Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

    (www.cnbc.com)
    366 points gniting | 17 comments | 08 Dec 25 14:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom

    Previously: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46160315 (1333 comments)
    Show context
    notepad0x90 ◴[08 Dec 25 21:41 UTC] No.46198023[source]▶
    I just realized that the netflix ceo is a big-time democratic party donor, and that paramount is supposedly being supported by larry ellison (big-time republican/trump donor) and saudis? I'm sensing a strong political/influence angle here by the billionaires.
    replies(6): >>46198083 #>>46198112 #>>46198138 #>>46198201 #>>46199199 #>>46199446 #
    1. imbnwa ◴[08 Dec 25 21:45 UTC] No.46198083[source]▶
    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.
    replies(3): >>46198100 #>>46198143 #>>46199333 #
    2. dragonwriter ◴[08 Dec 25 21:47 UTC] No.46198100[source]▶
    > 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.

    3. dawnerd ◴[08 Dec 25 21:50 UTC] No.46198143[source]▶
    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.
    replies(1): >>46207875 #
    4. ls-a ◴[08 Dec 25 23:47 UTC] No.46199333[source]▶
    Doesn't that imply that Netflix was planning to do the same (for their party)? Or are you saying Netflix is innocent here
    replies(5): >>46199846 #>>46200239 #>>46200317 #>>46202245 #>>46205335 #
    5. pylotlight ◴[09 Dec 25 00:41 UTC] No.46199846[source]▶
    Didn't you know? It's only bad when the people I don't like are doing it.
    replies(1): >>46200911 #
    6. rjmorris ◴[09 Dec 25 01:29 UTC] No.46200239[source]▶
    No, it doesn't imply that. Saying party X plans to do something implies nothing about what party Y plans to do.
    replies(1): >>46201045 #
    7. salawat ◴[09 Dec 25 01:42 UTC] No.46200317[source]▶
    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.

    replies(1): >>46201959 #
    8. raw_anon_1111 ◴[09 Dec 25 03:24 UTC] No.46200911{3}[source]▶
    Well Netflix hasn’t given Trump a $15 million bribe or any other politician yet.
    replies(1): >>46200929 #
    9. bdangubic ◴[09 Dec 25 03:29 UTC] No.46200929{4}[source]▶
    his son-in-law is outbidding netflix so $15bn maybe would do it :)
    10. chii ◴[09 Dec 25 03:49 UTC] No.46201045{3}[source]▶
    > 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).

    replies(1): >>46202491 #
    11. andsoitis ◴[09 Dec 25 06:45 UTC] No.46201959{3}[source]▶
    > it (Netflix) is still a billionaire corp

    What does that mean?

    replies(1): >>46207883 #
    12. qbit42 ◴[09 Dec 25 07:32 UTC] No.46202245[source]▶
    Netflix wasn't buying CNN.
    13. dragonwriter ◴[09 Dec 25 08:09 UTC] No.46202491{4}[source]▶
    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.

    replies(1): >>46206105 #
    14. the_gastropod ◴[09 Dec 25 14:37 UTC] No.46205335[source]▶
    Both-sidesism is a hell of a drug.
    15. giraffe_lady ◴[09 Dec 25 15:39 UTC] No.46206105{5}[source]▶
    It's closer to so-far-unnamed fallacy of "the right has no agency." Everything they do is in response to something done by the democrats or the left or whatever and so they aren't responsible for their actions.
    16. NoGravitas ◴[09 Dec 25 17:38 UTC] No.46207875[source]▶
    It's scheduling. WBD was set to spin off Discovery Global in April --- after the March congressional primaries. The hostile bid creates leverage to get the TV networks spun off sooner, rather than later, to ensure that the Ellisons can pick them up Q1, in time to set the narrative for the congressional primaries.

    See: https://substack.com/@thedreydossier/p-180959723

    17. NoGravitas ◴[09 Dec 25 17:38 UTC] No.46207883{4}[source]▶
    It means do not make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison.