August 6, 2026 • 35 mins
Hour 1 - Los Angeles County’s proposed grant to keep indie films local and what Paramount’s blockbuster deal—now cleared by British regulators—means for Hollywood’s future. L.A. Times staff writer Meg James joins to discuss David Ellison’s claim that critics “don’t get his politics,” and ABC’s Jordana Miller reports on a possible Strait of Hormuz agreement amid a major attack in Yemen. Tune in for news, context, and sharp conversation.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
This is Monks and Merrill hosted by Michael Monks and
Chris Merrill.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
This is Monks and Merrill.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Demand j merrow, Damn Hi, this is Monks and Merrill.
I'm this close to jumping across the table and strangling.
That's why you've been fired in every market you've been in.
That's exactly it, because you don't know how to say
three things in a row.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Hosted by Michael Monks and Chris Merrill. On I am,
I'm Chris Merrill. He's Michael Monks.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
For now.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Did you threaten me?
Speaker 4 (00:38):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Or did? On record too? And I stand by it.
We have breaking news to start the show today. Michael
monksood Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell. Oh not dead? Are we sure?
The news I got is that he has been discharged
from a rehabilitation center where he's been recovering from a
fall that he suffered in June. Wow. Yeah, He's had
(01:00):
a lot of questions swirling around his whereabouts. But he
posted some photos that people disputed the accuracy or authenticity
of and I didn't dispute it. And what I thought
was odd is that in today's world of verticals, that
they did a Proof of Life photo? Is it as
though what were nineteen sixty seven? Yeah, here's our newspaper. Okay,
Patty Hurst, we got that. What are you doing with
(01:22):
the Proof of Life photos? Because it it felt very
Woodrow Wilson to me? What's that reference?
Speaker 4 (01:28):
What?
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Woodrow Wilson had a stroke while he was in office, allegedly, Yeah,
and then the country was won't run by his wife,
Edith Edith right for like a year and a half. Yeah,
and then people were saying, where's Woody, where's Woody, not
like there was a war going on, and she said, oh,
he's he's at the Oval office, come on in. So
they brought him in and she basically tied his string
to his arm and they said, what are you okay?
And she pulled the string and his hand went up
(01:49):
and he went weekend at wood Rows. Yeah, that's exactly
what it was. And she said one fun yeah, and
they went good enough for us and then they left.
So you're saying Edith Wilson did some light ventriloquism on
the side, yea, and in the country doing it. I
felt like that's what Connie Chung was doing with Maury Povich. Oh,
that's right. I got who's no Elaine? I'm sorry the
(02:11):
other Asian one sounded gosh, Connie Chung, Elaine Chow. Not
just Mitch McConnell's wife, former secretary. Just keep beating me
up over that one. Just keep drawing attention to it.
I think the bigger issue isn't just questions around genuinely
goofed up. I'm sorry, God get suspended for that. Wow, Okay.
(02:33):
I think the bigger issue with Mitch McConnell is the
fact that he's still in office. And it is a
problem in the United States Senate. There's just no doubt
about it. It is a nursing home. He has shown
physical and mental decline. He froze up in my hometown
very famously, and the and the videos went viral. He
was just there to talk and suddenly stopped talking in
the middle of it. Look like a twenty second pause.
(02:53):
It's a little bit scary. And the thing is is,
like I've interviewed him face to face on the phone.
You know he can be sharp in his old age,
But think about how old I am now. Do you
know he was elected the year before I started kindergarten. Wow,
And I'm one hundred and three. Wow, when he froze,
(03:14):
the first thing I thought was that that was just
a hard reboot. Could have been I think the micro
just unplug it, plugg it back. Yeah, it's basically the
blue screen of death was happening inside of his head. Well,
he is in his final year in office. His seat
is up for grabs. He is not running for reelection.
But you know, like I was Senator Chuck Grassley, Yeah,
I mean he's kicking around the idea of running again.
I think he's he is one hundred and three. Yeah,
(03:37):
who's the oldest? Wasn't strom Thurman the oldest one? He
was ninety nine or one hundred for one hundred when
he left. Yeah, well, I'm let me bring this for you.
Was am I still the only person that bangs? Yeah? Yeah,
I no events to microsofts. I'm sure it's a fine product,
but it doesn't turn the search results to me that
I won as well as Google. He was one hundred
(03:59):
and still in office strong. That's ridiculous. And he died
six months later. Do you remember when? I mean, he
obviously ran a very racist presidential campaign based on segregation,
and after he died we found out he had a
black daughter shocked. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, was born in
nineteen thirty three. Why don't you just go enjoy your life.
(04:19):
I don't know, You've already got your pension, right, I mean,
you've got your loaded full Senate pension and everything. Well,
you know what that might be. It it might be
one of those things where they just can't if I
don't have power, who am I? Of course it is.
I mean, I know there are a lot of people
who aren't necessarily in the halls of power who worry
about when they leave the job they've had for thirty
years and it's time to retire. They don't know what
to do with themselves. It's an adjustment. You don't know
(04:41):
what your contribution to society. I'm sure that's very valid concern.
But should somebody be experiencing a late life crisis in
the United States Senate?
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Here, let's get back to what we started. That was
the breaking news with the Mitch McConnell not dead. Did
you see that We've got a few county supervisors that
want to throw some money at people who Lindsay Horvath
and Catherine Barger want to develop the Entertainment Evergreen fund.
Wait wait, wait for Hollywood. Yeah, they want to start
(05:12):
funding low budget indie films. Wait wait wait you mean
like executive producer La County Board of Supervisors. I don't
think they'd even get the film credit. They just give
them the money. Okay. Oh so these are for smaller
independent production, low budgets. Oh I see with budgets below
a million bucks? And can you even do that anymore?
Not really, although I think Obsession was like seven hundred
(05:35):
and fifty thousand, so everybody goes, wow, if the county
just funds a film like Obsession, then it's going to
bring back the indie market.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
No, no, no, no, that was Obsession.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Oh I thought that was something for Mitch McConnell's hospital
run filmed that little Tony's in North Hollywood. Really yeah nice, Yeah,
that whole Now people are going in and recreating that
scene if you haven't seen it. I actually liked the film.
It was pretty good. However, it is the exception, not
the rule. Most low budgets don't make their money back,
which is why low budget producers are having trouble finding investors.
(06:13):
So what happens is they go to the County and
they say, we're having trouble finding investors. Can you give
us money? And the county goes, oh, no, we have
to save the film industry. Don't get me wrong, the
film industry has needed some help. That's why we've instituted
a bunch of tax credits and things like that. But
they're saying, yeah, but we don't qualify for tax credits
because our films are low budget. And so they say,
if you don't give us the money, we're going to
(06:34):
go film somewhere else. And so the county is saying, oh, no,
we're going to lose these low budget films that don't
make any money. How can we hand them out? But
that's my money you're handing out. That's the issue I'm
having is that you're taking my tax dollars and then
you're handing them out to help somebody's pet project. True,
and even if the pet project like Obsession, goes from
(06:57):
a seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars budget to turning
half a million dollars, have a billion dollars, excuse me,
it's like four hundred and fifty million. It's made of
the box office. Now, that doesn't come back to the County.
The county doesn't have any equity in it. They're just
out the money that they gave the indie film. That's
what I would like to know is how do you
replenish the fund? Do you just keep filling it up
with taxpayer dollars? Yes? Or is there some sort of
(07:18):
revenue hook? Well, what I would like to see is
the revenue. There's some sort of a repayable assistance, right,
So like you you kind of joked about does that
mean executive produced by the LA County Board of Supervisors?
Kind of if you're going to give them the money
and you're taking the risk, then the taxpayers as part
of your economic development plan, should get some of that
(07:38):
money kicked back. Should we not? Yeah, I don't know.
I think maybe On the one hand, and I'm not
defending this yet, we're going to learn more. This isn't official.
They're exploiting. Exploring it means a committee. Yeah, there's a committee.
And if you are looking to cultivate or recultivate the
old ecosystem where people could come out here to Hollywood,
(07:59):
even with out Warner Brothers or a large studio behind them,
and start to navigate the filmmaking process and actually put
out a product. And it makes sense because these are
people who they may not make a hit, they may
not make a financially viable movie, but they may discover
that they are good at this and they will make
me it doesn't make sense, And I'll tell you why
you're wrong. Okay, tell me why I'm wrong. We haven't
(08:20):
had it before. Yeah, and it's happened before. Now we're
seeing a decrease in filming here and they're saying people
don't want to invest. Well, they don't want to invest
because it's not it's not it's not viable. Right, you
went in a while else though, Go ahead, if I
may please. Yeah, now that you've already admitted you were wrong.
Oh no, I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
I was just throwing it out there. That's fine. Why
don't they make La County livable? Why don't they focus
on the fundamentals of a society and then everything just happens. Yes,
if you want to help the film industry, you lower
things like permit fiends, and you make some of the
county locations more affordable, charging these exorbitant costs to do that,
and you do some workforce training. Some of the things
(08:56):
that we would actually expect for the county to take
on rather than handing money out to Billy Joe who
came in from Kentucky and wants to be a movie director. Now, well,
Billy Joe's my cousin, and I think he's going to
make a good film someday. My favorite is that you said, cousin.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
Hey guys, Chris, f hb Hey Chris, I'm stuck on
the sixty westbound right before the fifty seven interchange. I
think they closed the freeway, but no one's saying why. Uh,
but we're all stuck right here, completely stopped. If you
guys can check it out, maybe give everybody a report,
that'd be great.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Yep, we got a traffic report coming right up. We'll
look into where that was. What do you say, the
sixty at the fifty seven, Yeah, he sees right before
the fifty. I'm seeing it. Let me see.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
It looks like.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Maybe some construction in there. That's kind everything slowed down.
But yeah, he's right right, it's back all the way
up to the seventy one. Well, let's go do that.
Paramount meanwhile, has cleared another major hurdle and it's one
hundred eleven billion dollar pursuit of Warner Brothers. There is
still a March trial on the docket though, and that
means adding roughly seven million dollars a day to that price.
Governor Knew some trying to throw a wrench in the
(10:01):
whole operation. We'll get into that next.
Speaker 6 (10:02):
On Monks and Meryl, you're listening to Monks and Merrill
on demand from KFI AM six.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
Forty more stimulating talk and it is I AM six
forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. Monks and Meryl
Thursday Afternoon, Thanks for being with us. A federal judge
has scheduled a March second trial in the lawsuit brought
by the state of California and eleven other states who
want to block Paramount's acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery. This
is a later date that actually is bad news for
(10:32):
Paramount because it increases the potential payout to Warner Brothers shareholders. Meanwhile,
good news of your warned brother shareholder. Yeah, yeah, good
news if you're paying attention to what happens in the
UK as well. Regulators in Britain have removed the last
major foreign regulatory threat. There was speculation early on in
this that maybe some other markets outside of the US
(10:54):
would put the kaibash on this very large merger, but
looks like it's smooth sailing overseas. Yeah, that's kind of
the big That was the other big struggles, so the
big obstacles. So now they just have to get through
what's going on here in the United States. Part of
what's that issue, and this is what Devin Newsom was
talking about Rob Bonte as well, is that they're concerned
about this becoming an anti trust issue. There aren't there
(11:14):
is enough competition in Hollywood if all the major studios
are merging. What's interesting is that we had another major
studio merger, Disney and Fox. And when Disney and Fox merged,
we didn't have the same argument. It's actually as a
result of Disney and Fox merging that there are fewer
players in the pool. And because of that, now they're
concerned that if the other ones start to merge, now
we're running into anti trust issues. So if this one
(11:35):
goes through, we'll have another one on the heels of it. Well,
that's part of the concern. But had Disney and Fox
not merged, this one might not be getting nearly as
much pushback. Because those two studios came together. So yeah,
one of the arguments of Paramount's been making is that
they have to merge with Warner Brothers in order to
stay competitive against so many of the others, like Netflix
(11:57):
and their major studio. Apple's really trying to make in
roads with the studios as well, and we're seeing sort
of partnerships I suppose with some of the others. So
what happens when this goes through and then Apple says, Wow,
the only way that we can compete is if we
get together with Peacock And now all of a sudden,
(12:17):
you're gonna start seeing you know, Universal, It will be Apple,
Universal and Paramount, Warner Disney, Fox and Netflix and I
don't know, pick somebody else who's lying heart I mean
fingers crossed. Yeah, distribution would be great. They're already putting
a lot of the National podcast on it. I saw that.
I saw that very interesting stuff. Okay, so there is
a trial that is set for this. Paramount has agreed
(12:40):
to a pretty hefty price to purchase Warner Brothers. These
are two of the oldest, biggest legacy production houses in Hollywood.
Paramount and Warner Brothers is who we're talking about here,
and Paramount has agreed to pay thirty one bucks a
share for Warner Brothers. That equals about eighty one billion
dollars in equity value and one hundred and eleven billion
dollars when debt and other obligations included. That is a
(13:01):
significant sum. So they're willing to spend this type of money.
I wonder though, if they're willing to pay more than that,
because there is some fine involved. Yeah, after I think
it's October. For every quarter it's a it's a massive
something like six million or six and a half million
dollars whatever it is. It breaks down to that the
(13:22):
deal's not finished. Yeah, for every quarter it's like another
seven million dollars, Paramount is paying that to Warner Brothers.
Paramount is paying that Warner Brothers. So once the deal closes, though,
is that their money again?
Speaker 4 (13:32):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (13:32):
You know what, that's no, because it goes to the shareholders.
It is paid out in like a dividend. Well, it
would go into whoever owns those shares, So the shareholders
collect what is it to point zero zero two almost
if you rounded it point zero zero three cents per day? Oh,
I see point zero zero three dollars. I should say
so a third of a third of a cent per
day per share cap that twenty five cents per share
(13:54):
during each ninety day period. Right, the estimated six hundred
and fifty million dollars per quarter is a dish, you know,
merger consideration ode to Warner shareholders, not a penalty paid
to California. So it's not necessarily California's direct fault, but
the fact that they have causes delay through legal action.
Along with eleven other states, they are indirectly to plame. Well,
depending on how fastest trial goes, that could make a
(14:14):
difference too, because remember they voluntarily said we're going to
delay this until the second quarter of twenty twenty seven. However,
with this starting in March, the odds of it being
wrapped up by the start of April pretty low. So
that's where you're seeing potential additional penalties piling up on this.
We have to consider the stakes locally because this is
(14:35):
not just a business story. It's not just a Hollywood story.
It is a Southern California story. These are two major
employers in this region, two major players in one of
our signature industries, and if the concerns expressed by critics
do play out you are looking at losing jobs here,
possibly that those are the arguments against it, and you
are hearing concerns about consumers like you and me, whether
(14:56):
we subscribe to Paramount Plus or HBO, whether we're viewers
of ce IN and worry about the editorial independence of
it once they're part of the same house as CBS News,
for example. Those are the things that are at risk here,
according to the critics. But what's interesting, Chris, is that
these are critics in America, and I would have assumed
that regulatory agencies in Europe specifically are tougher than ours.
(15:20):
They don't even have air Remember they're having an air
conditioning argument over there. Yeah, like, we don't want it.
It's bad for the environment. They're sweating their butts off
they don't want air conditioning. But it's sailed. This merger
sailed through the regulatory process and euro up the EU,
UK as well as Asian markets. Yeah, that's true, And
I wonder how much of that is because it's two
(15:42):
American companies. So how much do they care if the
two American companies are doing their their deeds over here?
If it doesn't have a big an impact on there. Well,
Hollywood is pretty global now. I mean you think about
something like Game of Thrones, huge huge series HBO here,
but it was co produced with U right, Warner Brothers
(16:03):
co produced with studios in the UK and production houses
in the UK. This was a UK US production and
it's becoming more and more common, especially across the English
speaking world. I mean, Hollywood is a major exporter all
around the world. I don't disagree with that. I just
wonder the impact is gonna be much greater here than
it is in Europe? Is that fair to say? Yeah?
That's why I think it's important that we always consider
(16:24):
the stakes locally, not just in the US. But they'll
care about them, and I kind of think they don't
care about us, And that's you don't care about who?
I don't care about Europe? Why you didn't watch Down Nabby? No,
didn't watch downt Mabby and Small? Is that PBS nonsense?
I pay for American programming in America while you're missing
(16:45):
some fine costume dramas. Did you remember that clip I
played in the first segment no from Obsession?
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Yeah, okay, good afternoon, guys.
Speaker 7 (17:04):
So I haven't seen this Obsession yet so that sounds
about you, guys, played and scare the crap out of
me because she sounds just like one of my exes
that I dated around college. She sounded just like that
before she would go off.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Yeah, maybe you shouldn't watch the film then, because it
is a little is it scary? I'm gonna call it
a psychological thriller. There's really only like one part. This
is the one that was directed by that YouTube yes guy,
and I've seen his videos online. They're they're weird funny.
It's a weird kind of comedy. He's seen any of them,
so he's very one thing. I've judged by his film.
(17:41):
He's been vet to me by the algorithm a few times.
And he's funny. I mean, he is good. He has
a unique look okay, and he's ugly. I don't want
to say anyone is ugly, because you know he's not.
But he has a unique feat. He's like a very
big mouth okay, all right, and he's like a tall guy.
I have expected horror to come out of it, so
(18:03):
he looks like he's pretty well set in the biz
now though. Yeah, yeah, I thought it was a good film,
especially for the budget that they had dynamite. Hey, David
Ellison speaking of Warner Brothers in Paramount. Here, David Ellison
says that this fight over Warner Brothers, in fact, I
think you kind of touched on this a minute. He says,
it's not really about market share. He says, it's about
people on the left that are worried that a Trump
friendly billionaire is going to control both CBS News and CNN. Fact,
(18:25):
that's just what you said earlier. Does the political hostility though,
explain all the opposition or is Ellison just kind of
using this culture war to dodge these legitimate anti trust accusations.
That's next on Monks and Merril. K if I am
six forty live everywhere in the iHeartRadio AP.
Speaker 6 (18:42):
You're listening to Monks and Merrill on demand from KFIM.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
If you haven't, yeah, please follow us on the socials
at Monks and Merrill. At Monks and Meryl, thank you
so much for being a part of that. You know
what we were talking about to a paramount and the
Warner brothers, and it sounds like their court date is
coming up here in March. But David Ellison is trying
to get out there. He hasn't said a whole lot,
but now he's dropping some statements. And I was reading
about this. I was reading The La Times had a
story about it. Meg James was writing this up and
(19:10):
she was saying basically that David Ellison's like, look, the
only issue people have here is my politics. That's it.
Meg joins us right now, staff writer with the La Times. Meg,
thanks so much for joining us today. It's a pleasure
having on the program. Is there legitimacy to what he's saying?
Is he catching flat because of the politics behind this
or is he trying to deflect from the anti trust accusations.
Speaker 8 (19:32):
Well, I mean this is and thank you for having me.
This is a huge merger and it's been incredibly controversial.
And to be sure, one of the reasons why this
deal is controversial is because a lot of people don't
trust David Allison, in his words, to control CNN, and
(19:54):
so there is a political component to this deal because
his father, Larry Ellison, the co founder of Oracle, one
of the world's richest billionaires, is very tight with President
Trump and that relationship has helped Paramount get their deals
through the federal government. But there are other reasons too.
(20:16):
Why people in Hollywood in particular really fear further consolidation.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
Well, let's expand on some of those because we talked
a bit about those fears in our previous segment. But
how do those fears relate to David Ellison's politics, if
at all.
Speaker 8 (20:34):
Well, the fears in Hollywood are that thousands of more
people will lose their jobs. We've you know, had several
mergers over the past decade, and they've all resulted in,
you know, widespread layoffs. When Disney acquired some of the
Fox properties in twenty nineteen, there were thousands of employees
Fox employees who lost their jobs, and you know, the
(20:57):
amount of movies that was produced to act declined. Then
in twenty twenty two, we had Discovery Little Discovery taking
over Warner Media from AT and T, and again thousands
of employees were laid off. So this is a real
fear in Hollywood. Even labor data shows that since twenty
twenty two, the industry has lost more than fifty thousand
(21:20):
jobs entertainment jobs in Los Angeles area. And that's what's
driving a lot of this, to be sure, and to
David Ellison's point, there's also a political component.
Speaker 9 (21:32):
As well.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
Meg James is joining U staff. Right at the LA Times,
we talked about what David Ellison said. He says that
much the opposition is politically based, and I'm curious. Maggie
did a great job laying out some of the jobs
that are going to be effected or have been affected
in the past, and what is potentially coming down the
pike if this merger goes through. If Netflix had won
that bidding war with Warner Brothers, would it be a
different conversation or would it just be a different names
(21:54):
and having the same conversation.
Speaker 8 (21:56):
Well, you know, that's a really good point, because there
were some people thought that the Netflix deal would be
really you know, interesting because they're the biggest streamer. But
make no mistake, Netflix would have run into a boatload
of regulatory opposition in the United States and in Europe
because it is so dominant in streaming. So, I mean,
while you know that for some parties maybe Netflix seemed cooler,
(22:20):
I think that, you know, that deal might never have
actually been consummated because there would have been real significant
antitrust concerns about taking the Netflix platform and the HBO
Max platform and making such a super dominant platform that
that probably would not have past muster, and also I
(22:43):
suspect it was a big reason why Netflix pulled out
of the bidding.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
In February, Paramount chairman David Ellison says that the big
objection to his company's pursuit of Warner Brothers is political.
And we're joined by Meg James, a staff writer at
the La Times who wrote about this recently. What's at
stake for CBS and CNN here and how do they
play in the overarching narrative around this potential merger.
Speaker 8 (23:08):
Well, I mean that's a great question, because you know,
most quarters people think that the Ellisons will merge the operation,
the news operations. Obviously, they'll keep CBS News as a
division that will you know, fill the broadcast network, and
CNN will continue to be a cable channel and also
a very robust digital side around the world. But there
(23:33):
have been concerns since David Elson acquired Paramount last August
and then installed Barry Weiss as the editor in chief
of CBS, there's been a lot of shakeups, including of
sixty minutes, one of the most trusted brands in television,
and you know, people pushing back saying like she's trying to,
(23:54):
you know, force the news coverage into a posture where
it's more are sympathetic to President Trump. Now, you know,
to be sure, there hasn't been evidence that you know,
false narratives have been injected into CBS News is reporting
that just hasn't happened. According to our sources, that Barry
(24:17):
Weiss is pushed to reporters to you know, include more
perspectives and viewpoints, and her tenure has really rubbed some
people the wrong way.
Speaker 3 (24:29):
Meg James from The Only Times joining us right now
is we're covering this emerger what David Ellison has said
here in his latest and I'm so glad you brought
that up. Meg, I'm wondering again. Let me pitch you
another hypothetical. If this were not the Ellisons trying to
buy Warner Brothers, but rather this were say NBC Universal
trying to buy the Fox brains that remain independent from
(24:51):
the murdogs like Fox News, would we would be be
having similar criticism. It would just be twelve attorneys general
from the Republican side suing to try to stop it,
stood from the Democratic side, or would the Democrats have
the same anti trust issues.
Speaker 8 (25:06):
Well, I mean these are all real good hypotheticals, and
I would, you know, say that David Ellison, there is
a modicum of truth and what he's saying, the fears
about his stewardship of CBS News and what that would
mean to CNN, has.
Speaker 9 (25:24):
Really animated a lot of folks.
Speaker 8 (25:27):
But what I'm here to say is that I think
the opposition to the merger is much broader than that,
and also is key to just keeping Hollywood jobs in Hollywood.
And as you know, we've struggled mightily. So would there
be a you know, a red state uprising if Comcasts
(25:47):
were to have gotten these assets. You know, who knows? Maybe,
And I think there would have been a lot of opposition,
and there was growing opposition to Netflix. I think that
whenever you have a deal of this size it's more
than one hundred and eleven billion dollars, a deal that
will change Hollywood, a lot of people are going to
be worried, and a lot of people, you know, have
(26:10):
lived and worked and loved Hollywood content and they don't
want to see that changed.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
Great reporting, Meg, We appreciate that. James from the La Times, MiG,
we look forward to having you on again. I hope
you'll join us in the future.
Speaker 8 (26:22):
Well, thank you so much for having me today. You
guys do well, all right, Thank you so.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
Much, really nice John h Ron. Remember that supposed to
be over pretty quickly. I am familiar. It's not over.
It's still going on. We spent billions of dollars. We
don't know what's going on if but don't worry. There's
a deal. Could be any minute now, any minute now.
The President said so, just as he said last week,
just as he said last month, just as he said
a few months ago. Meanwhile, your costs or skyrocketing. There
(26:47):
could be a deal in the works that doesn't have
the US directly involved. We'll talk about that next with
a live report. As Monks and Merril continues.
Speaker 6 (26:56):
You're listening to Monks and Merrill under there from k
I AM six forty.
Speaker 3 (27:02):
Available anywhere on the IRT radio app. It is Monks
and Merrily and Michael Monks. That is Chris Merril. Thanks
for being with us on this Thursday afternoon. You know,
it's another day and it's another statement from President Trump
and or the White House that a deal is imminent
any moment now. We will have figured out this Iran
situation that he started five months best deal it will be,
(27:22):
of course, it will be the best deal when it
finally gets here. But when is it going to get here?
Iran and Oman now say they are close to an
agreement that could restore more shipping through the straight upfore
moves and reopen broader negotiations with Washington. So that could
be some progress. What does this mean? ABC News correspondent
Jordana Miller is with us from Jerusalem. Joins us now, Jordana,
(27:43):
thank you so much for being with us. What's going
on with Iran and o'man? And why is the US
not directly involved right now?
Speaker 9 (27:52):
Well? I think the US is not directly involved because
that would be you know, a bit confrontational for the Iranians.
It looks like the Qataris, who were the main mediators
between this deal between Iran and Oman, they figured out
(28:13):
that the Iranians would be able to actually make concessions
and compromises if they weren't, uh, you know, directly negotiating
with the United States, and they could kind of sell
sell it domestically better. And so I think the Guitaris
have you know, it turns out to so far, I
(28:34):
think have been a it's a smart strategy because we
see that the Iranians, if we, you know, are to
believe the reports that we're seeing, even though we don't
have the deal in front of us yet and it
has not been announced, the leaks reports are that Iran
has agreed to share control of the straight up formus
(28:54):
with Oman UH and we for the okay, okay, So
it looks like Iran has agreed to share control of
the Straight of Hormus. The Iranians would be managing or
in charge of the vessels that come to come into
(29:16):
the Straight of Hormus along the northern routes that border Iran,
and oman would be in charge of the ships the
vessels that leave the Straight of Hormuz on the southern route,
and of course the Omania route is the US backed
route right and so indirectly, the US has been you know,
(29:40):
in these negotiations, you know, looking at the terms, making
its demands, UH, and it looks like we're getting close
to a deal that would reopen the Straight of Hormus
and you know, over weeks get shipping back up too
closer to pre war levels.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
Jordana mil Or is our ABC News correspondent in Jerusalem, sorry, Jordan,
and I want to reset there real quick. Here. We've
heard about deals in the past, and it seems like
we get a deal on Friday, and by Sunday or
Monday that deal is has fallen apart because there's been
some other attacks. So it makes me wonder when we
hear an announcement that a deal is imminent, how much
(30:20):
truth is there that announcement. In other words, it's the
United States getting played or is this a communication or
a messaging thing that has been sort of over ambitious
I suppose in the past, because this is not the
first time that you've reported that we should have a
deal coming, right, and then it all falls apart.
Speaker 9 (30:38):
Yeah, we've been in this movie before, as they say here, right. Well,
I think part of it is that the Iranians are
really difficult to negotiate with, and you know, I think
the President has been incredibly frustrated with the Iranians as
some on his team as well. And I think it's
(31:01):
also difficult because the Iranians are dealing with their own
kind of tower divisions inside Iran between I won't call
them moderates, I call them the hardliners, and then the
super hardliners. So you have the Iranian Foreign Minister, the president,
(31:22):
the head of the parliament, who are interfacing with the
United States, and they have their hardliners. But then you
have the Revolutionary Guard who are even more hard line,
and they have to ultimately sign off on the dealing
most Ava Chromena. And you know, so far we don't
(31:45):
know if this deal has been signed off by who
it needs to be in Iran. I think that's part
of the problem, Jordana.
Speaker 3 (31:54):
We know that the straight up removes is a very
important part of this conflict with Irani, probably affects the
globe in US here in America more directly than any
other part of it. But there's also the concerns of
Iran's nuclear capabilities, and I don't know that the President
feels that he's reached satisfaction on that yet where are
we on that element of these discussions.
Speaker 9 (32:17):
Well, the President hasn't been able to negotiate at all
with Iran about limiting its nuclear weapons program. I mean,
it hasn't even been discussed yet because the sides have
been mired in this issue of the straight of form moves.
I mean, one of the upsides right to a deal
(32:39):
that reopens the straight of form moves, even if it
is not exactly what the United States wants, right, the
President wanted it to be free and open and safe again.
It doesn't look like that's going to happen. Iran's going
to control part of the Strait, right, if we see,
even temporarily, it will allow President Trump to move on
(33:02):
to tackling the nuclear issues. Right. What happens to all
of that enriched material nearly one thousand pounds that's sitting
in Iran? What happens to Iran's nuclear sites? You know,
is Iran going to let in un you know, the
(33:23):
was Washdog Agency in, Yeah, inspectors in. There's a lot
of issues there to deal with, and you know, the
President hasn't been able to do anything on that front yet.
And remember that's the main reason the President said he
went to war against Iran.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
Right. Jordana Miller our ABC News correspondent, Jerusalem. Jordana, thank
you so much for the reporting. I know it's been
been a rough six months for you there, and we
appreciate you being entrenched and kind of keeping an eye
on everything, whether it's Iran or the wars that we're
going on in Israel as well. We appreciate all that
you've done.
Speaker 9 (33:55):
Yeah, rough three years, all right, thanks to a Donna
ABC News correspondent in jerusalem's're Donna Miller.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
I'm looking at these headlines just you know, if you
google Straight of horor Moves and get the initial news headlines,
and it's just they're so familiar. Trump says deal to
reopen straight of Her Moves could come early as this week.
Possible straight of her Moves deal, large attack and Yemen
agreement on the Straight of Her Moves taking shape. Oil
prices jump, oil price is drop, right, I mean, it's
been the entirety of this year, even this week. We
(34:25):
had the what the market was way down last week,
and then all of a sudden late last week we said,
oh we think a deal is coming, and then this
whole week we've seen the market going up. So what
happens if once again we get to Sunday and you've
got the Houti rebels who bomb a ship, and then
we're right back to square one again? My goodness, my goodness,
do you have anything better to talk about? I wouldn't
(34:47):
say better, but we have something different? Okay, okay, imagine
you live in Boyle Heights. Yeah, yeah, you got to
go of it in California's environmental bureaucracy wants to know
just how you're impacted. But let's see if if you
can keep it to things that matter, because your bus
ride and your summer break plans probably aren't part of
their purview. When everything becomes a grievance, does it really
(35:08):
actually make real concerns easier to ignore? That's next Monks
and Merril k I AM six forty. We're live everywhere
in the iHeartRadio app, KFI on demand. You've been listening
to Monks and Merrill here The show live weekdays from
noon to three on KFI AM six forty and anytime
on demand on the iHeartRadio app
This is Monks and Merrill hosted by Michael Monks and
Chris Merrill.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
This is Monks and Merrill.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Demand j merrow, Damn Hi, this is Monks and Merrill.
I'm this close to jumping across the table and strangling.
That's why you've been fired in every market you've been in.
That's exactly it, because you don't know how to say
three things in a row.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Hosted by Michael Monks and Chris Merrill. On I am,
I'm Chris Merrill. He's Michael Monks.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
For now.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Did you threaten me?
Speaker 4 (00:38):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Or did? On record too? And I stand by it.
We have breaking news to start the show today. Michael
monksood Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell. Oh not dead? Are we sure?
The news I got is that he has been discharged
from a rehabilitation center where he's been recovering from a
fall that he suffered in June. Wow. Yeah, He's had
(01:00):
a lot of questions swirling around his whereabouts. But he
posted some photos that people disputed the accuracy or authenticity
of and I didn't dispute it. And what I thought
was odd is that in today's world of verticals, that
they did a Proof of Life photo? Is it as
though what were nineteen sixty seven? Yeah, here's our newspaper. Okay,
Patty Hurst, we got that. What are you doing with
(01:22):
the Proof of Life photos? Because it it felt very
Woodrow Wilson to me? What's that reference?
Speaker 4 (01:28):
What?
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Woodrow Wilson had a stroke while he was in office, allegedly, Yeah,
and then the country was won't run by his wife,
Edith Edith right for like a year and a half. Yeah,
and then people were saying, where's Woody, where's Woody, not
like there was a war going on, and she said, oh,
he's he's at the Oval office, come on in. So
they brought him in and she basically tied his string
to his arm and they said, what are you okay?
And she pulled the string and his hand went up
(01:49):
and he went weekend at wood Rows. Yeah, that's exactly
what it was. And she said one fun yeah, and
they went good enough for us and then they left.
So you're saying Edith Wilson did some light ventriloquism on
the side, yea, and in the country doing it. I
felt like that's what Connie Chung was doing with Maury Povich. Oh,
that's right. I got who's no Elaine? I'm sorry the
(02:11):
other Asian one sounded gosh, Connie Chung, Elaine Chow. Not
just Mitch McConnell's wife, former secretary. Just keep beating me
up over that one. Just keep drawing attention to it.
I think the bigger issue isn't just questions around genuinely
goofed up. I'm sorry, God get suspended for that. Wow, Okay.
(02:33):
I think the bigger issue with Mitch McConnell is the
fact that he's still in office. And it is a
problem in the United States Senate. There's just no doubt
about it. It is a nursing home. He has shown
physical and mental decline. He froze up in my hometown
very famously, and the and the videos went viral. He
was just there to talk and suddenly stopped talking in
the middle of it. Look like a twenty second pause.
(02:53):
It's a little bit scary. And the thing is is,
like I've interviewed him face to face on the phone.
You know he can be sharp in his old age,
But think about how old I am now. Do you
know he was elected the year before I started kindergarten. Wow,
And I'm one hundred and three. Wow, when he froze,
(03:14):
the first thing I thought was that that was just
a hard reboot. Could have been I think the micro
just unplug it, plugg it back. Yeah, it's basically the
blue screen of death was happening inside of his head. Well,
he is in his final year in office. His seat
is up for grabs. He is not running for reelection.
But you know, like I was Senator Chuck Grassley, Yeah,
I mean he's kicking around the idea of running again.
I think he's he is one hundred and three. Yeah,
(03:37):
who's the oldest? Wasn't strom Thurman the oldest one? He
was ninety nine or one hundred for one hundred when
he left. Yeah, well, I'm let me bring this for you.
Was am I still the only person that bangs? Yeah? Yeah,
I no events to microsofts. I'm sure it's a fine product,
but it doesn't turn the search results to me that
I won as well as Google. He was one hundred
(03:59):
and still in office strong. That's ridiculous. And he died
six months later. Do you remember when? I mean, he
obviously ran a very racist presidential campaign based on segregation,
and after he died we found out he had a
black daughter shocked. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, was born in
nineteen thirty three. Why don't you just go enjoy your life.
(04:19):
I don't know, You've already got your pension, right, I mean,
you've got your loaded full Senate pension and everything. Well,
you know what that might be. It it might be
one of those things where they just can't if I
don't have power, who am I? Of course it is.
I mean, I know there are a lot of people
who aren't necessarily in the halls of power who worry
about when they leave the job they've had for thirty
years and it's time to retire. They don't know what
to do with themselves. It's an adjustment. You don't know
(04:41):
what your contribution to society. I'm sure that's very valid concern.
But should somebody be experiencing a late life crisis in
the United States Senate?
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Here, let's get back to what we started. That was
the breaking news with the Mitch McConnell not dead. Did
you see that We've got a few county supervisors that
want to throw some money at people who Lindsay Horvath
and Catherine Barger want to develop the Entertainment Evergreen fund.
Wait wait, wait for Hollywood. Yeah, they want to start
(05:12):
funding low budget indie films. Wait wait wait you mean
like executive producer La County Board of Supervisors. I don't
think they'd even get the film credit. They just give
them the money. Okay. Oh so these are for smaller
independent production, low budgets. Oh I see with budgets below
a million bucks? And can you even do that anymore?
Not really, although I think Obsession was like seven hundred
(05:35):
and fifty thousand, so everybody goes, wow, if the county
just funds a film like Obsession, then it's going to
bring back the indie market.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
No, no, no, no, that was Obsession.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Oh I thought that was something for Mitch McConnell's hospital
run filmed that little Tony's in North Hollywood. Really yeah nice, Yeah,
that whole Now people are going in and recreating that
scene if you haven't seen it. I actually liked the film.
It was pretty good. However, it is the exception, not
the rule. Most low budgets don't make their money back,
which is why low budget producers are having trouble finding investors.
(06:13):
So what happens is they go to the County and
they say, we're having trouble finding investors. Can you give
us money? And the county goes, oh, no, we have
to save the film industry. Don't get me wrong, the
film industry has needed some help. That's why we've instituted
a bunch of tax credits and things like that. But
they're saying, yeah, but we don't qualify for tax credits
because our films are low budget. And so they say,
if you don't give us the money, we're going to
(06:34):
go film somewhere else. And so the county is saying, oh, no,
we're going to lose these low budget films that don't
make any money. How can we hand them out? But
that's my money you're handing out. That's the issue I'm
having is that you're taking my tax dollars and then
you're handing them out to help somebody's pet project. True,
and even if the pet project like Obsession, goes from
(06:57):
a seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars budget to turning
half a million dollars, have a billion dollars, excuse me,
it's like four hundred and fifty million. It's made of
the box office. Now, that doesn't come back to the County.
The county doesn't have any equity in it. They're just
out the money that they gave the indie film. That's
what I would like to know is how do you
replenish the fund? Do you just keep filling it up
with taxpayer dollars? Yes? Or is there some sort of
(07:18):
revenue hook? Well, what I would like to see is
the revenue. There's some sort of a repayable assistance, right,
So like you you kind of joked about does that
mean executive produced by the LA County Board of Supervisors?
Kind of if you're going to give them the money
and you're taking the risk, then the taxpayers as part
of your economic development plan, should get some of that
(07:38):
money kicked back. Should we not? Yeah, I don't know.
I think maybe On the one hand, and I'm not
defending this yet, we're going to learn more. This isn't official.
They're exploiting. Exploring it means a committee. Yeah, there's a committee.
And if you are looking to cultivate or recultivate the
old ecosystem where people could come out here to Hollywood,
(07:59):
even with out Warner Brothers or a large studio behind them,
and start to navigate the filmmaking process and actually put
out a product. And it makes sense because these are
people who they may not make a hit, they may
not make a financially viable movie, but they may discover
that they are good at this and they will make
me it doesn't make sense, And I'll tell you why
you're wrong. Okay, tell me why I'm wrong. We haven't
(08:20):
had it before. Yeah, and it's happened before. Now we're
seeing a decrease in filming here and they're saying people
don't want to invest. Well, they don't want to invest
because it's not it's not it's not viable. Right, you
went in a while else though, Go ahead, if I
may please. Yeah, now that you've already admitted you were wrong.
Oh no, I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
I was just throwing it out there. That's fine. Why
don't they make La County livable? Why don't they focus
on the fundamentals of a society and then everything just happens. Yes,
if you want to help the film industry, you lower
things like permit fiends, and you make some of the
county locations more affordable, charging these exorbitant costs to do that,
and you do some workforce training. Some of the things
(08:56):
that we would actually expect for the county to take
on rather than handing money out to Billy Joe who
came in from Kentucky and wants to be a movie director. Now, well,
Billy Joe's my cousin, and I think he's going to
make a good film someday. My favorite is that you said, cousin.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
Hey guys, Chris, f hb Hey Chris, I'm stuck on
the sixty westbound right before the fifty seven interchange. I
think they closed the freeway, but no one's saying why. Uh,
but we're all stuck right here, completely stopped. If you
guys can check it out, maybe give everybody a report,
that'd be great.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Yep, we got a traffic report coming right up. We'll
look into where that was. What do you say, the
sixty at the fifty seven, Yeah, he sees right before
the fifty. I'm seeing it. Let me see.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
It looks like.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Maybe some construction in there. That's kind everything slowed down.
But yeah, he's right right, it's back all the way
up to the seventy one. Well, let's go do that.
Paramount meanwhile, has cleared another major hurdle and it's one
hundred eleven billion dollar pursuit of Warner Brothers. There is
still a March trial on the docket though, and that
means adding roughly seven million dollars a day to that price.
Governor Knew some trying to throw a wrench in the
(10:01):
whole operation. We'll get into that next.
Speaker 6 (10:02):
On Monks and Meryl, you're listening to Monks and Merrill
on demand from KFI AM six.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
Forty more stimulating talk and it is I AM six
forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. Monks and Meryl
Thursday Afternoon, Thanks for being with us. A federal judge
has scheduled a March second trial in the lawsuit brought
by the state of California and eleven other states who
want to block Paramount's acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery. This
is a later date that actually is bad news for
(10:32):
Paramount because it increases the potential payout to Warner Brothers shareholders. Meanwhile,
good news of your warned brother shareholder. Yeah, yeah, good
news if you're paying attention to what happens in the
UK as well. Regulators in Britain have removed the last
major foreign regulatory threat. There was speculation early on in
this that maybe some other markets outside of the US
(10:54):
would put the kaibash on this very large merger, but
looks like it's smooth sailing overseas. Yeah, that's kind of
the big That was the other big struggles, so the
big obstacles. So now they just have to get through
what's going on here in the United States. Part of
what's that issue, and this is what Devin Newsom was
talking about Rob Bonte as well, is that they're concerned
about this becoming an anti trust issue. There aren't there
(11:14):
is enough competition in Hollywood if all the major studios
are merging. What's interesting is that we had another major
studio merger, Disney and Fox. And when Disney and Fox merged,
we didn't have the same argument. It's actually as a
result of Disney and Fox merging that there are fewer
players in the pool. And because of that, now they're
concerned that if the other ones start to merge, now
we're running into anti trust issues. So if this one
(11:35):
goes through, we'll have another one on the heels of it. Well,
that's part of the concern. But had Disney and Fox
not merged, this one might not be getting nearly as
much pushback. Because those two studios came together. So yeah,
one of the arguments of Paramount's been making is that
they have to merge with Warner Brothers in order to
stay competitive against so many of the others, like Netflix
(11:57):
and their major studio. Apple's really trying to make in
roads with the studios as well, and we're seeing sort
of partnerships I suppose with some of the others. So
what happens when this goes through and then Apple says, Wow,
the only way that we can compete is if we
get together with Peacock And now all of a sudden,
(12:17):
you're gonna start seeing you know, Universal, It will be Apple,
Universal and Paramount, Warner Disney, Fox and Netflix and I
don't know, pick somebody else who's lying heart I mean
fingers crossed. Yeah, distribution would be great. They're already putting
a lot of the National podcast on it. I saw that.
I saw that very interesting stuff. Okay, so there is
a trial that is set for this. Paramount has agreed
(12:40):
to a pretty hefty price to purchase Warner Brothers. These
are two of the oldest, biggest legacy production houses in Hollywood.
Paramount and Warner Brothers is who we're talking about here,
and Paramount has agreed to pay thirty one bucks a
share for Warner Brothers. That equals about eighty one billion
dollars in equity value and one hundred and eleven billion
dollars when debt and other obligations included. That is a
(13:01):
significant sum. So they're willing to spend this type of money.
I wonder though, if they're willing to pay more than that,
because there is some fine involved. Yeah, after I think
it's October. For every quarter it's a it's a massive
something like six million or six and a half million
dollars whatever it is. It breaks down to that the
(13:22):
deal's not finished. Yeah, for every quarter it's like another
seven million dollars, Paramount is paying that to Warner Brothers.
Paramount is paying that Warner Brothers. So once the deal closes, though,
is that their money again?
Speaker 4 (13:32):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (13:32):
You know what, that's no, because it goes to the shareholders.
It is paid out in like a dividend. Well, it
would go into whoever owns those shares, So the shareholders
collect what is it to point zero zero two almost
if you rounded it point zero zero three cents per day? Oh,
I see point zero zero three dollars. I should say
so a third of a third of a cent per
day per share cap that twenty five cents per share
(13:54):
during each ninety day period. Right, the estimated six hundred
and fifty million dollars per quarter is a dish, you know,
merger consideration ode to Warner shareholders, not a penalty paid
to California. So it's not necessarily California's direct fault, but
the fact that they have causes delay through legal action.
Along with eleven other states, they are indirectly to plame. Well,
depending on how fastest trial goes, that could make a
(14:14):
difference too, because remember they voluntarily said we're going to
delay this until the second quarter of twenty twenty seven. However,
with this starting in March, the odds of it being
wrapped up by the start of April pretty low. So
that's where you're seeing potential additional penalties piling up on this.
We have to consider the stakes locally because this is
(14:35):
not just a business story. It's not just a Hollywood story.
It is a Southern California story. These are two major
employers in this region, two major players in one of
our signature industries, and if the concerns expressed by critics
do play out you are looking at losing jobs here,
possibly that those are the arguments against it, and you
are hearing concerns about consumers like you and me, whether
(14:56):
we subscribe to Paramount Plus or HBO, whether we're viewers
of ce IN and worry about the editorial independence of
it once they're part of the same house as CBS News,
for example. Those are the things that are at risk here,
according to the critics. But what's interesting, Chris, is that
these are critics in America, and I would have assumed
that regulatory agencies in Europe specifically are tougher than ours.
(15:20):
They don't even have air Remember they're having an air
conditioning argument over there. Yeah, like, we don't want it.
It's bad for the environment. They're sweating their butts off
they don't want air conditioning. But it's sailed. This merger
sailed through the regulatory process and euro up the EU,
UK as well as Asian markets. Yeah, that's true, And
I wonder how much of that is because it's two
(15:42):
American companies. So how much do they care if the
two American companies are doing their their deeds over here?
If it doesn't have a big an impact on there. Well,
Hollywood is pretty global now. I mean you think about
something like Game of Thrones, huge huge series HBO here,
but it was co produced with U right, Warner Brothers
(16:03):
co produced with studios in the UK and production houses
in the UK. This was a UK US production and
it's becoming more and more common, especially across the English
speaking world. I mean, Hollywood is a major exporter all
around the world. I don't disagree with that. I just
wonder the impact is gonna be much greater here than
it is in Europe? Is that fair to say? Yeah?
That's why I think it's important that we always consider
(16:24):
the stakes locally, not just in the US. But they'll
care about them, and I kind of think they don't
care about us, And that's you don't care about who?
I don't care about Europe? Why you didn't watch Down Nabby? No,
didn't watch downt Mabby and Small? Is that PBS nonsense?
I pay for American programming in America while you're missing
(16:45):
some fine costume dramas. Did you remember that clip I
played in the first segment no from Obsession?
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Yeah, okay, good afternoon, guys.
Speaker 7 (17:04):
So I haven't seen this Obsession yet so that sounds
about you, guys, played and scare the crap out of
me because she sounds just like one of my exes
that I dated around college. She sounded just like that
before she would go off.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Yeah, maybe you shouldn't watch the film then, because it
is a little is it scary? I'm gonna call it
a psychological thriller. There's really only like one part. This
is the one that was directed by that YouTube yes guy,
and I've seen his videos online. They're they're weird funny.
It's a weird kind of comedy. He's seen any of them,
so he's very one thing. I've judged by his film.
(17:41):
He's been vet to me by the algorithm a few times.
And he's funny. I mean, he is good. He has
a unique look okay, and he's ugly. I don't want
to say anyone is ugly, because you know he's not.
But he has a unique feat. He's like a very
big mouth okay, all right, and he's like a tall guy.
I have expected horror to come out of it, so
(18:03):
he looks like he's pretty well set in the biz
now though. Yeah, yeah, I thought it was a good film,
especially for the budget that they had dynamite. Hey, David
Ellison speaking of Warner Brothers in Paramount. Here, David Ellison
says that this fight over Warner Brothers, in fact, I
think you kind of touched on this a minute. He says,
it's not really about market share. He says, it's about
people on the left that are worried that a Trump
friendly billionaire is going to control both CBS News and CNN. Fact,
(18:25):
that's just what you said earlier. Does the political hostility though,
explain all the opposition or is Ellison just kind of
using this culture war to dodge these legitimate anti trust accusations.
That's next on Monks and Merril. K if I am
six forty live everywhere in the iHeartRadio AP.
Speaker 6 (18:42):
You're listening to Monks and Merrill on demand from KFIM.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
If you haven't, yeah, please follow us on the socials
at Monks and Merrill. At Monks and Meryl, thank you
so much for being a part of that. You know
what we were talking about to a paramount and the
Warner brothers, and it sounds like their court date is
coming up here in March. But David Ellison is trying
to get out there. He hasn't said a whole lot,
but now he's dropping some statements. And I was reading
about this. I was reading The La Times had a
story about it. Meg James was writing this up and
(19:10):
she was saying basically that David Ellison's like, look, the
only issue people have here is my politics. That's it.
Meg joins us right now, staff writer with the La Times. Meg,
thanks so much for joining us today. It's a pleasure
having on the program. Is there legitimacy to what he's saying?
Is he catching flat because of the politics behind this
or is he trying to deflect from the anti trust accusations.
Speaker 8 (19:32):
Well, I mean this is and thank you for having me.
This is a huge merger and it's been incredibly controversial.
And to be sure, one of the reasons why this
deal is controversial is because a lot of people don't
trust David Allison, in his words, to control CNN, and
(19:54):
so there is a political component to this deal because
his father, Larry Ellison, the co founder of Oracle, one
of the world's richest billionaires, is very tight with President
Trump and that relationship has helped Paramount get their deals
through the federal government. But there are other reasons too.
(20:16):
Why people in Hollywood in particular really fear further consolidation.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
Well, let's expand on some of those because we talked
a bit about those fears in our previous segment. But
how do those fears relate to David Ellison's politics, if
at all.
Speaker 8 (20:34):
Well, the fears in Hollywood are that thousands of more
people will lose their jobs. We've you know, had several
mergers over the past decade, and they've all resulted in,
you know, widespread layoffs. When Disney acquired some of the
Fox properties in twenty nineteen, there were thousands of employees
Fox employees who lost their jobs, and you know, the
(20:57):
amount of movies that was produced to act declined. Then
in twenty twenty two, we had Discovery Little Discovery taking
over Warner Media from AT and T, and again thousands
of employees were laid off. So this is a real
fear in Hollywood. Even labor data shows that since twenty
twenty two, the industry has lost more than fifty thousand
(21:20):
jobs entertainment jobs in Los Angeles area. And that's what's
driving a lot of this, to be sure, and to
David Ellison's point, there's also a political component.
Speaker 9 (21:32):
As well.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
Meg James is joining U staff. Right at the LA Times,
we talked about what David Ellison said. He says that
much the opposition is politically based, and I'm curious. Maggie
did a great job laying out some of the jobs
that are going to be effected or have been affected
in the past, and what is potentially coming down the
pike if this merger goes through. If Netflix had won
that bidding war with Warner Brothers, would it be a
different conversation or would it just be a different names
(21:54):
and having the same conversation.
Speaker 8 (21:56):
Well, you know, that's a really good point, because there
were some people thought that the Netflix deal would be
really you know, interesting because they're the biggest streamer. But
make no mistake, Netflix would have run into a boatload
of regulatory opposition in the United States and in Europe
because it is so dominant in streaming. So, I mean,
while you know that for some parties maybe Netflix seemed cooler,
(22:20):
I think that, you know, that deal might never have
actually been consummated because there would have been real significant
antitrust concerns about taking the Netflix platform and the HBO
Max platform and making such a super dominant platform that
that probably would not have past muster, and also I
(22:43):
suspect it was a big reason why Netflix pulled out
of the bidding.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
In February, Paramount chairman David Ellison says that the big
objection to his company's pursuit of Warner Brothers is political.
And we're joined by Meg James, a staff writer at
the La Times who wrote about this recently. What's at
stake for CBS and CNN here and how do they
play in the overarching narrative around this potential merger.
Speaker 8 (23:08):
Well, I mean that's a great question, because you know,
most quarters people think that the Ellisons will merge the operation,
the news operations. Obviously, they'll keep CBS News as a
division that will you know, fill the broadcast network, and
CNN will continue to be a cable channel and also
a very robust digital side around the world. But there
(23:33):
have been concerns since David Elson acquired Paramount last August
and then installed Barry Weiss as the editor in chief
of CBS, there's been a lot of shakeups, including of
sixty minutes, one of the most trusted brands in television,
and you know, people pushing back saying like she's trying to,
(23:54):
you know, force the news coverage into a posture where
it's more are sympathetic to President Trump. Now, you know,
to be sure, there hasn't been evidence that you know,
false narratives have been injected into CBS News is reporting
that just hasn't happened. According to our sources, that Barry
(24:17):
Weiss is pushed to reporters to you know, include more
perspectives and viewpoints, and her tenure has really rubbed some
people the wrong way.
Speaker 3 (24:29):
Meg James from The Only Times joining us right now
is we're covering this emerger what David Ellison has said
here in his latest and I'm so glad you brought
that up. Meg, I'm wondering again. Let me pitch you
another hypothetical. If this were not the Ellisons trying to
buy Warner Brothers, but rather this were say NBC Universal
trying to buy the Fox brains that remain independent from
(24:51):
the murdogs like Fox News, would we would be be
having similar criticism. It would just be twelve attorneys general
from the Republican side suing to try to stop it,
stood from the Democratic side, or would the Democrats have
the same anti trust issues.
Speaker 8 (25:06):
Well, I mean these are all real good hypotheticals, and
I would, you know, say that David Ellison, there is
a modicum of truth and what he's saying, the fears
about his stewardship of CBS News and what that would
mean to CNN, has.
Speaker 9 (25:24):
Really animated a lot of folks.
Speaker 8 (25:27):
But what I'm here to say is that I think
the opposition to the merger is much broader than that,
and also is key to just keeping Hollywood jobs in Hollywood.
And as you know, we've struggled mightily. So would there
be a you know, a red state uprising if Comcasts
(25:47):
were to have gotten these assets. You know, who knows? Maybe,
And I think there would have been a lot of opposition,
and there was growing opposition to Netflix. I think that
whenever you have a deal of this size it's more
than one hundred and eleven billion dollars, a deal that
will change Hollywood, a lot of people are going to
be worried, and a lot of people, you know, have
(26:10):
lived and worked and loved Hollywood content and they don't
want to see that changed.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
Great reporting, Meg, We appreciate that. James from the La Times, MiG,
we look forward to having you on again. I hope
you'll join us in the future.
Speaker 8 (26:22):
Well, thank you so much for having me today. You
guys do well, all right, Thank you so.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
Much, really nice John h Ron. Remember that supposed to
be over pretty quickly. I am familiar. It's not over.
It's still going on. We spent billions of dollars. We
don't know what's going on if but don't worry. There's
a deal. Could be any minute now, any minute now.
The President said so, just as he said last week,
just as he said last month, just as he said
a few months ago. Meanwhile, your costs or skyrocketing. There
(26:47):
could be a deal in the works that doesn't have
the US directly involved. We'll talk about that next with
a live report. As Monks and Merril continues.
Speaker 6 (26:56):
You're listening to Monks and Merrill under there from k
I AM six forty.
Speaker 3 (27:02):
Available anywhere on the IRT radio app. It is Monks
and Merrily and Michael Monks. That is Chris Merril. Thanks
for being with us on this Thursday afternoon. You know,
it's another day and it's another statement from President Trump
and or the White House that a deal is imminent
any moment now. We will have figured out this Iran
situation that he started five months best deal it will be,
(27:22):
of course, it will be the best deal when it
finally gets here. But when is it going to get here?
Iran and Oman now say they are close to an
agreement that could restore more shipping through the straight upfore
moves and reopen broader negotiations with Washington. So that could
be some progress. What does this mean? ABC News correspondent
Jordana Miller is with us from Jerusalem. Joins us now, Jordana,
(27:43):
thank you so much for being with us. What's going
on with Iran and o'man? And why is the US
not directly involved right now?
Speaker 9 (27:52):
Well? I think the US is not directly involved because
that would be you know, a bit confrontational for the Iranians.
It looks like the Qataris, who were the main mediators
between this deal between Iran and Oman, they figured out
(28:13):
that the Iranians would be able to actually make concessions
and compromises if they weren't, uh, you know, directly negotiating
with the United States, and they could kind of sell
sell it domestically better. And so I think the Guitaris
have you know, it turns out to so far, I
(28:34):
think have been a it's a smart strategy because we
see that the Iranians, if we, you know, are to
believe the reports that we're seeing, even though we don't
have the deal in front of us yet and it
has not been announced, the leaks reports are that Iran
has agreed to share control of the straight up formus
(28:54):
with Oman UH and we for the okay, okay, So
it looks like Iran has agreed to share control of
the Straight of Hormus. The Iranians would be managing or
in charge of the vessels that come to come into
(29:16):
the Straight of Hormus along the northern routes that border Iran,
and oman would be in charge of the ships the
vessels that leave the Straight of Hormuz on the southern route,
and of course the Omania route is the US backed
route right and so indirectly, the US has been you know,
(29:40):
in these negotiations, you know, looking at the terms, making
its demands, UH, and it looks like we're getting close
to a deal that would reopen the Straight of Hormus
and you know, over weeks get shipping back up too
closer to pre war levels.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
Jordana mil Or is our ABC News correspondent in Jerusalem, sorry, Jordan,
and I want to reset there real quick. Here. We've
heard about deals in the past, and it seems like
we get a deal on Friday, and by Sunday or
Monday that deal is has fallen apart because there's been
some other attacks. So it makes me wonder when we
hear an announcement that a deal is imminent, how much
(30:20):
truth is there that announcement. In other words, it's the
United States getting played or is this a communication or
a messaging thing that has been sort of over ambitious
I suppose in the past, because this is not the
first time that you've reported that we should have a
deal coming, right, and then it all falls apart.
Speaker 9 (30:38):
Yeah, we've been in this movie before, as they say here, right. Well,
I think part of it is that the Iranians are
really difficult to negotiate with, and you know, I think
the President has been incredibly frustrated with the Iranians as
some on his team as well. And I think it's
(31:01):
also difficult because the Iranians are dealing with their own
kind of tower divisions inside Iran between I won't call
them moderates, I call them the hardliners, and then the
super hardliners. So you have the Iranian Foreign Minister, the president,
(31:22):
the head of the parliament, who are interfacing with the
United States, and they have their hardliners. But then you
have the Revolutionary Guard who are even more hard line,
and they have to ultimately sign off on the dealing
most Ava Chromena. And you know, so far we don't
(31:45):
know if this deal has been signed off by who
it needs to be in Iran. I think that's part
of the problem, Jordana.
Speaker 3 (31:54):
We know that the straight up removes is a very
important part of this conflict with Irani, probably affects the
globe in US here in America more directly than any
other part of it. But there's also the concerns of
Iran's nuclear capabilities, and I don't know that the President
feels that he's reached satisfaction on that yet where are
we on that element of these discussions.
Speaker 9 (32:17):
Well, the President hasn't been able to negotiate at all
with Iran about limiting its nuclear weapons program. I mean,
it hasn't even been discussed yet because the sides have
been mired in this issue of the straight of form moves.
I mean, one of the upsides right to a deal
(32:39):
that reopens the straight of form moves, even if it
is not exactly what the United States wants, right, the
President wanted it to be free and open and safe again.
It doesn't look like that's going to happen. Iran's going
to control part of the Strait, right, if we see,
even temporarily, it will allow President Trump to move on
(33:02):
to tackling the nuclear issues. Right. What happens to all
of that enriched material nearly one thousand pounds that's sitting
in Iran? What happens to Iran's nuclear sites? You know,
is Iran going to let in un you know, the
(33:23):
was Washdog Agency in, Yeah, inspectors in. There's a lot
of issues there to deal with, and you know, the
President hasn't been able to do anything on that front yet.
And remember that's the main reason the President said he
went to war against Iran.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
Right. Jordana Miller our ABC News correspondent, Jerusalem. Jordana, thank
you so much for the reporting. I know it's been
been a rough six months for you there, and we
appreciate you being entrenched and kind of keeping an eye
on everything, whether it's Iran or the wars that we're
going on in Israel as well. We appreciate all that
you've done.
Speaker 9 (33:55):
Yeah, rough three years, all right, thanks to a Donna
ABC News correspondent in jerusalem's're Donna Miller.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
I'm looking at these headlines just you know, if you
google Straight of horor Moves and get the initial news headlines,
and it's just they're so familiar. Trump says deal to
reopen straight of Her Moves could come early as this week.
Possible straight of her Moves deal, large attack and Yemen
agreement on the Straight of Her Moves taking shape. Oil
prices jump, oil price is drop, right, I mean, it's
been the entirety of this year, even this week. We
(34:25):
had the what the market was way down last week,
and then all of a sudden late last week we said,
oh we think a deal is coming, and then this
whole week we've seen the market going up. So what
happens if once again we get to Sunday and you've
got the Houti rebels who bomb a ship, and then
we're right back to square one again? My goodness, my goodness,
do you have anything better to talk about? I wouldn't
(34:47):
say better, but we have something different? Okay, okay, imagine
you live in Boyle Heights. Yeah, yeah, you got to
go of it in California's environmental bureaucracy wants to know
just how you're impacted. But let's see if if you
can keep it to things that matter, because your bus
ride and your summer break plans probably aren't part of
their purview. When everything becomes a grievance, does it really
(35:08):
actually make real concerns easier to ignore? That's next Monks
and Merril k I AM six forty. We're live everywhere
in the iHeartRadio app, KFI on demand. You've been listening
to Monks and Merrill here The show live weekdays from
noon to three on KFI AM six forty and anytime
on demand on the iHeartRadio app
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com