Paramount Caught Using ‘Astroturf’ Group To Drum Up Fake Support For Merger
from the desperate-measures dept
We’ve well established how the $111 billion Paramount and Warner Brothers merger is terrible for labor, creatives, consumers, and markets. But the kind of behaviors Paramount leadership have been engaged in to sell the deal also give a pretty clear indication what kind of company we’re dealing with, and why they shouldn’t be allowed to control an even bigger slice of U.S. media.
Recent desperate moves by the company include accusing all deal critics of being “antisemitic,” threatening to take Paramount out of California if states attempt to enforce U.S. antitrust laws, and running press leak and PR campaigns (in close collaboration with their Trump allies) making all sorts of patently false claims as to why more media consolidation is great for America.
Paramount’s also been caught using an “astroturf” — or fake grass roots organization — to try and make it appear that the giant merger has more public support than it does.
The Intercept notes that the company has been employing the use of a nonprofit named Neighbors for Strong Communities to bombard California residents with text messages urging them to pressure on California AG Rob Bonta to drop his antitrust lawsuit against the company, claiming that enforcing antitrust law will be bad for Californians:
“In text messages to Californians that went out earlier this week, Neighbors for Strong Communities asked recipients to send Bonta messages raising the concern that his opposition to the merger will cost the state thousands of jobs — because of Ellison’s reported threat to move Paramount to Texas.”
In reality, mergers like this — particularly when involving Warner Brothers — have a long history of resulting in mass layoffs, higher prices, and lower-quality product as the merged company tries to pay down debt from the deal. There’s also nothing stopping Ellison from offshoring film and TV production if the deal is approved, continuing an existing trend for Hollywood.
A coalition of consumer rights groups under the banner of the Committee For The First Amendment (which actually defends consumers and discloses its funding) say the astroturf group was only formed three months ago by industry lobbyists and refuses to disclose its donors:
“The sender organization’s website is less than three months old. It discloses no founders, board members, staff, or funders, and the organization does not appear in ProPublica’s nonprofit database. Its newly updated address (1902-A Lincoln Blvd, Suite 1314, Santa Monica, CA) is a private PO Box at a UPS store. These are classic hallmarks of a corporate-backed astroturf campaign designed to manufacture the appearance of grassroots opposition.”
As is always the case with these groups, there’s usually no discernable paper trail, allowing both Paramount and Neighbors for Strong Communities to confidently insist the entire effort is authentic. And when you have to covertly pay organizations to support your giant merger, you just know the giant merger is great for everyone involved.
Filed Under: astroturf, california, consolidation, david ellison, labor, larry ellison, layoffs, media, mergers, rob bonta
Companies: neighbors for strong communities, paramount, warner bros.
Comments on “Paramount Caught Using ‘Astroturf’ Group To Drum Up Fake Support For Merger”
Perhaps Paramount should be saving their money for those ticking fees that will kick in about 3 weeks from now.
Or do the smart thing and drop the bid entirely.
Re:
Ticking fees don’t need to be paid if the court blocks the merger or Paramount pulls out of the deal. At that point the larger penalty kicks in and WBD walks away with just its separation fee (and shareholders with nothing extra beyond their devalued stock).
The semiotics of identity, and the hermeneutics of anonymous texts.
The article, quoting the Committee for the First Amendment:
I caution that the right to anonymous speech is too important to draw conclusive presumptions. Rather, absent further evidence, the organization’s advocacy should be interpreted as an anonymous text—strictly within the four corners of its internal evidence.
More generally, media literacy and critical thinking skills both require the ability to separate a text from the author’s byline. People with good reputations sometimes go bad: They go nuts for a fixed idea, or they get corrupted, or… Excessive trust in a reputable author is an implied appeal to authority—just as excessive distrust in an unknown author is an implied ad hominem fallacy.
Here, the anonymous text’s interpretation is unambiguous: It’s intellectually dishonest within its four corners, and it’s patently harmful to the interests of Californians. Either it’s astroturf, or it’s some pretty sick weeds springing up in the grass. Either way, it’s self-contained propaganda for Ellison.
This method avoids the problem of knee-jerk conspiracy theories about anonymous authors acting in good faith. For example, consider in the hypothetical if a disabled, vulnerable person wants to found an organization to respond to fast-moving political events. This is an era of doxing, harassment, and right-wing political violence. The organization may thus be constituted as an unincorporated online discussion group—or perhaps as an anonymous corporation, with no publicly doxable founder and no apparent physical location. Absent further evidence, it wouldn’t do to accuse them of being a paid shill running an astroturf campaign. Let whatever they say stand or fall on its own merits.
Re:
Or, fuck the astroturfing shills. Why do I think Neighbors for Strong Communities is completely funded by Ellison? We could ignore it or investigate more and call out shady shit for what it is.
Urph. While I in no wise support the merge, that still is a pretty nasty (even if not very credible) threat. Texas has enough big problems, we don’t need Paramount coming out here to make them all bigger.
If they manage to drum up support, it’s gonna be real, not “fake”. Fake support is their tactic to do it, maybe; or maybe it’s real support, because why wouldn’t people be supporting the company that’s paying them for that?
What would it even mean, really, to “move Paramount out of California?” Pack up all their multitudinous studio shit and flatbed-convoy it to Texas (or wherever else)?
How much would that cost their dumb asses?
I kinda want to see them do it, just to see them have to deal with the self-inflicted headache.
Re:
Probably nothing: they’d just bill it against the royalties of Beverly Hills Cop or something. As J. Michael Straczynski wrote of Babylon 5: “If a stage used on some other WB project being shot in Bolivia burns down, they can charge it against B5.”
Do the film studios actually still own stuff like, well, studios? Modern business practice seems to be to sell all assets and rent what’s needed; the state of Arizona even sold its capitol building and became a tenant.
I suspect leaving California would look suspiciously like what they wanted to do anyway: incorporate where the laws are favorable, put the headquarters wherever is convenient, film in the place that offers the biggest tax breaks, outsource whatever can be outsourced; and, of course, up-end all of this and the entire corporate structure every decade or so (perhaps Microsoft would like to get back into television for no good reason?).
Re:
It would be like what some of the tech companies did. Open a new HQ, move some top-level staff and a few who want to move, and leave the rest in California.