all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 31 points 11 months ago (8 children)

This is bizarre to me. There's no outcome that won't reduce competition in the market... how is the situation different if paramount buys them? Other than paramount is run by Trump sycophants

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    What makes you think the goal is not to stop anyone from buying them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I don't think that outcome is at all likely in this climate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I'd sooner suspect it's a way to attempt to get more Trump allied control over more media than a ploy to resist corporate monopoly, what with the cost of lawsuits at this scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    And just how the fuck do you think forcing a company to not be sold is going to work out. If a company doesn't get sold like this and it's in debt as much as they are they're going to end up closing up and that's even worse. Because then people are going to be bidding in bankruptcy court over their assets and buy them for even less. This is like saying you don't want the McDonald's down the road to get bought out by a McDonald's franchisee because in the end you're not going to notice any real difference you're still going to eat the same shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • 2 comments in c/television@piefed.social view that post
    [–] 14 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Warner Bros is not a defendant in the lawsuit.

    Is this lawsuit a way to get the deal stuck down so paramount (and their questionable business partners) to buy WB, including CNN?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment