13 ms·

FCC Funding Application Notes Paramount Will Be 49.5% Foreign-Owned Post-Merger

• fusslo 6mo ago
  > Saudi Arabia’s Private Investment Fund will have the largest share of the three Middle Eastern funds, a greater equity piece than Qatar or Abu Dhabi. Together, the three Persian Gulf states are putting $24 billion into the new company.
  • randusername 6mo ago
    This is a plotline in the black comedy series Succession. What a time to be alive.
• BowBun 6mo ago
  I don't understand how decisions like these align with the supposed "America First" rhetoric coming from the same side. Specifically - this deal is being led by the son of the president of the USA who was elected on promises of "bringing jobs back to America" and prioritizing domestic investments. Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all.
  • JohnTHaller 6mo ago
    They don't align with it. They've never aligned with it. It was always a lie.
  • warkdarrior 6mo ago
    > Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all. On the other hand they kept their promises of deporting and killing immigrants, and of getting rid of woke ideas like science and education.
  • toast0 6mo ago
    Yeah, election promises and post-election behavior aren't really correlated in general. I think this administration is worse than the average, but still. Past talking points are not indicative of future behavior.
    • etchalon 6mo ago
      They're generally fairly correlated?
    • cestith 6mo ago
      Lots of politicians fail to deliver. This administration just flat out lied about their priorities.
      • slg 6mo ago
        And yet there has been very little about their actual priorities that have been surprising. Anyone who fell for it should do some self-reflection on why they believed those lies when so many other people saw right through them.
      • conductr 6mo ago
        The part about them being liars was already well established and common knowledge as well as a major talking point for the other party during the campaign - they still won the election
    • mandevil 6mo ago
      It turns out there is extensive research on this, and you are mistaken. Most politicians actually do try to deliver on their promises. They might get stopped, but they try. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/59403/1/Thomson_etal_AJPS_2016_The_fulfillment_of_parties_election_pledges.pdf https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/59403/1/Thomson_etal_AJPS_... for one quick to find example of the literature on this. Most of the research on this was done before Trump entered office. Trump is a wildly unusual political leader, who is significantly more corrupt than other politicians, promises random things and then fails to deliver them, and generally breaks all of the rules that politicians follow- this is what his supporters describe as his "authenticity", that he "tells it like it is". The more people believe, incorrectly, that "all politicians are corrupt" and "no politicians deliver on their promises" the more likely they are to accept Trump- who again is an extreme outlier among American politicians. Your cynicism actually ends up ruining the country and makes it more likely that we have bad government.
  • throw0101a 6mo ago
    > Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all. Yup. It's the same lie that the GOP cares about deficits and debt… except when they're in power and want to do tax cuts for the rich.
    • owlcompliance 6mo ago
      As a former staunch Republican, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that both parties have sold us out. I disagree with a lot of the Left's policies and many on the Right as well, but both parties advocate, in theory, for several things that would benefit all Americans -- yet it never happens. Republicans advocate for fiscal responsibility -- never happens. Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens. The Democrats held the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2021 for two years. The Republicans currently hold the House, Senate, and Presidency right now. They're in power for themselves and their disregard for us is by design.
      • cwal37 6mo ago
        What did Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have to say about student loan forgiveness? Who not only fights tooth and nail against healthcare improvements but actively took money from existing programs to fund a national police and detainment apparatus? Which party produced the most meaningful (albeit not far enough) healthcare reform of the 21st century in the US? Those examples in particular are quite rough to try and both sides.
        • encoderer 6mo ago
          Where I live (California) there are basically no republicans in power. For a long time now. And we have more money and a better economic base than just about anywhere on the planet Earth. So to all the partisans out there who are sure things would be better if "their side" had total control, I ask: what the hell is going on with California then?? We should be modeling the best governance in the country and even the world, but yet, our government is basically dysfunctional and our state is great despite it.
  • rootusrootus 6mo ago
    I'm very familiar with political slogans always being largely bullshit, but the degree to which 'America First' or 'Make America Great Again' seem to be diametrically opposed to the real intentions is breathtaking.
    • FireBeyond 6mo ago
      And they know it too. After the (milquetoast) "uproar" over MAGA hats being "Made in China", they're now labeled as "Made in PRC". Witness those "comedy" videos interviewing people and asking them where PRC is and getting answers like "I think it's the abbreviation of a township in New Jersey" or "I have no idea".
  • femiagbabiaka 6mo ago
    At least in part, they legitimately see Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, and now Syria, as part of the American empire. I would argue this is a bipartisan elite belief as well, you see Dem current and former elected's lobbying and giving talks where policy is dictated in those countries all the time, investing and being invested in by those countries all the time.
    • hdndjsbbs 6mo ago
      It's funny to me that the average American is Islamophobic, but the US government sharply divides middle eastern countries based on alliances (and how rich they are). Qatari Emir? You're a friend of the US government. Poor Pakistani? Enemy. Lebanese farmer? We'll think about it.
      • croes 6mo ago
        Only as long as they are outside the US. As soon as they are in the US a Qatari is just a muslim and considered dangerous.
      • femiagbabiaka 6mo ago
        It makes sense given a few things, although it's not as bad as you're saying: 1. The median American lives in a city and has exposure to Muslims and is most likely not Islamophobic. 2. Due to the voting structure of the U.S., people who don't live in cities and don't get exposure to Muslims get outsized voting rights. 3. Most American electeds are much more well travelled than Americans who don't live in cities. So basically, elites have to necessarily balance (and exploit) the biases of over-represented minorities with their own largely metropolitan beliefs. All of this is made more ironic in that the moral structures of the Abrahamic religions, including Islam, are all influences on and in line with, traditional American values, which American elites don't follow (see Epstein) but Americans who don't live in cities largely do.
        • vel0city 6mo ago
          > The median American lives in a city and has exposure to Muslims and is most likely not Islamophobic Most Islamophobic people I know live in cities. Is there really that much of a change related to urbanism for Islamophobia, one you adjust for political alignment and religiousness? For reference, this is the America I see every day: https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/epic-citys-vision-sparks-backlash-political-scrutiny-texas/287-e4ac8968-cfe3-4e1c-b157-5de82329833b https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/epic-citys-vision-sp... Collin County is >90% "urban", as much as what counts for urbanism in the US.
  • xnx 6mo ago
    You're right to be confused when you assume good faith on their part, it's utterly predictable when you take every public statement to be the exact opposite of what will happen: "small government", "fiscal responsibility", "tough on crime", "no new wars", "America will be respected again", etc. etc.
  • esbranson 6mo ago
    What does majority US control of a US company have to do with US government "America First" policy? And I don't think de-prioritizing foreign investments is part of that policy.
  • fhrxvhy 6mo ago
    I mean, Trump was telling people to take Hydroxocloroquine for Covid 19. The list goes on-and-on. You’re actually surprised? He’s literally the definition of a narcissist. People voted for him anyway because the manosphere told them too.
  • b00ty4breakfast 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    • declan_roberts 6mo ago
      [flagged]
      • shimman 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        • cindyllm 6mo ago
          [dead]
      • b00ty4breakfast 6mo ago
        The FTC has the authority to prevent mergers and acquisitions. Now, I am not saying that previous administrations always did their due diligence in this department because they demonstrably have not. But one would assume that an alleged protectionist government would be loath to allow gigantic corporations to be divvied up amongst foreign parties.
  • croes 6mo ago
    The same way the peace president can start a war. They simply lie.
  • api 6mo ago
    They align with the actual motives of the people involved, which is lining their pockets. "America first" is for the rubes. The same is true of "fiscal responsibility." The GOP runs on this, but when they get into power they spend like drunks and run the deficit up. This has been true since Reagan, though Trump represents a huge escalation. The same has been true with the whole "we're going to get rid of these DEI hires and be purely meritocratic." Okay, then why does the head of the FBI need to blow in a tube to start his car and why are a bunch of unqualified former pundits and podcasters in positions of high authority? Why is the head of the CDC a crackpot who can barely talk? "A thing is what it does." Ignore rhetoric, look at results. BTW the same rule applies to rhetoric from the other side.
  • doctorpangloss 6mo ago
    How is this complicated? US uses dollars to buy oil from UAE. UAE sends dollars back to Paramount shareholders in the US to "own" a piece Paramount. Is it "foreign owned"? Do they really own anything? What are they really going to do with it? I don't know. I inhabit a world of nuance, I don't take rhetoric at face value, that's a waste of time.
    • IncreasePosts 6mo ago
      The US buys almost no oil from the UAE. It's less than a half a percent of our oil imports. > What are they really going to do with it? The obvious thing would be to shift content away from "American" values and more towards whatever values the UAE leadership wants. Maybe the Baywatch reboot gets canned because they don't want to see bouncing boobies. Maybe stories critical of the UAE aren't aired on 60 minutes.
  • buellerbueller 6mo ago
    Simply because the Trump administration is "America First" in name only, and Trump first in actual behavior.
  • duxup 6mo ago
    I worked for a company that got bought by a foreign company. It got approval the day Trump gave a maga like speech after meeting the new owner. That day the pink slips went out across the American offices. It's all talk, it's almost guaranteed to be the opposite of what he says. It seems to be more about deflection than anything else.
  • colechristensen 6mo ago
    >Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all. Do you think he means anything he says? Or that anything is about anything more than self-indulgence?
  • wang_li 6mo ago
    Foreign direct investment is generally considered a good thing for the American economy.
  • pessimizer 6mo ago
    > I don't understand how decisions like these align with the supposed "America First" rhetoric coming from the same side. Because that rhetoric has ended, replaced with H1B-love, Israel-first, "immigration needs to rise actually, because a lot of toilets need to be cleaned" and "we don't have enough money to worry about the population, we need to make war" and the administration spends a large amount of time attacking the people who still use it? Annoying that people don't keep up with this. "Same side" is some really simple thinking for a complex political environment. Trump is just another neocon accumulating cash. In the 90s-00s, he worshiped Hillary Clinton; now he governs almost indistinguishably from a Clinton, a Blair or a Bush. With the only difference being that there's been a complete end to any restraints on Executive power through a bipartisan effort that still continues (see FISA renewal.) He can sell everything. Democrats were used to selling everything the old way, and pretending to be powerless. Turns out there's no reason to pretend to be powerless anymore. The ideological MAGA types haven't changed at all. The only part of the electorate still on the Trump train are the same people who would have been Trump University students. With the addition of a bunch of newly silent lib Iran/Israel-first hawks. They also don't care about the foreign ownership of the media, or the media concentration that made it dangerous. They in fact actively support media concentration because it makes it easier to censor political opinions that they object to. The sex pest who is still ideological father of the Democratic Party was literally the person who repealed the laws that made it possible.
    • throwaway173738 6mo ago
      Buddy if you think dropping national guard troops into cities, militarizing ICE, building mass detention facilities, killing the NSF, privatizing education, building a ballroom and making us pay for it etc are things Bill Clinton or George W Bush would’ve done I can scarcely believe you were alive during those presidencies.
  • unrelat3d 6mo ago
    I don't understand how, given bullshitting the public about Making America Great Again has been the norm since Reagan, Americans are still so surprised to find ...oops it was all lies for votes! Academics like Zinn and Chomsky, popular music, movies, TV have been calling out the lies for decades. Americans are that fucking dumb, I guess.
    • wat10000 6mo ago
      People don't know anything about anything, generally. Any sort of political discussion is incredibly frustrating because there's no agreement on very basic facts. We can't even get to the point where we discuss our values or what we think are the best ways to achieve those values, because we can't even agree on basic things like whether vaccines save lives or which places are wealthier. Just look at all the nonsense around tariffs. This was a huge thing with this admin, and people generally don't know what they are!
      • conductr 6mo ago
        American politics are stuck in an endless debate where everyone think's they are rubber and everyone else is glue, we've not progressed beyond kindergarten in our collective debates
    • AngryData 6mo ago
      It doesn't help that in many cases, even the "better" choice in candidate lies considerable amounts along with people and party that support them. It's not like we got the Truth Party versus the Liar Party, Its more like "Lies a bit more often party" and "Lies a bit less party" because both sides know propaganda works and uses it. And when you add in social biases there are enough lies to go around for either starting position to point at their perceived opposition party and proclaim them untrustworthy. Only a fraction of people are going to put in more effort to discern what is truth and keep track of who lies more and what lies are bigger or not, the rest decided to bandwagon along with their aligned "friends" as soon as they started getting confused by deception on both sides. Also I don't think US political parties and politicians align well with the US population to start with. If someone disagrees with what 80% of what one party does, and 70% of what the other part does, their only choices are to pick a party they inherently disagree with slightly less or not vote. People who say out loud they think both parties are garbage are often shut down by people on both sides like they are planted opposition and shuns anyone who dares not give full support and backing all the time.
  • booleandilemma 6mo ago
    I believe that our politicians are just trying to make as much money for themselves as possible and they don't actually care about America or Americans at all, and this has been the case for maybe the past 50 years or so. I further believe that future historians will look back on the past 300 or so years as being occupied by two very different Americas: a true America, founded in 1776, and some kind of oligarchic scam that still called itself America for the brand recognition but was in reality a completely different entity.
    • gib444 6mo ago
      > I believe that our politicians are just trying to make as much money for themselves as possible and they don't actually care about America or Americans at all This wild and outrageous statement needs a serious source to backup the gigantic claim.
      • booleandilemma 6mo ago
        It's a comment on an internet forum, not an encyclopedia article. Or were you being sarcastic? I can't tell anymore :)
        • gib444 6mo ago
          Haha yes, sarcasm (I thought it was obvious enough but then again, I am a Brit.)
          • booleandilemma 6mo ago
            Lol! Hello from the land of guns and freedom!
            • throwaway173738 6mo ago
              They can have hunting rifles for sport. Red fallow deer are apparently a real problem there.
            • 6mo ago
  • austin-cheney 6mo ago
    The term "America First" is not well defined.
  • LocalH 6mo ago
    Because "America First" means "capitalism first" and it's all about the money, that's the true state religion. Economic theory above reality
  • bigbuppo 6mo ago
    They're made out of ~~meat~~ foreign investments.
  • Henchman21 6mo ago
    Wow, you've discovered that politicians lie! Some of them lie A LOT! Some of them are, in fact, pathological liars who can't help themselves!
  • burnt-resistor 6mo ago
    It's billionaire, oligarchic, fascist techbros first. They tend not to have any particularly strong political loyalty except to maximum green money, fuck everyone else and the consequences.
• NickC25 6mo ago
  [flagged]
• eps 6mo ago
  They will also own CNN.
  • Ritewut 6mo ago
    They likely will but even for them it will be a long fight. State AGs are suing to stop this acquisition in droves. Even if States lose, which I expect they will, I don't anticipate they will get CNN before midterms like they want.
  • great_wubwub 6mo ago
    This is the scariest part.
    • somenameforme 6mo ago
      I don't think most people understand how the times have changed here. CNN's prime time shows get fewer views than a mid-tier YouTuber, literally. They hit < 1mil at prime time. And their demographic is, again literally, dying off as they have a median viewer age of 67 [1], which is steadily increasing presumably due to a lack of new viewers. On the bright side for them that puts them on the 'younger' side of most cable news networks. Cable news is basically dead, but I think most of us missed the funeral. It used to be a relatively big deal decades ago, but those times are long since passed. [1] - https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-12-22/a-wild-year-for-cable-news-shakeups-firings-and-falling-ratings-fox-news-cnn-msnb https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20...
      • tedd4u 6mo ago
        Don't forget Ellison/Skydance also control TikTok, where according to Pew 38% of adult Americans get their news. The internet has killed institutions of journalism that have a reputation to protect. Billionaires did the rest of the job (RIP Washington Post). Pretty bad outcome. We are left random YouTubers, people with a Substack or podcast, etc. No fact-checking standards / departments. Will Propublica and PBS Newshour/Frontline be around in 10 years. Federal funding cuts already killed Weekend Newshour.
• nextstep 6mo ago
  [flagged]
• didntcheck 6mo ago
  This headline is a good example of why title case should be considered harmful. It took me several times to parse correctly, since I initially read "Application" and/or "Notes" as proper nouns
• 1970-01-01 6mo ago
  The pirates will continue to pirate the content just as before.
• xrd 6mo ago
  It really feels like the coverage of these stories are a smokescreen and hide the true villains. "Live Nation and Ticketmaster are monopolies!" (Most musicians: I know I can't sell music online anyways, and need a villain collecting money for me so my fans don't make me the bad guy) "Larry Ellison: look over here, my son and I are totally corrupt and friendly with the Trump administration, and by the way, Trump hates DEI!" (Saudi sovereign fund: you think we will only censor Kimmel and Colbert because they're making jokes about Trump. Sure, go ahead and think that...) I'm definitely not saying the public facing villains are not villains. I'm saying it often feels like the bigger villains are the ones hiding behind the curtains.
  • NickC25 6mo ago
    >(Saudi sovereign fund: you think we will only censor Kimmel and Colbert because they're making jokes about Trump. Sure, go ahead and think that...) May 20th can't come fast enough....
• UltraSane 6mo ago
  Media companies should have 0% foreign ownership. The very idea is moronic.
  • pfannkuchen 6mo ago
    Curious if you feel the same way about dual citizens?
    • UltraSane 6mo ago
      I don't see how they are relevant.
      • pfannkuchen 6mo ago
        Well what’s the difference for you between a foreigner and a non-foreigner in this situation? I presume the difference is that the foreigner has different incentives than the non-foreigner. Let me know if you had something else in mind. For the foreigner, it may be acceptable to harm the interests of the non-foreigners if it helps the interests of the foreigner, because the interests of the foreigner are not tied to the interests of the non-foreigner. The foreigner lives somewhere else, and so if the conditions in the non-foreigner’s territory worsen, the foreigner is not necessarily harmed by the worsened conditions like the non-foreigner is. And, the foreigner may even be helped by the harm to the non-foreigner, i.e. they may not just be indifferent to harm, they may actually benefit from it (if for example the non-foreigner’s country is a competitive threat to the foreigner’s country). In the case of dual citizens, they may be harmed like the non-foreigner, but unlike the non-foreigner non-dual citizen, the dual citizens can much more easily leave if the conditions worsen sufficiently. So the incentive structure for dual citizen vs non-dual citizens is of a lower intensity but a similar quality to the incentive structure for foreigner vs non-foreigner, I think. What do you think?
        • UltraSane 6mo ago
          There simply aren't enough dual-citizens to make this matter in reality. And dual citizens are still US citizens, which is much better than complete non-citzens owning shares in media companies.