David Ellison had a seat at Donald Trump’s table Thursday night. The journalists at the news organization he is about to own were fighting for access to the same White House.

It was a striking split screen at the end of an extraordinary week for CNN.

Hours before Ellison arrived for a state dinner honoring Chinese President Xi Jinping, CNN was still battling the Trump administration over its ability to cover the president. A federal judge had ordered the White House to restore access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico after Trump barred the three outlets from the grounds. CNN reporters eventually made it back inside Thursday, only for the network to say later that two of its journalists were denied access to cover arrivals at the state dinner.

Ellison, meanwhile, was among Trump’s invited guests.

There is no evidence Ellison had anything to do with the White House’s treatment of CNN, and there is nothing inherently improper about a media executive attending a state dinner. Owners of news organizations have long maintained relationships with presidents and other powerful people their journalists cover.

But Thursday put that tension on unusually clear display.

Ellison is preparing to take control of CNN as Paramount completes its $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, bringing CNN and CBS News under the same corporate owner. For months, much of the discussion surrounding the deal has focused on what Ellison might do to CNN: whether its leadership will stay, whether its programming will change and whether its journalism will shift under new ownership.

Thursday raised a different question.

The real test of CNN’s independence under Ellison may not be whether he tries to change its coverage. It may come when CNN’s journalism creates a problem for the person who owns it.

That isn’t a problem unique to Ellison. Media companies have interests that extend far beyond their newsrooms. Their executives interact with governments, seek regulatory approvals and maintain relationships with many of the same powerful people their journalists cover.

The traditional answer has been to build a wall between those interests and editorial decision-making. Paramount is about to add another mechanism intended to reinforce it.

As part of its settlement with 12 state attorneys general, Paramount agreed to establish a five-person editorial independence board for CNN and CBS News. But questions have already been raised about how much power it will have. Paramount’s directors will appoint the members, its findings don’t have to be made public and the board won’t be in place immediately. The company has up to 180 days after the Warner Bros. Discovery deal closes to establish it.

That can sound like a fairly wonky corporate-governance debate. This week showed why it matters.

CNN went to federal court after Trump barred its journalists from White House grounds. Its television competitors refused to replace CNN in the White House television pool, turning the dispute into a broader test of whether competing news organizations would stand together when the government tried to decide who could cover the president.

CNN won an important round when a federal judge ordered its access restored. But the confrontation didn’t end there.

The White House removed CNN from its scheduled Saturday television pool assignment for Trump’s trip to Tennessee and put Real America’s Voice, a conservative network outside the five-network rotation, in its place. The other networks again declined to recognize a replacement for CNN, leaving the trip without the usual television pool coverage.

Trump also made clear Saturday that he still believed CNN should be kept out.

“Why should perpetrators of FAKE NEWS, like CNN and MSDNC, be allowed access to a very sacred place, the White House?” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Less than two hours later, he added: “FAKE NEWS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!”

The latest escalation only underscored the kinds of decisions Ellison could soon face.

What happens the next time CNN publishes something the White House hates? What happens if the administration again retaliates against the network?

And what happens if defending CNN makes life more complicated for the person who owns it?

Ellison’s presence at Thursday’s dinner doesn’t answer those questions. It doesn’t tell us how he will respond when CNN and the White House clash after he takes control, and there is no evidence he has sought to influence CNN’s journalism during the current fight.

But that’s also why this week was worth paying attention to.

Editorial independence is easy to promise when the interests of a newsroom and its owner are aligned. It matters most when they aren’t.

Ellison has said he intends to protect the journalistic independence of the news organizations he is acquiring. Soon, he may get the chance to show what that promise means when protecting CNN carries a cost.

The answer probably won’t come from Ellison calling CNN and telling it what to cover. It could be more subtle: whether CNN’s leaders feel free to pursue journalism that creates friction, whether its journalists believe the company will stand behind them when the White House retaliates and whether the independence board works when corporate and editorial interests diverge.

Trump may have provided the first glimpse of that test before Ellison even owns the network.

CNN’s journalists spent Thursday fighting for their place inside Donald Trump’s White House.

By dinner, their future owner already had one.

Now, on to the rest of this week’s Media Front column which also covers Paramount-WBD’s latest hurdle; Peter Thiel and Axel Springer; “Dateline” at 35 and more

The Networks Drew a Line

The White House television pool returned Friday after a dayslong suspension sparked by the Trump administration’s decision to bar CNN from participating in the rotation.

ABC News, CBS News, Fox News and NBC News had declined to replace CNN, effectively turning the White House’s dispute with one network into a dispute with all five.

But the standoff isn’t entirely over. The White House removed CNN from its scheduled television pool assignment again Saturday, and the networks are set to resume pooled coverage Sunday despite CNN’s continued exclusion from the rotation.

My full piece: White House TV Pool Returns After Networks Stood With CNN

Paramount-WBD Isn’t Over the Line Yet

Paramount appeared to clear what was expected to be the final major hurdle to its $110 billion Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition Monday, reaching a settlement with 12 state attorneys general that includes commitments on domestic film and TV production, theatrical releases, cable negotiations and newsroom independence.

But the deal isn’t quite over the line. A federal judge held off on approving the settlement Thursday, asking the parties to address additional concerns before she rules, while merger opponents are urging the court to reject the agreement.

For a transaction that would combine two of Hollywood’s biggest studios and reshape everything from streaming to cable news, even the final stretch is proving complicated.

Lucas Manfredi and Roger Cheng’s full piece: Breaking Down the Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger Settlement | Analysis

Axel Springer’s Peter Thiel Problem

More than 120 journalists at Politico and Business Insider protested parent company Axel Springer’s decision to honor Peter Thiel with its annual Axel Springer Award this week, pointing in particular to his secret financing of Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker.

The dispute highlights an uncomfortable tension inside large media companies: Newsrooms can operate independently from their corporate owners, but the values expressed by those owners can still reverberate among the journalists who work for them.

My full piece: Business Insider, Politico Staffers Protest Over Peter Thiel Award

“Dateline” at 35

“Dateline” turns 35 this season, but NBC’s venerable newsmagazine increasingly looks like a case study in how a legacy television franchise can outgrow television.

Its “Dateline 24/7” channel was available on 12 U.S. FAST platforms during the second quarter, according to Ampere Analysis data provided exclusively to TheWrap. NBC says 189 hours of “Dateline” now air each week across licensed and syndicated broadcast and cable outlets, while its podcasts and showcast feed have surpassed 2 billion lifetime downloads.

At 35, “Dateline” is one of NBC News’ oldest shows. Its multiplatform strategy may also make it one of its most modern.

My full piece: ‘Dateline’ at 35: How the True Crime Sensation Became an Always-On Franchise

What’s Next: Next Week’s PRO — Is This the Future of Local News?

Local television has spent years cutting costs and asking journalists to do more with less. Now staffing cuts and new production technology could push that transformation even further, with anchors taking on production responsibilities once handled behind the scenes.

Is local TV turning back the clock — or is this a glimpse of its future?

I’ll dig into what’s driving the shift and what it means for local news next week on TheWrap.

Look for the full analysis next week on WrapPRO.

Also on TheWrap

• From Sharon Waxman: Why Rob Bonta Caved on the Paramount Settlement | Analysis
• From A.J. Katz: RedBird Capital Takes Majority Stake in Puck at $250 Million Valuation
• From Kayla Cobb: Creatorverse: YouTube Wants to Be Way More Than the Next Hollywood

The post David Ellison’s CNN Challenge Is Already Here appeared first on TheWrap.

Maria Bartiromo didn’t just have a show at Fox. She had three of them.

For more than a decade, Fox News Media built Bartiromo into one of its most versatile personalities, stretching her across two networks and three shows spanning business, markets and politics.

Then, on Thursday, Fox parted ways with Bartiromo after more than 12 years, effective immediately. On Friday, the company started remaking all three franchises without her.

That is what makes Bartiromo’s exit more than just another cable-news talent change — and exposes a tension at the heart of the Fox star system. Few television organizations are better at making personalities seem indispensable. And few have proved more capable of moving on when those personalities disappear.

Fox isn’t filling one vacant time slot. It is figuring out how to divide a portfolio that had grown around one person.

The circumstances surrounding the split have only raised the stakes. Bartiromo had not appeared on Fox since Aug. 9, according to multiple reports, and departed without an on-air goodbye. Fox offered little explanation, telling TheWrap only that it was a “business decision.”

Puck later reported that after Fox Business declined to cover a Trump speech involving China and conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, Bartiromo sent Trump adviser Peter Navarro a screenshot of that guidance.

Navarro confirmed Friday that Bartiromo sent him the screenshot and told Puck that he subsequently passed the information “up the chain” to senior administration officials. Fox has not publicly said why it parted ways with Bartiromo or linked her departure to the disclosure. Asked by TheWrap whether it was specifically denying that Bartiromo shared internal communications with the White House, a spokesperson declined to elaborate beyond its “business decision” statement.

By Friday, even the circumstances of Bartiromo’s departure were being disputed. Her attorney, Bryan Freedman, called reports that she had been fired or was no longer employed by Fox “absolutely and unequivocally false.” Fox’s announcement said Bartiromo was “no longer with FOX News Media,” but did not characterize her departure as a firing or provide a reason.

President Donald Trump also weighed in, saying he “can’t believe” Bartiromo will no longer have her shows, calling her a “true warrior” and predicting her fans “will not be happy.”

Whatever ultimately explains the rupture, Fox is wasting little time moving on.

“Mornings With Maria” became “Mornings With FOX Business” Friday, while “Maria Bartiromo’s Wall Street” became “FBN’s Wall Street,” both with rotating hosts. Jason Chaffetz is set to host “Sunday Morning Futures” on Sunday while Fox searches for a permanent replacement.

The speed is striking, but the playbook is familiar.

Fox has spent decades building some of cable news’ biggest personalities — and proving it can survive without them. Bill O’Reilly was the dominant figure in cable news when Fox fired him in 2017. Six years later, Tucker Carlson was abruptly removed despite anchoring its highest-rated primetime program.

Bartiromo isn’t O’Reilly or Carlson. The challenge for Fox is different: Her value was dispersed rather than concentrated in a single hour.

She was simultaneously a business-news anchor, markets personality and Sunday political interviewer. Fox already has a roster spanning business news, hard news and politics.

Bartiromo was a television brand long before arriving at Fox. During two decades at CNBC, she became a financial-news celebrity known as the “Money Honey.” At Fox, she expanded well beyond the financial beat.

Her coverage of Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election also figured prominently in the defamation litigation that resulted in Fox’s $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems.

Now, amid conflicting accounts of her departure, Fox faces a more immediate task on the screen: figuring out what comes next.

Fox’s history doesn’t guarantee viewers will embrace her successors. But her departure tests one advantage of having a large talent ecosystem: whether the varied functions of one unusually ubiquitous personality can be absorbed by several others.

For more than a decade, Bartiromo accumulated an unusual amount of territory within Fox. Now the network is beginning to divide it back up.

With Bartiromo, the more interesting question is whether Fox needs another Maria — or simply people who can do the many things she did.

CNN’S FAST Bet Is Working. Now What?

CNN Headlines is finding an audience: Viewing time jumped 176% year over year through July, while average monthly unique viewers rose 63%, according to data CNN provided. The channel has also expanded its live programming and anchor roster. Now comes the harder part: determining what that audience is worth. CNN sees Headlines as one piece of a broader distribution strategy spanning cable, free streaming and its All Access subscription product.

Read our full piece: CNN Found a Large Audience for Its Free Service. Now Comes the Hard Part

The Clancy Case Ends Without an Answer 

Last week, Media Front examined the Lindsay Clancy murder trial and the difficult questions it raised about postpartum mental health and criminal responsibility. On Friday, the judge declared a mistrial after jurors remained unable to reach a unanimous verdict. That leaves the central question of Clancy’s criminal responsibility unresolved. Prosecutors say they have not yet decided whether to try the case again.

Our full piece from last week: The 2 Lindsay Clancy Trials: Inside the Social Media Firestorm

The FCC, ABC and the Limits of Regulatory Power 

The Federal Communications Commission asked a federal judge Thursday to dismiss ABC’s First Amendment lawsuit challenging accelerated license reviews for eight Disney-owned stations. ABC argues the scrutiny amounts to retaliation over its programming, while the FCC disputes that characterization and says the reviews stem from an employment-discrimination investigation. The immediate fight is procedural. The larger one is over when regulatory oversight becomes government retaliation against a broadcaster.

From our full piece: FCC Moves to Dismiss ‘Meritless’ ABC First Amendment Suit

Bluesky Needs to be More Than the Anti-X

Bluesky was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the post-2024 exodus from X, but its U.S. daily active users have fallen sharply from their post-election peak. What caught my attention, though, is the question those numbers raise about social platforms more broadly. Is being the alternative to an incumbent enough to build a lasting social network? Bluesky proved it could attract people looking for somewhere else to go; now it has to give them a reason to stay.

Read our piece: Bluesky’s Post-Election Boom Is Fading. Is Its Culture Playing a Role?

WaxWord: Two Icons and What They Left Behind

What did Gloria Steinem and Dolly Parton have in common? More than you might think, Sharon Waxman writes in this week’s WaxWord. The two came from very different worlds but became cultural icons who offered generations of women a sense of possibility. With both women now gone, the question is what comes next. Waxman asks what subsequent generations will do with the progress — and hope — they helped create.

Read WaxWord: Gloria Steinem and Dolly Parton Gave Us Joy and Shared Hope – We Have to Take It From Here

What’s Next: MS NOW Makes Its Membership Pitch

MS NOW will offer a closer look next week at its new direct-to-consumer membership product as it builds out its digital strategy under Versant. We’ll be watching how the network makes the case for a $7.99-a-month membership, how the product fits alongside its existing television and digital businesses and, most importantly, what MS NOW believes viewers will pay for directly.

Stay tuned for our coverage on TheWrap!

Also on TheWrap

From A.J. Katz: The Athletic Says Dianna Russini Violated Standards With Patriots Coach

From A.J. Katz: Norah O’Donnell Returns to CBS Morning Show as Co-Host

From Kayla Cobb: Netflix vs. YouTube: Inside the Creator Talent Tug-of-War

On my radar

“Google Avoids Breakup of Dominant Ad Business” (Dave Michaels, Suzanne Vranica, WSJ)

“David Ellison Is Promising at Least 30 Movies a Year. Hollywood Is Skeptical” (Ben Fritz, WSJ)

“The Information bets bigger on video with new AI show” (Sara Fischer, Axios)

The post Does Fox Need Another Maria Bartiromo? appeared first on TheWrap.

By the time the jury began deliberating in the Lindsay Clancy case Thursday, two versions of the trial had already unfolded.

One took place inside Plymouth Superior Court, where jurors heard conflicting testimony about Clancy’s mental health and considered whether she should be held criminally responsible for killing her three children. Her defense argued that she had lost touch with reality because of postpartum psychosis; prosecutors maintained that she knew right from wrong and acted deliberately.

The other unfolded across courtroom livestreams and social platforms, where viewers clipped testimony, debated evidence and built communities around the case.

By Aug. 21, more than 164,400 TikTok videos had been shared under the #Clancy hashtag, according to Hearst Connecticut Media. Viewers scrutinized attorneys and spectators, formed allegiances and circulated theories about the evidence.

This was more than coverage of a high-profile trial. It was a participatory true-crime community producing its own characters, narratives and judgments while the legal process was still underway.

The case also expanded into cultural and political commentary. As TheWrap previously reported, Alyssa Milano used the trial to renew attention to postpartum mental health, while Meghan McCain criticized conservative commentary linking some postpartum depression to selfishness.

At times, the boundary between the trial and its online audience disappeared altogether.

Emily Thorndike, a former McLean Hospital social worker, came to the defense’s attention after criticizing testimony about the hospital on TikTok. Judge William Sullivan allowed her to be questioned outside the jury’s presence but declined to let her testify, finding that her testimony had limited value because she left McLean roughly a year before Clancy’s admission.

Then a journalist became part of the spectacle.

Vanity Fair had credentialed freelancer Brittany Romano while considering a personal essay about growing up with Clancy. Romano went viral after she appeared to smile and wink toward a courtroom camera during a break. The magazine abandoned the assignment, while Romano disputed its characterization and said she had been told to take the story elsewhere.

The episode demonstrated one feature of real-time true crime: Anyone visible in the frame can become part of the content.

If the Clancy trial illustrates the front end of this cycle, Netflix’s three-part “Death of the Pastor’s Wife” shows the other end: a story shaped in public before being assembled into a finished documentary.

That changes how true-crime projects are identified, developed and marketed. Producers increasingly inherit cases with established audiences, recognizable characters and extensive user-generated material before production begins.

The series examines the life and 2024 death of Mica Miller, whose body was found in a North Carolina state park. Her death was ruled a suicide, but the circumstances generated public scrutiny and online amateur investigation before Netflix assembled the story into a documentary.

Using interviews, archival material and previously unseen footage, the series constructs a coherent narrative after social-media users had already circulated theories, searched for evidence and assigned roles to the people involved.

That changes how true-crime projects are identified, developed and marketed.

Documentary producers once introduced audiences to cases they may have barely remembered. Now they increasingly inherit stories with recognizable characters, established followings and collections of user-generated material. Social engagement can demonstrate demand, surface potential participants and help market an adaptation before it has been commissioned.

Attention can move through multiple businesses: courtroom livestreams, social platforms, creator accounts, podcasts and eventually documentaries or dramatizations. The finished series may be the professionally edited conclusion to a narrative followed publicly for months or years.

There are benefits to this access. Livestreams can make the justice system less remote, while social platforms can draw attention to overlooked cases and give victims or families ways to reach audiences directly.

But participation can easily be mistaken for expertise. Algorithms reward emotionally satisfying interpretations before courts establish facts. Speculation travels more quickly than corrections, and people adjacent to a case can be recast by audiences with no obligation to be accurate or fair.

Traditional news organizations are not outside this system. They compete for the same attention, draw from the same viral moments and sometimes find their journalists absorbed into the narrative.

True crime has always turned tragedy into media. The Clancy trial demonstrates how dramatically that process has accelerated — and how much of the eventual product is now created in public before the legal process concludes or a documentary or television adaptation arrives.

The internet no longer waits for the true-crime show. Increasingly, it produces the first version itself.

Stars and Stripes Takes the Pentagon to Court

The battle over Stars and Stripes has become a test of whether a news organization can remain independent from the institution that helps fund it.

Three staffers facing termination — Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin, publisher Max D. Lederer Jr. and Middle East reporter Lara Korte — sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday. They allege they were dismissed for defending the publication’s editorial independence and producing coverage officials considered unflattering.

Stars and Stripes occupies an unusual position in American journalism. It is partly funded by the Defense Department and primarily serves military personnel and their families. But its credibility depends on reporting about the military rather than speaking for it.

The lawsuit cites coverage of food and water shortages, disrupted mail and other difficult conditions affecting roughly 5,000 sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

A Pentagon directive issued Aug. 21 maintained that Stars and Stripes’ editorial operations would remain independent and “free from censorship or propaganda.” The plaintiffs argue that their dismissals undermine that promise.

The Pentagon can preserve the publication’s formal protections while still weakening its journalism if reporters believe critical coverage could cost them their jobs. Editorial independence is defined not only by what official policy permits, but by what journalists can publish without fear of retaliation.

If Stars and Stripes cannot scrutinize the institution supporting it, the publication risks becoming what its structure was designed to prevent: an official outlet presented as an independent newspaper.

Read our full piece: Stars and Stripes Staffers Sue Pentagon, Pete Hegseth Over ‘Unlawful’ Firings and ‘Retaliation’

More Audiobooks, Tougher Odds of Breaking Through

The audiobook boom is entering a more selective phase.

More than 750,000 titles were active in 2025, a 43% increase from the previous year, while U.S. revenue grew 9% to $2.43 billion, according to the Audio Publishers Association.

The business is not shrinking: Audiobook revenue has increased for 15 consecutive years. But the widening gap between titles and revenue means more books are competing for limited listening time — and growth will not benefit every participant equally.

As the catalog expands, publishers must decide which projects warrant production and marketing support. Authors with established audiences become more valuable, while discoverability becomes a competitive advantage rather than merely a marketing concern.

Audio rights are also more consequential. Once routinely bundled into print deals, they now attract interest from traditional publishers, audio-first producers, podcast studios and platforms including Spotify and Amazon’s Audible. Authors with sufficient leverage can sell those rights separately, but most still lack that negotiating power.

The APA argues that the increase in titles is filling demand, noting that millions of books remain unavailable in audio. That can be true while individual releases become more difficult to find.

Audiobooks do not have a demand problem. They have an abundance problem similar to streaming and podcasting: More content expands consumer choice while making attention harder to capture.

The next phase will be defined by which titles break through — and who has enough leverage to profit when they do.

Read our full piece: An Under-the-Radar Audiobook Bubble Is Fueling a Fight for Listeners and Authors

What Is Puck’s $250 Million Valuation Really Measuring?

A reported $250 million valuation for Puck represents a striking vote of confidence in personality-driven subscription journalism. It is also difficult to evaluate without knowing what RedBird Capital Partners would receive.

RedBird is in talks to become Puck’s leading investor through an all-cash transaction that would allow existing institutional shareholders to sell their stakes while the company’s founders and journalists retain theirs. The investment firm is also a major backer of Paramount, giving it an expanding position across traditional and digital media.

But a valuation is not a purchase price. The figure does not reveal RedBird’s proposed investment, its prospective ownership stake or how much money would enter Puck rather than go to departing shareholders.

Puck has approximately 50,000 paying subscribers, according to Reuters, plus another 50,000 associated with its acquisition of Air Mail. But even those figures provide only a partial basis for assessing the valuation, which may also reflect advertising, events, intellectual property and expected growth. Puck has not disclosed its revenue or profitability, but is widely believed not to be profitable.

The premium may reflect confidence in Puck’s journalist-equity model. Its writers cultivate individual subscription franchises while holding a direct financial stake in the company’s growth, linking Puck’s value to both its talent and the audiences they attract.

Until the deal terms and financial performance become clearer, the valuation is best understood as a signal rather than a conclusion. It shows what RedBird and Puck may believe the business can become — not necessarily what shareholders would receive in the transaction.

From our full piece: Puck in Talks for $250 Million Investment From RedBird Capital Partners

When a Trade Publication Becomes Part of the Story

The dispute between UTA and Variety offers an unusually public look at the relationship between Hollywood institutions and the trade publications that cover them.

UTA CEO David Kramer accused Variety chief correspondent Matt Donnelly of threatening the agency and behaving unprofessionally toward its employees. His memo followed a critical Variety article detailing client departures and questions about UTA’s competitive position.

Kramer cited a May email in which Donnelly called UTA a “flagrant and hostile enemy” and a text warning of “consequences both from Variety/PMC and myself.” TheWrap has read the messages.

Variety stood by Donnelly and its reporting. A spokesperson said the comments emerged from a heated dispute over an on-the-record Cannes Q&A and that Donnelly regretted being drawn into the exchange.

The episode matters because entertainment trades operate inside the industries they scrutinize. They rely on agencies and studios for interviews, access and information while publishing stories those same institutions may view as damaging.

That dependence does not mean critical coverage is unfair. But language suggesting personal hostility gives the subject of a story an opportunity to challenge the reporter’s motives rather the reporting itself. Private frustration can therefore become evidence in a public campaign against a journalist or publication.

UTA’s allegations do not resolve whether Variety’s underlying story was accurate, and Variety’s defense does not make the messages irrelevant. The two questions should be evaluated separately.

That is the larger lesson. Trade journalism requires reporters to maintain professional distance not because the companies they cover deserve gentler treatment, but because hostile language can make the journalist part of the story — and potentially distract from the reporting that prompted the conflict.

Read our piece: UTA Says Top Variety Editor Threatened ‘Consequences,’ Called Agency a ‘Flagrant and Hostile Enemy’ in Email

This Week: How Large Is CNN’s FAST Audience?

According to figures provided by CNN, CNN Headlines’ average monthly time spent increased 176% year over year from January through July, while average monthly unique viewers rose 63%.

By those measures, the channel is growing quickly. But percentages do not reveal the absolute audience or viewing time behind them.

CNN previously said Headlines reached up to 30 million viewers per month. Reach, however, does not show how many people watch regularly, how long they stay or whether they are new to CNN.

I’ve been speaking with CNN and independent analysts about the channel’s audience, programming and advertising potential — and whether FAST represents a meaningful new business or primarily gives CNN another distribution outlet.

The question is not whether CNN Headlines is growing. It is what that growth amounts to.

Look for that story next week on TheWrap!

Also on TheWrap

From Jon Lafayette: “If Paramount Needs to Sell Networks, Who Would Buy?”

From Kayla Cobb: “Meta’s $18 Billion Settlement: A Wake-Up Call for Social Media or the Cost of Doing Business?”

From Stuart N. Brotman: “How Dolly Parton Used TV to Get Into America’s Living Rooms and Hearts | Appreciation”

On my radar

“Dems and GOP Squeeze TV Stations in Ad Rate War” (Andrew Solender, Axios)

“USA Today Co. Is reformatting Content to Attract More AI Licensing Deals” (Sara Guaglione, Digiday)

“ Bertelsmann Could Strike More Deals in Coming Months, CEO Says” (Cian Muenster and Klaus Lauer, Reuters)

The post The 2 Lindsay Clancy Trials: Inside the Social Media Firestorm appeared first on TheWrap.

Simon & Schuster released Jason Arday’s memoir on Aug. 11 in the U.S. amid mounting questions about parts of the extraordinary personal story at its center. Three days later, the 41-year-old former Cambridge professor was found dead at a south London property.

Arday’s death transformed an already contentious publishing story into a particularly difficult test for Simon & Schuster: How does a publisher stand behind a recently deceased author while addressing questions about factual claims included in his book?

The answer matters beyond one memoir. The controversy has exposed a gap most readers rarely see: Unlike many major magazines, book publishers do not universally subject nonfiction manuscripts to independent, line-by-line fact-checking — even though readers often interpret a major publisher’s imprint as a signal of credibility.

Arday’s story had obvious appeal. Diagnosed with autism and developmental delays as a child, he said he was nonverbal until age 11 and unable to read or write until 18. He later became the youngest Black professor appointed at Cambridge.

Simon & Schuster marketed “Great and Unfortunate Things” as an “inspiring underdog story” about overcoming profound obstacles.

Questions were raised about elements of Arday’s childhood, academic history, athletic accomplishments and charitable fundraising. He also faced allegations that portions of his academic work had been plagiarized.

Liverpool John Moores University, where Arday earned his doctorate, said an earlier review found no evidence of plagiarism. But academics continued to question the scope and rigor of that review after reports identified more than 100 passages in his thesis with similarities to an earlier dissertation. Cambridge was separately reviewing research-misconduct allegations and had announced a new investigation into Arday’s qualifications and career shortly before he resigned. Arday denied intentionally plagiarizing his work and said the accusations and public commentary had taken a profound toll on him and his family. After his death, his family said he had endured a “campaign of sustained abuse” and misinformation.

Simon & Schuster had publicly defended its author. Earlier this month, the company said it was “proud to publish” Arday, citing the professionalism and integrity he brought to the process. It also stressed that no plagiarism allegations had been made concerning the memoir itself.

That distinction matters. The plagiarism allegations involved Arday’s academic work, not claims that passages in the memoir had been copied. But some of the separate questions surrounding his personal history concern episodes included in the book, creating a different editorial issue.

I reported earlier this week that Simon & Schuster had not responded to questions about whether it was reassessing the memoir or had asked booksellers to pause additional orders. Follow-up calls to the publisher Friday also went unanswered. Ingram Content Group subsequently confirmed that the title remained available through its distribution system, while two independent bookstores said it could still be reordered.

Although the memoir reached No. 1 in two narrow Amazon biography subcategories, those rankings did not translate into bestseller-level sales. Circana BookScan recorded only 433 U.S. print copies sold from the book’s Aug. 11 release through Aug. 15, including tracked Amazon sales.

Continued availability does not establish that Simon & Schuster has dismissed the questions. The company could be examining them internally, and Arday’s death gives it legitimate reason to proceed carefully.

Publishing practices vary. Some presses incorporate verification into copy editing or commission separate fact-checks for certain nonfiction titles, while others place more responsibility on authors and legal review. The absence of a common standard means readers cannot determine from a publisher’s imprint alone how extensively a book’s claims were independently checked.

Memoirs pose an additional challenge because they rely on memory and an author’s personal perspective. A disputed detail does not necessarily invalidate an author’s larger story, and not every recollection can be independently verified.

Simon & Schuster may conclude that “Great and Unfortunate Things” requires no changes. It could determine that clarification or revisions are warranted in a future edition. Any decision will require balancing legitimate factual questions with fairness to Arday and his family.

That’s the promise at the heart of nonfiction publishing: When a major publisher puts its name on a book, readers expect they can trust what is inside. How Simon & Schuster handles the questions surrounding Arday’s memoir will help define what that promise is worth.

Continue reading this week’s Media Front column below, and if you want this as a newsletter directly to your inbox every Sunday, adjust the newsletter settings in your WrapPRO account.

ABC’s FCC Fight Moves to a Slower Track

Disney and ABC entered the week seeking an urgent court hearing in their fight against the FCC’s early review of eight ABC-owned television-station licenses. They ended it with a slower court timetable — but also an assurance that the regulator won’t act without warning.

U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan rejected Disney and ABC’s request to hold a hearing by Aug. 25 on their motion for a temporary restraining order. She instead set a briefing schedule extending through Sept. 24, with a hearing planned for early October.

The FCC also agreed to give Disney at least 48 hours’ notice before issuing an order referring the licenses for an administrative hearing. AliKhan said that if such an order is issued, the parties would appear in court the following day so she could consider whether temporary relief is warranted.

That doesn’t resolve the underlying dispute, but it reduces the immediate risk that the administrative process could advance without Disney having another opportunity to seek judicial intervention.

As Lucas Manfredi and I reported this week, legal experts believe ABC has a strong First Amendment argument. But procedural questions and potential appeals could leave the broadcaster operating under regulatory uncertainty for months.

The stakes extend beyond ABC. The case could help define how far the FCC may use its licensing authority against broadcasters whose journalism or programming draws political criticism — and where the First Amendment requires it to stop.

Read our full piece: Disney Takes on Trump: Can ABC Win Its First Amendment Suit Against the FCC?

Fox’s $1 Billion NFL Question

The NFL remains the closest thing television has to a guaranteed mass audience. For Fox, securing that audience beyond the league’s 2029 opt-out window could come at a much higher price.

Fox has decided to maintain its existing NFL agreement and pricing through the 2029 season rather than renegotiate early. Its contract runs through 2033, but the league has a one-time right to terminate the final four seasons.

The potential price tag of an extension helps explain Fox’s decision. If the NFL sought the roughly 50% increase reportedly discussed in other rights talks, a comparable jump would add approximately $1.1 billion to Fox’s annual NFL spending, according to Ampere Analysis.

That would be substantial for a company Ampere estimates will spend about $7 billion on all content this year, including roughly $4 billion on sports.

But the NFL’s value to Fox is difficult to overstate. Football delivers audiences that entertainment programming rarely reaches, strengthens the company’s advertising and distribution businesses and provides a promotional platform for the rest of its schedule.

That makes the NFL both one of Fox’s greatest advantages and a potential constraint on future spending. The question is not whether Fox values football enough to keep it. It’s what else Fox and other broadcasters may spend less on as must-have rights become more expensive.

Read our full piece: As NFL Costs Soar, Fox Faces a $1 Billion Sports Rights Question

The Ross Barkan Fallout Reaches His Book

The fallout from Ross Barkan’s attribution scandal has spread beyond New York magazine. Penguin Random House has suspended promotion and public sales of his forthcoming book about New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

“The Revolutionary: Zohran Mamdani and the Remaking of American Politics” had been scheduled for publication Oct. 6. The title has since disappeared from Penguin Random House’s website and listings at major booksellers.

The move follows New York’s decision to end Barkan’s column after an independent editorial review found that 67 of his pieces did not meet the magazine’s standards for properly attributing language, information or sourcing. The Nation is also reviewing work he contributed to that publication.

Barkan apologized Wednesday, saying the problems were not intentional but acknowledging that he had failed to cite other journalists aggressively enough and had sometimes paraphrased their reporting poorly. He said he would take time away to reflect on his practices.

Penguin Random House has not said whether the book will be revised, rescheduled or canceled. Neither the publisher nor Barkan responded to TheWrap’s requests for comment.

The suspension illustrates how quickly editorial failures can travel from one institution to another. The questions began with Barkan’s magazine columns, but the consequences now extend to a separate publisher, an unreleased book and the commercial future of his work.

From our full piece: Publisher Suspends Ross Barkan’s Zohran Mamdani Book After NY Mag Plagiarism Claims

Next Week: Are There Too Many Audiobooks?

The audiobook business is booming — but the number of titles competing for listeners is rising far faster than the revenue they generate.

Publishers reported more than 750,000 active audiobook titles in 2025, a 43% increase from the previous year, while U.S. audiobook sales revenue climbed just 9% to $2.43 billion, according to the Audio Publishers Association.

That widening gap is raising questions about discoverability and the economics of individual titles, even as consumer demand for audio remains strong.

I’ve been speaking with producers, agents and industry analysts about what is driving the influx, whether the market can sustain it and what it means for authors competing to be heard. I’m also seeking perspectives from major publishers and audiobook companies.

Look for that story this week on TheWrap!

Also on TheWrap

From Lucas Manfredi: “Charter Closes $34.5 Billion Cox Merger”

From Loree Seitz: “How Nielsen’s Measurement Fixes Aim to Smooth Over Gauge Contention”

From Umberto Gonzalez and Tess Patton: “Why Alex Cooper Left UTA for CAA”

On my radar

“ESPN Eyes More Social Content for Unlimited Experience” (Sara Fischer, Axios)

“YouTube Shorts Gains Ad Dollars but Needs to Crack Social Budgets” (Tim Peterson, Digiday)

“Australia Passes Law to Levy Tech Giants That Fail to Pay for Local News” (Christine Chen, Reuters)

The post Questions Surround Jason Arday’s Memoir After Author’s Tragic Death appeared first on TheWrap.

New York Magazine set out this week to document a cultural shift in its city. By Friday, choices about how to document that shift had become a media story of their own.

“Habibi City,” New York’s package on the growing cultural and political influence of New Yorkers with roots in the Middle East and North Africa, explored everything from restaurants and nightlife to comedy and politics. Its centerpiece described a community that has become more visible and interconnected in recent years, particularly amid the war in Gaza and the rise of Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

But much of the reaction focused less on the trend New York was documenting than on how the magazine framed it.

Those choices quickly became the focus of a broader media debate. The New York Post published multiple pieces attacking the package, while The Free Press published a response from Liel Leibovitz arguing that New York’s portrayal of the city and its Middle Eastern communities was fundamentally misguided. The Washington Free Beacon also weighed in repeatedly, including with a follow-up criticizing New York’s response to the controversy.

The reaction shows how quickly an ambitious piece of cultural journalism can turn the lens back on the publication itself and the editorial choices behind its portrayal.

New York defended its approach while acknowledging the criticism. In a statement to TheWrap, representatives from the magazine described the cover story as an exploration of a subculture “making its presence felt, both culturally and politically, in new ways,” and said any coverage of communities shaped by conflict carries an “irreducible political dimension.” The magazine said it sought to capture tensions within those communities, including their relationship to Israel, and that it was taking criticism from some in the Jewish community seriously.

There’s a larger editorial question underneath the fight. Magazines have always tried to identify cultural shifts before everyone else does. That requires making choices: deciding which people represent a movement, which experiences bind them together and which terminology best describes what’s happening. Those decisions can make a piece provocative and illuminating. They can also become the focus when readers believe the framing leaves something important out.

New York Magazine presented “Habibi City” as a portrait of a community finding greater cultural and political power in the city. Its critics saw something else: a portrait whose treatment of Israel and Jewish identity reflected an editorial point of view they believed deserved scrutiny.

The debate isn’t likely to settle the underlying disagreements about Israel, Zionism or identity. But it does demonstrate something about journalism in a polarized moment: Sometimes the framing isn’t merely the vehicle for telling the story.

It becomes part of the story itself.

Now, onto this week’s installment of The Media Front column. If you want this directly in your inbox every Sunday, check your WrapPRO settings.

Read my full piece: New York Mag Draws Ire for ‘Erased’ Jewish Identity in ‘Habibi City’ Feature on Mideast Communities

Matt Gutman’s Complicated CBS Moment

Matt Gutman has quickly become one of the most visible faces of the new CBS News. Since joining the network in January as Bari Weiss’ first major on-air hire, the former ABC News correspondent has landed roles across “60 Minutes” and “48 Hours,” covered major breaking stories and recently turned heads filling in for Tony Dokoupil on “CBS Evening News.”

That momentum now has an unexpected complication. Former ABC News producer Samira Said accused Gutman of sexual harassment in a lawsuit filed Friday against ABC News and Disney, alleging that he made inappropriate sexual comments while the two worked together. Gutman and CBS have not addressed the substance of the allegations, saying they had not yet reviewed the complaint.

The allegations date to Gutman’s time at ABC, where he spent nearly two decades before making the jump to CBS. His tenure there was not without controversy: ABC suspended him in 2020 over erroneous reporting following Kobe Bryant’s death and again in 2021 for violating the network’s COVID safety protocols. But the new allegations arrive as his profile at his new network has been moving in the opposite direction: up.

His recent “Evening News” stint only added to that momentum. With Gutman filling in for Dokoupil, the broadcast delivered its strongest weekly audience in 17 weeks, fueling some industry chatter about whether CBS had found an even bigger role for him. For a network still working to rebuild its flagship newscast — and for Weiss as she puts her stamp on the broader news division — Gutman was beginning to look like an early personnel win.

That makes the timing particularly awkward for CBS. The allegations have not been adjudicated, and the network has yet to address them beyond saying it needs to review the complaint. But they give CBS a new personnel issue to navigate just as one of Weiss’ earliest and most visible bets was beginning to pay off.

Read our full piece: Matt Gutman Accused of Harassment in Former ABC Producer’s Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

What Iger’s $12.5 Billion Lakers Bet Says About Sports

Bob Iger spent decades betting on entertainment franchises, Disney front and center. His latest investment suggests he sees another kind of franchise with enormous upside: the Los Angeles Lakers.

Iger and Thrive Capital founder Josh Kushner agreed this week to acquire the team from Mark Walter at a record $12.5 billion valuation, ESPN reported. That’s particularly striking because Walter only acquired control last year at a $10 billion valuation — and the NBA’s massive new media-rights agreements were already known then.

Sports business consultant Marc Ganis told us this week that the premium reflects, in part, the scarcity of an asset like the Lakers. There are only 30 NBA franchises, and very few combine the Lakers’ global fan base, Los Angeles market and cultural reach.

That’s worth watching as traditional entertainment becomes more fragmented. Live sports remain capable of assembling enormous audiences, while the best franchises increasingly operate as media, entertainment and consumer brands in their own right.

For Iger, who spent decades managing Disney’s most valuable franchises, the underlying proposition is one he’s embraced as a CEO: Buy something culturally irreplaceable and figure out how to make it even more valuable.

Read our full piece: How Bob Iger Bought the Lakers for $12.5 Billion

Janai Norman Turns the Lens on ABC News

Janai Norman has spent the past week doing something unusual for a recently departed network news anchor: publicly critiquing the journalism of her former newsroom.

The former “Good Morning America Weekend” host, whose ABC News contract was not renewed earlier this year, has posted a series of videos criticizing how ABC and other news organizations have covered the death of Mississippi teenager Nolan Wells. Her sharpest criticism was directed at “GMA” co-anchor Michael Strahan, arguing that he should have more aggressively challenged the account of the teenagers who were with Wells before his death.

But Norman’s criticism goes beyond one interview. She has questioned how news organizations cover stories involving race and accused ABC and other outlets of being “complicit in upholding white supremacy.” ABC, meanwhile, strongly defended Strahan, telling TheWrap it has “complete confidence in his editorial judgment, integrity and professionalism.”

It makes for an unusual public newsroom critique: a former anchor using the work of her onetime colleagues to make a broader argument about how television news practices journalism — putting debates that typically stay behind newsroom doors directly in front of viewers.

Read our full piece: Ex-‘GMA’ Anchor Janai Norman Takes Aim at ABC News Over ‘Insensitive’ Coverage

CNN Is Not for Sale, Paramount Says 

CNN spent another week at the center of the fight over Paramount’s $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery — including some confusion over whether David Ellison might ultimately be willing to part with the network.

Paramount chief legal officer Makan Delrahim suggested this week that divestitures could be considered as the company looks for a potential settlement with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is challenging the deal. That fueled speculation that CNN itself could be on the table.

But Paramount pushed back Thursday. A source with knowledge told TheWrap there was “zero truth” to the notion that Ellison was considering CNN as part of a settlement.

At the same time, Paramount has considered creating an independent oversight board at CNN to address concerns about the network’s editorial independence under Ellison’s ownership.

The back-and-forth underscores CNN’s unusual place in the deal: Paramount insists it wants the network, even as CNN remains at the center of many of the political and legal questions surrounding the merger.

Read the full piece: Paramount Unwilling to Sell CNN as Industry Pushes for Settlement Concessions

This Week: Why Fox Is Holding the Line on the NFL

Fox has made clear that it isn’t interested in reopening its NFL deal early, even as football has arguably never been more important to the company’s business.

I recently spoke with sports media executives and analysts about the economics behind Fox’s NFL relationship, how football fits into the company’s broader strategy and what could happen when the two sides eventually return to the negotiating table.

Look for that story this week on TheWrap!

Also on TheWrap

From Lucas Manfredi: “$34.5 Billion Charter-Cox Merger Approved by California Regulator“

From A.J. Katz: “Forbes Fired Top Editor Over Secret $6 Million Payment“

From Tess Patton: “Mark Zuckerberg Says AI May Shrink Companies — but Won’t Kill Jobs“

On my radar

“Meet the Media Industry’s Nerd-in-Chief” (Alexandra Bruell, Wall Street Journal)

“In TV Ad Market’s Swing to Streaming, Cheap Inventory Is in Demand” (Tim Peterson, Digiday)

“YouTube Now Requires Creators to Have Twice as Many Watch Hours to Start Earning Money” (Aisha Malik, TechCrunch)

The post New York Magazine’s ‘Habibi City’ Problem appeared first on TheWrap.

For much of the past decade, Hollywood’s biggest media companies were chasing versions of the same goal: Build a streaming service, add subscribers and reach enough scale to compete with Netflix.

This week’s earnings season offered perhaps the clearest evidence yet that the industry has moved on.

Streaming isn’t going away. In fact, after years of significant losses, it’s finally becoming a profitable business for some of Hollywood’s biggest players. But streaming increasingly looks less like the strategy itself and more like one piece of much broader — and very different — plans for growth.

Disney is looking to connect streaming to its broader consumer ecosystem. Warner Bros. Discovery is making a huge bet on consolidation through its proposed merger with Paramount. Fox is doubling down on sports, news and streaming through Tubi and its planned Roku acquisition. Newly independent Versant is building direct-to-consumer businesses around its strongest brands. And News Corp is looking for new ways to monetize — and protect — the value of its journalism in the AI era.

They largely agree on what’s going wrong. Linear TV continues to decline. Audiences and ad dollars are fragmenting. Consumers have more entertainment choices than ever. And streaming, despite its recent progress toward profitability, hasn’t simply replaced the economics of the cable bundle.

What the industry no longer agrees on is what comes next.

That’s a big change from the first phase of the streaming wars. Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, NBCUniversal and Paramount spent billions building subscription services as Netflix transformed how consumers watched television. Subscriber totals became a closely watched measure of success, and Wall Street rewarded companies that could promise enough streaming growth to offset deterioration elsewhere.

Now the strategies are starting to look a lot less alike.

Companies are building around what they believe gives them an edge, whether that’s a sprawling consumer ecosystem, greater scale, sports, established brands or valuable intellectual property.

The search isn’t limited to television. Publishers are looking outside traditional advertising and subscriptions for businesses built around the audiences they already have. AI is creating another potential market for journalism — provided publishers can convince technology companies that their content is worth paying for.

Streaming, meanwhile, isn’t disappearing from any of these strategies. It’s firmly established as a major distribution business and, increasingly, a profitable one.

It just didn’t produce a single replacement for the business model it disrupted.

The question now is which of these advantages actually translates into growth. Bigger isn’t necessarily better. Sports rights aren’t getting any cheaper. And launching a direct-to-consumer product is a lot easier than convincing consumers to pay for it.

There probably isn’t one answer. That’s what makes this next phase of the media business so different from the last one.

For years, the streaming wars pushed much of the industry toward the same destination. This week’s earnings showed companies starting to head in different directions.

Now we’ll find out which ones picked the right road. Read on for the rest of this week’s Media Front column, and to get this newsletter directly in your inbox on Sunday mornings, adjust your WrapPRO account settings here.

Scripps’ AI Revolution Comes With Fewer People

The revolution will be televised. It may just take far fewer people to produce it.

E.W. Scripps CEO Adam Symson used the word “revolution” during the company’s earnings call Friday to describe what’s happening inside the TV station group, 

Scripps says it has eliminated 432 positions and 126 open roles since the start of the year as part of a broader overhaul expected to generate $100 million in annualized savings.

The company is leaning into AI, automation, new technology and the centralization of some roles as it rethinks how its local newsrooms operate. Symson told analysts the goal is to turn Scripps into a “technology-forward, AI-powered broadcast journalism company.”

“We are not wavering on our commitment to quality journalism,” Symson said.

That’s the bet: Scripps believes it can dramatically lower the cost of producing local news without diminishing the product.

It’s a particularly important test for a local TV business already under pressure from cord-cutting, changing viewing habits and a declining linear advertising market. Scripps still sees local news as central to its future, including through a new 24-hour streaming news model. It just intends to produce that news with a very different cost structure.

AI is only part of the transformation. Scripps is also automating and centralizing some functions and changing how news is produced and distributed.

The question is whether viewers will notice.

If Scripps can maintain the quality and local connection of its newscasts while taking $100 million in costs out of the business, other station groups facing many of the same pressures will be paying attention.

That makes Scripps more than another local TV layoff story. It’s becoming a real-world test of how much technology can change the economics of local news without changing the journalism itself.

Read my full piece: E.W. Scripps to Become an ‘AI-Powered Broadcast Journalism Company’ After Sweeping Layoffs

News Corp Isn’t Fighting AI. It’s Fighting Free AI

News Corp CEO Robert Thomson delivered one of the week’s more colorful earnings call warnings when he argued that artificial intelligence risks leaving users “drowning in a slimy sea of AI slop” without high-quality journalism and other professionally produced content.

But News Corp isn’t rejecting AI.

It has content relationships with OpenAI and Meta and says it is in advanced discussions with other companies. At the same time, News Corp is pursuing legal action against companies it accuses of using its content without permission.

The dividing line isn’t necessarily AI versus journalism. It’s whether AI companies pay for the journalism their products depend on.

That distinction matters well beyond News Corp.

Publishers are confronting a technology that could become a new distribution channel, a source of licensing revenue and a competitor for audiences that historically arrived at their websites through search — all at the same time.

News Corp is betting that high-quality journalism becomes more valuable, not less, as AI-generated information proliferates. AI companies, after all, still need reliable material to make their products useful and trustworthy.

Whether that turns into a durable new revenue stream remains an open question. Licensing deals are still developing, and the legal boundaries around the use of copyrighted material by AI companies are being fought out in court.

But News Corp’s position isn’t especially complicated.

It’s willing to do business with AI. It just doesn’t think AI companies should get journalism for free.

My full piece: News Corp CEO Warns of ‘Slimy Sea of AI Slop,’ Threatens More Lawsuits

Coming Tuesday: Why Media Companies Are Betting Bigger on Live Events

Media companies looking for growth beyond traditional advertising and subscriptions are increasingly turning to a business that’s decidedly offline: live events.

Publishers and networks are expanding their events businesses, while advertisers are putting more money behind experiences that can bring brands face-to-face with highly targeted audiences.

There’s more to the strategy than filling a room. A successful event can generate sponsorship revenue, deepen relationships with audiences and create video, social and editorial content that lives well beyond the event itself.

I’ve spent the past week talking with media executives and industry experts about what’s driving the push — and whether live events can become a meaningful business rather than simply an extension of the media brands producing them.

Look for my full story Tuesday on TheWrap.

WaxWord: David Ellison Has a CNN Problem to Solve

David Ellison is finally talking publicly about the issue hanging over Paramount’s proposed $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery: CNN.

Ellison wrote this week that the question is whether he can be trusted as a steward of the cable news network and said Paramount remains open to finding an out-of-court resolution to the legal challenge threatening the merger.

But Sharon Waxman reports that another complication remains inside Paramount: CBS News editor in chief Bari Weiss.

Sources tell WaxWord that no decision has been made about whether CNN and CBS News would ultimately be combined. But if they are, the expectation is that Weiss would not lead the combined operation.

That leaves Ellison with a larger problem than simply winning regulatory approval.

If news is ultimately key to getting Paramount-WBD across the finish line, he still has to determine what a combined news operation would look like — and who could credibly run it.

Sharon Waxman’s full column: David Ellison Is Ready to Talk About CNN to Get His Deal Done — but Bari Weiss Muddies the Case

Also on TheWrap

From Lucas Manfredi: “FCC Killed the Broadcast TV Ownership Cap. Will Local Stations Get Gobbled Up?“

From Lucas Manfredi : “Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger Cleared by UK Competition and Markets Authority“

From Loree Seitz: “Summer Ratings Trend: How Communal TV Watching Made a Comeback“

On my radar

“Judge signals Trump’s defamation lawsuit against Wall Street Journal may be dismissed again” (Jeremy Barr, The Guardian)

“Fox Appears to Block NFL’s Effort to Re-Do Massive Rights Deal” (Brian Steinberg, Variety)

“Inside the Oval Office Showdown Between Trump and Jeanine Pirro” (Tyler Pager, Glenn Thrush and Katie Rogers, The New York Times)

The post Where the Media Business Is Going appeared first on TheWrap.

The names are new. The questions hanging over “60 Minutes” aren’t.

Nick Bilton, just two months in as executive producer, this week introduced Ross Douthat, Sebastian Junger, Gianna Toboni and Trevor Phillips as the newest correspondents on television’s most influential newsmagazine. On paper, they’re personnel announcements. Inside the television business, they’re being viewed as something much larger: the first major editorial decisions of the post-Bill Owens era — and the first public indication of where Bari Weiss intends to take CBS News’ flagship franchise.

The hires matter because they represent the first true test of the network’s new leadership.

Conversations with multiple people close to CBS News suggest “60 Minutes” has become the place where Weiss’ vision for the news division will ultimately be judged. If the organization is entering a new editorial era, executives, competitors and journalists alike believe the clearest evidence won’t emerge on weekday broadcasts. It’ll appear on Sunday nights.

“60 Minutes” remains one of television’s most successful and trusted news brands, attracting millions of viewers while maintaining something increasingly rare in modern media: institutional credibility. Audiences don’t simply watch “60 Minutes” for who’s on camera. They watch because they trust what the brand represents.

The challenge isn’t replacing correspondents or introducing new storytelling techniques. It’s proving the program can evolve without weakening the editorial standards and institutional trust that have defined it for nearly six decades. If the transition succeeds, CBS News will have demonstrated that even one of journalism’s most established franchises can modernize without sacrificing its identity. If it fails, every future editorial decision — from correspondent hires to story selection — will be viewed through the lens of whether leadership tampered with the one franchise that didn’t need fixing.

One veteran TV news executive described “60 Minutes” as an institution whose editorial culture has been built over generations. Leadership can influence hiring, story selection and editorial priorities, the executive said, but credibility isn’t inherited with a new executive producer. It’s earned over time — and only if viewers continue believing the journalism comes first.

Bilton’s first correspondent class reflects a broader definition of who belongs on “60 Minutes.” Douthat arrives as one of America’s best-known opinion columnists. Junger built his reputation through books and documentaries. Toboni comes from Vice News’ investigative tradition. Phillips spent decades covering international affairs for British television. Former “CBS Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell also assumes an expanded reporting role.

Former correspondent Cecilia Vega has publicly discussed editorial disagreements inside the broadcast. Scott Pelley leveled damning charges about editorial interference. Owens is gone. Anderson Cooper has departed. Against that backdrop, every personnel move is now being scrutinized for clues about where the program is headed.

The network has maintained that “60 Minutes” remains committed to the journalism that built its reputation, while Bilton has emphasized continuity even as he talks about reaching new audiences and embracing new forms of storytelling.

Those goals aren’t necessarily incompatible. But institutions like “60 Minutes” rarely reinvent themselves overnight. They evolve carefully because audiences trust the brand as much as the people who deliver the stories.

The new correspondents are news. What follows may determine something much larger: whether CBS News can guide television’s most prestigious news franchise into a new era without diminishing the credibility that made it indispensable in the first place.

Now, on to the rest of this week’s Media Front column. If you want this newsletter directly to your inbox every Sunday morning, check your WrapPRO newsletter settings.

How TikTok Is Rewiring Local TV News

For years, local TV stations treated TikTok as an afterthought — a place to recycle clips once the evening newscast was over.

That mindset is rapidly changing.

As I reported this week, broadcasters across the country are increasingly reorganizing newsroom workflows around the short-form video platform, reflecting a broader realization that younger audiences aren’t simply watching news differently. They’re discovering it differently, too.

Instead of treating TikTok as another distribution channel, many stations are beginning to incorporate the platform into the editorial process itself. Reporters are being asked to produce vertical video alongside traditional television packages. Newsrooms are creating platform-specific explainers and behind-the-scenes content. Some station groups have even assembled dedicated teams focused on short-form video strategy.

The objective isn’t simply generating viral moments. It’s reaching viewers who may never tune into the 6 p.m. newscast but still want reliable local journalism delivered in the format they use most.

That’s a notable evolution for an industry that spent much of the past decade viewing digital platforms primarily as places to distribute journalism after it had already been produced.

Now, that doesn’t mean local newsrooms are abandoning traditional reporting standards. If anything, station executives argue the opposite: the reporting remains the same, but the storytelling has to evolve if broadcasters hope to remain relevant with the next generation of viewers.

That’s a far more consequential shift than simply adding another social media account.

My full piece: Verified, Vertical: How Local TV Is Tapping TikTok to Fight for Gen Z’s Attention

ABC Presses Its Case Against the FCC

ABC is taking its fight with the Federal Communications Commission to the next level. The Disney-owned broadcaster this week filed a 109-page opposition urging the agency to reject challenges to the early renewal of its owned-and-operated television station licenses, arguing the proceeding has drifted far beyond routine broadcast oversight and into an attempt to pressure the network over its journalism.

The filing is the company’s most comprehensive pushback yet against FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, whose scrutiny of Disney’s broadcast licenses has become one of the most closely watched regulatory battles in the media industry. ABC argues the commission is misusing the license renewal process in a way that threatens not only the company, but the broader principle of editorial independence.

Among the network’s arguments: more than 150,000 public comments have been submitted in the proceeding, with the overwhelming majority supporting license renewal, alongside hundreds of local organizations, elected officials and community groups. ABC also contends the FCC has received no credible evidence that would justify departing from the commission’s longstanding practice of routinely renewing broadcast licenses.

The stakes extend well beyond Disney. Press freedom organizations and First Amendment advocates have increasingly warned that using broadcast licensing as leverage against editorial decisions could establish a precedent with implications across the television industry. ABC echoed that concern, arguing the commission’s approach risks chilling news organizations that depend on government-issued broadcast licenses.

The FCC is expected to decide in the coming days whether to dismiss the challenges or move the proceeding toward a formal hearing. Either outcome is likely to shape the next phase of an increasingly high-profile confrontation between Washington regulators and one of the country’s largest media companies—and could provide an early indication of how aggressively the commission intends to wield its authority over broadcasters going forward.

Check out Tess Patton’s full piece: ABC Calls on FCC to Dismiss Early Renewal License Review: ‘Untimely and Unwarranted’

Washington Post’s Opinion Column Enters Yet Another Chapter

Adam O’Neal’s departure after just one year as The Washington Post’s opinion editor marks another turning point in owner Jeff Bezos’ still-unfinished effort to remake one of American journalism’s most influential opinion pages. O’Neal announced Friday that he’ll step down Aug. 31, bringing an abrupt end to a tenure defined less by day-to-day editing than by executing Bezos’ directive to refocus the section around “personal liberties and free markets.”

O’Neal inherited a role that had already become one of the most closely watched jobs in media after former opinion editor David Shipley exited rather than lead Bezos’ new editorial vision. Over the past year, that transformation extended beyond philosophy to personnel, with buyouts, staff departures and a broader reshaping of the section’s identity—all unfolding against wider upheaval at the newspaper.

In a memo to staff, O’Neal said the section had become “more relevant, accessible and consequential” during his tenure and pointed to audience and subscription gains. Acting publisher Jeff D’Onofrio praised his work, saying Post Opinions had become “more balanced in perspective, more financially sustainable and more accessible to readers than ever before,” while indicating leadership transition plans will be announced in the coming weeks.

The larger question now isn’t simply who replaces O’Neal. It’s whether Bezos’ opinion strategy has reached a stable endpoint or remains a work in progress. Since first announcing his vision for the section, the billionaire owner has overseen a succession of high-profile leadership changes and editorial controversies. O’Neal’s exit adds another leadership change to that ongoing experiment — and raises fresh questions about where the Post’s ideological and business strategy goes next.

My piece here: Washington Post Opinion Editor Adam O’Neal to Step Down After One Year

Also on TheWrap

From Tess Patton: “Disney to Sell 50% Stake in A+E Media to Hearst in All-Cash, Billion-Dollar Deal“

From Lucas Manfredi: “Paramount-WBD: Block the Merger Coalition Members Urge UK Culture Secretary to Intervene“

From me: “Tony Romo Placed on Leave at CBS Sports After DUI Arrest“

The post The New ‘60 Minutes’: Bari Weiss’ Shakeup Is a Bellwether for Her CBS Strategy appeared first on TheWrap.

It may certainly be that.

But it also looks like something else: a political battle dressed up as an antitrust lawsuit. Bonta, who held his press conference outdoors with the iconic Hollywood sign as a backdrop, warned that the lawsuit needed to be “a check on billionaires,” hailed the need for “affordability” in jobs and said antitrust was a “check on a president trying to hand-pick winners and losers.” This was hardly a legal case.

When asked whether the lawsuit was politically motivated because it was brought solely by Democratic attorneys general, Bonta rejected the premise of the question, saying his office pursues antitrust cases “based on the facts and the law,” not politics. He noted previous merger challenges involving Ticketmaster-Live Nation and Nexstar-Tegna drew bipartisan support and said Republican attorneys general remain welcome to join the case.

And it’s not to say the case isn’t sound. Twelve (all Democrat) attorneys general undoubtedly believe there may be legitimate competitive concerns, and states certainly have the right to challenge mergers under federal and state law. But believing a merger raises concerns is different from a case having a realistic chance of convincing a federal judge to stop it from happening.

Analysts at the research firm Washington Analysis concluded the attorneys general had pleaded “a viable case,” but said the complaint was “light on evidence,” adding that future court filings would be more revealing in assessing the strength of the states’ claims.

That’s where the states’ case begins to look less like a potential courtroom victory and more like an attempt to draw a sharp contrast with the Trump administration.

After all, Trump’s Justice Department already conducted its own review of the proposed merger and chose not to sue (even if the approval had its own share of controversy). While federal approval doesn’t prevent states from bringing their own legal challenge, it does leave them trying to persuade a judge that Washington got one of the biggest media mergers ever totally wrong.

While not without precedent (just look at the failed Kroger-Albertsons merger), it’s still a steep hill to climb.

For his part, Bonta pointed to his track record. “We have won over 80% of the time,” he said. “We bring cases when we think we will win, and we think the facts and the law are on our side.”

The Paramount acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery has always been mired in politics. With billionaire owner Larry Ellison looming as a right-wing bogeyman controlling far too many assets in media and entertainment than most people are comfortable with — including CNN, CBS News, the U.S. version of TikTok and two legacy Hollywood studios — politics is on everyone’s mind. And with Trump’s constant meddling in what should have been a hands-off business transaction, the political pushback on the left is understandable.

But Paramount’s central argument — that greater scale is necessary to compete against mega brands like Disney and Netflix, not to mention giants like Google (YouTube) and Amazon — isn’t just an easy talking point. It’s the same argument that has driven years of consolidation across the media industry.

This coalition of 12 states, on the other hand, is asking the court to focus on the shrinking number of Hollywood studios that are capable of producing films and TV programming. From a layperson’s standpoint, this seems like a coherent legal theory, but one that might feel increasingly disconnected from how audiences are consuming media in 2026. Raising the specter of Paramount controlling “half of cable” is not the threat Bonta might think.

Still, litigation can delay a merger. It can be expensive, especially with a self-imposed “ticking fee” Paramount must pay if the deal goes beyond Sept. 30. It can also create uncertainty for staffers, and if the states actually succeed in slowing the deal, they may accomplish part of what they set out to do even if they don’t end up winning.

But a delay is not a win.

The lawsuit’s greatest significance may ultimately be political rather than legal. Democratic attorneys general are able to signal a more aggressive approach to corporate consolidation than the conservative Trump administration is.

That’s a political move. Voters elect attorneys general not only to enforce the law but also to shape which matters should be enforced (seven of them are up for re-election later this year).

Still, if the question is whether this particular lawsuit is built to win — or built to make a political point — the evidence today points more toward the latter.

The post California’s Paramount Lawsuit Looks More Like Politics Than a Winning Legal Strategy | Analysis appeared first on TheWrap.

Let’s dive right in.

As the 2026 FIFA World Cup approaches its conclusion, one of the tournament’s biggest winners isn’t a national team — it’s Telemundo.

The NBCUniversal-owned Spanish language network has delivered record audiences across linear television, Peacock and digital platforms, turning soccer’s biggest global event into a showcase for Telemundo’s growing influence in the U.S. media business. But focusing solely on Nielsen ratings misses the larger story unfolding.

This World Cup has underscored how U.S. Hispanic audiences have evolved from an important demographic into one of the industry’s most consequential growth engines. That shift is changing how advertisers, networks and streaming platforms think about sports rights, audience strategy and the future of television itself.

For years, Spanish language TV was treated as a complementary or even niche media buy. That thinking has finally started to evolve, and this tournament may prove to be one of the clearest demonstrations yet of why.

Telemundo entered the World Cup with momentum, and it exits with something more valuable: evidence that Spanish language media can deliver massive, engaged audiences across linear and streaming all at once. In an era when TV executives spend much of their time discussing audience fragmentation, the World Cup has shown that shared viewing experiences still exist—and Hispanic audiences are increasingly at the center.

Another notable takeaway is that Telemundo’s audience isn’t limited to Spanish speakers. More English-speaking viewers have embraced the network’s broadcasts this tournament, drawn by the energy of the presentation (think: Andrés Cantor’s legendary “GOOOOAL” call) and the style of the coverage. This has expanded the network’s reach beyond its traditional audience and challenged long-held assumptions about who really watches Spanish language television.

The tournament also shows how live sports continue to dominate broader media strategies. Every major network wants sports rights because they drive real-time viewing, significant advertising revenue and subscriber engagement. For NBCUniversal and Telemundo, the World Cup has done all three. It has strengthened Telemundo’s position in the media landscape, helped Peacock and reinforced the company’s multilingual sports strategy at a time when competition for high-profile sports rights has never been more fierce.

There seems to be an advertising lesson here as well. U.S. Hispanics represent one of the country’s fastest-growing audiences, and marketers increasingly view them as central—not supplemental—to national campaigns. The media companies that can reach those viewers in an authentic way stand to benefit well beyond a single FIFA World Cup.

The World Cup trophy will be awarded next weekend, but the business implications could linger long after the final whistle. For Telemundo, the 2026 FIFA World Cup wasn’t simply a ratings win. It was a statement about where the television business is likely heading.

Check out my full piece: The World Cup Is Cementing Telemundo as a Media Powerhouse

Follow me on social! And if you’d like this newsletter directed in your inbox every Sunday, check your WrapPRO subscription settings.

Trump Escalates His Fight With the Media

One of the week’s biggest media stories came Friday night, when the Trump administration subpoenaed four New York Times reporters to testify before a federal grand jury over the newspaper’s reporting on security concerns involving President Trump’s Qatari-donated Air Force One. According to the Times, federal agents delivered subpoenas directly to reporters’ homes—a move the paper condemned as a blatant attempt to intimidate journalists.

This confrontation reaches beyond a single story. While investigations into leaks are not out of the ordinary when it comes to Washington, efforts to force reporters to testify are rare and inevitably reignite debates over the use of confidential sources, press freedom and the government’s ability to investigate national security disclosures without chilling newsgathering and freedom of speech more broadly. The episode also marks another escalation in the Trump administration’s increasingly combative relationship with the news media.

The Department of Justice said the reporters “are not the targets” of its investigation, which it said is focused on identifying the source of the leak. Regardless of how this legal battle unfolds, the subpoenas are likely to become a defining press-freedom story in the months ahead—and one that news organizations across the industry will be watching very closely.

Check out our coverage: Trump Admin Subpoenas New York Times Journalists for Reporting on Air Force One Security

CNN’s Future Becomes Biggest Question Hanging Over News Industry

Even with the World Cup dominating television screens, the week’s biggest television news business conversation centered on CNN and what the network could look like under new ownership once Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery is finalized.

Reports that CNN CEO Mark Thompson privately warned against “messing” with the network underscored the uncertainty facing one of television’s most recognizable news brands. While company executives have publicly emphasized continuity, employees continue to speculate about possible programming changes, cost cuts and how CNN will fit into the broader Paramount portfolio.

Whatever ultimately happens, the episode is a reminder that media companies are still trying to balance two competing realities: preserving legacy news brands while adapting them for a streaming-first future. CNN’s next chapter will be one of the industry’s biggest stories for the rest of the year.

Read our piece: CNN CEO Mark Thompson Thinks ‘Messing’ With Network Would Be a Mistake

How the Graham Platner Story Became One About Journalism 

As allegations against Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner continued to reshape the Democratic Senate race (and led to his formal withdrawal on Friday), another conversation emerged alongside the political fallout: how the news media covered the story. Questions about sourcing, timing, partisanship and editorial judgment became part of the news cycle itself, illustrating how journalism can become a subject of scrutiny along with the subjects that are covered.

A prime example came earlier this week when Platner accuser Lyndsey Fifield took to X to state she believes The New York Times’ earlier reporting contributed to Democratic leaders initially brushing aside her allegations. Fifield further argued that the Times’ characterization of its reporting influenced how her claims were perceived by the public, adding yet another layer to what was already a complex story.

The episode served as a reminder that major political stories don’t necessarily end with the initial headline. They can evolve through more reporting, competing narratives and accountability from the public — not only for politicians who are covered, but for the news organizations that cover them. This week, the conversation wasn’t just about the allegations against Graham Platner that would eventually lead to his demise. It was also about political journalism itself.

Check out my full piece: Graham Platner Accuser Says NYT Reporting Led to Initial Abuse Claims Not Being Taken Seriously: ‘By Design’

And check my video discussion with TheWrap Editor-in-Chief Sharon Waxman about this story.

Sharon Waxman Reflects on Journalism and America’s Promise

Speaking of Waxman, she marked Independence Day with an insightful “WaxWord” piece examining the role of journalism at a time when trust in institutions continues to decline. Rather than focusing on the daily political back-and-forth, Waxman steps back to ask what a free press should owe its readers — and why it matters as much today as ever.

Waxman writes, “This administration’s assault on journalism is well documented. Less well examined is the broader picture of how our journalistic institutions are being eroded.” She goes on to argue that rebuilding trust begins not with louder opinions, but with rigorous, fact-based reporting that appropriately serves the public.

It’s a fitting read for the July 4th holiday, America’s 250th anniversary—and a reminder that amid the firehose of headlines we encounter each day, journalism’s most important responsibility remains the same: to gather the facts, to hold those in power to account and earn trust every day.

Waxman’s full piece: Happy Independence: Why News-Gathering Matters in an Era of Low Trust

The post The Media Front Returns With Telemundo’s World Cup Moment appeared first on TheWrap.

There was the tattoo Platner got in 2007 that had Nazi connotations — which he claimed he was not aware of at the time and later covered over — and derogatory posts years back on Reddit, ranging from speaking dismissively about sexual assault to using homophobic slurs. Though Platner apologized, the ugly comments spilled out publicly as Janet Mills, a popular governor and the establishment’s pick, entered a crucial Senate primary in an election that could tip the balance of power in Congress. 

“Ten, fifteen, even five years ago, I don’t have any doubt that he would’ve just been totally nuked by that out of the gate,” said Alex Seitz-Wald, deputy editor of Maine’s Midcoast Villager, who added that Platner would have become a “cautionary tale about why you don’t get excited about no-name viral candidates who are oyster farmers and have no political experience.”

With Mills dropping out of the race, I rang Seitz-Wald, who spent a decade covering national politics at NBC News before joining a local Maine paper. We discussed the Platner phenomenon, the pivotal role of local news, and how modern, media savvy candidates under attack can “post through it.” 

In October, Seitz-Wald reported how Platner voters didn’t seem to be wavering even as he was awash in negative headlines: “Every day on my drive to work, I check if the Graham Platner yard signs are still there from the day before. They’re all still up. And every day for the past week, I’ve tried to find a voter who supported Platner but have since abandoned him — haven’t found any yet.”

Seitz-Wald said he expected “a kind of reckoning or recalculation” about Platner, and recalled talking to people about the race everywhere – at a PTA carnival, the general store, the post office — and checked in with others he’d met at rallies. “For me personally, that was a very eye-opening moment,” he said. “I had spent 15 years covering national politics from DC and being the one who parachutes into these races all over the country and tries my best to understand what’s going on.”

While Seitz-Wald praised the work of his colleagues in New York and Washington, he said “we need people embedded in communities across the country to really understand what’s going on in them.”

In discussing Platner’s campaign I was reminded of a piece I wrote last year on “Zohran Mamdani’s flood-the-zone media strategy.” Mamdani and Platner share a 26-year-old media consultant, Morris Katz, and similarly gained the endorsement of Sanders and backing from the progressive left. They both weathered controversies over past comments and associations by addressing them directly in media appearances, while generating their own viral content, and campaigning relentlessly with a focus on the billionaire class. 

As I wrote then, “Mamdani has stayed consistent in his economic message this past year while vastly expanding his media reach, becoming not only the main character in a local mayoral race, but an emerging player on the national stage.” Swap a few words and you’ve got Platner’s candidacy. 

“If this were the peak-woke era, I think he totally would’ve been canceled by the left. And if this was the pre-Donald Trump era, I think he would’ve been canceled by everyone because it’s just not at all allowable,” Seitz-Wald said. “Instead, I think there’s just now this hunger for authenticity and realness and also just the [desensitization] to candidates doing weird things, mainly because of Donald Trump, but also just we have millennials and Gen Z people who — everyone had embarrassing things in their past, but now it’s all documented and online.”

Seitz-Wald said that Mills, 78, ran a “very pre-internet” campaign, focused more on small, private functions, engaging with legacy media and maintaining establishment support. Meanwhile, he said, Platner’s campaign was “totally optimized for the internet,” saying “‘yes’ to every interview request, going on every podcast.” This strategy, he said, helped “inoculate him” against the scandal, as clips spread of Platner addressing controversies everywhere from cable news to “Pod Save America” to comedian Tim Heidecker’s “Office Hours Live.” Platner, he said, “totally flooded the zone in a way that she didn’t.”

From Trump, who proved skilled in 2016 at hijacking the news cycle against staid Republican rivals, and now communicates as president in unprecedented ways — like regularly taking calls from reporters — to Mamdani and Platner, risk-averse and conventional modes of campaigning appear out of step in today’s fractured media environment. 

Or, as Seitz-Wald put it: “In an attention economy, you’re not just competing against your other opponents, but you’re competing against Netflix and TikTok and all the things competing for people’s attention. So if you’re just a boring person in a suit reading white papers, no one cares. They might show up and vote for you [out] of a sense of obligation or whatever, but if you’re trying to actually touch people, energize people, you have to be interesting.”

FCC targets Disney

The president of the United States is – once again – calling for late-night host Jimmy Kimmel to be fired over a joke, as the FCC launches an early review of Disney’s eight ABC broadcast licenses. 

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who bragged in March about Donald Trump ”winning” his fight against the “fake news media,” said on Thursday that the White House did not pressure him to launch the review, which he said stemmed from Disney’s diversity initiatives. 

As Corbin Bolies writes, Carr said Disney would have to “come in and demonstrate that they’ve been operating in the public interest,” indicating the early review could rope in the Kimmel matter as the FCC looks at ABC’s licenses.

Despite campaigning in support of “free speech,” conservative media and GOP have largely stayed silent. Texas’ Ted Cruz has been an exception, saying: “It is not government’s job to censor speech, and I do not believe the FCC should operate as the speech police.”

Kayla Cobb and Jose Alejandro Bastidas zoom out: Jimmy Kimmel’s Latest Flap Gives New Disney Boss Josh D’Amaro His Next Big Stress Test | Analysis

Dokoupil’s dismal start

Tony Dokoupil has steered “CBS Evening News” for 16 weeks now. But as the show’s ratings continue to decline, it appears he’s captaining a ship fighting an impossible current.

The Dokoupil-led “Evening News” hit its lowest-rated month in total viewers since the anchor took over, averaging less than 3.9 million viewers throughout April. In the advertiser-coveted 25-54 age demographic, the show is averaging 497,000 viewers, its lowest April in the demo this century. But the show is up 2% in total viewers from April 2025, which remains its lowest-rated April in total viewers this century. 

The numbers reflect a dismal start to Dokoupil’s second quarter in the anchor chair, raising questions over whether his stewardship can turn around the perennially third-place program. The show averaged 4.279 million viewers in its first quarter, down 7% from the same period last year, while its 25-54 audience was at 535,000 viewers, down nearly 20%.

Check out Bolies’ full piece: Tony Dokoupil’s ‘CBS Evening News’ Era Keeps Hemorrhaging Viewers to Record Lows | Chart

Press freedom under threat

The U.S. fell seven spots to 64th place in Reporters Without Borders‘ 2026 World Press Freedom Index as the organization found that President Donald Trump “has turned his repeated attacks on the press and journalists into a systematic policy.”

The organization, which surveys press freedom in 180 countries and territories every year, claimed that Trump’s “weaponization of state institutions” — through his push to defund federally funded news organizations such as NPR and PBS, his input on corporate media mergers and his calls to arrest journalists — place an additional burden on “journalists who were already fighting against economic headwinds and dealing with a crisis of public trust.”

“Since his return to office, journalists have also been targeted on the ground during protests, reflecting a broader deterioration that amounts to one of the most severe crises for press freedom in modern US history,” the organization wrote.

Bolies’ full piece: US Drops 7 Spots in Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Report

Meanwhile: Trump Says New York Times, CNN Are ‘Seditious’ for Iran Reporting in Latest News Media Attack | Video

Also on TheWrap

Barry Diller’s IAC to Cut Staff, Rebrand to People Incorporated

CBS News Hires Shayndi Raice as Foreign Editor After Ousting London Bureau Chief

Alex Jones Claims ‘Massive Victory’ as Court Pauses The Onion’s Infowars Takeover | Video

On my radar

“AOC’s hide-and-seek strategy with the press” (Alex Thompson and Holly Otterbein, Axios)

“60 Minutes journalist decries ‘spread of corporate meddling and editorial fear’ at CBS News (Jeremy Barr, The Guardian)

“The WCHD Do-Over Dilemma” (Oliver Darcy, Status)

Finally: This will be my last edition of “The Media Front,” which will be on hold for now. Thanks very much for reading! 

The post The Media Front: Graham Platner and ‘Post Through It’ Politics appeared first on TheWrap.