Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/08/paramount-skydance-hostile-bid-wbd-netflix.html

by gniting • 8 months ago

367 401 8 months ago

cnbc.com

Previously: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46160315 (1333 comments)

magicalhippo3• 8 months ago

I brought popcorn, who are we rooting for?

Larrikin3• 8 months ago

The best outcome would be for all of the bids to fail, all the streaming services would bleed money due to people sick of the siloing, and for there to be multiple streaming services competing on experience because they all have access to the same catalog.

The second best outcome would be the cartoon villain Larry not getting what he wants.

nubinetwork• 8 months ago

I honestly don't think cbs paramount would be any better, if anything, wb content would be further paywalled and tiered off

account42• 8 months ago

and for there to be multiple streaming services competing on experience because they all have access to the same catalog.

That's a weird way to write "and for us to go back to owning copies of movies instead of just renting them."

raw_anon_111114• 8 months ago

They will all go back to just licensing to Netflix.

Meet the new boss…

aomix• 8 months ago

I want Netflix to lose. After living with their binge release schedule for however long now I think we're all worse off for it. So I want less of the industry to use it.

figmert• 8 months ago

You are not forced to buy their product, or to buy into their schedule.

whateveracct• 8 months ago

definitely not Ellison Jr lol

magicalhippo3• 8 months ago

Ah that Ellison, didn't make the connection.

kgwxd• 8 months ago

I'm never paying any of them, anything, ever again, but I'm sure we'll all get a little fucked somehow. I do hope it triggers more in-fighting amongst the scum of the earth.

tombert2• 8 months ago

Don't worry, no matter which way it goes, each executive will still figure out a way to give themselves hundreds of millions of dollars for their hard work.

lyu07282• 8 months ago

Piratebay

mistercheph• 8 months ago

https://archive.is/d71qC

walthamstow2• 8 months ago

[Paramount say Netflix deal] would lead to “a challenging regulatory approval process.”

"Only we have sufficiently greased the current government to get this deal done"

JumpCrisscross12• 8 months ago

They’re both at least trying to play [1].

The wild move for Ellison would be to bid for one of Trump’s crypto projects if the shareholder vote looks like it could fail.

[1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/netflixs-sarandos-w...

michaelbuckbee• 8 months ago

(not a joke) I wonder to what extent the ability to produce a Rush Hour 4 will effect the deal.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/25/trump-pushed-paramount-reviv...

jaredhallen• 8 months ago

Stranger than fiction.

pwillia73• 8 months ago

I can't wait to see how Chris Tucker plays it

miohtama• 8 months ago

Trump dislikes Paramount, thought?

https://deadline.com/2025/12/trump-paramount-60-minutes-davi...

jm4• 8 months ago

He did until they paid him off, fired people he doesn't like and his buddy bought it.

walthamstow2• 8 months ago

Kushner is involved in the money for the Paramount bid

josefritzishere2• 8 months ago

For a large enough "donation" the current administration will approve any merger.

grandpoobah• 8 months ago

Not even large. Trump is cheap. https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-makers-turbotax-gave-trum...

josefritzishere2• 8 months ago

Maybe we're all doing it wrong. Americans could instead be making "donations" to get the legal outcomes they want under this regime. We're not accustomed to the 3rd wold paradigm though it's well established elsewhere.

AndroTux• 8 months ago

FIFA just had to pay for a little trophy

indigodaddy5• 8 months ago

Does WB have to pay the breakup fee to Netflix if a Paramount hostile takeover succeeds?

ZeroCool2u• 8 months ago

Yeah, the reverse breakup fee is ~2.6B I believe, but the Paramount takeover doesn't have to succeed for that fee to kick in. WB just has to back out.

indigodaddy5• 8 months ago

Right, but if it does succeed, does it then kick in?

mcoliver• 8 months ago

Warner breakup fee is different. 2.8 billion.

JumpCrisscross12• 8 months ago

It looks like it. $2.8bn by Warner Brothers to Netflix [1].

If the vote looks close, Paramount would be expected to raise their bid to cover that cost.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065280/000119312525... 8.3(a)

dabockster3• 8 months ago

The failed merger and similar clawback clause between Kroger and Albertsons is currently destroying a significant part of the supply chain for food in the Pacific Northwest. Grocery stores that have been open for 50-75 years - stores where whole neighborhoods and towns were built around - are closing forever, leaving those areas as food deserts.

Either way, this entertainment merger is going to get ugly. Consumers are absolutely going to get harmed either way with that clawback clause.

embedding-shape• 8 months ago

Isn't this submission about Warner Bros Discover, which is a different entity? Seems to be about TV, not movies. But maybe I misunderstand, I did spend a whole of 20 seconds to skim the article...

VanTheBrand3• 8 months ago

It’s all one entity with subsidiaries for tv and movies, etc.

burnte2• 8 months ago

No. Breakup fes are for when the buyer backs out or theere are external forces that prevent the merger. You can also have a breakup fee if the buyee wants out but that's a different thing. In this case it's Paramount saying "we'll up out government-blocks-the-sale fee from $2.xbn to $5bn" which is saying they have a lot of confidence the merger will go through.

indigodaddy5• 8 months ago

Thanks, this was more the gist of my question.

JumpCrisscross12• 8 months ago

in this case it's Paramount saying "we'll up out government-blocks-the-sale fee from $2.xbn to $5bn" which is saying they have a lot of confidence the merger will go through

No.

Paramount has nothing to do with these numbers, which both come from the Plan of Merger among Netflix, Warner and others [1].

Paramount's bid constitutes an Acquisition Proposal under § 6.2(c). It is a "proposal, offer or indication of interest" from Paramount, a party who is not "Buyer and its Affiliates," which "is structured to result in such Person or group of Persons (or their stockholders), directly or indirectly, acquiring beneficial ownership of 20% or more of the Company’s consolidated total assets."

Given it "is publicly proposed" after the date of the Plan of Merger and "prior to the Company Stockholder Meeting," it is a Company Qualifying Transaction (8.3(D)(x)).

If 8.3(D)(y) is then satisfied (a condition I got bored jumping around to pin down–if thar be dragons, they be here) and Warner consummates the Company Qualifying Transaction or "enters into a definitive agreement providing for" it (8.3(a)(D)(z)(2), the Buyer can terminate the Plan of Merger under 8.1(b)(iii). That, in turn, triggers the Company Termination Fee of $2.8bn, which is separate from the Regulatory Termination Fee of $5.8bn Netflix would have to pay Warner if other shit happened.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065280/000119312525...

raw_anon_111114• 8 months ago

This has nothing to do with the Netflix bid.

Warner bros is being divided into the cable TV stations + discover channel stations and the movie studio and the backlog is separate.

Netflix wants the movie studio + tv back catalog

indigodaddy5• 8 months ago

The article bullet point referencing WB Discovery could mislead some into thinking that this takeover is only for the Discovery portion, but that's not the case. $30 would not be for Discovery only (as Netflix's bid is $27.75), it's for the whole kit and caboodle. Yes there are two entities, but/and Paramount wants it all, and the takeover intent is for both.

fyrabanks• 8 months ago

Netflix also wants HBO / HBO Max. They're just leaving the Discovery stuff.

sleepybrett3• 8 months ago

the split is hbo+streaming platform on one side and pretty much everything else on the other (discovery, cablechannels, cnn)

hinkley3• 8 months ago

Because WB owns what is left of Newline, that would include LotR and The Hobbit.

VanTheBrand3• 8 months ago

That’s not correct. Paramount wants everything (including the parts Netflix wants). Netflix wants just tv and movie studio. So the paramount hostile bid would be for the part Netflix wants and the part they don’t.

unstatusthequo• 8 months ago

I can’t even use Paramount+ at home. Have network wide ad and tracking filters on (simple NextDNS presets, nothing crazy), and while others work, Paramount+ doesn’t. Makes me wonder what they are doing to get blocked. Kind of wish neither were getting WB.

zamadatix• 8 months ago

Most likely as simple as "they use the same servers for content and ads/tracking so you can't block just one part as easily".

ssimpson• 8 months ago

I've had the same issue and go so far as to remove the streaming stuff from my Pihole to make sure it wasn't a DNS filtering issue. Paramount+ app still is sketchy as hell sometimes. Usually won't work on my AppleTV, but works on phones and stuff.

JumpCrisscross12• 8 months ago

Paramount bids $30 all cash for all of Warner Brothers Discovery. Netflix bids $27.75 “for Warner’s studio and HBO Max streaming business” only [1]. (“$23.25 in cash and $4.50 in shares” [2].)

The latter leaves behind “sports and news television brands around the world including CNN, TNT Sports in the U.S., and Discovery, top free-to-air channels across Europe, and digital products such as the profitable Discovery+ streaming service and Bleacher Report (B/R)” [3]. (Paramount is effectively bidding $5.9bn for these assets.)

Note that Zaslav, Warner’s CEO, is a prominent donor to Democrats [4], as is Reed Hastings, Netflix’s co-founder [5]. (Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s co-CEO with Greg Peters, is mixed, leaning Dem [6]. No clue on the latter.) Ellison is a staunch Trump ally. The partisan tinge will be difficult to ignore.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/business/media/paramount-makes-hostile-t...

[2] https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-to-acquire-warner-...

[3] https://www.wbd.com/news/warner-bros-discovery-separate-two-...

[4] https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=david+...

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/03/us/politics/reed-hastings...

[6] https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Ted+Sa...

CSMastermind• 8 months ago

I must be thte only one who like Paramount+

Honestly would rather have the Warner Bros content over there than on Netflix.

coldpie• 8 months ago

Eh, I liked it, but canceled my service after they made a bribe to the current president to approve one of their acquisitions. I like Star Trek plenty, but not enough to support anti-American businesses like Paramount.

silon42• 8 months ago

I subscribed to SkyShowtime (Euro joint venture from Paramount) for a few months (it was cheap) ... then I realized it doesn't work on Linux... cancelled.

sleepybrett3• 8 months ago

Once they ended 'Lower Decks' I was out.

noahbp• 8 months ago

The Paramount+ user interface on my Samsung TV is horrendous.

It frequently crashes after displaying ads, forcing me to re-open the app and watch ads again.

When watching ads does succeed (all 3 minutes of them…) and playback of my show begins, it shows the enormous pause button, the giant fade-to-black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, and covers up the subtitles, as though I had pressed ‘Play’.

And trying to pause requires you to press the pause button TWICE.

I tried to play a series, but instead of starting from the last-played episode + 1, it always plays the most recent episode since it’s a rewatch. This happened every time until I got caught up.

So I strongly disagree. If only to be able to watch all of this content without all of frustrating design flaws.

EDIT: They also end each episode with 2-3 minutes of ads. So you had to exit the show, then re-enter to not get hit with two ad breaks in a row.

mingus88• 8 months ago

IMO no 3rd party app is worth using on those devices.

My parents pay over $300/mo for an Xfinity bundle. It includes everything (phone, internet, and all streaming services on one bill)

The paramount+ app on the Xfinity box took TEN MINUTES to load a show. This is after crashing three times back to the logo.

Xfinity warns that it’s a 3P app and they aren’t responsible for it but it should be criminal to take the money and subject elderly people to this under spec hardware. Even live sports will pause and stutter.

raw_anon_111114• 8 months ago

Why for the love of all that is holy are you using the in built smarts of any TV? Well except the Roku TVs are okay. But I still prefer my AppleTV. It has by far the best hardware in the business and supports the volume up/down button and power off of the TV through either CEC or IR.

And why are you not paying for ad free streaming?

jimbokun3• 8 months ago

It has really strange bugs like with an hour left of a Champions League match it thought it had reached the end credits of the show and tried to automatically start showing something else. Was confusing figuring out how to tell it I wanted to really watch the "end credits" which was the last hour of the soccer contest.

dylan6042• 8 months ago

That's interesting as the Champions League is the most compelling thing for me to consider P+ subscription. Unfortunately for P+ it just hasn't been compelling enough. I feel for the Peacock subscription to watch EPL, but even with that subscription there are matches only on USA and maybe also on Telemundo. I can only imagine P+ doing similar, and I'm just not here for it

linhns• 8 months ago

Sounds like Paramount bosses are bidding in anger.

observationist2• 8 months ago

They tilt like everyone else - maybe the chaos and mayhem behind the last few years of this industry mean the old guard is finally failing, and we'll see meaningful copyright reform and sanity in our lifetime.

JumpCrisscross12• 8 months ago

and we'll see meaningful copyright reform

Are you betting on the content conglomerate bidding tens of billions, or the nepo baby LBO shop wearing the corpse of a movie studio as a salmon hat to spur copyright reform?

MangoToupe• 8 months ago

we'll see meaningful copyright reform and sanity in our lifetime.

I think there is a better chance of the state collapsing than there is of seeing meaningful IP reform

staplers• 8 months ago

  we'll see meaningful copyright reform and sanity in our lifetime.

That seems wildly naive... gestures broadly at world

moffers• 8 months ago

I think the political angle of this should not be discounted

Spivak2• 8 months ago

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.

perihelions2• 8 months ago

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).

nutjob2• 8 months ago

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.

dyauspitr2• 8 months ago

The political angle is the whole ball game

clumsysmurf• 8 months ago

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...

softwaredoug3• 8 months ago

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.

doublerabbit• 8 months ago

One can only wish to have that amount of money to bid in anger.

askvictor• 8 months ago

Don't worry, it's other peoples' money.

WorldMaker7• 8 months ago

They've just about said as much. They thought they had a friendly bid in the works just before WB announced a more exclusive friendly bidding process with Netflix. Definitely some drama going on there.

red-iron-pine3• 8 months ago

they snoozed they losed

notepad0x902• 8 months ago

I thought I read somewhere paramount is in survival mode, avoiding risky projects and focusing on reliable projects. This is surprising indeed.

Amazon took MGM, maybe netflix can take over paramount after it takes over warner bros?

I know people have strong opinions on this, but both from studios like warner and netflix, their quality has been subpar, i don't think this will change much in terms of risk taking. There used to be lots of more flops but lots of really good blockbusters as well. Now there are a lot less of both, it is profitable but enshittified.

JumpCrisscross12• 8 months ago

thought I read somewhere paramount is in survival mode

Paramount's multi-year sale process deserves an HBO miniseries. But at this point, it's a de facto LBO platform for the Ellisons.

sippeangelo• 8 months ago

But who's gonna produce that once Paramount owns HBO?

WorldMaker7• 8 months ago

Paramount sold themselves to Skydance who now get referred to as Paramount because Paramount is the older, stabler brand. That sale is generally considered to have pulled Paramount out of survival mode, though it will probably be at least a few more quarters before it the results are seen.

(Arguably, Skydance's ideas for Paramount are too similar to the weird Paramount and CBS divorce era, that I find it hard to believe Skydance is less wrong of a steward for Paramount than Paramount was before the consolidation. But a lot of that opinion comes from bias as a Star Trek fan and Skydance's approach seems to return to the semi-broken idea that Star Trek seems to be better as a film franchise than a TV franchise.)

Skydance owning both Paramount and Warner Brothers might be very concerning in terms of IP consolidation alone.

bsimpson4• 8 months ago

Skydance is also known as the then-obscure company that picked up Pixar head John Lasseter when his reputation for being overly affectionate got him pushed out of Disney.

It's one of the Ellison family's forays into media. David's sister/Larry's daughter Megan has Annapurna. Annapurna produced the Spike Jonze's AI romance "Her" and many of the the most prominent indie games of the last decade (Outer Wilds, Cocoon, Stray, Kentucky Route Zero, Sayonara Wild Hearts, Journey, Donut Country…).

afavour2• 8 months ago

I'm curious how often tactics like this work. It is essentially asking the Warner stockholders to act against the wishes of their elected board.

It seems the main thrust of the pitch is "we're friends with Trump therefore more likely to win approval" which is so deeply gross but also probably persuasive to many. Jared Kushner is involved in the Paramount bid so you know they're greasing the right wheels.

optimalsolver• 8 months ago

And probably also right.

stopbulying2• 8 months ago

"Jared Kushner is part of Paramount's hostile bid for Warner Bros. Discovery" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46195014

JumpCrisscross12• 8 months ago

curious how often tactics like this work

Hostile takeovers hit their zenith "in the 1980s" [1], when about 50% of attempts succeeded [2].

Since then, Delaware courts have become more Board friendly (specifically, friendly to takeover defences), antitrust made "it more difficult for companies with large market shares to acquire competitors without some level of cooperation from the target company," and stocks became more expensive [1]. (I'm struggling to find recent literature on frequencies.)

Compared to the 1980s and pre-Covid hostile takeover zenith, stocks remain expensive. But money is chaper, particularly for the politically connected. Antitrust is a wild card. And Warner has reduced takeover defences given it's already in the market for a sale (Revlon duties).

So...somewhere below 50%?

[1] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/11/08/the-comeback-of-h...

[2] https://faculty.fiu.edu/~daiglerr/pdf/hostile_takeovers.pdf

bhelkey• 8 months ago

> We are offering shareholders $17.6 billion more cash than the deal they currently have signed up with Netflix
It seems the main thrust of the pitch is "we're friends with Trump therefore more likely to win approval"

It seems to me that the main thrust of the pitch is more money.

ribosometronome• 8 months ago

Sure, if you think that the portion that would be spun off and stay public under Netflix's deal would have a stock value of like $2.

lingrush4• 8 months ago

Their case for approval is much stronger than Netflix's regardless of who is president.

Netflix is the largest streaming service in the country right now. It is 4x larger than Paramount+ in terms of total subscribers. Netflix acquiring Warner Brothers is naturally going to receive more scrutiny for this reason alone.

brandensilva2• 8 months ago

Sure, but Netflix is the non-nepotism and non-cronyism option. I'll take that over the corruption we are witnessing right before our eyes with free markets disappearing.

ngcazz• 8 months ago

No matter who wins, we lose.

postexitus• 8 months ago

Alien vs. Predator Whoever wins... We lose...

WorldMaker7• 8 months ago

The Alien and Predator are now both Disney Princesses. IP consolidation came for them already.

tombert2• 8 months ago

Very tangential, but that tagline was pretty misleading and it kind of pissed me off, because it was very clearly "if the Predator wins, we win".

glimshe• 8 months ago

If you like going to a physical theater, a Paramount victory could be slightly less bad.

WorldMaker7• 8 months ago

Maybe? Paramount was already deep in shuffling a lot of movies to Paramount+ exclusives, and new parent company Skydance seems to have first-look deals with both Apple TV and Netflix who may or may not ask for movie projects to be streaming exclusive.

(Apple TV is nearly as bad at theatrical runs as Netflix, though admittedly some of Apple's biggest "mistakes" are in presenting things beyond Oscar-bait such as Argyle that "box office flopped", but yet it is far better for physical theaters that they tried and as a fan of physical theaters I want to keep seeing them trying.)

__turbobrew__6• 8 months ago

I have seen several aspects of entertainment in my life get squeezed for money (Magic The Gathering, movies, TV streaming, video games) and I have decided to basically quit any form of entertainment which is solely controlled by large corporations.

People get extremely angry when Magic The Gathering charges more money, for more exclusive products, in more frequently occurring releases. Rage, grief, and sorrow over an aspect of your life that you allow a singular company to control. It doesn’t have to be this way. You can walk away , and find more fulfilling activities that you control.

This is what the kids call “touching grass”.

At this point I don’t watch TV, I don’t watch movies, I don’t play Magic The Gathering, I only play video games over 10 years old.

As I have gotten older I see now that this entertainment is junk food that replaces real satisfaction and accomplishment in life. Humans now more than ever have the opportunity to learn and do anything, but instead they spend it squandered on a shadow of real life.

petersellers4• 8 months ago

As I have gotten older I see now that this entertainment is junk food that replaces real satisfaction and accomplishment in life

A bit too condescending if you ask me. People are free to choose to spend time on things they find entertaining and that has no bearing on whether you find it "junk food" or whether the company producing the entertainment is trying to squeeze every penny they can out of it.

sylens2• 8 months ago

It doesn’t have to be this way. You can walk away , and find more fulfilling activities that you control.

For some people, they may their particular hobby/form of entertainment a core part of their identity. So walking away feels a huge indictment of themselves in particular. It can be hard for people to find something else to "pivot" their identity to in many cases.

BLKNSLVR4• 8 months ago

The great thing about games that are 10+ years old is that they're cheap, you can filter out all but the best rated, and the hardware to run them won't require mortgaging your first born.

I'm building a Steam library for my retirement.

I quit gaming when I had kids, and currently play tennis and do inline skating as my regular active hobbies (which, I believe, count as touching grass), with gaming as my injury / infirmity backup.

greenchair• 8 months ago

The junk food analogy is perfect. At some point you no longer get the satisfaction from video games you once did and you start to question the whole thing. I was created to do good works, not to spend most of my time in a virtual world for self gratification purposes.

dyauspitr2• 8 months ago

Eh, I feel like I lose less if Netflix wins

raw_anon_111114• 8 months ago

Right now I pay $38 for ad free Disney + Hulu + HBO max bundle. How would it be different if Netflix raised the price of Netflix + Warner brothers content?

I doubt that Netflix is going to take all of its content out of the video on demand/pay once markets like iTunes. Disney hasn’t.

Disney and WB are part of the MovieAnywhere consortium where you can buy content from iTunes, Amazon Prime, Google, Vudu etc and it automatically shows up in the other libraries

exvi• 8 months ago

"Whoever wins... We lose."

akimbostrawman• 8 months ago

We? I would hope everbody on hackernews knows how to access movies without funding Hollywood.

feb0120252• 8 months ago

The most concerning aspect for me is the obvious and conspicuously-timed consolidation of these companies under David Ellison. Within the past few months he's taken control of Paramount, CBS, The Free Press, and now he's working on Warner Bros.

From everything I've seen he's basically an ideologue, and has already re-structured CBS to align with his vision.

Just something that seems very out in the open yet kind of pushed off to the side.

pphysch• 8 months ago

Economic consolidation is one thing, consolidating under a malign foreign ideology is another. Definitely worrying.

pwillia73• 8 months ago

Back to the spoils system [1] baby! Hope you have a lot of capital and a tent to camp the White house lawn while you wait for your appointment.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

neogodless• 8 months ago

https://bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2025/12/03/how-the-ellis...

How the Ellison Empire is Killing America’s Democratic Media

btown• 8 months ago

Don't forget that the Ellisons have a 15% stake in TikTok's American business as well!

imbnwa2• 8 months ago

Yes, and he will control CNN just prior to the first midterms runoffs, this is all part of a plan.

pessimizer• 8 months ago

The Free Press wasn't worth anything, it's a blog with marginal readership. The creepy part is that Bari Weiss, a dimwit, was given $200M for that blog, put in charge of CBS News, and made a political commissar of all these new Oracle media properties with the brand names that Boomers love.

This thread is using it as an opportunity to scream about Trump, but Democrats will be all in on this. They have the same funders and the same interests. The NYT is the outlet that legitimized Weiss in the first place, a woman whose only previous interest was claiming that Palestinians were harassing her on college campuses by being there, and trying her best to get them expelled and fired. The Democrats were no opposition to the genocide; it began under their watch, they fully funded and shielded it, and they happily rounded up protesters. They'll be overjoyed to accept Ellison attention and Ellison cash.

I told all of you not to buy Oracle. Awful company, awful people, awful product.

dboreham4• 8 months ago

They probably figured the plots of "Succession" and "The Morning Show" could be...merged.

omnimus5• 8 months ago

Aren't all of the super rich ideologues? Ellisons father Larry for sure is. So is Ruppert Murdoch.

The only interesting thing about David Ellison is that his politics are different (slightly to the center) from his father. That's uncommon in those circles.

actionfromafar8• 8 months ago

He's seems very centered on Trump.

feb0120252• 8 months ago

Supporting Israel is a large motivating factor for David Ellison. Part of the reason Shari Redstone sold paramount in the first place ties back to frustration around CBS's Gaza coverage. It's no secret, and mainly what I was hinting at when I said he was an ideologue. Not that it's his only reason for the acquisitions however

dmead• 8 months ago

He bought the free press so he could install giant zionist bari weiss as CBS editor.

jasonlotito• 8 months ago

I feel like at some level, it will be much easier to just pir.... I mean... train LLMs based on their content. Yeah. LLM training. That's acceptable. So it really doesn't matter who wins, we'll just perform LLM training.

an0malous• 8 months ago

I'm LLM training right now!

danielbln• 8 months ago

I'm using a well established distributed data pipeline for my LLM training.

Muromec5• 8 months ago

Don't be silly. It's only LLM training if you are president's friend and bough the license to import a few BN worth of GPUs from the firm owned by his son in law.

Computer0• 8 months ago

Larry Ellison is my named enemy

red-iron-pine3• 8 months ago

larry ellison is guilty of all of the things they accuse soros of doing

9dev• 8 months ago

Ever played Horizon: Zero Dawn? He’s like a real-life version of Ted Faro

Sam713• 8 months ago

The success of a Netflix>WBD acquisition would consolidate a third of US streaming markets under one roof, which should receive anti-trust scrutiny. Despite this, there is still a strong appearance of conflict of interest in Trump’s public remarks regarding denying Netflix acquisition the necessary regulatory approval, in conjunction with his son-in-law Jared Kushner being one of the financial backers for Paramount’s cash bid.

(1)https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/08/trump-netflix-wbd-paramount.... (2)https://www.techradar.com/streaming/netflix/trump-says-the-b...

ls612• 8 months ago

My guess is that if it went to trial Netflix would win tbh. That’s why Paramount is having to raise its bid substantially, they can’t rely on getting Trump to serve WB up on a platter.

notepad0x902• 8 months ago

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.

imbnwa2• 8 months ago

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.

dragonwriter4• 8 months ago

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.

dawnerd• 8 months ago

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.

ls-a• 8 months ago

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

bsimpson4• 8 months ago

There's no "supposedly."

His kids are nepobabies that each run their own media company. His son is running Paramount, and his daughter has Annapurna.

iAMkenough• 8 months ago

The President's son-in-law is involved in the hostile bid through his private equity firm Affinity Partners. https://www.axios.com/2025/12/08/jared-kushner-paramount-war...

NickC25• 8 months ago

supposedly

My man, you don't have to mince words here. This hostile bid is backed by Jared Kushner, who is the President's son in law. One Rich Asshole owns Paramount, and is most certainly supporting the bid here.

This deal would also leave CNN in a very vulnerable position (they are owned by WB), which is exactly what Trump wants.

actionfromafar8• 8 months ago

Strong ”I am the State” vibes.

renegade-otter6• 8 months ago

One thing that is remarkable is how fast American media companies are folding or getting scooped up by the oligarchs in order to bring the sacrificed carcass to the ruler. Even Putin did not have it this easy - took him years.

willio582• 8 months ago

Larry Ellison is also a very public supporter of Israel and the IDF, as recently as a few months ago speaking in support of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

mike_h2• 8 months ago

He’s the largest individual donor to the IDF.

ecshafer• 8 months ago

What does this have to do with anything?

jedberg• 8 months ago

More than that, Trump said yesterday that Netflix's purchase of WB "might be problematic" and that he would be "personally involved in the decision of approving it".

He's trying to shakedown Netflix to pay fealty.

1659447091• 8 months ago

More than that, Trump said yesterday that Netflix's purchase of WB "might be problematic"

Adding Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn815egjqjpo

He's trying to shakedown Netflix to pay fealty.

I am not a supporter of most things this admin is doing, but also wouldn't be too sure on this one. I found it interestingly odd that out of nowhere he makes a comment on the deal after attending an event dealing with celebrating music and film. A regular shakedown would have happened before the deal when he met with the Netflix CEO recently, which the added link article mentions and was a person who Trump liked.

And now we see the Paramount thing that leads me to think it fits more with the suggestion that he takes the side of the last person he speaks with, which was probably someone at the same event on the paramount side.

I wouldn't rule out that he now plays them against each other in order to get something from it, but don't think it was the original reason for helping to throw a wrench into it

senderista• 8 months ago

The US is starting to resemble pre-war Ukraine, with industrial oligarchs owning their own media empires and openly buying elections/influence.

sophrosyne423• 8 months ago

Hostile bids have been a thing forever.

mmooss2• 8 months ago

That says nothing about this particular situation. Written language has been a thing for 5,000 years, and it's used for this bid, so nothing remarkable here ...

sega_sai• 8 months ago

Reading the comments -- it is amazing how quick it takes to from allegedly a democracy governed by a rule of law to a corrupt oligarchy. I personally understand the reasons, but it's a bit "funny" given all the grand-standing before about the founding fathers, checks and balances etc.

ncr100• 8 months ago

The mercenary values become quite plain sometimes. They have told us who they are, these people who are now brazenly about money and power.

It's up to us not to forget, and to vote accordingly, and to call BS when we see it.

Otherwise we lose our democracy.

chii3• 8 months ago

to vote accordingly

too many people are too comfortable - both with not voting, but also to vote blindly.

we lose our democracy.

it's half-way into the grave imho.

smrq• 8 months ago

Well, it took a lot of people by surprise that our famed checks and balances turned out to be toothless. Schoolhouse Rock sure didn't teach me that when other branches of government try to tell the executive branch to cut it out, they can just reply "no lol get bent".

creato• 8 months ago

The fatal mistake I see people repeatedly making is that it isn't about the system or checks and balances or whatever. It's about the people. The US had a deep bench of mostly reasonable leaders that mostly respected ideas like checks and balances or conflicts of interest.

Those people are mostly gone now. Our society used to elevate people like that, but it just doesn't now.

jimbohn• 8 months ago

It all starts with regulatory capture, imo

insane_dreamer• 8 months ago

all the grand-standing before about the founding fathers, checks and balances etc.

Trump exposed what looks great on paper (checks and balances) as being worthless if you're willing to break all conventions, use the government as a tool against your political enemies, and have a strong enough political base to beat the Senate (ultimately the only ones with the power to stop you) into submission.

What all of this really exposed is that laws and constraints don't mean anything if there's no actual way to enforce them at the highest level.

1970-01-01• 8 months ago

All I can say is welcome back to torrenting. This perpetual "same shit deal for consumers, different corporation" problem doesn't end until copyright kicks the media into public domain. Until then, you can play their content reindeer games[1] or you can download a copy of Reindeer Games[2] and watch it without worrying about ownership foofaraw.

[1] https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/reindeer-games

[2] predb.me

TSiege• 8 months ago

The problem here isn’t as simple as torrenting. It’s the narrowing of what culture is created and promoted and what isn’t. Paramount is overtly a right wing organization now under the Ellison’s. Part of their bid to WB is “it’d be a shame if trump killed this deal of yours”. Netflix’s groveling or Paramounts success might mean we see less art critical of the government and more that panders to its interest

sharts• 8 months ago

Has WB or Netflix ever been critical of the government?

imgabe• 8 months ago

The current status quo of Hollywood has extremely narrowed what culture is created and promoted, it is only now starting to open back up.

lotsofpulp3• 8 months ago

It’s the narrowing of what culture is created and promoted and what isn’t.

What professional media companies create and promote gets less and less relevant every year. The content served by Meta/ByteDance/Alphabet’s computers and other online sources get more and more relevant.

zoklet-enjoyer• 8 months ago

I don't even care anymore. There have been so few TV shows or movies that I've wanted to watch in the past decade. Books, podcasts, YouTube, music, and older movies for me. I got sick of the Marvel movies somewhere around the first Avengers movie. I don't think anything currently on TV interests me other than Bob's Burgers

omnimus5• 8 months ago

Oppressed cultures often produce the best work. This might be amazing opportunity for Hollywood.

BLKNSLVR4• 8 months ago

+1 for Bob's Burgers. Great show, been great for a long run.

gorgoiler• 8 months ago

I looked for a modern, trending show on predb.me (Pluribus) and the results were unweighted, without any comments or votes, and sorted by upload time. They were also multiplied out by broadcast language (at least for German, “iTalian” and “MULTI”.) I know it’s not meant to be perfect but it was kind of a backed up toilet of results.

It would be a lot nicer if I could see a social network of torrenters and locate the market leader — the most popular with the best rips or most friends or something like that.

It feels like Altavista when I really wanted Google.

squigz• 8 months ago

I'm not sure why someone would browse for torrents on predb, unless I'm missing something. It lists releases, it doesn't provide downloads or magnets or anything.

Use literally any torrent indexer (I use 1337x) and you'll be able to see # of seeders/leechers to determine popularity.

omnimus5• 8 months ago

TPB and its mirrors still work fine. Then there is Stremio, a media player with support for plugins and once you acquire the the torrenting kind you got yourself a netflix. Streaming torrents is cool.

stackedinserter2• 8 months ago

A plague on both your houses.

unsungNovelty• 8 months ago

I dont know the political angle. But if the DVDs and Blurays still keeping rolling under Paramount for WB Archives, I want Paramount to get it. It's super unlikely that Netflix will let the WB Archive live with physical media.

I mean, the way things are going, it's unlikely in both the cases. But I would get more time to collect everything I want by then with Paramount. Also, under Paramount WB Archive would be in the spotlight far more than under Netflix.

asciimov• 8 months ago

Ellison wants WBD for the TV networks, including CNN.

I don’t think they want the film division but the vast number of cable channels that Discovery owns. Giving them a rather large control of the American mind share.

vachina• 8 months ago

What is the difference between bits on a Blu-ray vs on a drive platter?

renegade-otter6• 8 months ago

Jared Kushner's firm? I am pretty sure about who is going to win....

digitaltrees5• 8 months ago

the fact that this is credible should scare every entrepreneur. If you cant compete on an even playing field because some people have direct government involvement in tipping the scales we are neither a free market economy nor a democracy.

renegade-otter6• 8 months ago

Americans do not like when someone uses the words "fascism" and "oligarchy". It's jarring to think that is even possible in the United States but a) we are here and b) the two have traditionally gone hand-in-hand.

trymas• 8 months ago

Since the beginning of the year - USA is just a shell of market economy. Small government indeed…

Also some say it’s “flawed democracy”, IMHO - for last ~3 decades (or even more) it’s just a charade of democracy. Probably soon you won’t even have that.

First-past-the-post two party system, bizarre primary elections, electoral college, land votes instead of people (how many senators are from california and how many from wyoming, they also say it’s “to balance the tyranny of majority”), abhorrent and disgusting gerrymandering (so states could also force tyranny of the minority in congress too :) ), voter suppression (voting on Tuesdays, employers can control if you can go vote that day, voting booth count is getting smaller, voter registration shenanigans in marginalised communities), etc.

t0lo• 8 months ago

this is the end of socially acceptable political norms as we know them

netsharc2• 8 months ago

There are hundreds of examples of crony capitalism in the world, current and past. Now you can study them and see what'll happen in the US in the next few years.

"It can't happen here", said the arrogant American...

rfwhyte• 7 months ago

The US has never really been either. At its core, the US has always been an oligarchy with the veneer of democracy to keep the pleebs in check.

Any country that has only ever really been able to choose one of two political parties who both represent the interests of wealthy elites above all else can't really call itself a "Democracy."

mbix77• 8 months ago

The level of corruption is really being raised. Trump family has not a shred of decency.

digitaltrees5• 8 months ago

When did silicon valley shift from "making the world a better place through disintermediation of relational data structures" to "own the means of production, control all government and bring back public hanging for masculine leadership"? Are they immature enough to think that people will just accept this without pushback? This is not the SV I believed in, and it won't end well for anyone.

cyclecount• 8 months ago

Probably sometime around the early 1800s

Malcolm Harris wrote a book “Palo Alto” about how this culture took root in SV long before it was called Silicon Valley: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/may/10/palo-alto-book...

digitaltrees5• 8 months ago

I don’t agree with this at all when you look at how much founder reinvestment in other younger founders has driven the ecosystem over generations.

clydethefrog• 8 months ago

As an outside observer, hasn't Thiel's Zero to One has been treated like a gospel basically since it's publication in 2012? Aiming for monopolies and total control has been part of the strategy for a decade now.

digitaltrees5• 8 months ago

No. Lots of us founders recognize that ecosystems create wealth and opportunity. Monopoly destroys it.

It works for one person on the short term but erodes society and all future opportunity.

Ecosystems are what built SV dispute a few selfish monopolistic pricks.

malcolmgreaves2• 8 months ago

When did SV ever actually do what you're claiming? Need to see some evidence of this claim before taking it as true.

From my observations, SV just had good marketing and PR during the 2000s - 2010s.

rurban2• 8 months ago

That would be much better, as Paramount understands to make good movies, trusting good directors. This year only Warner had the good movies

pelagicAustral• 8 months ago

Putting aside all the politics involved in this merger, I kind of agree with you... My first thought when reading about Netflix acquiring WB was that a whole lot of IP was going go down the drain thanks to how hard they try to push an agenda in their content.

wffurr• 8 months ago

> Putting aside all politics…
> how hard they try to push an agenda…

Are you talking about a political agenda? What kind of Netflix shows have any kind of political agenda?

rurban2• 8 months ago

My opinion is mostly based on old interviews with Coppola when he was asked why he would make Godfather with Paramount and not United Artists. He said Paramount doesn't care about movies, they are bankers and only care about money. They would not interfere at all with his artistic direction. And they didn't.

Now that we have the Ellison, I don't know anymore. His daughter is excellent, but with a different studio. His son has no idea. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad. We'll see.

My European colleagues are mostly worried about more MAGA nonsense in the media with the Ellisons

ImPleadThe5th• 8 months ago

How can all this consolidation in media even be justified?

shafyy• 8 months ago

Greed, power and corruption.

lotsofpulp3• 8 months ago

The media companies have had less and less power every year since the internet went mainstream. Big tech supplanted them a long time ago.

Surac• 8 months ago

Paramout is Trump Land now. So suddenly it is a problem if Netflix gets Warner.

khelavastr• 7 months ago

"You watch the content of you ARE the content"

Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

Related Stories