Paramount Reveals Company Will Be 49.5% Owned By Foreign Investors If Warner Bros Merger Approved
from the America-Last dept
FCC boss Brendan Carr has spent much of the last five years on cable TV whining incessantly about foreign entanglement with U.S. companies. Even companies he doesn’t regulate.
He was positively apoplectic about China’s ownership of TikTok, which you may recall they “fixed” by offloading the social media company to Trump’s billionaire friends (while curiously maintaining Chinese co-ownership). He’s also been endlessly whiny about Chinese entanglement in U.S. hardware, recently imposing a “ban” on foreign routers (which is actually more of a lazy extortion scheme).
But when it comes to a Trump-allied right wing billionaire buying up the entirety of U.S. media companies with Chinese and Middle East autocratic help, Brendan Carr is suddenly nowhere to be found.
A new filing from Paramount related to its $111 billion acquisition of Warner Brothers reveals the finalized deal will result in a company that’s 49.5% owned by foreign interests (including the Chinese), and 38.5% owned by a a trio of Middle Eastern funds, including the journalist-butchering folks over in Saudi Arabia:
“In a petition for declaratory ruling to the FCC signed by Paramount legal chief Makan Delrahim, Paramount asks the Brendan Carr-led commission to sign off on the deal involving Saudi Arabia’s PIF (public investment fund), L’Imad, an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, and a Qatar Investment Authority fund.”
If you’re playing along at home, that’s the same Makan Delrahim who used to be Trump’s DOJ “antitrust enforcer” during his first term. Delrahim “enforced antitrust” at the time by helping Sprint and T-Mobile gain rubber-stamp approval for their job and competition eroding merger. He even used his personal phones and computers to give the companies advise on how to bypass regulatory scrutiny.
Normally the FCC wouldn’t have any say in this deal because no local broadcast stations or public airwaves are directly involved, but it does have some say in how the deal is financed. The Communications Act of 1934 restricts foreign entities from holding more than a 25% indirect equity or voting interest in a U.S. company that holds broadcast licenses. Obviously, 49.5% bypasses that.
Paramount and Brendan Carr have already insisted this is all irrelevant and Carr has openly signaled to a top GOP donor (Larry Ellison) that he won’t object to any part of the foreign financing. Paramount’s filing continues to insist the deal (and its massive debt) will be great for consumers, creatives, and everybody in between. From a Paramount statement:
“When the transaction and equity syndication close, the Ellison family and RedBird will collectively hold the largest equity stake in the combined company and continue to be the sole owners of Class A Common Stock, representing 100% of the voting shares, with no other equity syndication party having any governance rights, voting shares, or Board representation. The combination of Paramount and WBD’s complementary assets will enhance competition while creating a strong champion for creative talent and consumer choice.”
There is, as we’ve explored, nothing that supports this last claim. That massive level of debt will inevitably result in mass layoffs, corner cutting, and price hikes. This is what always happens. And this is before a potential AI bubble pop impacts the Ellison family financials even more. There’s a very good chance this deal implodes in a giant fireball regardless of who is financing it.
Still, it’s curious that a GOP that spends so much of its time engaged in xenophobic and racist tirades about foreign investment in U.S. free market innovation goes so quickly silent when they stand to personally benefit. In this case both financially via Larry Ellison’s patronage, and ideologically via Larry Ellison’s conversion of CNN, TikTok, and CBS into (global) autocrat-friendly propaganda machines.
Filed Under: brendan carr, consolidation, fcc, foreign ownership, larry ellison, media, mergers, propaganda
Companies: paramount, warner bros. discovery
Comments on “Paramount Reveals Company Will Be 49.5% Owned By Foreign Investors If Warner Bros Merger Approved”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Oh no, not fur’n types! You know you can’t trust them!
(Maybe don’t run headlines that play up jingoistic fears if you don’t want to encourage them)
Re:
Most people can read beyond the headlines, and recognize the point was that those in power have insisted for years now that foreign ownership is a problem. This is just pointing out their hypocrisy.
I guess it’s too much to ask to expect you to read the actual article though.
Re: Re:
But why not make the headline reflect the article? You know, where the problem is the hypocrisy, and not just foreigners being involved?
Because there ARE people who will read only the headline, and I don’t need to be one of them to know that. You are doing your own reporting a disservice by setting it up this way.
Re: Re:
Frankly, if you don’t believe that the headline matters, why not just use the first sentence of each article as a headline. Or a conglomeration of SEO terms. People are gonna read the article anyway, so it doesn’t matter, right?
Re: Re:
For instance, you could run a headline like “Paramount Merger Would Be 49.5% Foreign-Owned – But GOP Hypocrites Who Fear Foreign Ownership Are Approving It Anyway”. This would honestly be more in line with your usual coverage, and would not undermine the underlying article.
I didn’t think I’d have to instruct you of all people in the ethics of journalism, but people DO often scan headlines, or share articles where the recipient only reads the shared headline.
It also does you no service to act as though I never read the article when my contention the entire time is that the article itself is good, and simply deserves a matching headline that isn’t encouraging precisely the crowd the article itself is attacking.
That you’re responding in this manner really gives me pause, and makes me question whether your work is tending rightwards.
Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be totally overreacting to a single headline.
It’s one freaking headline.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m mostly reacting to your response, which is to insult me for questioning a xenophobic framing that misidentifies the article in question. That the headline in question doesn’t suit the article is unfortunate, but that you are doubling down on this “headlines don’t matter” line like this is much more troubling.
Do I sincerely need to read a textbook excerpt in the role of headlines, how they can frame an article, and how they are often skimmed by people? I’m willing to do so, though I’m not exactly filled with confidence that you treat headlines as unimportant despite your experience.
Let me ask you: if the headline is unimportant, then why have it? You could simply identify articles by date/time, or by serial number, so why go to the effort to make one, especially if you don’t particularly care whether it’s good? It would certainly save time in putting out articles to have one less requirement for publication. So why do you have headlines?
Re: Re: Re:3
So it’s xenophobic to have a headline that is 100% factual?
I’m pretty sure this is a “you” problem and I’m guessing you must apoplectic reading any kind of headline and then finding out the article contains so much more information. How dreadful.
Let me ask you: When did anyone say the headline was unimportant?
So people like you have something to complain about, the rest of us understand just fine that a headline just sets the broad context or is made to entice readers.
If it is so troublesome and difficult for you to even read the first paragraphs of an article, you better just stick to the headlines and skip reading any article all together.
Re: Re: Re:4
You would rather insult me than actually consider that this is a problem. Congratulations, you’ve insulted me. Does this make you feel better?
Does it really take that much to think that repeated studies on the importance of headlines and framing might bear some importance? Or are we not allowed to criticize anything St Mike does now, that because he does SOMETHING good all his other actions must be beyond reproach?
All I wanted was for people to think “huh, that’s unfortunate, we should do better in the future”. It didn’t even NEED a direct response. But apparently you’re all so allergic to any perception of imperfection that to suggest such a thing must be a bad-faith attack from some idiot who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Anyone who disagrees with you must be either a dupe or a GOP plant, right? Surely nobody capable of intelligent thought would EVER disagree with you unless it was out of sheer malice and love for the right. I’m every single thing you aren’t, and since you consider yourself justified and honest, surely I must be utterly baseless and acting with malicious intentions, and simply lying to hurt everyone.
But maybe I’m just another honest person acting in good faith. I see how important these articles are, and consider a headline like this one limiting to the good they can do – that ignoring how many people are shown time and again to scan headlines is foolish, and ignoring the unintended implications of a headline is how misinformation can spread.
Do you think someone has to be Black to be troubled be the rise in racism, or must be capable of conception to consider the attacks on abortion access a problem? Why then must you believe I don’t read articles to consider people who scan articles a part of how an article impacts the world? The problem goes beyond that of course, as the framing conflicts with the article.
Re: Re: Re:5
That right there, that’s your problem. You wanted something, in this instance everything served on a platter according to your expectations.
When that didn’t happen, you started throwing around words like jingoistic and xenophobic and making stupid hyperbolic statements, even though you knew what the article contained.
It’s still a you problem and always was, you are investing an inordinate of time to “prove you are right” when in reality all you have are an opinion on a single headline which everyone else seem to find acceptable.
Re: Re: Re:6
That others find it acceptable doesn’t make it any less an issue.
I don’t want the work to oppose this administration to be hamstrung, and if you consider that selfish then I’ll be selfish. It’s worth it to do this right.
And, once again, do I need to be the people I’m talking about to consider them? There have been repeated studies that show a substantial number of Americans regularly scan only headlines; as well as those that show how a headline is written can alter how readers view the actual article. That the article itself is not the issue doesn’t make it irrelevant.
That the headline is a factual statistic does not prevent it from having an undesirable color to it. If you must, let’s imagine a more extreme example: a headline that states “New Study Shows Black Men Responsible for x% of Crime”. It can carry an implication, right? I’m not contending that this is so extreme, but it DOES play into fearmongering about foreign control, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS INTENDED. That point is important. No matter how pure your intentions, actions matter, and headlines like this one reduce the ability of their articles to do good and can also do their own harm.
One need not be a frothing racist to do something that has these sorts of implications. People will do damage they don’t intend – we’re only human. What matters is that we can recognize that and improve, without acting like someone pointing out the problem is far worse than the problem itself. But unfortunately, it is not uncommon for people to act like calling someone’s actions for what they are is a high crime greater than any original racism could be. Perhaps ask yourself why you view this as so hyperbolic.
Re:
lmao.
Yeah, nice try, i guess.
Merica first, am I right? Saddling two major employers with a terminal level of debt in order to buy influence with fascists, using the money of hostile foreign powers that will be able to leverage the fact they can pull it out at any time and make the whole thing collapse to influence the editorial output of whatever survives the initial round of layoffs.
Re: Oof
Even better, they probably have a 98% chance of failing. Just like most other “Streaming Service” mergers. They’re hemorrhaging cash, jacking up prices, and losing subscribers while offloading loads of debt. They’ll fail and be bought up by Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon for pennies. Weather this is before or after all the workers are laid off is unknown.
Maybe not a bad thing.
Maybe with foreign influence they will put out something that isn’t total garbage?
Re:
Ehhhhhh, not that foreign influence.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
CCP were using tik tok as an indoctrination engine. It was also wholly owned by the Chinese.
The middle-eastern funds are just trying to make money.
These are nothing alike and you’re retarded. You’re really just malding cuz far-left activists aren’t going to control everything anymore.
Re:
Question: When have “far-left activists” ever controlled any billion-dollar multimedia corporation in the past 60 years?
Re: Re:
Not that I have anything against him, but George Soros has bankrolled all kinds of things.
Re: Re: Re:
Has he ever controlled any billion-dollar multimedia corporation, such that he owned, presided over, or otherwise directly influenced that corporation and its content?
Re: Re: Re:
George Soros is far-left like a kid with a BB gun is an army.
Re: Re: Re:2
Seriously, I’m pretty sure actual leftists would like Soros to not be a billionaire just as much as they’d like Musk or Bezos to not be billionaires. Soros being connected to liberal causes and organizations doesn’t make him leftist. If anything, his being a billionaire makes him right-of-center by default.
Re: Re: Re:3
He’s just the boogie man they try to deflect with when anything at all is pointed out about anything. It’s all just conspiracy bullshit. If Soros wanted to influence anything he could do it out in the open. But really doesn’t when dozens of fascist right wing billionaires are all out in the open telling you exactly what they are doing and there nothing but crickets from the brain rot crowd.
Oh other than “but AnTiFa and SoRoS!1!!”
And not a single God damned shred of any real evidence left wing billionaires controlling anything to skew a narrative. Companies aligned with the more Jesus like interests these morons claim to follow and were “woke” because it’s good for business. Being a gutter racist doesn’t bring in the $$$ because as we all know , the racist shit stains complaining about wokeism and Soros are actually a small tiny minority of vocal idiots.
Re: Re:
Nearly all of them you fuucking retard.
Re: Re: Re:
Then name specific examples.
Re: Re: Re:
Name 5 you piece of gutter trash. And not just conspiracies. Name 5 Soros controlled companies where there is a clear paper trail of his influence
We will be waiting because there isn’t any
Re: Re: Re:2
The only thing I’ve found (brief googling ensued) has been Soros donating money to multiple humanitarian causes. But nothing about controlling information monopolies (such as FUX nooz). Or even any actual proof of him “sending money to illegal immigrant caravans” (as purported by tRump, the GQP, or aforementioned FUX nooz).
We normal Americana don’t give a schitte about who owns media companies. whether they fail, or Brendan Carr’s whines
It’s not even about AI being a bubble, only that OpenAI will not give a cent to Stargate since it doesn’t have this kind of money, and always breaks deals at the end (Microsoft has already stepped in to rent a small part of Stargate that OpenAI couldn’t pay for).
Best case scenario, since OpenAI will never pay $300 billion, Oracle will invest about $200 billion to build all of theses datacenters (like putting GPUs into it), and would earn $25 billion a year for 5 years.
Re:
It is a bit different. The money lenders balked (WSJ through archive) at there only being one tenant for Abilene, Oracle. So the actual developer shopped around for other tenants.
The plans are for 20 buildings, only 8 are being built. Of those 8 only 2 are operational providing about ~200 MW of compute, a third is finished but empty. As pointed out the tenant is Oracle not OpenAI. That means that Oracle is a NeoCloud provider and that OpenAI rents compute from Oracle.
As written the actual developer shopped around for more tenants and managed to sign up Microsoft for 700 MW of compute or 7 extra buildings. Extra buildings, not taking ownership of the remaining 6 buildings being build for the tenant Oracle.
The wrench being that for more compute then what is currently online they need to get the power sorted. And there is some building for this going on but the time frame to get all the power needed is unknown.
Final wrinkle is that according to Oracle, Oracle spends $2 for every $1 it makes on renting out GB200 compute. Abilene contains only GB200 hardware (gross margin: -100%, it is even worse then that when you add in everything else that has to be paid from the margin). That is only for the chips actually online, not the warehouse full of chips to be installed in the other buildings which deprecate just as fast.
As long as Don Donald of the Trumpafia Family gets his cut of the deal it’s all smooth sailing.
How many jobs lost?
1000?
5000?
10000?
20000?
There are Lots of business’s involved with this. And Not counting LOCAL broadcasting. ITS LOTS.
Those Business, will Follow the money. Unless they Create then Outside the USA.