One of the dirty little secrets of journalism is that if you reporters and industry analysts to write about your story, the trick is to frame it in a way that resonates with them personally and allows them to write a story that sparks a lot of attention and traffic to the story.

On that basis, the ongoing battle to complete the merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery is like catnip to any journalist or professional working in the entertainment business. At a time when Hollywood is facing all sorts of tailwinds economically and the streaming business is maturing in ways that can confuse even the experts, a story that involves the merger of two of the industry’s storied companies is a God send.

Adding to the mix is the subtext of an Administration that revels in inserting itself into any business deal and the ongoing story of the efforts of a politically friendly billionaire trying to close the deal. It’s the story that has sparked hundreds of hot takes.

And if get past the hype, you’ll realize that most of them are wrong.

I’ve been covering this merger since its earliest days at my TooMuchTV newsletter and one thing that has taught me is there are a lot of misconceptions about this deal and what it might mean for Hollywood.

So here are the top five myths about the proposed Paramount/Warner Bros. Discovery merger, even though some of these views are so commonly held they have almost become entertainment industry conventional wisdom.

Paramount Needs To ‘Scale’ To Survive

In this context, scale means “get as big as possible” and if modern-day corporate strategy has a mantra, it is to scale or die. The theory is that the bigger a business gets, the more it acquires its closest competitors, the more able it is to dominate the market and set prices at an often unnaturally aggressive level.

The “economy of scale” theory explains in large part why so many parts of the American economy feels unfair and manipulative. Industries from combination lock manufacturers to sports leagues for kids have all followed the same trajectory. Consolidate competition down to a couple of large companies, and then gouge customers who don’t have an alternative while simultaneously boosting profits by cutting customer service and reducing quality.

Unfortunately for David Ellison, “scale” doesn’t work the same way in the entertainment world.

No matter how big your media company becomes, you can’t scale enough to eliminate other choices from the marketplace. Not even the largest studio can force moviegoers into paying to see only their movies and not even Netflix can prevent someone from canceling their streaming subscription and signing up for another service. In theory, gaining scale is supposed to save money by eliminating so-called redundant back office jobs, but even those savings tend to be overblown.

The one part of this merger that would be aided by scaling is the one part of the business Ellison tries hard not to discuss: the cable channels. Combining the cable TV offerings of both companies would give it unprecedented leverage during carriage negotiations with Live TV platforms. In fact, Ellison has said in interviews that would be the case and he has pointed to this revenue as a primary way Paramount could pay down its debt.

Opposition To The Merger Is All About The Politics

This is a talking point you hear a great deal from David Ellison and his surrogates. The only reason why those 12 state attorney general’s filed a lawsuit opposing the merger is they hate Donald Trump and believe Ellison is too close to the President. They argue he’ll change CNN to become more conservative friendly, and that Paramount has been too eager to please the President.

All of that may be true, but as my father once said, two things can be true at the same time.

Yes, a lot of people aren’t exactly thrilled with Donald Trump’s politics and the way he attempts to manipulate the press. And many people rightfully worry that given the turmoil and heavy-handed editorial interference at CBS News since David Ellison’s Skydance took over doesn’t bode well for CNN.

But none of that matters in this context. Combining CNN and CBS News would likely be a painful journalistic disaster, but it doesn’t any major competitive issues.

However, the political points keep being brought up David Ellison and his supporters because claiming the lawsuit is all about Donald Trump is a bit like conservatives who claim any criticism of the President is an example of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). It shifts the discussion into an argument about political beliefs and away from the substantive issues surrounding this proposed merger.

For future reference, anytime you hear someone say opposition to the merger is driven by politics, ask yourself what it is they don’t want to talk about.

A Combined Paramount & WBD Is Going To Produce 30 Theatrical Movies A Year

Since before Paramount was able to push Netflix out of the way and make a winning bid for Warner Brothers, David Ellison has touted his commitment that the combined studios would release at least 30 theatrical films a year.

And in recent days, Ellison has announced that he is promising theater owners a contractual agreement to release 30 films a year, with an exclusive 45-day theatrical windows and a moratorium on distributing the movies on streaming services for at least 90 days.

This is a topic that Ellison and other Paramount executives continue to stress. In part, in response to criticism that when Disney acquired Fox, it decimated that iconic studio’s theatrical release schedule.

However, it’s also a popular topic because it is a hot button issue for a lot of people in Hollywood. There is a general belief that more movies should be released into theaters instead of premiering digitally. And that the amount of time for a theatrical film to hit streaming should be expanded in order to boost the theatrical business.

The problem with all of this is that it doesn’t matter in the context of this merger. One company could own every Hollywood studio and release 100 theatrical films a year. But it would still be a monopoly that strips away competition and ensures there will be less diversity in produced movies. And less likelihood Hollywood creatives will be able to negotiate a better deal.

Whether or not Paramount would produce 30 theatrical films a year doesn’t really matter. Although I’ll argue that given the amount of spending Ellison has promised to cut once the merger is approved, I have serious doubts he can make it happen under those circumstances.

10 films a year or 30, combining two of Hollywood’s big five studios is anti-competitive and deserves to stop simply on its merits.

Approving This Merger Will Put ‘Hollywood Back To Work’

This is the “Have A Nice Day!” of merger negotiations. It’s no secret that employment in Hollywood’s entertainment business is down and as a result, a number of experienced creatives have gone months or years without a new job.

However, it isn’t clear to me how approving this merger would help that situation. This isn’t like a strike, where people are out of work during negotiations. And even if you believe the 30 theatrical films a year pledge, there’s no guarantee that will mean more films will be produced in the United States, much less Southern California.

You’ll notice that David Ellison isn’t promising to make fewer in Hungary or Serbia and move those productions back to Hollywood.

Not only does this proposed merger not guarantee more work for Hollywood, it’s almost certain some number of thousands of people will lose their jobs as part of Paramount’s promised $6 billion post-merger “resizing.”

So while it’s possible approving this merger will put Hollywood back to work, that could just mean working for Door Dash.

When reading pieces about the proposed Paramount/Warner Bros. Discovery merger, I would advise you to ignore what anyone says during this lawsuit and pay close attention to what they do.

You are going to hear a lot of promises made by David Ellison and others in the coming weeks and months. And as hard as may be to believe, sometimes they are just telling Hollywood what they think the industry wants to hear.

If The Merger Falls Apart, Netflix Will Step In And Make Another Bid For Warner Bros. Studios

I hear this speculation a great deal from entertainment industry creatives, but I’m not convinced it’s a likely scenario.

I always thought that Netflix would have been the best home for Warner Bros. Studios. But given the amount of pushback Paramount has received over this deal, I suspect Netflix might not be eager to step into this thresher of bad publicity.

At this point, Universal might be better fit for Netflix, assuming they are willing to deal with the complaints. Universal has turnkey movie studio and theatrical film business. As well as theme parks, which would offer a number of cross promotional opportunities for Netflix.

How likely is either scenario? If I had to put money on something, I would predict Netflix declines either acquisition for now. But I have learned over the years near to downplay Netflix’s corporate ambitions.