Slashdot Mirror


Justice Department Tells Time Warner It Must Sell CNN Or DirecTV To Approve Its AT&T Merger (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source): The Justice Department has called on AT&T and Time Warner to sell Turner Broadcasting, the group of cable channels that includes CNN, as a potential requirement for approving the companies' pending $85.4 billion deal, people briefed on the matter said on Wednesday. The other potential way the merger could win approval would be for AT&T to sell its DirecTV division, two of these people added. As originally envisioned, combining AT&T and Time Warner would yield a giant company offering wireless and broadband internet service, DirecTV, the Warner Brothers movie studio and cable channels like HBO and CNN. If the Justice Department formally makes either demand a requisite for approval, AT&T and Time Warner would almost certainly take the matter to court to challenge the government's legal basis for blocking their deal.

17 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. Wow, this admin doesn't even bother to hide it. by TigerPlish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Used to be this kind of chicanery was done in the shade, not in the open.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. Re:Wow, this admin doesn't even bother to hide it. by Tailhook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So much for "all the media is controlled by giant corporates herp derp." Soon and someone tries to do something about it you line up behind your establishment media.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:Wow, this admin doesn't even bother to hide it. by TigerPlish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your point is valid, but you miss mine, which is: This used to be done in the shade. Besides, this isn't protecting the consumer, this is Dear Leader being pissed at ATT for CNN's coverage of himself.

      Besides, in the past, the Gov't has taken a hacksaw to ATT for being too big.. once in the 30's and once in the 80's.. maybe more than that, I can't remember. Those were done in the open.

      But my point stands - this is a political knifing, which used to be done in the dark. This isn't protecting us, this is vengeance.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    3. Re:Wow, this admin doesn't even bother to hide it. by WheezyJoe · · Score: 2

      Not sure that's what TP is saying: think what's being said is that consumer-protection and control by "giant corporates" might not have been on this Justice Department's mind, given that Big T don't like CNN, and vice-versa. I would guess the thinking goes that if it was News Corp. trying to merge with ATT, this Justice Dep't might not be so quick to require them to drop the Fox News network.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    4. Re:Wow, this admin doesn't even bother to hide it. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      For them to directly tell a company that they have to sell a particular unit to make the deal go threw is a bit shady. Then you combine it with the fact that unit they want to sell is a news organization, that tends to be critical of the their boss, or more to the point their boss doesn’t like them because he prefers stations that suck up to him. Is worrying because it seems like the president is trying to mess with the freedom of press in any ways possible.

      Now media mergers are not good for the population however preventing them to silence them is just evil.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Wow, this admin doesn't even bother to hide it. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      If that happened during the Obama administration there will be hell to pay too. Granted for some people the far left would be fully supportive of this this as it would kill two birds with one stone. However it doesn’t make it right even if it was Fox News.

      Because we are crossing into free speech issues here.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Wow, this admin doesn't even bother to hide it. by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      For them to directly tell a company that they have to sell a particular unit to make the deal go threw is a bit shady.

      The DirectTV part is relatively normal. Satellite has long been pitched as the alternative that makes cable monopolies somewhat OK. So telling a company they can't dominate the satellite market and have a large cable monopoly is pretty standard anti-trust action.

      The "Sell CNN" part is definitely shady.

  2. Pay backs? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    There is much speculation that the Justice Department is doing this because its master, El Presidente is all mad at CNN for "Fake News"...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  3. Silly Justice Department by AlanBDee · · Score: 2

    I see how it is, as soon as Trump leaves the country they go and try to do something that is in the best interest of the public.

    1. Re:Silly Justice Department by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I see how it is, as soon as Trump leaves the country they go and try to do something that is in the best interest of the public.

      Most likely, Trump is behind this - it's punishment for CNN's owners for allowing CNN to "spew Fake News" on our fine El Presidente.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Silly Justice Department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the "punishment" is to prevent further consolidation in media? Because consolidation of media is good? If Trump's EPA said the sky is blue, would you people devolve into a tirade on the finer points of Rayleigh scattering just on principle?

      People tend to call bullshit when they see bullshit. For instance firing comey because they were mean to Hillary is complete and total bullshit. Saying that Trump now cares about anti trust, and the first case of caring is the news organization holding him to account, sounds an awfully lot like bullshit. Of course I think they should block a crap load of these mergers, just because companies get too big, not because they are Trump's political enemies.

    3. Re:Silly Justice Department by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What does it even matter now? The readership of the flagship journalism outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times is falling

      Actually, though I can't speak for total figures, digital-only subscriptions to the outlets you mention have exploded in the Trump era, more than tripling year-on-year: http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/2...

      You know who says otherwise? Trump.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    4. Re:Silly Justice Department by smelch · · Score: 2

      What the fuck are you talking about? Other mergers blocked in 2017: Anthem-Cigna, FanDuel and DraftKings, Aetna-Humana. Why are you calling this the first? Those are also just the ones that came up on the first page of google when I searching for blocked mergers in 2017. Call it bullshit all you want but nobody wants this deal to go through. And it isn't just "sell CNN" it's "Sell Turner Broadcasting or DirecTV".

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
  4. Re:FIX THE HEADLINE by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Side note, DTV customer service SUCKS since the AT&T takeover. We made a small change to our service, they screwed it up, then they screwed up the billing for it, and it has taken about 5-10 so far to try to get it fixed, and (as of right now) it's still not fixed. DTV was never perfect, but if there was a problem (and that was rare), it was usually fixed with a call or two. The current problem is not even the first we've had in the couple years since the takeover.

    Your mistake is believing it's accidental. If it's a billing error, it means it was a billing "error" in their favor (or you wouldn't be calling them about it).

    Think about it this way - if they can screw maybe 10% of their subscriber base out a few extra bucks a month, that's a few million in the bank. Sure they'll call and bitch, but eventually they'll give up of the 2 hour + times on the phone dealing with a $3 overcharge

    And heck, they probably know what phone numbers you call from, so they can "all agents are currently busy andd we'll handle your call in priority order" you for an extra half hour or more.

    The goal is to make it not worth your time to call them to fix it so they can keep dinging you an extra few bucks a month.

    Same with the "you'll see a credit on your next bill". They hope you'll forget about the money by then, too.

  5. Re:Important question. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    Time Warner doesn't care about CNN's political positions except as insofar as it would buy future Democrat compliance in other large mergers.

    Democrats should be wary of everyone's motivations vis-a-vis "protecting The People".

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. Sinclair Media | Tribune Media Merger: Okay! :/ by SEMLogistics · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So... Where is this standard applied to the FCC allowing the Sinclair Broadcasting acquisition of Tribune Media assets? This will essentially create the single largest TV broadcasting conglomerate on the face of the planet (conservative friendly, of course). Such a conglomerate would control multiple news media outlets, in many locations, essentially dominating local news for much of the US...

  7. Re:Not Surprising by Lisandro · · Score: 2

    ^^^^ This.

    As an Argentinian some parallels between Trump and recent Peronist administrations are chilling, to say the last. Google Cristina Kirchner's "Ley de Medios" (Media Law), an ill-fated attempt to push legislation reforming media licenses. It main goal was to kill the Clarin Media Group, a stern oppositor, and they weren't really subtle about it either.