Connect with us

Published

on

This week is Sunshine Week , an annual celebration of transparency laws, which means that government press offices across the country are hard at work pretending they don’t spend the other 51 weeks a year undermining those transparency laws.

If you want to see what your leaders really think of you and your statutory right to know what they’re up to, just ask them to comply with the open government laws on the books.

Two Florida Department of Law Enforcement officers claimed earlier this month that Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office blocked the release of DeSantis’ publicly-funded travel records and retaliated against them for arguing that the records were public under the state’s Sunshine Law.

As I wrote last year for Reason ‘s special issue on Florida, politicians have been chipping away at the state’s vaunted public records law for decades, but DeSantis and his allies in the Florida Legislature are taking a sledgehammer to it.

Elsewhere in the Sunshine State, a fire chief called the police because a local reporter had the temerity to insist, correctly, that he had a legal right to inspect public records in person. Tampa Bay Times reporter Jason Garcia showed up at the headquarters of the Tampa Fire Rescue Department asking to see paperwork related to a firefighter’s termination. Florida’s Sunshine Law law is unambiguous on this point: “All state, county and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person.”

Nevertheless, two department employees, one of whom was the personnel chief, argued Garcia had no right to see the records since he’d already filed a records request online. Eventually, Tampa fire chief Barbara Tripp called the police to report Garcia for causing a disturbance, although he left by the time reinforcements arrived to end his reign of terror.

The personnel chief claimed in a memo that Garcia “persisted in being argumentative and repetitive and refused to accept the answer and leave.”

“No matter how you want to spin it, though, journalists are supposed to ask questions and seek explanations,” the Tampa Bay Times wrote in an editorial about the alleged hullabaloo. “That may rankle people in power, but it doesn’t constitute an unruly disturbance.”

Meanwhile in Virginia, a former Richmond government employee filed a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit earlier this month alleging that city officials told her to intentionally delay and stonewall Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The former employee claims she was fired “in retaliation for reporting and refusing to engage in illegal and unethical activities in violation of FOIA.”

The lawsuit came shortly after local news outlet CBS 6 reported that Richmond is regularly not meeting FOIA deadlines and sometimes ignoring requests altogether.

If you want to see more government gone wild, you can peruse the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s annual Foilies , ignominious “awards” for public record violations and abuses.

The reason that government offices get away with flouting record laws is that there is no one to hold them accountable and few consequences in the rare instances that they are scolded.

An Associated Press survey of all 50 U.S. states , released yesterday for Sunshine Week, found that fewer than a third of states have offices to handle Freedom of Information appeals and force agencies to comply with the law.

“In most states, the only meaningful option for residents to resolve complaints about agencies wrongfully withholding public records is to file costly lawsuits,” the AP wrote.

These ombudsmen and other positions provide crucial layers of oversight. Without them, agencies know that they can delay and frivolously deny requests with little resistance, and even if they lose a lawsuit, the only consequence is usually a small fine, paid for with taxpayer dollars, naturally.

“It shows that we have a problem in the United States. We have these laws, but there’s really a lack of enforcement,” says David Cuillier, director of the Joseph L. Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida, which coordinates Sunshine Week. “The system’s stacked against the average person. It’s not fair that they have to hire an attorney and take all that time and money to just make sure the law’s followed. Who can afford $10,000, $20,000 to do that? Not the average person.”

If you want a transparent, responsive government, one place to start is by demanding the creation of independent offices to resolve public records disputes outside of costly courtroom battles. Without them, the statutes are, just like government press releases, a lot of empty promises.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

Published

on

By

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

A huge takeover that would rock the entertainment industry looks imminent, with Netflix and Paramount fighting over Warner Bros Discovery (WBD).

Streaming giant Netflix announced it had agreed a $72bn (£54bn) deal for WBD’s film and TV studios on 5 December, only for Paramount to sweep in with a $108.4bn (£81bn) bid several days later.

The takeover saga isn’t far removed from a Hollywood plot; with multi-billionaires negotiating in boardrooms, politicians on all sides expressing their fears for the public and the US president looming large, expected to play a significant role.

“Whichever way this deal goes, it will certainly be one of the biggest media deals in history. It will shake up the established TV and film norms and will have global implications,” Sky News’ US correspondent Martha Kelner said on the Trump 100 podcast.

So what do we know about the bids, why are they controversial – and how is Donald Trump involved?

Why is Warner Bros up for sale?

WBD’s board first announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October after a summer of hushed speculation.

Back in June, WBD announced its plan to split into two companies: one for its TV, film studios, and HBO Max streaming services, and one for the Discovery element of the business, primarily comprising legacy TV channels that air cartoons, news, and sports.

It came amid the cable industry’s continued struggles at the hands of streaming services, and CEO David Zaslav suggested splitting into two companies would give WBD’s brands the “sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today’s evolving media landscape”.

The company’s long-term strategic initiatives have also been stifled by its estimated $35bn of debt. This wasn’t helped by the WarnerMedia and Discovery merger in 2022, which led to it becoming Warner Bros Discovery.

WBD's announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October. Pic: iStock
Image:
WBD’s announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October. Pic: iStock

What we know about the bids

The $72bn bid from Netflix is for the first division of the business, which would give it the rights to worldwide hits like the Harry Potter and Game of Thrones franchises – and Warner Bros’ extensive back catalogue of movies.

If the deal were to happen, it would not be finalised until the split is complete, and Discovery Global, including channels like CNN, will not form part of the merger.

Paramount’s $108.4bn offer is what’s known as a hostile bid. This means it went directly to shareholders with a cash offer for the entirety of the company, asking them to reject the deal with Netflix.

Ted Sarandos, CEO of Netflix. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Ted Sarandos, CEO of Netflix. Pic: Reuters

This deal would involve rival US news channels CBS and CNN being brought under the same parent company.

Netflix’s cash and stock deal is valued at $27.75 (£20.80) per Warner share, giving it a total enterprise value of $82.7bn (£62bn), including debt.

But Paramount says its deal will pay $30 (£22.50) cash per share, representing $18bn (£13.5bn) more in cash than its rivals are offering.

Paramount claims to have tried several times to bid for WBD through its board, but said it launched the hostile bid after hearing of Netflix’s offer because the board had “never engaged meaningfully”.

David Zaslav, CEO and president of Warner Bros Discovery. Pic: Reuters
Image:
David Zaslav, CEO and president of Warner Bros Discovery. Pic: Reuters

Why are politicians and experts concerned?

The US government will have a big say on who ultimately buys WBD, as Paramount and Netflix will likely face the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division, a federal agency which scrutinises business deals to ensure fair competition.

Republicans and Democrats have voiced concerns over the potential monopolisation of streaming and the impact it would have on cinemas if Netflix – already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share – were to take over WBD.

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren said the deal “would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market – threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk”.

Similarly, Representative Pramila Jayapal, who co-chairs the House Monopoly Busters Caucus, called the deal a “nightmare,” adding: “It would mean more price hikes, ads, and cookie-cutter content, less creative control for artists, and lower pay for workers.”

Read more:
Netflix could yet get its way in Trump’s America

Netflix’s business model of prioritising streaming over cinemas has caused consternation in Hollywood.

The screen actors union SAG-AFTRA said the merger “raises many serious questions” for actors, while the Directors Guild of America said it also had “concerns”.

Experts suggest there’s less of a concern with the Paramount deal when it comes to a streaming monopoly, because its Paramount+ service is smaller and has less of an international footprint than Netflix.

How is Trump relevant?

After Netflix announced its bid, the president said of its path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision.”

And while Mr Trump himself will not be directly involved, he appointed those in the DOJ Antitrust Division, and they have the authority to block or challenge takeovers.

However, his potential influence isn’t sitting well with some experts due to his ties with key players on the Paramount side.

Larry Ellison (centre left) in the White House with Trump. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Larry Ellison (centre left) in the White House with Trump. Pic: Reuters

Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire (and world’s second-richest man) Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.

Additionally, Affinity Partners, an investment firm run by Mr Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, would be investing in the deal.

Also participating would be funds controlled by the governments of three unnamed Persian Gulf countries, widely reported as Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar – countries the Trump family company has struck deals with this year.

David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance.  Pic: Reuters
Image:
David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance. Pic: Reuters

Critics of the Trump’s administration has accused it of being transactional, with the president known to hold grudges over those who are critical of him, however, Mr Trump told reporters on 8 December that he has not spoken with Mr Kushner about WBD, adding that neither Netflix nor Paramount “are friends of mine”.

John Mayo, an antitrust expert at Georgetown University, suggested the scrutiny by the Antitrust Division would be serious whichever offer is approved by shareholders, and that he thinks experts there will keep partisanship out of their decisions despite the politically charged atmosphere.

What happens next?

WBD must now advise shareholders whether Paramount’s offer constitutes a superior offer by 22 December.

If the company decides that Paramount’s offer is superior, Netflix would have the opportunity to match or beat it.

WBD would have to pay Netflix a termination fee of $2.8bn (£2.10bn) if it decides to scrap the deal.

Shareholders have until 8 January 2026 to vote on Paramount’s offer.

Continue Reading

Business

Revenues of water company to be cut by regulator Ofwat

Published

on

By

Revenues of water company to be cut by regulator Ofwat

The UK’s biggest water supplier has been dealt another blow as the regulator decided to reduce its income.

Thames Water, which supplies 16 million people in England, has been told by the watchdog Ofwat its revenues will be cut by more than £187m.

It comes as the utility struggles under a £17.6bn debt pile and the government has lined up insolvency practitioners for its potential collapse.

Money blog: Nine-year-old set up Christmas tree business to pay for university

Overall, water firms face a sector-wide revenue reduction of nearly £309m as a result of Ofwat’s determination. Thames Water’s £187.1m cut is the largest revenue reduction.

This will take effect from next year and up to 2030 as part of water companies’ regulator-approved five-year spending and investment plans.

The downward revenue revision has been made as Ofwat believes the companies will perform better than first thought and therefore require less money.

More on Thames Water

Better financial performance is ultimately good news for customers.

The change published on Wednesday is a technical update; the initial revenue projections published in December 2024 were based on projected financial performance but after financial results were published in the summer and Ofwat was able to apply these figures.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Thames Water a step closer to nationalisation?

Thames Water and industry body Water UK have been contacted for comment.

Continue Reading

Business

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

Published

on

By

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

A huge takeover that would rock the entertainment industry looks imminent, with Netflix and Paramount fighting over Warner Bros Discovery (WBD).

Streaming giant Netflix announced it had agreed a $72bn (£54bn) deal for WBD’s film and TV studios on 5 December, only for Paramount to sweep in with a $108.4bn (£81bn) bid several days later.

The takeover saga isn’t far removed from a Hollywood plot; with multi-billionaires negotiating in boardrooms, politicians on all sides expressing their fears for the public and the US president looming large, expected to play a significant role.

“Whichever way this deal goes, it will certainly be one of the biggest media deals in history. It will shake up the established TV and film norms and will have global implications,” Sky News’ US correspondent Martha Kelner said on the Trump 100 podcast.

So what do we know about the bids, why are they controversial – and how is Donald Trump involved?

Why is Warner Bros up for sale?

WBD’s board first announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October after a summer of hushed speculation.

Back in June, WBD announced its plan to split into two companies: one for its TV, film studios, and HBO Max streaming services, and one for the Discovery element of the business, primarily comprising legacy TV channels that air cartoons, news, and sports.

It came amid the cable industry’s continued struggles at the hands of streaming services, and CEO David Zaslav suggested splitting into two companies would give WBD’s brands the “sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today’s evolving media landscape”.

The company’s long-term strategic initiatives have also been stifled by its estimated $35bn of debt. This wasn’t helped by the WarnerMedia and Discovery merger in 2022, which led to it becoming Warner Bros Discovery.

WBD's announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October. Pic: iStock
Image:
WBD’s announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October. Pic: iStock

What we know about the bids

The $72bn bid from Netflix is for the first division of the business, which would give it the rights to worldwide hits like the Harry Potter and Game of Thrones franchises – and Warner Bros’ extensive back catalogue of movies.

If the deal were to happen, it would not be finalised until the split is complete, and Discovery Global, including channels like CNN, will not form part of the merger.

Paramount’s $108.4bn offer is what’s known as a hostile bid. This means it went directly to shareholders with a cash offer for the entirety of the company, asking them to reject the deal with Netflix.

Ted Sarandos, CEO of Netflix. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Ted Sarandos, CEO of Netflix. Pic: Reuters

This deal would involve rival US news channels CBS and CNN being brought under the same parent company.

Netflix’s cash and stock deal is valued at $27.75 (£20.80) per Warner share, giving it a total enterprise value of $82.7bn (£62bn), including debt.

But Paramount says its deal will pay $30 (£22.50) cash per share, representing $18bn (£13.5bn) more in cash than its rivals are offering.

Paramount claims to have tried several times to bid for WBD through its board, but said it launched the hostile bid after hearing of Netflix’s offer because the board had “never engaged meaningfully”.

David Zaslav, CEO and president of Warner Bros Discovery. Pic: Reuters
Image:
David Zaslav, CEO and president of Warner Bros Discovery. Pic: Reuters

Why are politicians and experts concerned?

The US government will have a big say on who ultimately buys WBD, as Paramount and Netflix will likely face the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division, a federal agency which scrutinises business deals to ensure fair competition.

Republicans and Democrats have voiced concerns over the potential monopolisation of streaming and the impact it would have on cinemas if Netflix – already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share – were to take over WBD.

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren said the deal “would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market – threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk”.

Similarly, Representative Pramila Jayapal, who co-chairs the House Monopoly Busters Caucus, called the deal a “nightmare,” adding: “It would mean more price hikes, ads, and cookie-cutter content, less creative control for artists, and lower pay for workers.”

Read more:
Netflix could yet get its way in Trump’s America

Netflix’s business model of prioritising streaming over cinemas has caused consternation in Hollywood.

The screen actors union SAG-AFTRA said the merger “raises many serious questions” for actors, while the Directors Guild of America said it also had “concerns”.

Experts suggest there’s less of a concern with the Paramount deal when it comes to a streaming monopoly, because its Paramount+ service is smaller and has less of an international footprint than Netflix.

How is Trump relevant?

After Netflix announced its bid, the president said of its path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision.”

And while Mr Trump himself will not be directly involved, he appointed those in the DOJ Antitrust Division, and they have the authority to block or challenge takeovers.

However, his potential influence isn’t sitting well with some experts due to his ties with key players on the Paramount side.

Larry Ellison (centre left) in the White House with Trump. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Larry Ellison (centre left) in the White House with Trump. Pic: Reuters

Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire (and world’s second-richest man) Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.

Additionally, Affinity Partners, an investment firm run by Mr Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, would be investing in the deal.

Also participating would be funds controlled by the governments of three unnamed Persian Gulf countries, widely reported as Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar – countries the Trump family company has struck deals with this year.

David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance.  Pic: Reuters
Image:
David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance. Pic: Reuters

Critics of the Trump’s administration has accused it of being transactional, with the president known to hold grudges over those who are critical of him, however, Mr Trump told reporters on 8 December that he has not spoken with Mr Kushner about WBD, adding that neither Netflix nor Paramount “are friends of mine”.

John Mayo, an antitrust expert at Georgetown University, suggested the scrutiny by the Antitrust Division would be serious whichever offer is approved by shareholders, and that he thinks experts there will keep partisanship out of their decisions despite the politically charged atmosphere.

What happens next?

WBD must now advise shareholders whether Paramount’s offer constitutes a superior offer by 22 December.

If the company decides that Paramount’s offer is superior, Netflix would have the opportunity to match or beat it.

WBD would have to pay Netflix a termination fee of $2.8bn (£2.10bn) if it decides to scrap the deal.

Shareholders have until 8 January 2026 to vote on Paramount’s offer.

Continue Reading

Trending