Paramount Skydance is challenging Warner Bros. Discovery’s valuation of its cable networks, arguing that CNN, TBS, and other channels aren’t worth as much as WBD’s Netflix partnership implies. This dispute sits at the center of Paramount’s aggressive, hostile bid for the media giant and highlights the difficulty of comparing traditional cable assets with modern streaming deals. Paramount contends that measuring a legacy cable portfolio against a streaming agreement creates apples-to-oranges math. Even so, it outlines a framework to show how the numbers could support its view that the networks’ standalone value is lower than the valuation implied by WBD’s Netflix deal. The core of Paramount’s argument is that the Netflix arrangement blends strategic value, streaming-scale potential, and deal-specific factors that may inflate perceived worth beyond the networks’ core cash flows. In Paramount’s view, using the Netflix agreement as a benchmark risks mispricing CNN, TBS, and related networks, potentially disadvantaging Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders if the streaming deal isn’t fully comparable to the traditional cable business. The critique emphasizes that the value embedded in a streaming deal isn’t identical to the value of a cable portfolio, and that differences in growth prospects, ad revenue, and monetization models matter for investor returns. The dispute underscores a broader industry question: how should legacy cablers be valued in an era of streaming disruptors, and what does that mean for shareholder value and strategic options? Investors will be watching how the two proposals stack up on key metrics such as per-share value, long-term returns, synergies, and the ability to monetize content across traditional and digital platforms. With David Zaslav leading WBD, the debate over network worth and deal realism is set to shape the next phase of media consolidation.