Streaming services such as Netflix have changed how television is produced and consumed. In 2019, the online video on demand market was topical, with big launches such as Disney+ and Apple TV+. This period in the streaming market was popularized in the press as the “streaming war(s).” Previous research on the streaming market has aimed at understanding the industry, often with a focus on innovative features. Some studies have articulated a need to look beyond the current narrative used to describe the market. This study examines this very discourse, as no studies have concentrated on the discourse surrounding the streaming market or the relationship between the streaming industry and television trade press. Such a study object may illustrate how market discourse is currently formed and understood under neoliberalism, as well as create an understanding of how the streaming industry is understood and functions. This study aims to examine the reporting on the streaming market in television trade press in 2019, with special interest to ideological biases and the portrayed power geometry between actors within the industry. It approaches the subject with a political economy perspective and conducts a critical discourse analysis on articles from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Deadline Hollywood, Indiewire, and Financial Times. The sample contains only articles using the phrase “streaming war(s)”. The data is approached by asking questions about how the phrase is used, how the power relations of the streaming market are portrayed, and what ideological implications can be found in the texts. The results find that the phrase “streaming war(s)” is widely used, although no agreed meaning exists. The phrase works as a conceptual metaphor, shaping a discourse where the streaming market is viewed as a war. This portrayal of the market as harsh conflict and competition is motivated by economic interests, which the television trade press helps reproduce. The “streaming war(s)” fetishizes the streaming market and conceals the responsibility held by large media conglomerates. The actors on the streaming market are found to be positioned against each other, further portraying the market as a war. Netflix and Disney are represented as the most powerful participants because of their relations to flows of capital, content, and users. The streaming service audiences are given no agency, while the market is portrayed as having an agency of its own.