[flagged]
[deleted]
Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
41–50 of 55 posts
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
you'd have to actually care about politics, the far right, how ruper murdoch and nixon's advisors spent 50 years making Fox news an unassailable fortress of misinformation a geriatric rapist used as a platform to take over a democratic leadership. Those are the same people trying to take another media entity into.
i stay out of politics but to say that only fox is doing misinformation is turning a blind eye to the lies of NYT, CBS, CNN, ABC, BBC (although foreign owned) and MSNBC.
OP did not say "only fox is doing misinformation". Rather they are referencing what was a deliberate goal for Fox from its outset [0]. Other companies and individual journalists followed suit to various degrees, yes.
[0] https://theweek.com/articles/880107/why-fox-news-created which is itself kind of a simplistic, preach-to-the-choir piece. But as you said you mostly stay out of politics, I figure it is easier to follow rather than say the full Wikipedia article on Roger Ailes.
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#43"The temporary order is only in effect for 14 days, but it can be converted into a preliminary injunction that would prevent the merger from being completed until the case is resolved. The temporary restraining order can be extended past the 14-day period if more time is needed to rule on a preliminary injunction."
The word "halt" made it sound more permanent than this really is.
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new and interesting movies. Citation. This is not my observation.
Do you think a company w less diversified source of income would be willing to take more risk, knowing that room for error is very small?
Yes, because if they don't take the risk they are guaranteed to collapse. History supports this idea.
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new and interesting movies. Citation. This is not my observation.
Do you think a company w less diversified source of income would be willing to take more risk, knowing that room for error is very small?
Following that logic, Microsoft and oracle should be putting out a lot of innovative quirky software!
I can’t think of a single example where a super large company gets more willing to take risks when it gets larger. Theres probably a few exceptions but I can’t think of any.
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting that you bring up Netflix. While their initial offering of having a good selection of movies in one subscription was very attractive, their expansion and eventual entry to public stock market caused it to be pretty much synonymous with "slop" in TV and movie circles, which I think makes a very good case that "big production studio" != "good quality productions". Warner Bros specifically, while still…
Netflix completely changed the game. They paid huge amounts to produce original content. Direct to TV used to be an insult now you have triple A content direct to steaming. You forget what the market looked like pre Netflix. Sure you don't like their content now, but that's not the point Comedians for instance get 10 - 25m per special, they were getting a fraction of that before Netflix. They had to sign on shitty si…
>Sure you don't like their content now, but that's not the point
That is very much the point. The initial point of bigger company = worse movies.
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think a company w less diversified source of income would be willing to take more risk, knowing that room for error is very small?
Yes, because if they don't take the risk they are guaranteed to collapse. History supports this idea.
History well supports that large companies do not innovate well, with nearly all collapsing due to stagnation and bureaucracy. A predicted bad outcome does not mean they can avoid it
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
All I asked for was a citation, as my observations have been that smaller companies are more willing to take risks as they need to survive. The larger the corporation, the more risk adverse they are.
You don't need a citation for everything. It's common sense. But sure, look at big tech with a money printing machine, insane margins and revenue. Amazon spends 90b a year on r&d (~14% of revenue). Meta is about 26% of revenue and so on. That's risk as it's not tied to their core business and most if not all is punted away. Can you give me a citation of a small company willing to punt 14-24% of their revenue on long…
That world model is not in touch with reality.
R&D spend does not correlate with innovation or creativity. It’s surprising what gets counted as R&D in a big company.
Small companies have to have an innovative product in order to compete with the big fish who operate economies of scale.
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
you'd have to actually care about politics, the far right, how ruper murdoch and nixon's advisors spent 50 years making Fox news an unassailable fortress of misinformation a geriatric rapist used as a platform to take over a democratic leadership. Those are the same people trying to take another media entity into.
i stay out of politics but to say that only fox is doing misinformation is turning a blind eye to the lies of NYT, CBS, CNN, ABC, BBC (although foreign owned) and MSNBC.
yeah, it's clear you stay out of politics; politics does not stay out of you.