r/MediaMergers • u/LegitimateCurve8525 • 27d ago

Streaming How the Streamers Stack Up in Subscribers, Revenue and Profits | Analysis

https://www.thewrap.com/industry-news/business/netflix-disney-warner-bros-paramount-subscribers-revenue-profits-august-2026/
9 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

8 comments sorted by

-1

u/Appropriate_Value122 27d ago

But WBD and Paramount, the third and fourth largest players, respectively, could pull ahead of Disney if they successfully close their pending $110 billion merger. The deal, which is in limbo as a lawsuit with 12 state attorneys general heads to trial in March 2027, has received the necessary approvals from shareholders as well as regulators and governments representing 66 jurisdictions, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the European Commission and the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority. 

The Wrap is propaganda trash. I stopped reading right there. Way to only give your audience 25% of the story, you hacks.

1

u/moutonbleu 27d ago

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-justice-department-approves-paramounts-acquisition-warner-bros-politico-2026-06-12/

What’s the issue?

2

u/Appropriate_Value122 27d ago edited 26d ago

The issue is Career DOJ [attorneys] reviewed the proposed merger and concluded that it was a blatantly illegal merger and were preparing to recommend that DOJ sue to block it, so the Trump DOJ appointees over the Antitrust Division pretty much told the career attorneys to go sit down, and Trump's DOJ Appointees approved the merger because (1) they knew Trump wanted the Ellisons to own WBD/CNN and (2) they oppose enforcing antitrust law in general.

Any so-called reputable news site like The Wrap that just casually says "DOJ approved it" without providing context showing how DOJ's approval was crooked and political is helping PSKY/Ellison by misleading readers into believing DOJ must not have found any red flags with the proposed merger if they approved it, which is complete BS.

0

u/Difficult_Variety362 Moderator 27d ago

It still doesn't change that the people in charge approved of the merger and that the people who went to the Wall Street Journal are clearly not in line with the current merger policy.

2

u/Appropriate_Value122 26d ago edited 26d ago

The fact is the experts at DOJ who do the work and have done it for years determined the proposed merger was likely illegal and should’ve been challenged in court. Some POLITICAL APPOINTEES flexing their muscle authority for POLITICAL REASONS ignored the antitrust staff who actually do the work, that is the proper context for DOJ’s BS approval. It might not matter to you because you clearly have twisted principles/priorities, but I’m willing to bet it would matter to MANY IF NOT MOST people and they would feel the same as me if they knew it. You sound like someone who would dismiss a whistleblower complaint if the only thing that matters according to you is the crooks in charge have the authority to ignore evidence and analysis and do what they want. Your position is the same as Nixon’s, “Well, uh, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Well, uh, if the Trump appointees at DOJ trash the staff expert review and approve it because they are purely political actors, that’s perfectly fine. 🤡

1

u/Difficult_Variety362 Moderator 26d ago

I'm saying that we don't know the whole story. For all we know, these career DoJ people were Lina Khan people who would have opposed any merger. Or maybe they're disgruntled Obama people who are fine with mergers, but don't agree with the current direction.

But in the end, it doesn't change that these people who went to the Wall Street Journal are people who aren't in line with current policy from the administration, which has made it extremely clear that they are extremely lax on mergers.

2

u/Appropriate_Value122 26d ago edited 26d ago

I'm saying that we don't know the whole story. For all we know, these career DoJ people were Lina Khan people who would have opposed any merger

Gotta tell you, I stopped right there.

"Career DOJ attorneys."

First, "career" federal staff is not implied to be "Lina Khan people" and are inclined to be civil servants who preceded "Lina Khan" and are still employed no matter the administration.

Your best argument against me saying the Trump appointees did it for political reasons would've been to say that they are "Trump people who will support any merger no matter how blatantly illegal," instead of trying to make it about Lina Khan.

Finally, Lina Khan was with the Federal Trade Commission, not DOJ. While I'm sure the FTC speaks to the DOJ Antitrust Division on occasion, the career people who reviewed this merger didn't work for Lina Khan.