weeks" they haven't really lost anything long term.
And that's kindof the point, thinking a bunch of individual consumers can affect industries that are so large is kindof unrealistic, it's a massive collective action problem and the power asymmetry is wild. It's a fantasy that the world works this way.
LOL (Score:2)
Democrats are learning from their opponents.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd LOVE for that to be true. It isn't. Democrats are pathologically incapable of understanding what's going on...
hey Dems! STFU (Score:2)
Don't announce what you're going to do, just DO it. There is no reason that Larry Ellison should be allowed to own both CBS and CNN. We already have a Fox News and OAN, and Sinclair, and RT, and scores of corrupt assholes supporting a serial child rapist president and career criminal.
Re: (Score:3)
But after the next major election cycle, they may gain enough seats to actually do something about it.
Right now they are setting up a campaigning point - telling the general population that if they are given the power they will make a move that aims to benefit consumers. Also, this type of move can be made to paint Republicans into a corner, make them go on record supporting such a deal and use that ag
Re:Economic terrorism (Score:5, Interesting)
More conservatives declaring traitorous or similiar activity for simply opposing conservative agendas. Great, thanks for that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost like they have a boner for masked law enforcement kidnapping people into rental vans.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
LOL have you seen this administration?
This is already happening "direct attempt to undermine the credibility and ability of the current government to execute policy."
Literally being damaged daily by the current administration.
Re:Economic terrorism (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah they called him "Sleepy Joe" because the rest of us were able to sleep at night.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That being said, I'm 100% with you here- I'd take a sundowning nice old guy vs. the fucking manic edge lord we've got in there now any day.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree there, he definitely should not have been trying to run for a 2nd term, I think it was the stress of trying to do both at once that really put a toll on him.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no ill will toward Joe Biden. Dude is a good American. I'm glad he got to be President. I wish he had been healthy enough to have 2 terms.
These days, I'm frankly content to judge a President simply by their nature. Are they a good guy/gal? Great. I've long since stopped believing that standard economic metrics have shit to do with who is President, and the largest impact they really have is setting the national mood.
Like ICE bullshit- as horrific
Re: (Score:3)
I'm just sayin, slavery is gone. You'll never get it back to where it was where you're important and feel you're entitled to things, and other people are forced to work to give it to you.
Attempts are made all the time but the success rate is quite low and fails shortly after. You can have what you want, but you have to work for it yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember when we called Obama the Deporter In Chief? How many people did Obama deport, do you remember?
A perfect example of handling a perceived problem humanely.
You support deportations, so why are you trying to use that as an attack? lol
As a reminder, the Biden administration actually flew planes to foreign countries, picked up asylum seekers, and flew them directly into America, because they insisted we needed ever more asylum seekers, and they needed to reduce the numbers crossing the biorder on foot.
Erm, so? Are you trying to equate asylum parolees with illegal immigrants? Fascinating. Isn't that like, you motherfuckers whole schtick? You're just against the illegal kind?
Your colors are showing, amigo.
Re:Economic terrorism (Score:5, Informative)
It's amazing to me that you're telling me this given the past actions of Republicans. Just in regards to the Affordable Care Act alone the Republicans are guilty of this.
Even if that wasn't the case though and there was no massive hypocrisy in action here, political parties are allowed to appose the agenda of the president. You should be scared of any future where that isn't allowed.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right to call out the hypocrisy. The very nature of our governmental system SHOULD allow for subsequent elected administrations/congresses to undo the acts of previous administrations/congresses. That's how it was designed, but sadly doesn't happen nearly often enough. I don't remember the last law that was actually repealed. Allowed to expire? Sure, but repealed? It's probably happened, but I can't name it.
Re: (Score:3)
lawfully executed
https://imgflip.com/memegenera... [imgflip.com]
Re:Economic terrorism (Score:5, Interesting)
lol @ "undermine the credibility"
As soon as Trump is gone the spell breaks and ALL this shit is gonna get rolled back and patched.
Enjoy the free for all while you can because it's poisoning the republican party. The GOP will forever be know as the party child diddling corrupt and disrespectful feckless leaders when this is over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people still argue in favor of one of those pedo parties or the other - they are both the same damned thing, and work exactly the same damned way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Economic terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet it's the Democratic leadership in the Congress forcing the issue on releasing all the documented evidence about the Epstein mess, not giving a single shit if anyone in the Democratic Party is named. They (rightfully) see this as an opportunity to clean house and get rid of the corrupt felon child abusers and sex traffickers while the GOP has been coddling and covering up for them.
I don't know how many "well ackshually..." posts I've seen alluding to Clinton getting wrapped up in all of this, followed by a litany of actual Democrats saying "so what? Child molesters need to go no matter what party affiliation they claim or what their name is" which there is never any response to.
Why is the GOP still trying to make it all go away with ever-increasing distraction? Who are they covering for?
Re:Economic terrorism (Score:5, Informative)
This comment is so revealing. "The Government" == "The President"
These are members of Congress, they can say what they want [wikipedia.org], they're allowed to oppose the Executive because (and here's the civics lesson) they are not part of the Executive Branch.
When a court rules against an Executive Agency are they "undermining the ability of the current government to execute policy."?
When John Boehner said about Obama's agency and I quote "“We’re going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.” was he undermining?
This is a laughable objection fit only for the safest of spaces.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok? That's my point, did you not read who I was responding to?.
Are we all willing to say Congresspeople have the right to say all of those things and censure for any of these cases is ridiculous?
Re:Economic terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
Your guy overturns the shit their guy did- Making America Great Again.
Their guy overturns the shit your guy did- Treason.
Your poor brain is so fucking infected with your partisanship. I really don't know if you can ever be saved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The agencies are empowered by the legislature lol
Imagine if a bunch of Senators lines up and said just wait until we get party member in the White House, we are putting all of you in Detroit on notice, the EPA will be eliminating fuel economy standards! You would have cried foul too, and you fucking know it.
Cried foul? I'd say, "what a bunch of pieces of fucking shit".
But that's not what you're doing- you're trying to call it terrorism, and then acting like Congress isn't a branch of the Government or some shit.
How the fuck did you get so goddamn stupid?
Re:Economic terrorism (Score:5, Funny)
This is just economic terrorism.
Wow, stop clutching your pearls. No matter who you support on this issue, their actions don't come anywhere near terrorism, economic or otherwise.
I should not be tolerated.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Republicans should push to censure everyone one these people.
Yeah, they have done that before. And the recipients of the censure treated it as a badge of honor.
Re:Economic terrorism (Score:5, Interesting)
As opposed to the open corruption on display with the President personally involving himself in making sure the deal resolves in favor of a major financial backer.
I suppose you have nothing to say about that.
Re:Economic terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this merger in any way benefit consumers?
No.
That should be the only question asked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If combining Netflix and HBO streaming services eventually results in having both at less than the cost of each separately, I'd call that a win.
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard this from every company that wants to do a merger.
Can you please show one example where after the merger (up to 2 years) where the prices didn't go up but went down?
Re: Economic terrorism (Score:2)
Kroger/Albertsons.
Various airline mergers.
T-Mobile/Sprint.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Narrator: The price jumped immediately afterward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Economic terrorism (Score:2, Informative)
Nice to see your outrage erupt on important topics. Meanwhile the US is committing actual terrorism by murdering unarmed people trying to survive in the water, and by funding a genocide by a terrorist nation who is the world champion of violating UN resolutions and a major cause for child mortality in the world this year. The US government is also sending masked agents to kidnap people, from the party of small government no less. You seem outraged about the speculative, legal and comparatively benign stuff
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure the FTC has ever been so partisan as it is today.
I think Democrats are at the point where they're idiots if they don't start playing the game you guys have been playing.
I should not be tolerated.
I've been telling you that for years. I'm please that we've come to an accord.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to his brain? (Score:2)
I was going to quote it, but looking at the continuation of the FP branch it apparently deserves negative moderation. (Notwithstanding the lack of clarity.) I was also going to ask for clarification about the stupid typo, but now I don't care.
One appropriate question might be "What part of the Constitution can't you understand?" Apparently all of it. Or "When did you lose your marbles?" Or even "What have you done with the real person who created that identity?"
I'd guess that it's the senility thing, but I
Re: (Score:3)
It's legitimately frightening how conservatives seem to be buying up all the news media as there's plenty of examples of this not turning out well for democracies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's legitimately frightening how conservatives seem to be buying up all the news media/p>
What? Please give me an example of "all the news media". Even if Paramount would get WB and properties, and even if you count CBS as "Pro-Trump" now... which is laughable on its face... ABC, NBC, PBS, MS-Now, The New York Times, and the vast majority of city newspapers and wire services are in no way, shape or form owned by, or friendly to, conservatives. Add to that the considerable influence of magazines... Politico, etc... and any notion that "conservatives are buying up all the news" is farcical.
Re: (Score:2)
The media is owned by a handful of billionaires. In the past journalists would ask questions and follow up. Today the administration says all manner of crazy shit and not a single peep from any media outlet.
Prime example here. DeSantis says states allow "post birth abortions" and the interviewer carries on as if this is the truth. Anyone with a few morals would have asked for clarification. https://www.yahoo.com/entertai... [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
ABC is heavily owned by conservatives (remember, they only brought Jimmy Kimmel back when they saw what was happening to their streaming subscriptions), PBS is under threat, what the fuck is MS-now?, and the New York Times is part of a heavily shrinking class of newspapers not owned by conservatives.
Re:Trump Trying to Silence CNN (Score:5, Informative)
It's easy to make your case when you just exclude alllllll the conservative media particualrly in new and alt-media spaces. Let's list some out:
Fox News, still the #1 cable news by a long shot.
Wall Street Journal (this is 50/50)
All of the Daily Wire (Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, all large influencers)
Tucker Carlson
The "All In" guys (one of them is in the admin!)
Candace Owens
Joe Rogan
Newsmax
OANN
Blaze
Truth Social
Epoch Times
Breitbart
Daily Caller
Rumble
National Review
Washington Times
Gateway Pundit
Pim Tool
Washington Examiner
Infowars
And we can keep going, that's just the surface level and we haven't even gotten into the more obscure social media outlets and platforms. For Republicans to claim they have no media presence while they have been dominating the entire media landscape for 20 years is pissing on your and telling you it's raining. Its kayfabe, pretend, the "mainstream media" isn't real.
Re: (Score:2)
Also let's also remember that at least 3 cabinet members were hired directly out of Fox News (Pirro, Hegseth, Duffy) and Fox currently Employs at least 2 spouses of cabinet members (Miller and Duffy) and also employs about a dozen other Fox contributors of various sorts.
A level of media collusion that only existed in Republican's rage dreams about Democrats that they decided to make real.
Re:Trump Trying to Silence CNN (Score:4, Interesting)
It's easy to make your case when you just exclude alllllll the conservative media particualrly in new and alt-media spaces. Let's list some out:
With the exception of Fox and the WSJ (and maybe Rogan), that list has nowhere near the reach or audience numbers as even the worst rated MS-Now program. For every thing you list there, there's at least one and usually more left-wing equivalents. And all of that is beside the point, because...
For Republicans to claim they have no media presence
Uh, who is doing that? The whole point of the parent post was his assertion that conservatives are buying "all the media". It's a horseshit assertion, just like "Republicans claim they have no media presence".
while they have been dominating the entire media landscape for 20 years
Holy shit, you're either delusional or that's the most Stalinesque piece of spin I've seen in years. In what alternate fuckin' reality do you live in where Republicans have dominated the Big 3, NPR, Newspapers, wire services, etc etc etc?
Re: (Score:2)
that list has nowhere near the reach or audience numbers as even the worst rated MS-Now program
You sure about that? [youtube.com].
It's also not about one single item, it's the full spread of the media apparatus which I would bet when taken as a whole conservatives outreach Democrats by quite a bit and have for a long time. Be proud, stand on ground, this took decades, you guys did it, you are the mainstream now.
there's at least one and usually more left-wing equivalents.
And the conservative ones tend to be more popular. One complaint I have about the Democrats is they don't have alternative media anywhere close to say Daily Wire or a ground game that was anywhere close
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be more accurate to say that Republican/right-leaning media have larger viewer/reader/listener bases. That is, they are consumed more (one can argue whether rage-watching/listening/reading contributes to that.) It is almost certainly not true that there are more Republican/right-leaning media outlets.
Re: (Score:3)
I think there but the argument in that debate over what is "liberal" news because if you ask a Republican they'll say just about everything as, and to some degree vice versa.
Really to me the biggest difference maker in how conservative media has been able to dominate is total media discipline. Only now are are we seeing some cracks forming but particularly in this past decade is that when Republicans, especially Trump make a statement or a narrative the entire media apparatus picks it up and runs with it,
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell your post has nothing to do with what I said outside of the first sentence as the rest is just you putting words in my mouth I never even implied let alone said. Good work.
Given this I'll just address your first sentence
If that were true, no one would be against the merger.
If that were true then democracies that saw their media ownership fall under a single ideology wouldn't fail. Only they do so people in democracies do in fact let this happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine believing this when there are actual studies that show that Trump coverage is over 90% negative in US. For example, here's a recent one:
https://abc3340.com/news/natio... [abc3340.com]
You're literally in the world that is diametrically opposed to reality.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not at all mutually exclusive for Trump to be getting negative coverage and for American news media to be increasingly owned by conservatives. One does not equal the other.
That study is totally bunk as well. ABC, CBS, and NBC and not FOX? Only 3 news sources? No newspapers (and their associated web presence)? That's hardly a proper view of the American news environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's gold standard of such studies, Pew Research explaining why what you're asking for is unreasonable in their preamble of the old 2017 study:
https://www.pewresearch.org/jo... [pewresearch.org]
They do in fact do a little bit better in terms of what they could gather and parse though, and results are even worse from "pro Trump propaganda", showing only 5% positive.
Re: (Score:2)
So that means only looking at three media sources is an accurate view of the American news environment? How do you even come up with this stuff?
For the record, Pew is a fantastic organization. It's just what they're saying there doesn't even remotely contradict what I was saying before.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't just contradict it. It condemns it as unreasonable.
To be fair, being exceedingly unreasonable is modus operandi of modern Western left.
Re: (Score:2)
They asked ABC, CBS, and NBC.
Fox and the other right wing channels would be 100% positive. Guess which network has the vast majority of viewers.
Re: (Score:2)
You can use any of the couple dosen similar studies that all return similar numbers. Overwhelmingly negative coverage of Trump is a norm, has been a norm, and will likely persist as a norm.
Here's historic evidence from Pew:
https://www.pewresearch.org/jo... [pewresearch.org]
Note the similar numbers. Only 5% positive for Trump.
This is really easy to individually comprehend too.
"What are five bad things Trump did. Are they talked about across mainstream right now and widely known on all sides of the spectrum?"
"What are five goo
Re: (Score:2)
Major topics included tariffs, which received 361 minutes of coverage, followed by the Department of Government Efficiency with 310 minutes, and illegal immigration at 233 minutes.
Maybe all hose things are actually bad? There's very little good news about the tariffs beyond the press releases and statements the admin says about them. Same for DOGE which was an absolute abject failure. Oh and brutal immigration raids is salacious to make the news, you're kinda feeding the beast with that.
But hey if you want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine [wikipedia.org] let's have at it!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a $230Bil/year iterative failure.
Re: (Score:2)
The Media Research Center (MRC) is an American conservative content analysis and media watchdog group based in Herndon, Virginia
Do I really need to read that fucking thing and find out how they did their analysis by including nearly no conservative news sources, or are you just going to retract it like a good little boy?
Re: (Score:2)
I just searched "trump coverage positive vs negative" on startpage.
(Note the effort to make search terms steelman the opponent's position rather than my own by listing his position first, and then usage of anonymizer to reduce bias from search history).
Then clicked on the first link.
You can do the same, and click on the rest of the links. Overwhelming majority of them give similar numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the subject, which is the complaint that pro-Trump propaganda is overwhelming.
Re: (Score:2)
It is impossible that 90% of coverage of Trump is negative.
That's because far more than 10% of all coverage is done by direct sycophants of his.
90% of "left-leaning" coverage? I'd believe that.
More than 50% of center covered? I'd believe that. This guy is abnormally divisive.
90% of all coverage? Fucking impossible.
The largest fucking watched news channel in the country makes an effort to virtually fucking fellate him.
That is not to justify the person you replied to- they had
Re: (Score:3)
Every American who cares about democracy should care about the news media all falling under a single political ideology. Such things rarely work out well for democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Every American who cares about democracy should care about the news media all falling under a single political ideology. Such things rarely work out well for democracy.
Thing is, there are zillions of news outlets which aren't MSM any more. Every blog, podcast, and influencer channel on InstaTikTube has its own spin on things. From what I recall, enormous amounts of people say they get their news via Facebook, not the CBS Evening News.
That said, I don't know how much of that news was ultimately generated by the MSM. If you found a clip of a CNN story via YouTube, I still count that as a CNN story. I haven't seen any analysis of who's actually doing the reporting and conten
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is. Netflix is anti-competitive and must be blocked too. The real difference is that Paramount is bribing the president and will turn everything it owns into a mild version of Fox News. Not that CBS wasn't already sane washing and failing to counter the delusions being sold to the public. MORE media control than there already is should be scary.
Colbert was fired with BS reasons; we still don't see any real push back on that one. The network gave him a deal for that much money not long before; now
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought WB wanted to sell to Netflix, and that what Paramount was trying was a hostile takeover? Why send a letter to WB in this case instead of Paramount? Am I missing something?
I think so. Paramount is going to WB shareholders asking them to override the board's decision to accept an offer by Netflix. The board can make it clear to shareholders that should they decide to accept the Paramount offer, a plausible outcome is no merger happens (in the most expensive and disruptive way possible). So, you're right, the WB board doesn't make the decision but they can try influencing shareholders to vote the way Warren and co want.
That seems a bit goofy to me too. The board has every incen