Connect with us

Lifestyle

What Musk's Twitter takeover could tell us about a possible government appointment

Published

on

What Musk's Twitter takeover could tell us about a possible government appointment

After buying Twitter in 2022, Elon Musk changed the company’s name to X.

Alain Jocard/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Alain Jocard/AFP via Getty Images

Former President Donald Trump has said that if reelected, he will appoint Elon Musk to head up a new efficiency commission with the mission of conducting an audit of the entire federal government and making recommendations for drastic reforms.

But New York Times tech reporter Ryan Mac points out that the appointment would raise a host of potential conflicts of interest: “I mean, [Musk] is a man who runs multiple companies who are under investigation from various government agencies,” Mac says.

Musk’s SpaceX, for instance, is facing off with the National Labor Relations Board over allegations of sexual harassment. And the Department of Justice is investigating Tesla for comments Musk has made about the company’s self-driving technology.

Advertisement

In their new book, Character Limit: How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter, Mac and fellow reporter Kate Conger take a closer look at Musk’s takeover of the social media platform now known as X. Since buying the platform in 2022, Musk has laid off or fired about 75% of the staff; eliminated rules banning hate speech and disinformation; alienated many advertisers and users and lost money.

“There’s almost no part of the company that was left untouched,” Conger says the Twitter takeover. “We saw Musk make serious cuts to management, to engineering teams, to teams that worked on content moderation, advertising salespeople, security, janitorial services. Every part of the company was reduced in some way.”

Mac says the cuts were so deep that some employees in the New York office were left without toilet paper — they had to bring their own from home. At one point, Conger says, Musk got so frustrated that Twitter was not saving more money that he called the staff into weekend conference call. During the course of the hours-long call, he went through the company’s budget, line item by line item, asking employees to explain why they were spending money.

“It’s a scene that I keep coming back to, thinking about this efficiency platform,” Conger says. “And if [Musk] will try to hold a conference call with all of the Office of Management and Budget and run through the government spending with them or how that’s going to work.”

Character Limit

Character Limit

Penguin Random House

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Penguin Random House

Advertisement

Interview highlights

On the debt Musk carries because of Twitter

Ryan Mac: I think he would be the first person to admit that he overspent on Twitter. It became a central point for him to try and get out of the deal. And, you know, there were attempts to renegotiate the price. This price of $44 billion, or $54.20 a share, that he committed to long before buying the company, he tried to get out. In that acquisition itself, you know, he did have investors, but he also raised a lot of debt. And that debt came with pretty onerous terms. He’s paying, I think, more than $1 billion on interest alone a year. And that didn’t exist on Twitter’s books before. And so he’s not only having to operate a business that was sometimes in the red, sometimes in the black, but now he’s layered this debt on top of it. And he’s also depressed the revenue from advertising by scaring a lot of the advertisers away.

So it made this kind of maelstrom of issues for him that the only kind of reasonable tactic was to cut and to cut severely, to kind of head off some of these costs. And it’s still not going very well for him. The company has lost more than half its valuation. I think internally it’s worth, I think $19 billion now. And some investors have even marked that down further. So it’s been a bit of a disaster from that standpoint.

On the impact Musk’s takeover had on advertisers

Kate Conger: Elon made a lot of changes to the kinds of content that was and was not allowed on Twitter. He brought back accounts that had been banned by the previous management for spreading misinformation, for inciting harassment, for spreading lies about the outcome of the election in the United States and elections abroad. And so there is this whole swath of new content that came on to the platform as a result of his takeover that was within the bounds of the law, certainly, but the kinds of content that advertisers did not want to see their brands standing next to. And so that resulted in a lot of advertisers pulling back their spending or pausing their spending altogether so that they could wait and see how Elon would address those issues. And instead of addressing them, he sort of turned on advertisers and it became a very contentious relationship where now he has sort of told some advertisers not to spend on the platform at all and sued major advertising groups that have questioned these policies that he’s put into place.

On a chaotic tactic Musk used to fire staff

Advertisement

Mac: He sends out this email, which includes a Google form that asks people to opt-in to staying at the company and being “hardcore.” Like, you have to dedicate yourself to this company. You have to work long hours. And I think folks had less than 48 hours to opt into this choice. It could have even been shorter than that. … This is not a quick decision. Some people said the email went to spam as well, so they never saw it. And this is like literally an opt-in email to keep your job and so people that didn’t click were essentially let go.

It was so chaotic that on the day of the decision that it’s supposed to happen, Elon Musk and some of his executives are holding these meetings to convince people to stay. They’re pitching them on why they should stay: “You’re going to make a lot of money. You’re going to make a huge impact. [Musk] is a generational entrepreneur.” … I think thousands of people left at that point.

Conger: You can tell that it’s something that he just decided to do sort of on a whim, as he does so many things in this story. But the option for employees who wanted to stay was to click “Yes, I consent to the new hardcore version of Twitter.”

Mac: It was totally a loyalty oath. You have to bear in mind, someone like Musk, he sells people on missions, right? SpaceX: You’re trying to get humans to Mars. At Tesla, you’re saving the environment and you are electrifying fleets of cars. But at Twitter, people didn’t have a mission to be sold on. Like, they weren’t sold on this idea of free speech. They had seen him go back and forth on the actual acquisition, not want it and want it again and really jerked them around. And now he’s asking for their full and total commitment, their loyalty pledge. And I think by that point, people had just kind of had it with him. …

 Conger: He asked people to say, “Yes, I want to stay,” but he didn’t ask for people to click another option if they wanted to leave. And so it set off this real scramble within the remaining people employed on Twitter’s human resources team to figure out who had actually resigned from the company and whose access they needed to cut off from internal systems.

Advertisement

On the changing the platform so that users can pay to be verified

Mac: It was a major change to the app. There are a lot of criticisms of these verification badges, but they also had a lot of utility. Think of an emergency service announcing a tornado warning, for example, or an election official talking about voting results. And he wanted this change to the service to happen before the midterm elections in 2022, [at] this very crucial voting period. And that struck a lot of people in the company as irresponsible, rolling out this significant change to the platform. And it worried folks like the FBI, who reached out to Twitter at the time and asked him what was going on and what their plans were heading into the midterms. …

To his credit, he did delay it to the day after the election. But even so, the rollout was immensely chaotic. I mean, those impersonations that people thought would happen very much did happen. And there were parody accounts or, you know, imitations of things like Eli Lilly, for example, the drug company, saying things like insulin is now free. There were kind of mocking tweets about Nintendo and the famous Mario character flipping the bird from what looked like a verified Nintendo account. So Twitter employees’ worst fears were playing out in real time as this thing was being launched.

On how COVID-19 changed Musk’s politics

Mac: I would say 2020 is a shift for him. He gets very upset with how California is handling COVID. And a large part of that is because Tesla, which is largely based in California and has manufacturing operations, can’t manufacture its cars. And so he lashes out at the state of California at its policies during the time as we’re trying to stop the spread. And he downplays the seriousness of COVID. He makes some pretty awful projections about the virus itself. And he just seems to go more and more to the right on that issue. …

Advertisement

He has a trans daughter who seems to change his view on liberals and the progressive left. And this hatred of “wokeness” essentially, which is kind of an indefinable term. But he makes this this kind of boogeyman that he believes Democrats are supporting and that the Republican Party is the party for him, that this is the party that’s going to push back on those things. And it creates this kind of cocktail for him to kind of link up with Trump in 2024.

On the leadership styles of Musk and Trump

Conger: I think that there are a lot of similarities between these two men. I mean, the demand for loyalty above all else. Wanting people around them who are deeply, deeply loyal and committed to the mission. There’s also, I think, parallels in the impulsivity and recklessness with which they conduct business. We’ve seen similarities as well in the way that they run their businesses and some of the legal challenges that they’ve run into. …

Mac: I think going through lawyers is a common trait for both of them. As well as their addiction to social media. They are very online individuals.

On the disconnect between Tesla and SpaceX and X (formerly Twitter)

Advertisement

Conger: Musk’s achievements in engineering are pretty undeniable. The things that he’s been able to build at Tesla and SpaceX really bolster that reputation as a best-in-class engineer. What we’ve seen with Twitter is that Twitter is not really a technical problem. It’s a people problem, right? It’s a communication problem. You have to figure out how to bring the world together into the same place and allow constructive conversation. And it’s not something that Musk has a lot of experience with, nor has he excelled at in his own personal life. He’s often talked about his struggles to communicate and to find common ground with people. And so I think in Twitter, he’s really come up against a unique challenge that he was not equipped to take on.

One of the ways he has been able to succeed at Tesla and SpaceX is to just really bang his head against the wall, force himself to work these really long hours and kind of just force his way through these technical issues. And he’s tried the same approach with Twitter with less positive effect, trying to just kind of force the platform along, force these sort of rogue policy decisions where he’s deciding to ban people he doesn’t like. And it hasn’t worked out as well. And it has been quite damaging to his reputation.

Sam Briger and Joel Wolfram produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper, Julia Redpath and Bobby Allyn adapted it for the web.

Lifestyle

Baz Luhrmann will make you fall in love with Elvis Presley

Published

on

Baz Luhrmann will make you fall in love with Elvis Presley

Elvis Presley in Las Vegas in Aug. 1970.

NEON


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

NEON

“You are my favorite customer,” Baz Luhrmann tells me on a recent Zoom call from the sunny Chateau Marmont in Hollywood. The director is on a worldwide blitz to promote his new film, EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert — which opens wide this week — and he says this, not to flatter me, but because I’ve just called his film a miracle.

See, I’ve never cared a lick about Elvis Presley, who would have turned 91 in January, had he not died in 1977 at the age of 42. Never had an inkling to listen to his music, never seen any of his films, never been interested in researching his life or work. For this millennial, Presley was a fossilized, mummified relic from prehistory — like a woolly mammoth stuck in the La Brea Tar Pits — and I was mostly indifferent about seeing 1970s concert footage when I sat down for an early IMAX screening of EPiC.

By the end of its rollicking, exhilarating 90 minutes, I turned to my wife and said, “I think I’m in love with Elvis Presley.”

Advertisement

“I’m not trying to sell Elvis,” Luhrmann clarifies. “But I do think that the most gratifying thing is when someone like you has the experience you’ve had.”

Elvis made much more of an imprint on a young Luhrmann; he watched the King’s movies while growing up in New South Wales, Australia in the 1960s, and he stepped to 1972’s “Burning Love” as a young ballroom dancer. But then, like so many others, he left Elvis behind. As a teenager, “I was more Bowie and, you know, new wave and Elton and all those kinds of musical icons,” he says. “I became a big opera buff.”

Luhrmann only returned to the King when he decided to make a movie that would take a sweeping look at America in the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s — which became his 2022 dramatized feature, Elvis, starring Austin Butler. That film, told in the bedazzled, kaleidoscopic style that Luhrmann is famous for, cast Presley as a tragic figure; it was framed and narrated by Presley’s notorious manager, Colonel Tom Parker, portrayed by a conniving and heavily made-up Tom Hanks. The dark clouds of business exploitation, the perils of fame, and an early demise hang over the singer’s heady rise and fall.

It was a divisive movie. Some praised Butler’s transformative performance and the director’s ravishing style; others experienced it as a nauseating 2.5-hour trailer. Reviewing it for Fresh Air, Justin Chang said that “Luhrmann’s flair for spectacle tends to overwhelm his basic story sense,” and found the framing device around Col. Parker (and Hanks’ “uncharacteristically grating” acting) to be a fatal flaw.

Personally, I thought it was the greatest thing Luhrmann had ever made, a perfect match between subject and filmmaker. It reminded me of Oliver Stone’s breathless, Shakespearean tragedy about Richard Nixon (1995’s Nixon), itself an underrated masterpiece. Yet somehow, even for me, it failed to light a fire of interest in Presley himself — and by design, I now realize after seeing EPiC, it omitted at least one major aspect of Elvis’ appeal: the man was charmingly, endearingly funny.

Advertisement

As seen in Luhrmann’s new documentary, on stage, in the midst of a serious song, Elvis will pull a face, or ad lib a line about his suit being too tight to get on his knees, or sing for a while with a bra (which has been flung from the audience) draped over his head. He’s constantly laughing and ribbing and keeping his musicians, and himself, entertained. If Elvis was a tragedy, EPiC is a romantic comedy — and Presley’s seduction of us, the audience, is utterly irresistible.

Unearthing old concert footage 

It was in the process of making Elvis that Luhrmann discovered dozens of long-rumored concert footage tapes in a Kansas salt mine, where Warner Bros. stores some of their film archives. Working with Peter Jackson’s team at the post-production facility Park Road Post, who did the miraculous restoration of Beatles rehearsal footage for Jackson’s 2021 Disney+ series, Get Back, they burnished 50-plus hours of 55-year-old celluloid into an eye-popping sheen with enough visual fidelity to fill an IMAX screen. In doing so, they resurrected a woolly mammoth. The film — which is a creative amalgamation of takes from rehearsals and concerts that span from 1970 to 1972 — places the viewer so close to the action that we can viscerally feel the thumping of the bass and almost sense that we’ll get flecked with the sweat dripping off Presley’s face.

This footage was originally shot for the 1970 concert film Elvis: That’s The Way It Is, and its 1972 sequel, Elvis on Tour, which explains why these concerts were shot like a Hollywood feature: wide shots on anamorphic 35mm and with giant, ultra-bright Klieg lights — which, Luhrmann explains, “are really disturbing. So [Elvis] was very apologetic to the audience, because the audience felt a bit more self conscious than they would have been at a normal show. They were actually making a movie, they weren’t just shooting a concert.”

Luhrmann chose to leave in many shots where camera operators can be seen running around with their 16mm cameras for close-ups, “like they’re in the Vietnam War trying to get the best angles,” because we live in an era where we’re used to seeing cameras everywhere and Luhrmann felt none of the original directors’ concern about breaking the illusion. Those extreme close-ups, which were achieved by operators doing math and manually pulling focus, allow us to see even the pores on Presley’s skin — now projected onto a screen the size of two buildings.

The sweat that comes out of those pores is practically a character in the film. Luhrmann marvels at how much Presley gave in every single rehearsal and every single concert performance. Beyond the fact that “he must have superhuman strength,” Luhrmann says, “He becomes the music. He doesn’t mark stuff. He just becomes the music, and then no one knows what he’s going to do. The band do not know what he’s going to do, so they have to keep their eyes on him all the time. They don’t know how many rounds he’s going to do in ‘Suspicious Minds.’ You know, he conducts them with his entire being — and that’s what makes him unique.”

Advertisement
Elvis Presley in Las Vegas in Aug. 1970.

Elvis Presley in Las Vegas in Aug. 1970.

NEON


hide caption

toggle caption

NEON

Advertisement

It’s not the only thing. The revivified concerts in EPiC are a potent argument that Elvis wasn’t just a superior live performer to the Beatles (who supplanted him as the kings of pop culture in the 1960s), but possibly the greatest live performer of all time. His sensual, magmatic charisma on stage, the way he conducts the large band and choir, the control he has over that godlike gospel voice, and the sorcerer’s power he has to hold an entire audience in the palm of his hands (and often to kiss many of its women on the lips) all come across with stunning, electrifying urgency.

Shaking off the rust and building a “dreamscape” 

The fact that, on top of it all, he is effortlessly funny and goofy is, in Luhrmann’s mind, essential to the magic of Elvis. While researching for Elvis, he came to appreciate how insecure Presley was as a kid — growing up as the only white boy in a poor Black neighborhood, and seeing his father thrown into jail for passing a bad check. “Inside, he felt very less-than,” says Luhrmann, “but he grows up into a physical Greek god. I mean, we’ve forgotten how beautiful he was. You see it in the movie; he is a beautiful looking human being. And then he moves. And he doesn’t learn dance steps — he just manifests that movement. And then he’s got the voice of Orpheus, and he can take a song like ‘Bridge Over Troubled Water’ and make it into a gospel power ballad.

“So he’s like a spiritual being. And I think he’s imposing. So the goofiness, the humor is about disarming people, making them get past the image — like he says — and see the man. That’s my own theory.”

Elvis has often been second-classed in the annals of American music because he didn’t write his own songs, but Luhrmann insists that interpretation is its own invaluable art form. “Orpheus interpreted the music as well,” the director says.

Advertisement

In this way — as in their shared maximalist, cape-and-rhinestones style — Luhrmann and Elvis are a match made in Graceland. Whether he’s remixing Shakespeare as a ’90s punk music video in Romeo + Juliet or adding hip-hop beats to The Great Gatsby, Luhrmann is an artist who loves to take what was vibrantly, shockingly new in another century and make it so again.

Elvis Presley in Las Vegas in Aug. 1970.

Elvis Presley in Las Vegas in Aug. 1970.

NEON


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

NEON

Luhrmann says he likes to take classic work and “shake off the rust and go, Well, when it was written, it wasn’t classical. When it was created, it was pop, it was modern, it was in the moment. That’s what I try and do.”

To that end, he conceived EPiC as “an imagined concert,” liberally building sequences from various nights, sometimes inserting rehearsal takes into a stage performance (ecstatically so in the song “Polk Salad Annie”), and adding new musical layers to some of the songs. Working with his music producer, Jamieson Shaw, he backed the King’s vocals on “Oh Happy Day” with a new recording of a Black gospel choir in Nashville. “So that’s an imaginative leap,” says Luhrmann. “It’s kind of a dreamscape.”

On some tracks, like “Burning Love,” new string arrangements give the live performances extra verve and cinematic depth. Luhrmann and his music team also radically remixed multiple Elvis songs into a new number, “A Change of Reality,” which has the King repeatedly asking “Do you miss me?” over a buzzing bass line and a syncopated beat.

Advertisement

I didn’t miss Elvis before I saw EPiC — but after seeing the film twice now, I truly do.

Continue Reading

Lifestyle

L.A. Affairs: Sick of swiping, I tried speed dating. The results surprised me

Published

on

L.A. Affairs: Sick of swiping, I tried speed dating. The results surprised me

“You kinda have this Wednesday Addams vibe going on.”

I shrieked.

I was wearing my best armor: a black dress that accentuated my curves, a striped bolero to cover the arms I’ve resented for years and black platform sandals displaying ruby toes. My dark hair was in wild, voluminous curls and my sultry makeup was finished with an inviting Chanel rouge lip.

I would’ve preferred the gentleman at the speed dating event had likened my efforts to, at least, Morticia, a grown woman. But in this crowd of men and women ages ranging from roughly 21 to 40, I suppose my baby face gave me away.

Advertisement

My mind flitted back to a conversation I had with my physical therapist about modern love: Dating in L.A. has become monotonous.

The apps were oversaturated and underwhelming. And it seemed more difficult than ever to naturally meet someone in person.

She told me about her recent endeavor in speed dating: events sponsoring timed one-on-one “dates” with multiple candidates. I applauded her bravery, but the conversation had mostly slipped my mind.

Two years later, I had reached my boiling point with Jesse, a guy I met online (naturally) a few months prior who was good on paper but bad in practice.

Knowing my best friend was in a similar situationship, I found myself suggesting a curious social alternative.

Advertisement

Much of my knowledge of speed dating came from cinema. It usually involved a down-on-her-luck hopeless romantic or a mature workaholic attempting to be more spontaneous in her dating life, sitting across from a montage of caricatures: the socially-challenged geek stumbling through his special interests; the arrogant businessman diverting most of his attention to his Blackberry; the pseudo-suave ladies’ man whose every word comes across rehearsed and saccharine.

Nevertheless, I was desperate for a good distraction. So we purchased tickets to an event for straight singles happening a few hours later.

Walking into Oldfield’s Liquor Room, I noticed that it looked like a normal bar, all dark wood and dim lighting. Except its patrons flanked the perimeter of the space, speaking in hushed tones, sizing up the opposite sex.

Suddenly in need of some liquid courage, we rushed back to the car to indulge in the shooters we bought on our way to the venue — three for $6. I had already surrendered $30 for my ticket and I was not paying for Los Angeles-priced cocktails. Ten minutes later, we were ready to mingle.

The bar’s back patio was decked out with tea lights and potted palm plants. House-pop music put me in a groove as I perused the picnic tables covered with conversation starters like “What’s your favorite sexual position?” Half-amused and half-horrified, I decided to use my own material.

Advertisement

We found our seats as the host began introductions. Each date would last two minutes — a chime would alert the men when it was time to move clockwise to the next seat. I exchanged hopeful glances with the women around me.

The bell rang, and I felt my buzz subside in spades as my first date sat down. This was really happening.

Soft brown eyes greeted me. He was polite and responsive, giving adequate answers to my questions but rarely returning the inquiry. I sensed he was looking through me and not at me, as if he had decided I wasn’t his type and was biding his time until the bell rang. I didn’t take it personally.

Bachelor No. 2 stood well over six feet with caramel-brown hair and emerald eyes. He oozed confidence and warmth when he spoke about how healing from an accident a few years prior inspired him to become a physical therapist.

I tried not to focus on how his story was nearly word-perfect to the one I heard him give the woman before me. He offered to show me a large surgery scar, rolling up his right sleeve to reveal the pale pink flesh — and a well-trained bicep. Despite his obvious good looks and small-town charm, something suspicious gnawed at me. I would later learn he had left the same effect on most of the women.

Advertisement

My nose received Bachelor No. 3 before my eyes. His spiced cologne quickly engulfing my senses. He had a larger-than-life presence, seeming to be a character himself, so I asked for his favorite current watch.

“I love ‘The Summer I Turned Pretty,’” he actually said.

“Really?”

“Oh yeah, it’s my favorite. Oh, and ‘Wednesday.’ You kinda have this Wednesday Addams vibe going on.”

I was completely thrown to hear this 40-something man’s favorite programs centered around teenage girls, and by his standards, I resembled one of them. Where was the host with the damn bell?

Advertisement

Although a few conversations clearly left impressions, most of the dates morphed into remnants of information like fintech, middle sibling, allergic to cats, etc. Perhaps two minutes was too short to spark genuine chemistry.

After a quick lap around the post-date mingling, we practically raced to the car. A millisecond after the doors closed, my friend said, “I think I’m going to call him.” I knew she wasn’t referring to any of the men we met tonight. The last few hours were all in vain. “And you should call Jesse.”

I scoffed at her audacity.

When I arrived home and called him, it only rang once.

The following three hours of witty banter and cheeky innuendos were bliss until the call ended on a low note, and I remembered why I tried speed dating in the first place.

Advertisement

Jesse and I had great chemistry but were ultimately incompatible. He preferred living life within his comfort zone while I craved adventure and variety. He couldn’t see past right now, and I was too busy planning the future to live in the moment.

Still, in a three-hour call, long before the topic of commitment soured things, we laughed at the mundanity of our day, traded wildest dreams for embarrassing anecdotes, and voiced amorous intentions that would make Aphrodite’s cheeks heat.

Why couldn’t I have had a conversation like that with someone at the event?

It’s possible I was hoping to find the perfect replica of my relationship with Jesse. But when I had the opportunity to meet someone new, I reserved my humor and my empathy.

Also, despite knowing Jesse and I weren’t a good match, I thought we had a “chance connection” that I needed to protect. In reality, if I had shown up to speed dating as my complete self, that would have been more than enough to stir sparks with a new flame.

Advertisement

It would be several more weeks before I was ready to release my attachment to Jesse. But when I did, I had a better appreciation for myself and my capacity for love.

The author is a multidisciplinary writer and mother based in Encino.

L.A. Affairs chronicles the search for romantic love in all its glorious expressions in the L.A. area, and we want to hear your true story. We pay $400 for a published essay. Email LAAffairs@latimes.com. You can find submission guidelines here. You can find past columns here.

Editor’s note: On April 3, L.A. Affairs Live, our new storytelling competition show, will feature real dating stories from people living in the Greater Los Angeles area. Tickets for our first event will be on sale starting Tuesday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

In reversal, Warner Bros. jilts Netflix for Paramount

Published

on

In reversal, Warner Bros. jilts Netflix for Paramount

Warner Bros. Discovery said Thursday that it prefers the latest offer from rival Hollywood studio Paramount over a bid it accepted from Netflix.

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images/Bloomberg


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images/Bloomberg

The Warner Bros. Discovery board announced late Thursday afternoon that Paramount’s sweetened bid to buy the entire company is “superior” to an $83 billion deal it had struck with Netflix for the purchase of its streaming services, studios, and intellectual property.

Netflix says it is pulling out of the contest rather than try to top Paramount’s offer.

“We’ve always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance’s latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive, so we are declining to match the Paramount Skydance bid,” the streaming giant said in a statement.

Advertisement

Warner had rejected so many offers from Paramount that it seemed as though it would be a fruitless endeavor. Speaking on the red carpet for the BAFTA film awards last weekend, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos dared Paramount to stop making its case publicly and start ponying up cash.

‘If you wanna try and outbid our deal … just make a better deal. Just put a better deal on the table,” Sarandos told the trade publication Deadline Hollywood.

Netflix promised that Warner Bros. would operate as an independent studio and keep showing its movies in theaters.

But the political realities, combined with Paramount’s owners’ relentless drive to expand their entertainment holdings, seem to have prevailed.

Paramount previously bid for all of Warner — including its cable channels such as CNN, TBS, and Discovery — in a deal valued at $108 billion. Earlier this week, Paramount unveiled a fresh proposal increasing its bid by a dollar a share.

Advertisement

On Thursday, hours before the Warner announcement, Sarandos headed to the White House to meet Trump administration officials to make his case for the deal.

The meetings, leaked Wednesday to political and entertainment media outlets, were confirmed by a White House official who spoke on condition he not be named, as he was not authorized to speak about them publicly.

President Trump was not among those who met with Sarandos, the official said.

While Netflix’s courtship of Warner stirred antitrust concerns, the Paramount deal is likely to face a significant antitrust review from the U.S. Justice Department, given the combination of major entertainment assets. Paramount owns CBS and the streamer Paramount Plus, in addition to Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and other cable channels.

The offer from Paramount CEO David Ellison relies on the fortune of his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison. And David Ellison has argued to shareholders that his company would have a smoother path to regulatory approval.

Advertisement

Not unnoticed: the Ellisons’ warm ties to Trump world.

Larry Ellison is a financial backer of the president.

David Ellison was photographed offering a MAGA-friendly thumbs-up before the State of the Union address with one of the president’s key Congressional allies: U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican.

Trump has praised changes to CBS News made under David Ellison’s pick for editor in chief, Bari Weiss.

The chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, told Semafor Wednesday that he was pleased by the news division’s direction under Weiss. She has criticized much of the mainstream media as being too reflexively liberal and anti-Trump.

Advertisement

“I think they’re doing a great job,” Carr said at a Semafor conference on trust and the media Wednesday. As Semafor noted, Carr previously lauded CBS by saying it “agreed to return to more fact-based, unbiased reporting.”

Continue Reading

Trending