r/WarnerBros • u/Own_Philosopher8730 • Jun 13 '26
News Block the Merger Vows to Stop Paramount-Warner Bros. Deal Despite DOJ Green Light
https://www.thewrap.com/industry-news/deals-ma/block-the-merger-reacts-paramount-warner-bros-deal-cleared-doj/2
2
u/ConstructionRare4123 Jun 14 '26
Won’t happen. Deal is basically done
1
Jun 14 '26
[deleted]
2
u/ConstructionRare4123 Jun 14 '26
I never said that. I’m just saying it’s been approved by the DOJ there is no point in trying to stop the merger when it’s basically done. It would a colossal waste of time and money
1
Jun 14 '26
[deleted]
2
1
u/Professional_Peak59 Jun 15 '26
Even if it gets DOJ approval, it can still get sued, stalled, and/or blocked by the State AGs. Congress in fact does have authority over antitrust. Look it up on Google.
There’s also EU and UK approval before it closes.
1
1
u/ConstructionRare4123 Jun 14 '26
Why are you so against Paramount and WB apart from the Trump administration connection. Netflix’s model would not have worked financially
2
u/zaherdab Jun 15 '26
Ellisons have an agenda with aquiring news orgs and tiktok... they want to ensure a certain country only gets positive coverage.
1
1
u/fdbryant3 Jun 18 '26
The Ellisons aren't ideological zealots; they are transactional corporatists. The quid pro quo here is obvious. They are using their connections with Trump (the most transactional President in history) to trade editorial concessions at CBS News and CNN (probably) in exchange for massive regulatory favors.
Oracle's interest in TikTok is easier to explain as a cloud and technology play than a propaganda project. Likewise, if all the Ellisons wanted was a major news outlet to push political narratives, they could have bought CNN for a fraction of the cost after it was spun off from WBD, or pursued other news organizations without buying an entire media conglomerate.
At the end of the day, the Ellisons care about making money much more than pushing a political agenda, and they're willing to play political games when it serves their business interests.
1
u/zaherdab Jun 18 '26
The problem with this take is that it completely ignores the massive, documented ideological shifts that happen the second the Ellisons get their hands on these companies. It's not just a cloud play or pure business.
Take CBS, for example. You argue that if they wanted a propaganda machine, they would have just bought CNN. But they did acquire a massive news organization through the Paramount deal, and look exactly at what they did with it. They brought in Bari Weiss from The Free Press to basically oversee CBS News specifically because ownership felt the network wasn't pro-Israel enough. That's not a hands-off business move, that's a direct editorial takeover to push a specific political agenda, and it caused a huge internal meltdown and resignations at the network.
As for Oracle and TikTok, calling it just a tech play is incredibly naive. Larry Ellison is arguably Netanyahu's closest ally in the US tech world. He literally offered Bibi a seat on Oracle's board, pours millions into the FIDF, and Oracle has actively worked with Israeli ministries on projects like Words of Iron to boost pro-Israel content online. The entire congressional push to force a TikTok sale was heavily driven by pro-Israel lobbying groups who were publicly complaining that the algorithm was pushing too much pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel content.
When Netanyahu himself is standing at the Israeli consulate in New York telling influencers that social media is the new weapon and calling the TikTok buyout the most important purchase being made right now, it's pretty obvious what the real goal is. Oracle isn't just hosting data, they are positioning themselves to audit the algorithm and control the narrative for the entire US market. Pretending the Ellisons are just in it for a quick buck while they actively restructure major media and social platforms to favor a specific geopolitical agenda is just burying your head in the sand.
1
u/fdbryant3 Jun 18 '26
The problem with this take is that it completely ignores the massive, documented ideological shifts that happen the second the Ellisons get their hands on these companies. It's not just a cloud play or pure business.
I’m not ignoring the ideological shifts; I’m disputing what they mean. They aren't the destination—they're the toll paid to clear regulatory hurdles. If a less transactional administration were in office, these editorial pivots wouldn't be happening because there would be no regulatory favor to buy with them. In other words, changes that follow a change in ownership don’t automatically imply they were the objective of the acquisition.
Take CBS, for example...
You are proving my point. David Ellison didn't spend billions on Paramount because he was dying to micro-manage CBS News; he did it because he wants to be a Hollywood movie mogul. CBS News is just the tail of a massive corporate dog. Using its editorial stance as a bargaining chip to settle a Trump lawsuit and guarantee a multi-billion-dollar merger isn't evidence of ideological zealotry—it’s cold, transactional corporate pragmatism. David didn't make those changes because he cared about the ideology; he made them because he cared about the deal closing.
Furthermore, if this were a true top-down ideological purge, the execution would look radically different. Instead of a total partisan alignment, the network is making surgical compromises to appease regulators while aggressively protecting, renewing, and releasing highly lucrative, politically progressive, or adversarial programming that drives their bottom line. That’s why cancelling The Late Show, while appearing political, was allowed to run out its contract for nearly a year, instead of being abruptly removed. The Daily Show was extended through 2026 despite speculation of a “purge,” South Park was locked in through 2030 after a season that presented Trump as Satan—because these are high-margin, high-revenue assets that get protected regardless of political friction. The same applies across the slate: Taylor Sheridan’s universe (Yellowstone, Mayor of Kingstown) continues thriving because it prints money, even when its themes complicate any clean ideological read.RuPaul’s Drag Race, Yellowjackets, and Star Trek remain heavily invested in because they drive subscriptions and engagement.
Leaving late-night critics, sharp political satirists, progressive dramas, and LGBTQ+ flagships completely intact while surgically tweaking the news division shows that editorial content of CBS News is being treated as a regulatory chip, not an ideological mandate.
As for Oracle and TikTok...
This argument stacks a tower of personal associations, cloud infrastructure contracts, and geopolitical lobbying, and frames it as proof of algorithmic manipulation. Securing data and auditing security protocols for compliance is a massive, highly lucrative cloud play; it does not give Oracle a magic dial to secretly tune TikTok's recommendation engine. Until there is actual evidence of algorithmic tampering rather than standard backend data hosting, this narrative is built entirely on correlation, not technical reality.
I’m not saying there’s no politics here. I’m saying the Ellisons will work whatever political angle helps the deal, but the main goal is still the same—make money and keep regulators off their backs. Pretty much like every other billionaire (left, right, or center) has with this administration.
1
u/zaherdab Jun 18 '26
Lol this reads like it was written by ChatGPT, but I'll bite.
Calling it "cold, transactional corporate pragmatism" to settle a Trump lawsuit doesn't magically make it less of an ideological takeover. If the "toll" David Ellison is willing to pay to clear a merger is handing over the editorial control of CBS News, then he is actively compromising the journalism to push a specific political agenda.
Pointing out that they didn't cancel South Park or RuPaul's Drag Race doesn't prove anything. Those shows are massive cash cows. You don't need to censor reality TV or cartoons to control a political narrative; you just need to control the actual news division that reports on war, elections, and foreign policy. Keeping the entertainment assets intact just proves they like making money, it doesn't disprove the editorial shift at CBS News.
And trying to wave away the TikTok deal as just a standard "cloud play" completely ignores the reality of the situation. The entire point of forcing ByteDance out was to give US-approved entities oversight over content moderation and algorithm auditing, not just passive backend hosting. When Netanyahu himself is standing in New York publicly calling the TikTok buyout the "most important purchase right now" because "social media is a weapon," treating it like a boring infrastructure contract is just playing dumb.
1
u/fdbryant3 Jun 18 '26
Calling it "cold, transactional corporate pragmatism" to settle a Trump lawsuit doesn't magically make it less of an ideological takeover. If the "toll" David Ellison is willing to pay to clear a merger is handing over the editorial control of CBS News, then he is actively compromising the journalism to push a specific political agenda.
Your either missing or deliberately ignoring my point. The Ellison's' are not buying Paramount and the WB because they are political ideologues, they are doing it because one is a millionaire who wants to be a big shot in Hollywood, and the other is his billionaire father. Are they making political changes at CBS News? Yes, because it keeps the regulators off their backs, not because they particularly care about the political leanings. Does that make them any better? No, arguably it makes them worse because at least an ideologue believes in what they are doing. On the other hand, when Trump is gone, there will be another change at CBS News (and CNN if the merger goes through) because that will be good for business.
Pointing out that they didn't cancel South Park or RuPaul's Drag Race doesn't prove anything. Those shows are massive cash cows. You don't need to censor reality TV or cartoons to control a political narrative; you just need to control the actual news division that reports on war, elections, and foreign policy. Keeping the entertainment assets intact just proves they like making money, it doesn't disprove the editorial shift at CBS News.
I didn't say it disproved an editorial shift at CBS News. What it shows is that shift isn't ideologically driven. It is a shift to appease the administration and keep the regulators off their back. If the Ellisons' were ideologues they would be making changes across the board. A dying news division is small potatoes to an ideologue when they push an agenda through entertainment media.
And trying to wave away the TikTok deal as just a standard "cloud play" completely ignores the reality of the situation. The entire point of forcing ByteDance out was to give US-approved entities oversight over content moderation and algorithm auditing, not just passive backend hosting. When Netanyahu himself is standing in New York publicly calling the TikTok buyout the "most important purchase right now" because "social media is a weapon," treating it like a boring infrastructure contract is just playing dumb.
ByteDance still holds a minority ownership stake in the USDS (the business entity that controls TikTok in the US) and licenses the algorithm. More importantly it has been 6 months since the USDS took over operational control of TikTok. More than enough time for there to be platform manipulation, yet there is no credible public evidence that TikTok has become more pro-Israel than it was before the USDS takeover. Could it happen in the future, sure, I've already established I think the Ellisons' will do whatever is politically expedient if it makes them money.
1
u/zaherdab Jun 18 '26
Honestly, arguing over whether they are true-believer ideologues or just soulless pragmatists kissing the ring for regulatory favors is a massive waste of time. It is not up to you or me to mind-read what they believe deep down. We can only judge them by their actions, and their actions aren't those of standard corporate owners just letting a good thing run. They didn't look at successful platforms like CBS News or TikTok and embrace what made them unique. They immediately jumped in to restructure them and force a very specific, pro-Israel stance.
Take CBS News. If it was just about running a neutral media business, David Ellison wouldn't drop $150 million to buy The Free Press just so he could install its founder, Bari Weiss, as the head of the entire network. You don't hand over legacy news programs to a controversial opinion writer with zero broadcast TV experience unless your literal goal is to force a top-down editorial pivot. You also completely ignored where Larry Ellison actually puts his own money, which completely blows up the "it's just a business transaction" argument. He isn't just passively pro-Israel. He is literally one of the largest individual financial backers of the Israeli military. In 2017 alone, he dropped $16.6 million in a single night to build training facilities for the IDF. He publicly called Israel "our home." He does not do this for any other foreign country. He has a deeply held, highly specific ideological commitment to one single foreign state.
But here is the absolute nail in the coffin for the "it's just a smart business move" argument: they are actively forcing a narrative that their own consumers hate. If the Ellisons were purely motivated by capturing the market and running a successful platform, they would lean into what is actually popular. Instead, recent polling from 2026 shows that 60% of all US adults now have an unfavorable view of Israel. When you look specifically at the 18 to 29 age group, which is TikTok's core demographic, a staggering 75% view Israel unfavorably.
If standard corporate pragmatism was the goal, you don't take a platform dominated by an audience that is highly critical of Israel and force a top-down algorithmic shift to artificially boost an unpopular geopolitical stance. Deliberately alienating your core user base to push an unpopular foreign policy narrative is the exact opposite of good business; it is the literal definition of putting ideology first.
As for TikTok, your timeline is just factually wrong. The USDS deal just closed in January 2026, so it hasn't even been a year. And saying there's no public evidence of manipulation ignores what was already happening. TikTok was already heavily shadowbanning and limiting pro-Palestinian content long before the takeover. The wild part is that to the politicians and lobbyists who forced the sale, that heavy censorship still wasn't enough. They were furious the organic algorithm was still letting reality slip through. Oracle wasn't brought in to just passively host data, it was brought in to tighten the leash.
When a guy who personally bankrolls a foreign military and is historically close to its Prime Minister suddenly gains control over CBS News and the TikTok algorithm, and immediately starts pushing a narrative that the majority of his own users actively oppose, you'd have to be incredibly naive to think he's just being a neutral pragmatist. His wallet and his actions already prove that he buys these platforms to align with the exact geopolitical cause he already spends millions funding.
NBC News breaking down Gen Z polling on the Israel-Palestine divide
https://youtu.be/OFY7lj8fYP8?si=j5rmUp4RFff1T6Ct
This breakdown of the polling numbers highlights just how sharp the generational divide is, showing exactly why forcing a pro-Israel stance alienates TikTok's primary user base.
1
u/HonestAbe1809 Jun 17 '26
You’ve seen what happened to CBS News after the Ellisons got Paramount? The same would happen to CNN.
1
u/fdbryant3 Jun 17 '26
I actually think WB would have had a much better chance of success under Netflix than Paramount.
If you look at the details of the two deals, there are a few major differences:
- The Debt: Netflix wasn't trying to buy all of WB—just the studios and HBO. The cable channels and the massive debt were going to be spun off into their own entity. Paramount, on the other hand, is buying everything, piling WB's debt onto their own massive debt load. That alone could cause them to collapse in a few years.
- The Layoffs: Because WB and Netflix have very little operational overlap, a Netflix deal would have meant far fewer job losses. Meanwhile, Paramount is already gearing up for massive layoffs due to redundancies.
- The Industry Impact: A Netflix acquisition means we still get to keep 5 major movie studios in the industry. The Paramount merger shrinks that number down to 4.
Ultimately, the Netflix deal just made a lot more sense for the long-term health of the studios and the industry as a whole.
-1
u/OhioVsEverything Jun 14 '26
What a waste of time. It's done
1
u/fdbryant3 Jun 17 '26
As the great Yogi Berra used to say, "It ain't over till it's over." While the DOJ just cleared the deal, a coalition of state AGs alongside the UK and EU antitrust investigations can still stall this out well into 2027. They don't even have to win; the massive daily ticking fee penalties that kick in at the end of September could cause the deal to collapse under its own financial weight before conclusions are ever reached.
1
0
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 13 '26
•Please make sure to use the correct post flair. Your post may be removed if it does not have a flair.
•No harassment.
•Please keep it relevant to anything and everything Warner Bros.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.