6 ms·
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.
by imbnwa 9mo 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.
- dragonwriter 9mo 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 9mo agoNetflix 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.
- NoGravitas 9mo agoIt'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 https://substack.com/@thedreydossier/p-180959723
- ls-a 9mo agoDoesn't that imply that Netflix was planning to do the same (for their party)? Or are you saying Netflix is innocent here
- qbit42 9mo agoNetflix wasn't buying CNN.
- rjmorris 9mo agoNo, it doesn't imply that. Saying party X plans to do something implies nothing about what party Y plans to do.
- chii 9mo ago> 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 9mo agoThe 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.
- giraffe_lady 9mo agoIt'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.
- pylotlight 9mo agoDidn't you know? It's only bad when the people I don't like are doing it.
- raw_anon_1111 9mo agoWell Netflix hasn’t given Trump a $15 million bribe or any other politician yet.
- bdangubic 9mo agohis son-in-law is outbidding netflix so $15bn maybe would do it :)
- salawat 9mo agoNetflix 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 9mo ago> it (Netflix) is still a billionaire corp What does that mean?
- NoGravitas 9mo agoIt means do not make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison.
- the_gastropod 9mo agoBoth-sidesism is a hell of a drug.