California AG says Paramount's Netflix defense misses the point 18%

By James Faris48%

7/14/2026, 9:04:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Red Herring, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 14.7% saturation with 88 hits. Analysis detected 868 faulty-reasoning hits from 599 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.3% and a BS Rank of 18% (17,958 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.00% of the article peer group.

Rob Bonta is leading California and 11 other states in a lawsuit against David Ellison's Paramount Skydance. 
Sarah Reingewirtz/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News via Getty Images; Patrick T. 
Fallon/AFP via Getty Images 
California Attorney General Rob Bonta is suing Paramount to block its acquisition of WBD. 
He says the rise of Netflix and other streaming services doesn't matter to his antitrust case. 
His suit focuses on market concentration in three areas, including blockbuster films and cable TV. 
Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, says it's not his job to protect Hollywood giants from the rise of Netflix and other streaming insurgents. 
This week, Bonta and 11 other attorneys general sued Paramount Skydance to stop its deal to buy Warner Bros. 
Discovery . 
Paramount says it needs the deal to compete with tech giants in streaming and transition to a new media model. 
Bonta told Business Insider that's irrelevant to his antitrust case. 
"We're indifferent to  I guess, from a legal perspective  what markets are growing, which ones are shrinking," Bonta said in an interview. 
"Maybe the theater market is shrinking, the cable market is shrinking, the streaming market is growing. 
We don't have a specific opinion on that in this case. 
And we're not trying to help one grow or stop one from shrinking." 
Bonta said his suit focuses on how Paramount's WBD deal could affect market concentration in three areas: distribution of wide-release movies, distribution of big-budget blockbuster films, and licensing of cable channels. 
Bonta argues that buying WBD would give David Ellison's Paramount too much power over theater owners, pay-TV distributors, and  by extension  consumers. 
He's seeking a preliminary injunction, or a temporary court order to pause the Paramount-WBD transaction. 
"They'll be able to dictate terms with the theaters," Bonta said. 
"They'll be able to ask for more money. 
The theaters will have to pay more. 
That means raised costs for moviegoers." 
Paramount says its merger would create "a stronger competitor against dominant streaming and technology platforms who have harmed the market for theatrical exhibition and jobs in the entertainment industry." 
Bonta believes controlling Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. 
Studios would make Ellison's company too powerful. 
Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images 
Bonta said that his lawsuit isn't about the streaming business and said Paramount's point about tech giants like Netflix and Amazon is a "distraction and a deflection." 
"The streaming market is not one of the markets that we've identified as a market that will create so much market concentration by the merger that it will be unlawful under the Clayton Act," Bonta said. 
He added that Ellison and company "want Netflix to be the black cat, but Netflix is not part of our case." 
A supercharged Paramount-WBD would control HBO, CBS, and CNN; streamers HBO Max, Paramount+, and Pluto TV; TV networks like TNT, HGTV, and Comedy Central; and two major film studios in Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. 
Studios. 
Star actors and directors like Ben Stiller have also spoken out against the deal, which the US Department of Justice has already approved , warning that the tie-up would result in "fewer opportunities for creators." 
Corey Martin, a lawyer who's chair of the entertainment finance practice at Los Angeles-based Granderson Des Rochers, told Business Insider that Bonta's decision to exclude streaming from the market concentration calculation was a "novel approach." 
"It's hard to envision this deal in its totality without considering streaming," Martin said, given that "streaming is the driver for the deal." 
Read the original article on Business Insider 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.7%James Faris: 3.8%Business Insider: 2.5%Confirmation Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 2.0%Business Insider: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.8%James Faris: 1.6%Business Insider: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic3.8%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 1.3%Business Insider: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%James Faris: 8.4%Business Insider: 5.0%Framing Effect7.8%This article: 4.0%James Faris: 4.2%Business Insider: 0.8%Loss Aversion4.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 1.0%Business Insider: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%James Faris: 5.6%Business Insider: 3.1%Optimism Bias3.3%This article: 3.0%James Faris: 4.0%Business Insider: 1.6%Pessimism Bias3.0%This article: 11.7%James Faris: 7.9%Business Insider: 4.6%Negativity Bias11.7%This article: 10.5%James Faris: 9.6%Business Insider: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias10.5%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 1.0%Business Insider: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%James Faris: 0.6%Business Insider: 3.0%Halo Effect1.3%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%James Faris: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.5%Business Insider: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.8%Business Insider: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.7%James Faris: 3.1%Business Insider: 3.3%Appeal to Authority11.7%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.5%Business Insider: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.2%James Faris: 4.2%Business Insider: 4.0%Hasty Generalization3.2%This article: 12.4%James Faris: 2.5%Business Insider: 0.1%Red Herring12.4%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 1.4%Business Insider: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.7%James Faris: 4.0%Business Insider: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion10.7%This article: 9.8%James Faris: 2.5%Business Insider: 0.7%Begging the Question9.8%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 1.7%Business Insider: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 4.5%James Faris: 0.5%Business Insider: 0.1%Tu Quoque4.5%This article: 1.7%James Faris: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.2%Burden of Proof1.7%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.0%James Faris: 0.5%Business Insider: 0.2%Composition/Division4.0%This article: 3.8%James Faris: 1.9%Business Insider: 3.6%Anecdotal3.8%This article: 3.8%James Faris: 0.5%Business Insider: 0.1%No True Scotsman3.8%This article: 9.8%James Faris: 1.4%Business Insider: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.8%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.2%James Faris: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.1%Special Pleading2.2%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 6.5%Business Insider: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.0%James Faris: 2.1%Business Insider: 3.3%Biased Writer Voice4.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Faris: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%James Faris: 0.6%Business Insider: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.2%

599 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers68%attributed speech193writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageParamount • 20 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 10 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 24 words • 100.0% coverageRob Bonta • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 13 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 31 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 8 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 7 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 6 words • 0.0% coverageParamount • 29 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 8 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 27 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 36 words • 0.0% coverageRob Bonta • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageCorey Martin • 35 words • 0.0% coverageCorey Martin • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Paramount

100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words12% of attributed speech40% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%Paramount: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.