ReportWire

Tag: iab-media industry

  • Harvey Weinstein is convicted of 3 of 7 charges, including rape, in his Los Angeles sexual assault trial | CNN

    Harvey Weinstein is convicted of 3 of 7 charges, including rape, in his Los Angeles sexual assault trial | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was found guilty Monday of rape and sexual assault against one of four women he was accused of assaulting in Los Angeles – a significant conviction in the second trial of a man at the center of allegations that fueled the global #MeToo movement.

    Weinstein, who prosecutors said used his Hollywood influence to lure women into private meetings and assault them, was found guilty of three of seven charges against him.

    After weeks of emotional testimony and 10 days of deliberations, jurors in Los Angeles also acquitted Weinstein of one count of sexual battery by restraint against a massage therapist in a hotel room in 2010. They were a hung jury on one count of sexual battery by restraint, one count of forcible oral copulation and one count of rape related to two other women – including Jennifer Siebel Newsom, a filmmaker and first partner to California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    The three charges Weinstein was convicted of – rape, sexual penetration by foreign object and forcible oral copulation – were all tied to one of his accusers, a model and actress who testified the movie mogul assaulted her in a Beverly Hills hotel room in February 2013.

    The woman, identified as Jane Doe 1 in court, was the first to testify in the trial.

    “Harvey Weinstein forever destroyed a part of me that night in 2013. I will never get that back. The criminal trial was brutal. Weinstein’s lawyers put me through hell on the witness stand. But I knew I had to see this through the end, and I did… I hope Harvey Weinstein never sees the outside of a prison cell during his lifetime,” Jane Doe 1 said in a statement released through her attorney.

    Weinstein had pleaded not guilty to all seven charges against him.

    “Harvey is obviously disappointed, however hopefully because with this particular accuser there are good ground to appeal based on time and location of alleged events,” Weinstein’s spokesperson Juda Engelmayer said in a statement. “He is grateful the jury took their time to deliberate on the other counts and he is prepared to continue fighting for his innocence.”

    Weinstein faces a possible sentence of 24 years in prison for the Los Angeles conviction, according to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. The once-powerful film producer is already serving a 23-year sentence for a 2020 New York rape conviction.

    Jurors will return to court Tuesday to consider aggravating factors to help determine the outcome of Weinstein’s sentencing hearing, according to the DA’s office.

    The District Attorney’s office will meet to determine whether to retry the counts on which the jury could not agree, officials said.

    Elizabeth Fegan, an attorney representing Siebel Newsom, who was identified in court as Jane Doe 4, said they were disappointed the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the charges related to her client.

    “Harvey Weinstein will never be able to rape another woman. He will spend the rest of his life behind bars where he belongs. Harvey Weinstein is a serial predator and what he did was rape,” Siebel Newsom said in a statement. “Throughout the trial, Weinstein’s lawyers used sexism, misogyny, and bullying tactics to intimidate, demean, and ridicule us survivors. This trial was a stark reminder that we as a society have work to do. To all survivors out there – I see you, I hear you, and I stand with you.”

    Gov. Newsom also released a statement, saying, “I am so incredibly proud of my wife and all the brave women who came forward to share their truth and uplift countless survivors who cannot. Their strength, courage and conviction is a powerful example and inspiration to all of us. We must keep fighting to ensure that survivors are supported and that their voices are heard.”

    The Los Angeles jury reached its verdict after deliberating for a total of 41 hours – longer than the New York jury in Weinstein’s first criminal trial, in which he was convicted of criminal sex act and third-degree rape after 26 hours of deliberations. His attorneys have appealed that conviction, which put more attention on the outcome of the trial in Los Angeles.

    Jane Doe 2, who was identified as Lauren Young, told her attorney Gloria Allred by phone she was happy Weinstein was convicted on some counts despite there being a mistrial on her count, Allred said in a news conference after the verdict.

    “I am relieved that Harvey Weinstein has been convicted because he deserves to be punished for the crimes that he committed, and he can no longer use his power to intimidate and sexually assault more women,” Young said in a statement read by Allred.

    The weekslong trial saw emotional testimony from Weinstein’s accusers – a model, a dancer, a massage therapist and Siebel Newsom – all of whom were asked to recount the details of their allegations against him, provide details of meetings with the producer from years ago, and explain their reactions to the alleged assaults.

    Weinstein initially faced 11 charges, but four counts connected to an unnamed woman were dropped without explanation. She did not testify in the trial.

    In closing arguments, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Marlene Martinez called Weinstein a “titan” who used his power in Hollywood to prey on and silence women.

    “Rapists rape. You can look at the pattern,” fellow prosecutor Paul Thompson told jurors.

    Meanwhile, Weinstein’s attorneys maintained the allegations were either fabricated or occurred consensually as part of a “transactional relationship” with the movie producer, repeatedly saying there is no evidence of assault.

    Defense attorney Alan Jackson called the accusers “fame and fortune seekers.”

    The trial in Los Angeles also included testimony from other witnesses, including experts, law enforcement, friends of accusers and former aides to Weinstein.

    Additionally, four women testified they were subjected to similar behavior by Weinstein in other jurisdictions.

    Each morning at trial, Weinstein was brought from a correctional facility and wheeled into the Los Angeles courtroom wearing a suit and tie and holding a composition notebook.

    His accusers all began their oftentimes emotional testimonies by identifying him in the courtroom as he looked on.

    “He’s wearing a suit, and a blue tie and he’s staring at me,” Siebel Newsom said last month, before what was one of the most emotional moments of the trial. She testified Weinstein raped her in a hotel room in 2005.

    During the trial, defense attorney Jackson asked jurors if they could “accept what (the Jane Does) say as gospel,” arguing what they said was a lack of forensic evidence supporting their claim.

    “Five words that sum up the entirety of the prosecution’s case: ‘Take my word for it,’” Jackson said. “‘Take my word for it that he showed up at my hotel room unannounced. Take my word for it that I showed up at his hotel room. Take my word for it that I didn’t consent. Take my word for it, that I said no.’ “

    Siebel Newsom described an hourslong “cat-and-mouse period,” which preceded her alleged assault. She, like other accusers, described feeling “frozen” that day.

    Attorneys for Weinstein do not deny the incident occurred, but said he believed it was consensual.

    Jackson called the incident “consensual, transactional sex,” adding: “Regret is not the same thing as rape. And it’s important we make that distinction in this courtroom.”

    In her closing arguments, Martinez highlighted the women who testified chose to do so despite knowing they would face tough conditions in court.

    “The truth is that, as you sit here, we know the despicable behavior the defendant engaged in. He thought he was so powerful that people would … excuse his behavior,” Martinez said. “That’s just Harvey being Harvey. That’s just Hollywood. And for so long that’s what everyone did. Everyone just turned their heads.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Avatar: The Way of Water’ gives James Cameron his first $100 million domestic debut | CNN Business

    ‘Avatar: The Way of Water’ gives James Cameron his first $100 million domestic debut | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    The highly anticipated “Avatar: The Way of Water” took in $134 million at the US box office, giving director James Cameron his first $100 million opening weekend — despite falling short of analyst predictions.

    Although notching the second highest world-wide opening this year didn’t quite match expectations, the film’s ultimate success will depend on its long term appeal, a notable attribute of many of Cameron’s movies. “Avatar: The Way of Water” has so far earned $435 million at the global box office.

    Though Cameron hasn’t revealed exactly how much it cost to make the “Avatar” sequel, one answer isn’t in doubt: a lot. Or in Cameron’s own words to GQ Magazine, “very f***ing expensive.” The star director estimated to industry executives that in order to break even the movie has “to be the third or fourth highest-grossing film in history.”

    That means it needs to make more than $2 billion. Earning nearly $3 billion, “Avatar” is the highest-grossing film of all time. And only one film during the pandemic era, “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” has even come close to that mark, raking in nearly $1.9 billion.

    But for Cameron it’s all about the marathon, not the sprint.

    “The future of the Pandora isn’t going to be determined this weekend,” Comscore senior media analyst Paul Dergarabedian said. “It’s going to be determined over the next many weeks as the film plays, and we’ll have, I think, strong week after week numbers.”

    The film might also be at the top of the list for viewers over the busy holiday period, which also won’t include any major blockbuster competition, Dergarabedian noted. However, the movie’s running time, 190 minutes, reduces the number of daily showings for theaters.

    The film could be a turning point for the movie theater industry too, which had been decimated by the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. The film’s success will also depend on whether audiences will pay for the immersive 3D experience, which has decreased in popularity over time, along with dwindling ticket sales.

    In 2009, “Avatar” earned $77 million in its opening weekend and collected 80% of its gross from 3D showings. That film revolutionized 3D viewing — and for its sequel, premium formats such as IMAX and 3D accounted for 62% of the domestic box office haul.

    “The Way of Water” notched the second highest all-time IMAX global opening weekend and the biggest IMAX December global opening ever.

    “I think people are on the fence about 3D,” Dergarabedian said. “But with ‘Avatar: The Way of Water’ the 3D part of it is as woven in to its appeal as the movie itself.”

    Disney has placed a huge bet on the “Avatar” series. “The Way of Water” is one of four planned sequels, with a third installment set for release on December 20, 2024. The stars from the first film, Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana, returned as Jake and Neytiri. In the sequel, they live on Pandora with their family.

    – CNN’s Oliver Darcy contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk’s Twitter bans CNN, NYT, WaPo journalists without explanation | CNN Business

    Elon Musk’s Twitter bans CNN, NYT, WaPo journalists without explanation | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Twitter on Thursday evening banned the accounts of several high-profile journalists from top news organizations without explanation, apparently marking a significant attempt by new owner Elon Musk to wield his unilateral authority over the platform.

    The accounts belonging to CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan, The New York Times’ Ryan Mac, The Washington Post’s Drew Harwell and other journalists who have covered Musk aggressively in recent weeks were all abruptly permanently suspended. The account of progressive independent journalist Aaron Rupar was also banned.

    Neither Musk nor Twitter responded to a request for comment Thursday evening, and the platform did not explain precisely why the journalists were exiled from the platform.

    Musk falsely claimed that the journalists had violated his new “doxxing” policy by sharing his live location, amounting to what he described as “assassination coordinates.” CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan did not share the billionaire’s live location.

    Shortly before his suspension, O’Sullivan reported on Twitter that the social media company had suspended the account of an emerging competitive social media service, Mastodon, which has allowed the continued posting of @ElonJet, an account that posts the updated location of Musk’s private jet.

    Other reporters suspended Thursday had recently written about the account.

    Doxxing refers to the practice of sharing someone’s home address or other personal information online. The banned account had instead used publicly available flight data, which remain online and accessible, to track Musk’s jet.

    The bans raise a number of questions about the future of the platform, which has been referred to as a digital town square. It also called into serious question Musk’s supposed commitment to free speech.

    Musk has repeatedly said he would like to permit all legal speech on the platform. In April, on the same day he announced he would purchase Twitter, he had tweeted: “I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means.”

    A CNN spokesperson said the company has asked Twitter for an explanation, and it would “reevaluate our relationship based on that response.”

    “The impulsive and unjustified suspension of a number of reporters, including CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan, is concerning but not surprising. Twitter’s increasing instability and volatility should be of incredible concern for everyone who uses Twitter,” the spokesperson said.

    A New York Times spokesperson called the mass bans “questionable and unfortunate,” adding: “Neither The Times nor Ryan have received any explanation about why this occurred. We hope that all of the journalists’ accounts are reinstated and that Twitter provides a satisfying explanation for this action.”

    “Elon says he is a free speech champion and he is banning journalists for exercising free speech,” Harwell told CNN on Thursday. “I think that calls into question his commitment.”

    Rupar, too, said he had heard “nothing” from Twitter about the suspension.

    Several organizations condemned Twitter’s decision, with the head of the American Civil Liberties Union saying: “It’s impossible to square Twitter’s free speech aspirations with the purging of critical journalists’ accounts.”

    The president of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) said in a statement it was “concerned” about the suspensions, and that the move “affects all journalists.”

    The @ElonJet account, which had amassed more than 500,000 followers, was permanently suspended Wednesday after Twitter introduced a set of new policies banning accounts that track people’s live locations. Musk also blocked any account linking to such information. Previously, there were no location sharing-related restrictions on Twitter.

    The changes came after Musk reinstated previous Twitter rule-breakers and stopped enforcing the platform’s policies prohibiting Covid-19 misinformation.

    “I do think this is very important for the potential chilling impact this can have for freelance journalists, independent journalists around the world, particularly those who cover Elon Musk’s other companies, like Tesla and SpaceX,” O’Sullivan told CNN Thursday after his account was suspended.

    As the furor over the account suspensions unfolded, some Twitter users reported the platform had begun intervening when they attempted to post links to their own profiles on alternative social networks, including Mastodon.

    Those reports were confirmed Thursday evening by a CNN reporter who was blocked from sharing a Mastodon profile URL and was given an automated error message that said Twitter or its partners had identified the site as “potentially harmful.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prince Harry says William ‘screamed’ at him over royal split with Meghan, in final episodes of Netflix documentary | CNN

    Prince Harry says William ‘screamed’ at him over royal split with Meghan, in final episodes of Netflix documentary | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Prince Harry said it was “terrifying” to have his brother, Prince William, scream at him during his bitter split from the royal family, in the final installments of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s controversial Netflix documentary that were released Thursday.

    The fourth, fifth and sixth episodes of “Harry & Meghan” cover the pair’s challenges since their 2018 wedding, Meghan’s deteriorating mental health and her 2020 miscarriage, and ultimately their decision to quit as working members of the family.

    Harry said he initially asked for a “half in, half out” arrangement, where Harry and Meghan would have their own jobs but still work in support of the Queen, during a crunch family meeting. “But it became very clear very quickly that that goal was not up for discussion or debate,” Harry said.

    “It was terrifying to have my brother scream and shout at me, and my father say things that just simply weren’t true, and my grandmother quietly sit there and take it all in,” he said, recalling the conversations with Prince William, then-Prince Charles, and Queen Elizabeth II.

    “But you have to understand that from the family’s perspectives, especially from hers, there are ways of doing things. And her ultimate mission and goal, responsibility, is the institution … she’s going to go on the advice that she’s given,” Harry said.

    The pair describe throughout the new episodes how, in their view, their position within the royal family became untenable after constant hounding from Britain’s media and repeated disregard for the couple’s wellbeing inside palace walls.

    Buckingham Palace reiterated it will not comment on the documentary on Thursday. Royal engagements are meanwhile continuing, with King Charles and Camilla, the Queen Consort, set to visit a community kitchen in London and attend a carol service with the Prince and Princess of Wales and other members of the family.

    Harry hinted that there was jealousy from other royals towards Meghan given the amount of media attention she was initially receiving. “The issue is when someone who is marrying in, who should be a supporting act, is then stealing the limelight or is doing the job better than the person who is born to do this,” he said.

    “That upsets people. It upsets the balance. Because you have been led to believe that the only way that your charities can succeed and your mission can grow is if you are on the front pages of those newspapers.”

    The series also touches on Meghan’s deteriorating mental health and her miscarriage in July 2020. “I was pregnant. I really wasn’t sleeping. The first morning that we woke up in our new home is when I miscarried,” Meghan said.

    She described experiencing suicidal ideation, telling the filmmakers she believed “all of this will stop if I’m not here. And that was the scariest thing about it, it was such clear thinking.”

    “The lies, that’s one thing. You kind of get used to that when you live within this family,” Harry added. “But what they were doing to her, and the effect it was having on her… enough. Enough of the pain, enough of the suffering.”

    “I just did everything I could to make them proud, and to really be a part of the family,” Meghan said in the fifth episode, speaking of her relationship with the other royals. “And then the bubble burst.”

    “I realized that I wasn’t just being thrown to the wolves, I was being fed to the wolves,” she said.

    The highly anticipated Netflix documentary marks the Sussexes’ latest attempt to reclaim the narrative surrounding their departure from royal life.

    It features details on the increasingly tense relationships between Harry and his brother, WIlliam, and his father, King Charles III. And it emphasizes the suggestion that the royals wanted to sideline and isolate the couple, often through the planting of negative media reporting, rather than have them dwarf more senior royals in popularity.

    “My dad said to me: ‘Darling boy, you can’t take on the media. The media will always be the media,” Harry said, describing the palace’s relationship with news outlets as a “dirty game.”

    The culmination of the breakdown between the royal institution and Harry and Meghan, who were once touted by parts of the media as the modernizing force the monarchy needed, was their historic and controversial decision in early 2020 to quit as working royals and leave the UK.

    Harry said he spoke to Queen Elizabeth II and arranged to meet her, with Meghan, before that split was finalized.

    “She knew that we were finding things hard. I’d spoken to her many times about it,” Harry said. But as the meeting approached, Meghan said they received a message from an aide telling them they were not allowed to see the monarch.

    “I’ve actually been told that I’m busy all week,” the Queen then told Harry, according to his recollection. “I was like, wow,” Harry said. “This is when a family and a family business are in direct conflict … really what they’re doing is blocking a grandson from seeing his grandmother,” added Meghan.

    The couple were critical of the Queen’s aides but again were again complimentary of the late monarch herself, who died aged 96 in September, shortly after filming concluded for the series.

    Their documentary, and Harry’s upcoming memoir, focus more attention on the difficult relationship between the prince and his father, King Charles.

    Thursday’s release follows last week’s batch of episodes, in which Prince Harry criticized “unconscious bias” inside the family.

    It remains to be seen whether the venture will enhance the reputation of the couple as they look to sculpt their post-royalty personas.

    Six in 10 Brits believe it was a bad idea for the duke and duchess to release the Netflix documentary, according to a Savanta poll of 2,250 British adults carried out online between December 9 and 11, between the release of the first and second parts of the series.

    The same poll found that Harry and Meghan both have negative approval ratings among the British public – -3 and -19 respectively, when subtracting those with a negative opinion from those with a positive one – unlike the high popularity of Prince William (+60) and Charles III (+36).

    If you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts or mental health matters, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255 to connect with a trained counselor or visit the NSPL site. The International Association for Suicide Prevention and Befrienders Worldwide also provide contact information for crisis centers around the world.

    Sign up for CNN’s Royal News, a weekly dispatch bringing you the inside track on the royal family, what they are up to in public and what’s happening behind palace walls.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Anghami became the ‘Spotify of the Middle East.’ Now it’s moving into the real world | CNN Business

    Anghami became the ‘Spotify of the Middle East.’ Now it’s moving into the real world | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Abu Dhabi
    CNN
     — 

    Anghami describes itself as the largest music streaming app for the Middle East and North Africa.

    Launched in Beirut in 2012 by Elie Habib and Eddy Maroun, it was quickly dubbed “the Spotify of the Middle East.” Now headquartered in Abu Dhabi, Anghami is growing its footprint to the real world after amassing nearly 20 million active users.

    It partnered with Sony Music to launch “Vibe,” a boutique record label the companies say will “support independent Arabic music,” and empower artists “to tell their stories regionally and globally.” Then, in July, Anghami acquired Spotlight Events, a live event company, and plans to host regular concerts for local artists. Last month, it opened a music venue and recording studio in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

    “Artists can’t just make money out of music streaming,” Habib says. “They need to make money out of the real world also.”

    The platform is facing serious competition from the likes of Spotify

    (SPOT)     and Apple

    (AAPL)    , but the founders are confident they can maintain their success by drawing on their knowledge of the region.

    “We’re Arabs but we are influenced by the Western world, and this is reflected in our product,” Maroun says. “That’s why our product is really more relevant.”

    The pair say nurturing and developing Arab talent is critical to their mission. Of the 73 million songs in their catalog, Habib says only 1% of them are in Arabic, but those songs generate 60% of all of Anghami’s traffic. “We realize we need to grow that 1%,” Habib says.

    In February, the company signed an exclusive partnership with Egyptian superstar Amr Diab, whose 1.2 billion streams make him the most popular artist on the platform.

    Around the same time, Anghami was listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange — the first Arab tech company ever to do so, according to the founders. “It was a great moment,” Maroun says. “We felt that we are really bringing with us a whole nation.”

    In the first half of 2022, it saw 29% growth in revenue and 41% growth in monthly subscribers, compared with the same period a year earlier. Since then, in a tougher economic climate, the company has cut a fifth of its workforce, but the founders are confident they can continue to grow the platform.

    “When we started Anghami … we never thought about IPOs, we never thought about millions of users using us every day,” Habib says. “IPO is never the end game — the end game is making something whereby you are proud.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Adam Scott, Naomi Campbell, Aubrey Plaza among the celebrities honoring this year’s CNN Heroes | CNN

    Adam Scott, Naomi Campbell, Aubrey Plaza among the celebrities honoring this year’s CNN Heroes | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Celebrities and musicians are coming together to honor everyday people making the world a better place.

    CNN’s Anderson Cooper and ABC’s Kelly Ripa are co-hosting the 16th Annual “CNN Heroes: An All-Star Tribute,” which began at 8 p.m. ET on CNN. They will be joined by more than a dozen celebrities, including supermodel and activist Naomi Campbell and actors Adam Scott of “Severance,” Aubrey Plaza of “The White Lotus” and Tenoch Huerta of “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” who will serve as award presenters.

    “We’re so deeply honored to be here,” said actress and singer Sofia Carson, who will be performing a song from award-winning songwriter Diane Warren at the event. “Diane wrote this incredible anthem ‘Applause’ for those leading, surviving and fighting and tonight we dedicate this song and performance to our heroes.”

    The 2022 CNN Hero of the Year will be revealed during the live broadcast, selected by CNN’s audience from this year’s Top 10 CNN Heroes. All 10 honorees are awarded a $10,000 prize, and the Hero of the Year receives an additional $100,000 for their cause.

    Actor Aubrey Plaza introduced the first CNN Hero, Aidan Reilly, who launched his nonprofit while home from college during the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    “From his pandemic couch, Aidan and his friends co-founded Farmlink Project,” Plaza said. The nonprofit connects excess food from farms across the US – food that would otherwise be wasted – to those who need it. “In just two years, he … has moved more than 70 million pounds,” Plaza added.

    Supermodel and activist Naomi Campbell honored Nelly Cheboi, whose nonprofit TechLit has established technology labs with upcycled computers for schoolchildren in rural Kenya. Cheboi grew up in poverty in Kenya, Campbell noted, but education gave her – and her family – a way out.

    “I’ll never forget the pain of poverty that still runs deep in my community,” Cheboi said when accepting her award. “The hope that our work can empower people … is the mountain I’m devoted to moving.”

    Actor Adam Scott recalled a famous quote from the cardigan-wearing children’s TV host when honoring the night’s third CNN Hero: “Remember how Mr. Rogers … told us that in scary times, we need to look for the helpers?” Scott said. “Well, meet Teresa Gray.”

    A nurse and paramedic, Gray’s nonprofit Mobile Medics International sends medical teams to natural disasters and refugee crises around the world.

    This year, for the first time, CNN Heroes is collaborating with The Elevate Prize Foundation to provide additional prizes in the form of non-profit training, organizational support and grants to the 10 honorees. The CNN Hero of the Year will also be named an Elevate Prize winner and receive additional funding and ongoing support for their work.

    Two teenagers who are making a difference in their communities were also honored as 2022 Young Wonders:

    • Sri Nihal Tammana, a 13-year-old from Edison, New Jersey, started “Recycle My Battery,” which keeps used batteries out of the ecosystem through a network of collection bins.

    Here are three ways you can be a part of tonight’s CNN Heroes special:

    Tune in to watch the two-hour televised event tonight on CNN, CNN International, CNN en Español or on CNNgo, the online streaming platform available on Apple TV, Roku, Amazon Fire, Chromecast, Samsung Smart TV and Android TV, and on CNN mobile apps.

    CNN has partnered with GoFundMe to enable donations to this year’s Top 10 honorees. GoFundMe is the world’s largest fundraising platform that empowers people and charities to give and receive help. Supporters can make online donations to the Top 10 CNN Heroes’ non-profit organizations directly from CNNHeroes.com.

    Do you know someone in your community doing amazing things to make the world a better place? Keep an eye on CNN.com/heroes and consider nominating that person as a CNN Hero in 2023. You can also read more about many of the 350 past CNN Heroes who have helped over 55 million people across all 50 US states and in more than 110 countries around the world.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • After 25 years of wrongful imprisonment, 2 Georgia men set free after newly uncovered evidence exonerates them of murder charges | CNN

    After 25 years of wrongful imprisonment, 2 Georgia men set free after newly uncovered evidence exonerates them of murder charges | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    After spending 25 years in prison on murder convictions related to the 1996 shooting death of their friend, two Georgia men were exonerated this week, after new evidence uncovered in a true-crime podcast last year proved their innocence, their lawyers said.

    Darrell Lee Clark and his co-defendant Cain Joshua Storey were 17 years old when they were arrested for their alleged involvement in the death of 15-year-old Brian Bowling.

    He died from a gunshot wound to the head in his family’s mobile home on October 18, 1996, according to Clark’s lawyers, Christina Cribbs and Meagan Hurley, with the nonprofit Georgia Innocence Project.

    Moments before the gun was fired, Bowling was on the phone with his girlfriend and told her he was playing a game of Russian roulette with a gun, which was brought to his home by Storey, who was in the room at the time of the shooting, according to a news release from the Georgia Innocence Project.

    Storey was charged with involuntary manslaughter, but months later, police began investigating the death as a homicide, and interviewed two witnesses whose statements led authorities to tie Clark to Bowling’s death, the Georgia Innocence Project said.

    “Despite the circumstances, which strongly indicated that Bowling accidentally shot himself in the head, at the urging of Bowling’s family members, police later began investigating the death as a homicide,” according to a motion filed by Clark’s attorneys, requesting a new trial.

    The two teenagers were sentenced to life in prison after being convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, following a weeklong trial in 1998.

    Clark’s exoneration came a year and a half after investigative podcasters Susan Simpson and Jacinda Davis began scrutinizing his case in their Proof true-crime podcast in 2021, and interviewed two of the state’s key witnesses.

    Through their investigation, new evidence emerged which “shattered the state’s theory of Clark’s involvement” in Bowling’s death and the podcasters flagged his case to the Georgia Innocence Project, according to its news release.

    The first witness, a woman who lived near Bowling’s home was interviewed by police, who claimed she alleged the teens confessed they had “planned the murder of Bowling because he knew too much about a prior theft Storey and Clark had committed,” according to the Georgia Innocence Project.

    Based on her testimony, Storey was charged with murder and Clark was arrested as a co-conspirator despite having a corroborated alibi, stating he was home on the night of the shooting, which was supported by two witnesses, according to Clark’s motion for a new trial.

    But the woman revealed in the podcast, police coerced her into giving false statements and threatened to take her children away from her if she failed to comply, according to the Georgia Innocence Project.

    Darrell Lee Clark was released from the Floyd County Jail on Thursday after the Rome Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office and Floyd County Superior Court Judge John Neidrach agreed that his conviction should be overturned.

    Police claimed the other witness, a man who was in a different room of the Bowlings’ home at the time of the shooting, identified Clark from a photo lineup as the person he saw running through the yard on the night Bowling was shot, the news release said.

    It was uncovered in the podcast the man’s testimony was based on an “unrelated, factually similar shooting” which he witnessed in 1976, and he never identified Clark as the individual in the yard, nor did he ever witness anyone in the yard on the night of the shooting, according to the Georgia Innocence Project.

    Davis told CNN in an interview when she and Simpson started their investigation, they weren’t expecting anything to come of it, but as they interviewed more people, it was “clear that it just wasn’t adding up.”

    “It took us a long time to talk to both of those witnesses. The podcast was happening in almost real time as an investigation. When we finally found and were able to talk to those two witnesses, it really solidified that both of these guys had been wrongly convicted,” Davis said.

    Clark’s attorneys filed pleadings in September to challenge a wrongful conviction and ask for a new trial, citing new information which proved his conviction was based on false evidence and coercion, Hurley told CNN.

    Clark, now 43, was released from the Floyd County Jail Thursday after the Rome Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office and Floyd County Superior Court Judge John Neidrach agreed the conviction should be overturned and all underlying charges against him dismissed, after evidence in the case was reexamined.

    Storey, who admitted to bringing the gun to Bowling’s home, was also released after accepting a plea deal for involuntary manslaughter, and a 10-year sentence with time served, after spending 25 years in prison. He was also exonerated of murder charges.

    Storey told CNN in an interview he was afraid to go to sleep the first night after he was released in case he would wake up and “realize it was all a dream.”

    “It’s been surreal to say the least,” he added. “I believe it’s going to be great. One step at a time. I never allowed my mind to get locked up all those years, anyhow.”

    “You never think something like that is going to happen to you,” said Lee Clark in a statement released by the Georgia Innocence Project. “Never would I have thought I would spend more than half my life in prison, especially for something I didn’t do.”

    Clark’s father, Glen Clark, told CNN in an interview, “I’ve been waiting for this day for a long, long time. 25 years. My son was wrongly accused, and I knew it all these years. It’s hard for me to live with that.”

    “I watched my son go into prison as a kid, I watched him go through prison, I watched him come out as a man. He became a man in prison,” he added.

    Clark is living with his family in their home in Floyd County for the foreseeable future as he focuses on readjusting to life outside prison and rebuilding his life, he told CNN. Storey said he also moved back to Floyd County, with plans to go back to school and get a job.

    Clark said Judge Neidrach apologized on behalf of the state of Georgia and Floyd County this week during the court hearing this week, which was an important step toward healing.

    “That really touched my heart, because I had been living in corruption for so long, and it meant a lot to have someone acknowledge that wrong,” he told CNN.

    The Georgia Innocence Project will work to support Clark during his transition and connect him to resources, and a personal fundraiser has been organized on the MightyCause platform, open to the public for donations to Clark and his family, Hurley said.

    “It’s probably going to take some time to like truly process that he is free and doesn’t have to go back behind prison walls, because he spent most of his life behind them,” Hurley said.

    After his release, Clark is living with his family in their home in Floyd County for the foreseeable future as he focuses on readjusting to life outside prison and rebuilding his life.

    “More than anything, he’s looking forward to getting to spend time with his family and rebuilding some of those relationships that he was, frankly, ripped away from at the age of 17,” she added.

    The exonerations of both men were the culmination of a collaboration between Clark, Storey and his defense team, as well as the Bowling family, which was willing to take an “objective look at this case and reevaluate some of the things they have been told in the past,” Hurley said.

    Davis was in the courtroom during Clark and Storey’s hearing this week and said she’s still “in shock” and feels a huge amount of relief for both men.

    “In the end, I also feel for Brian Bowling’s family who have been incredibly gracious and supportive as well. It’s really rare when you have the victim’s family support the convictions being overturned,” Davis said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jury deliberations in Harvey Weinstein’s 2nd sexual assault trial enter 6th day in Los Angeles | CNN

    Jury deliberations in Harvey Weinstein’s 2nd sexual assault trial enter 6th day in Los Angeles | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The second sexual assault trial of Harvey Weinstein, the former movie producer accused of using his Hollywood influence to lure women into private meetings and assault them, entered its sixth day Friday in the hands of a Los Angeles jury.

    Weinstein, behind bars in a medical unit, awaits a verdict on two counts of forcible rape and five counts of sexual assault involving four women – a model, a dancer, a massage therapist and a producer. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges against him.

    Jurors began deliberating Friday after hearing weeks of testimony from dozens of witnesses. As of Thursday evening, jurors have been in deliberation for about 20 hours.

    At trial, four of the original 11 charges against Weinstein tied to one of the Jane Does were dropped without explanation.

    Weinstein could face 60 years to life in prison, plus an additional five years, if the jury finds him guilty.

    Weinstein is already serving a 23-year sentence after being convicted of a criminal sex act and third-degree rape during a 2020 trial in New York. His attorneys have appealed the conviction.

    Weinstein’s publicist, Juda Engelmayer, told CNN the former producer is in a detention facility’s medical unit, and is anxious but “hoping for the best.”

    The trial in Los Angeles included testimony from the four accusers identified as Jane Does in court, and other witnesses, including experts, law enforcement, friends of accusers and former aides to Weinstein.

    Additionally, four women testified they were subjected to similar incidents by Weinstein in other jurisdictions.

    All the accusers were asked in court to recount the details of their allegations against Weinstein, provide details of meetings with the producer from years ago and explain their reactions to the alleged assaults.

    Jennifer Siebel Newsom, a filmmaker and the wife of California Gov. Gavin Newsom – identified by her attorneys as Jane Doe 4 – alleged Weinstein raped her in a hotel room in 2005.

    In closing arguments Wednesday, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Marlene Martinez called Weinstein a “titan” who used his power in Hollywood to prey on and silence women.

    “Rapists rape. You can look at the pattern,” fellow prosecutor Paul Thompson told jurors.

    “You have irrefutable, overwhelming evidence about the nature of this man and what he did to these women,” Thompson said.

    Meanwhile, Weinstein’s attorneys have maintained the allegations are either fabricated or occurred consensually as part of a “transactional relationship” with the movie producer, repeatedly saying there is no evidence of assault.

    Defense attorney Alan Jackson called the accusers “fame and fortune seekers.”

    Each morning at trial, Weinstein was brought from a correctional facility and wheeled into the Los Angeles courtroom wearing a suit and tie and holding a composition notebook.

    His accusers all began their oftentimes emotional testimonies by identifying him in the courtroom as he looked on.

    “He’s wearing a suit, and a blue tie and he’s staring at me,” Siebel Newsom said last month, before what was one of the most emotional moments of the trial.

    On Thursday of last week, defense attorney Jackson asked jurors if they could “accept what (the Jane Does) say as gospel,” arguing what they said was a lack of forensic evidence supporting their claim.

    “Five words that sum up the entirety of the prosecution’s case: ‘Take my word for it,’” Jackson said. “‘Take my word for it that he showed up at my hotel room unannounced. Take my word for it that I showed up at his hotel room. Take my word for it that I didn’t consent. Take my word for it, that I said no.’”

    Siebel Newsom described an hourslong “cat-and-mouse period,” which preceded her alleged assault. She, like other accusers, described feeling “frozen” that day.

    Attorneys for Weinstein do not deny the incident occurred, but said he believed it was consensual.

    Jackson called the incident “consensual, transactional sex,” adding: “Regret is not the same thing as rape. And it’s important we make that distinction in this courtroom.”

    Women’s rights lawyer Gloria Allred, who is representing Jane Doe 2 in the case, told CNN she hopes the jury sees her client “has no motive at all to do anything but tell the truth.”

    “She never sought or received any compensation … She doesn’t live in California anymore. But she is testifying because she’s been asked to testify and I hope that they see her as the young woman that she was when she met Harvey Weinstein, and the woman that she is today approximately nine to 10 years later. Her life has changed,” Allred said.

    “To be willing to subject yourself to what could be a very brutal cross-examination. That takes a very special person to do that. And she is a special person. I’m very proud,” Allred said.

    In her closing arguments, Martinez also highlighted that the women who testified chose to do so despite knowing they would face tough conditions in court.

    “The truth is that, as you sit here, we know the despicable behavior the defendant engaged in. He thought he was so powerful that people would … excuse his behavior,” Martinez said. “That’s just Harvey being Harvey. That’s just Hollywood. And for so long that’s what everyone did. Everyone just turned their heads.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Coca-Cola is getting into Christmas movies | CNN Business

    Coca-Cola is getting into Christmas movies | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    Coca-Cola is hoping that this holiday season, families will crack open some Cokes, settle into a comfy spot and watch its first Christmas Anthology film series.

    The beverage company partnered with production firm Imagine Entertainment to create three short films, which are available to watch on Amazon Prime across the globe starting Wednesday.

    The venture is a continuation of Coca-Cola’s Real Magic platform, which takes an experimental approach to marketing the company’s core product.

    In the past year, Real Magic has focused on unusual, limited-time flavors such as Starlight, Byte and Dreamworld, which have been launched alongside digital experiences including a holographic concert and a debut in Fortnite. The Christmas Anthology is part of a new platform called Real Magic Presents.

    For Coca-Cola

    (KO)    , it’s important to do more than just sell soda — the soda giant has to connect with younger consumers and build new traditions, especially as interest in sugary, carbonated soft drinks stagnates.

    “We’re always exploring new ways to reach our audience,” said Selman Careaga, category president of Coca-Cola trademark, calling Christmas “a great canvas for creativity.” The anthology, he said, is “a new way to engage” with the holiday.

    Coca-Cola has a history of associating itself with Christmas, so much so that the company has an FAQ page for “Did Coca-Cola create Santa Claus?” (The answer: Sort of. In 1931, the company commissioned a painting of Santa that aligns with how he is portrayed in the US today, according to the page.)

    In more recent years, the company’s polar bears and brightly-lit trucks have been strongly linked with the holiday.

    This year, Coke is trying something a little more high-concept.

    After launching the Real Magic platform in 2021, Coca-Cola published a video on YouTube called “Real Magic at Christmas,” about a boy who bonds with his new neighbors by working together to build a chimney out of cardboard boxes.

    This year, the short films are longer — running between 10 and 12 minutes — and more ambitious.

    A vampire meets his girlfriend's family.

    There’s “Alma,” which shows a single mom who has cooled on Christmas being reminded of the joy of the holiday by a sentient computer; “Les Petits Mondes De Noël,” a moody love story about two exes who reunite in Paris; and “Christmas Bites,” about a vampire who wins over his girlfriend’s family when he steps in for Santa on Christmas Eve.

    A viewer wouldn’t necessarily know that these are Coca-Cola movies, except for the fact that each film features at least one character sipping a Coke.

    But for the company, the shorts are about more than just product placement. “It allows us to work on content that fits into our Real Magic platform,” said Careaga.

    The films are not your typical cheesy Christmas movie, and not only because they’re shorts. There are no overt love stories, fat snowflakes swirling around fake sets or ugly sweaters (at least, not too many).

    The Hallmark model may be popular in the United States, but it doesn’t necessarily have global appeal, said Marc Gilbar, EVP of brands and documentaries at Imagine Entertainment.

    Characters reconnect in

    “I mentioned Hallmark films” to members of the global team working on the project, Gilbar said. “That shorthand doesn’t mean much to someone in Spain or someone in Argentina. It’s more centered on our traditions.”

    The Coca-Cola anthology is designed to appeal to a global audience. “Alma,” set in Mexico, is in Spanish, and “Les Petits Mondes De Noël,” is in French. Only “Christmas Bites” is in English.

    And although these are certainly Christmas movies, they’re not overtly religious.

    “Christmas means different things to different people,” Gilbar said. “The religious aspect never really came up. It was more about other traditions.”

    As Coke dips its toes in film-making, rival Pepsi took another approach, partnering with “Falling for Christmas” star Lindsay Lohan to promote Pilk, or Pepsi plus milk, as a holiday tradition.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta threatens to remove news content over US journalism bargaining bill | CNN Business

    Meta threatens to remove news content over US journalism bargaining bill | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN Business
     — 

    Facebook owner Meta threatened to remove news content from its platforms on Monday following reports that US lawmakers have added controversial legislation favoring news media to the annual defense authorization bill.

    The warning highlights the danger that Meta perceives to its business model in the face of the proposed bill, known as the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA).

    The legislation introduced by Sen. Amy Klobuchar and backed by more than a dozen other lawmakers from both parties would create a four-year exemption under US antitrust law allowing news outlets to bargain collectively against social media platforms for a larger share of ad revenue in exchange for their news content. It is one of several tech-focused antitrust bills currently pending on Capitol Hill.

    “If Congress passes an ill-considered journalism bill as part of national security legislation,” Meta said in a statement tweeted by spokesman Andy Stone, “we will be forced to consider removing news from our platform altogether rather than submit to government-mandated negotiations that unfairly disregard any value we provide to news outlets through increased traffic and subscriptions.”

    Meta has shown willingness to follow through on its threat. When similar legislation was on the verge of passing in Australia last year, the company briefly suspended users’ ability to share and view links to news stories on its platforms. (It later changed course and the legislation passed later that year.)

    On Monday, Fight for the Future, a digital rights organization, told reporters that “multiple sources” had said a push to include the JCPA in the annual defense bill was successful and that the National Defense Authorization Act included the JCPA’s language. CNN has not independently confirmed the change to the defense bill.

    A spokesperson for Klobuchar didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The tech industry has strongly opposed the JCPA, but the bill has also attracted criticism from more than two dozen civil society groups that are often at odds with Big Tech on policy matters.

    In a letter Monday to congressional leaders, those groups said the JCPA could make mis- and disinformation worse by allowing news websites to sue tech platforms for reducing a story’s reach and intimidating them into not moderating offensive or misleading content.

    The letter also said the JCPA could end up disproportionately favoring large media companies over the small, local and independent outlets that have been hit the hardest by falling digital ad revenues.

    Among those that signed the letter were the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, The Wikimedia Foundation and Public Knowledge.

    Digital Content Next, a trade association representing digital media companies, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Inside Christine McVie’s and Stevie Nicks’ decades-long friendship | CNN

    Inside Christine McVie’s and Stevie Nicks’ decades-long friendship | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Throughout the various personal turmoils for which the members of Fleetwood Mac are known, one relationship buoyed the band for decades: the friendship between its two frontwomen, Christine McVie and Stevie Nicks.

    McVie joined the band in 1970 during one of its early lineup changes and for years was its only woman. When Nicks was added to the lineup in 1975, the two became fast friends.

    Theirs was not a competitive relationship, but a sisterly one – both women were gifted songwriters responsible for crafting many of the band’s best-known tunes. Though the two grew apart in the 1980s amid Nicks’ worsening drug addiction and the band’s growing internal tension, they came back together when McVie returned to Fleetwood Mac in 2014.

    At a concert in London, shortly before McVie officially rejoined the band, Nicks dedicated the song “Landslide” to her “mentor. Big sister. Best friend.” And at the show’s end, McVie was there, accompanying her bandmates for “Don’t Stop.”

    “I never want her to ever go out of my life again, and that has nothing to do with music and everything to do with her and I as friends,” Nicks told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune in 2015.

    On Wednesday, McVie, the band’s “songbird,” died after a brief illness at age 79. Below, revisit McVie’s and Nicks’ years-long relationship as bandmates, best friends and “sisters.”

    The story of Nicks joining Fleetwood Mac is legend now: Band founder and drummer Mick Fleetwood wanted to recruit guitarist Lindsey Buckingham, who stipulated that he would only join if his girlfriend and musician Nicks could join, too. McVie cast the deciding vote, and the rest is history.

    “It was critical that I got on with her because I’d never played with another girl,” McVie told the Guardian in 2013. “But I liked her instantly. She was funny and nice but also there was no competition. We were completely different on the stage to each other and we wrote differently too.”

    Throughout the band’s many personal complications – McVie married and divorced Fleetwood Mac bassist John McVie and had an affair with the band’s lighting director, while Nicks had rollercoaster romances with Buckingham and Fleetwood – they were each other’s center.

    “To be in a band with another girl who was this amazing musician – (McVie) kind of instantly became my best friend,” Nicks told the New Yorker earlier this year. “Christine was a whole other ballgame. She liked hanging out with the guys. She was just more comfortable with men than I had ever been.”

    The two protected each other, Nicks said, in a male-dominated industry: “We made a pact, in the very beginning, that we would never be treated with disrespect by all the male musicians in the community.

    “I would say to her, ‘Together, we are a serious force of nature, and it will give us the strength to maneuver the waters that are ahead of us,’” Nicks told the New Yorker.

    “Rumours” was the band’s greatest success to date when it was released in 1977. But the band’s relationships with each other were deteriorating, save for the one between McVie and Nicks. While the pair were enduring breakups with their significant others, Nicks and McVie spent their time offstage together.

    The Guardian asked McVie if she was trying to offset the band’s tumult with her songs on “Rumours,” including the lighthearted “You Make Lovin’ Fun” and optimistic “Don’t Stop.” She said she likely had been.

    As multiple members’ drug use intensified, the band’s dynamic grew tense. McVie distanced herself from the group in 1984 amid her bandmates’ addictions, telling the Guardian she was “just sick of it.” Nicks, meanwhile, was becoming dependent on cocaine.

    After Fleetwood Mac was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 1998, Christine McVie (third from left) quit the band.

    McVie told Rolling Stone that year that she’d grown apart from Nicks: “She seems to have developed her own fantasy world, somehow, which I’m not part of. We don’t socialize much.”

    In 1986, Nicks checked into the Betty Ford Center to treat her addiction, though she later became addicted to Klonopin, which she said claimed years of her life. She quit the prescription drug in the 1990s.

    After recording some solo works, McVie returned to Fleetwood Mac for their 1987 album “Tango in the Night,” and two of her songs on that record – “Little Lies” and “Everywhere” – became major hits. But Nicks departed the band soon after, and the band’s best-known lineup wouldn’t officially reunite until 1997 for “The Dance” tour and subsequent live album.

    The reunion was short-lived: After the band was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 1998, McVie officially quit Fleetwood Mac, citing a fear of flying and exhaustion of life on the road.

    In the 2010s, after more than a decade of retirement, McVie toyed with returning to performing. She officially rejoined Fleetwood Mac after calling Fleetwood himself and gauging what her return would mean for the group.

    “Fortunately Stevie was dying for me to come back, as were the rest of the band,” she told the Arts Desk.

    In 2015, a year after she’d rejoined Fleetwood Mac, McVie hit the road with her bandmates. Touring with the group was tiring but fun, the first time they’d performed together in years.

    “I’m only here for Stevie,” she told the New Yorker that year.

    Christine McVie (left) and Stevie Nicks perform together at Radio City Music Hall in 2018.

    Nicks concurred: “When we went on the road, I realized what an amazing friend she’d been of mine that I had lost and didn’t realize the whole consequences of it till now,” she told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune in 2015.

    During that tour, McVie wore a silver chain that Nicks had given her – a “metaphor,” McVie told the New Yorker, “that the chain of the band will never be broken. Not by me, anyways. Not again by me.”

    McVie told the Arts Desk in 2016 that she and Nicks were “better friends now than (they) were 16 years ago.”

    Touring with Buckingham and Fleetwood could quickly get tumultuous for Nicks, McVie said, due to their shared history. “But with me in there, it gave Stevie the chance to get her breath back and not have this constant thing going on with Lindsey: her sister was back,” she said.

    Their mutual praise continued: In 2019, McVie said Nicks was “just unbelievable” onstage: “The more I see her perform on stage the better I think she is. She holds the fort.”

    When their 2018-2019 tour ended, though – without Buckingham, who was fired – the band “kind of broke up,” McVie told Rolling Stone earlier this year. She added that she didn’t speak with Nicks as often as she did when they toured together.

    As for a reunion, McVie told Rolling Stone that while it wasn’t off the table, she wasn’t feeling “physically up for it.”

    “I’m getting a bit long in the teeth here,” she said. “I’m quite happy being at home. I don’t know if I ever want to tour again. It’s bloody hard work.”

    News of McVie’s death rattled Nicks, who wrote that she had only found out McVie was sick days earlier. She called McVie her “best friend in the whole world since the first day of 1975.”

    On her social media accounts, Nicks shared a handwritten note containing lyrics from the Haim song “Hallelujah,” some of which discusses grief and the loss of a best friend.

    “See you on the other side, my love,” Nicks wrote. “Don’t forget me – Always, Stevie.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Leaders of New Zealand and Finland hit back at reporter’s question on age and gender | CNN

    Leaders of New Zealand and Finland hit back at reporter’s question on age and gender | CNN

    [ad_1]

    As two of the youngest heads of government and among a small percentage of female world leaders, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her Finnish counterpart Sanna Marin have long faced questions about their age and gender.

    But they were quick to shoot down a journalist who asked about the purpose of the first-ever visit to New Zealand by a Finnish prime minister on Wednesday.

    “A lot of people will be wondering are you two meeting just because you’re similar in age and, you know, got a lot of common stuff there,” the journalist said during a joint news conference in Auckland.

    Ardern, 42, was quick to cut off the questioner.

    “I wonder whether or not anyone ever asked Barack Obama and John Key if they met because they were of similar age,” she said, in reference to the former prime ministers of the United States and New Zealand.

    “We, of course, have a higher proportion of men in politics, it’s reality. Because two women meet it’s not simply because of their gender.”

    Marin, 37, who is in New Zealand with a Finnish trade delegation, emphasized the country’s growing trade ties.

    “We are meeting because we are prime ministers,” she said in response.

    She ends her visit to the southern hemisphere in Australia later this week.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Netflix updates the laughs for a new decade in teaser for ‘That ’70s Show’ sequel series | CNN

    Netflix updates the laughs for a new decade in teaser for ‘That ’70s Show’ sequel series | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Same old basement, same old Formans but a brand new decade.

    Netflix unveiled the first-look teaser for “That ’90s Show” on Tuesday, the sequel series to hit late ‘90s/early aughts sitcom “That ‘70s Show.”

    The new series brings back alums Kurtwood Smith and Debra Jo Rupp as Red and Kitty, respectively, this time as grandparents with a new crop of youngsters inhabiting the basement of their Point Place, Wisconsin home.

    With Red as curmudgeonly as ever – and Kitty just as sweet – the basic structure of “That ’70s Show” remains largely intact, even if stars Ashton Kutcher, Mila Kunis, Laura Prepon, Topher Grace and Wilmer Valderrama from the first series are only seen in one of the new show’s ten episodes.

    Instead, “That ’90s Show” features Callie Haverda as granddaughter Leia Forman, along with other up-and-coming stars Ashley Aufderheide, Maxwell Donovan, Mace Coronel, Reyn Doi, Sam Morelos and Andrea Anders.

    The teaser features the gallivanting kids being told not to dance by Red, before they zone out in a smoky haze (some things never change) and are later kicked out of the house – but not without getting delicious brownies from Kitty.

    The new show was created by “‘70s Show” creators Bonnie and Terry Turner, this time with their daughter Lindsey Turner, along with showrunner/executive producer Gregg Mettler.

    “That ’90s Show” will premiere on Netflix on January 19, 2023.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump rest their cases in civil rape trial, but Trump could still testify | CNN Politics

    E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump rest their cases in civil rape trial, but Trump could still testify | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Attorneys for E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump rested their respective cases in the battery and defamation trial against the former president in Manhattan federal court on Thursday evening.

    Carroll, a former magazine columnist, alleges Trump raped her in the Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s and then defamed her when he denied her claim, said she wasn’t his type and suggested she made up the story to boost sales of her book. Trump has denied all wrongdoing.

    While resting his case means Trump legally waived his right to testify in his own defense, District Judge Lewis Kaplan left a window for Trump to change his mind over the weekend.

    Kaplan ruled that Trump’s legal team has until 5 p.m. Sunday to petition the court to reopen the defense case for the sole purpose of allowing Trump to testify. The judge said he ordered the precautionary measure in light of Trump’s public comments made earlier Thursday suggesting he would make an appearance in court before the trial ended.

    Trump, who has not appeared in the courtroom at any point during the trial, told reporters in Ireland on Thursday he’ll “probably attend” the trial.

    “I have to go back for a woman that made a false accusation about me, and I have a judge who is extremely hostile,” Trump said in Doonbeg, Ireland, according to Reuters.

    During a sidebar on Thursday afternoon, Trump’s attorney tried repeatedly to reassure Kaplan that his client would not take the stand and implied that the judge has an idea of what it’s like representing the former president.

    “I know you understand what I am dealing with,” Joe Tacopina told the judge, according to a court transcript.

    If Trump does not change his mind, the parties are set to give closing arguments to the jury at 10 a.m. on Monday.

    Carroll’s legal team put on 11 witnesses in her case including the writer herself over seven trial days.

    Republican panelist: Trump’s glorification of accused Jan 6 rioters is “disgusting.”

    Earlier Thursday the jury saw more clips of Trump’s video-recorded deposition taken last October for this case in which Trump vehemently denies Carroll’s rape allegations against him.

    “She’s accusing me of rape, a woman that I have no idea who she is. It came out of the blue. She’s accusing me of rape – of raping her, the worst thing you can do, the worst charge. And you know it’s not true too. You’re a political operative also. You’re a disgrace. But she’s accusing me and so are you of rape, and it never took place,” Trump said on video, addressing Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan.

    Trump stood by his social media posts published in 2019 and 2022 denying Carroll’s accusations and confirmed he personally wrote them.

    At one point during the deposition, Trump held a well-known black and white photo of himself, E Jean Carroll, her former husband news anchor John Johnson, and Trump’s then-wife Ivana.

    Trump recognized Johnson and recalled thinking he was good at his television job, but then mistook Carroll for his other ex-wife Marla Maples.

    “That’s Marla, yeah. That’s my wife,” he said.

    After the attorneys corrected him, Trump said the photo was blurry.

    He acknowledged the photo suggests he met Carroll at least once but said it must have been very brief at an event and he does not remember or know her.

    “I still don’t know this woman. I think she’s a whack job. I have no idea. I don’t know anything about this woman other than what I read in stories and what I hear. I know nothing about her,” the former president said.

    “She’s a liar and she’s a sick person in my opinion, Really sick. Something wrong with her,” Trump said during another point in the deposition.

    screengrab maggine haberman

    Haberman: Trump is personally bothered by the E. Jean Carroll case

    Carroll’s attorney asked Trump about his comments regarding Carroll, Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff all not being “his type.”

    He stood by the statements each time he was asked. At one point he said, “the only different between me and other people is I’m honest.”

    He also told Carroll’s attorney she’s not his type. “You wouldn’t be a choice of mine either to be honest,” Trump said.

    He also said he felt like he had a right to insult the women who’ve accused him falsely.

    “I don’t want to be insulting but when people accuse me of something I think I have a right to be insulting because they’re insulting me,” Trump said.

    The jury watched Trump view the “Access Hollywood” tape during his deposition. He didn’t appear to noticeably react as it was played.

    When asked about the tape he said it’s already been “fully litigated” and, “it’s locker room talk, I don’t know, it’s just the way people talk.”

    Former local news anchor Carol Martin testified Thursday that she remembers Carroll confiding in her soon after the alleged assault by Trump in the mid-1990s.

    Martin testified under direct examination that she didn’t remember when exactly it happened, but she knew it was some time while the two were working at the same cable network between 1994 and 1996.

    By Martin’s account the two friends had finished taping their respective shows and Carroll asked if she could come over Martin’s home near the studio. They talked in her kitchen for about an hour, Martin testified, and Carroll was “frenzied.”

    Carroll’s “effect was anxious and excitable, but she can be that way sometimes so that part wasn’t as different but what she was saying didn’t make any sense at first.” The conversation was not linear, Carroll started her account saying, “You won’t believe what happened to me the other night,” Martin recalled.

    “And I didn’t know what to expect,” Martin said she felt at the time. Carroll repeatedly said, “Trump attacked me,” according to Martin.

    “I think she said ‘he pinned me’ and I still didn’t know what she meant,” Martin testified.

    Martin testified that she told Carroll she shouldn’t tell anyone her story. “Because it was Donald Trump and he had a lot of attorneys and I thought he would bury her is what I told her,” Martin said.

    “I have questioned myself more times than not over the years. I am not proud that that’s what I told her in truth but she didn’t contest,” Martin added.

    During cross-examination, Tacopina read through a series of messages Martin has sent friends, many to Carroll, speaking negatively about Trump for years since he first ran for the presidency.

    Martin testified that as “very liberal feminist women,” they frequently discussed politics including their dislike for Trump. “We would often talk about ways to change the climate or work on issues of interest to us,” Martin testified.

    Tacopina also read the jury several messages Martin sent to friends and family about Carroll’s lawsuit against Trump that appeared to criticize Carroll. “She’s gonna sue when adult victims of rape law is passed in New York State or something. WTF that’s the defamation case and DOJ oversight or something. It’s gone to another level and not something I can relate to. For her, sadly, I think this quest has become a lifestyle,” Martin wrote in one text.

    Martin responded in court that at the time she sent the messages she was dealing with serious matters in her own personal life that affected her feelings toward Carroll’s situation. She testified that the texts do not reflect her current feelings.

    A marketing expert commissioned by Carroll testified it would take up to $2.7 million to run an effective marketing campaign to repair her reputation just from the damage of Trump’s October 12, 2022, comments denying her allegations.

    Northwestern University Professor Ashlee Humphreys said that Trump’s statement at issue in this trial reached somewhere between 13.7 and 18 million impressions.

    Humphreys and a team of researchers evaluated the post first published on Truth Social and how it spread across mediums like other social media platforms, websites and cable and network broadcast television.

    In a series of calculations Humphreys said about 21% of the people who viewed the statement in some capacity – about 3.7 to 5.6 million people – likely believed Trump. The analysis did not consider the effects of previous statements Trump made about Carroll.

    On cross examination Humphreys acknowledged that she did not consider damage done to Trump by Carroll’s statements against him.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate Judiciary advances journalism bargaining bill targeting Big Tech | CNN Business

    Senate Judiciary advances journalism bargaining bill targeting Big Tech | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced legislation on Thursday that would give news organizations the power to jointly bargain against Meta, Google and other online platforms for a greater share of online advertising revenue.

    The legislation would create an antitrust exemption allowing radio and TV broadcasters, as well as small news outlets with fewer than 1,500 employees, to “band together” and arrest the decline of local journalism in cities and states across the country, said its lead co-sponsors, Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy.

    The concept, a version of which became law in Australia in 2021 and since been proposed in numerous countries, has been vigorously opposed by tech giants who in some cases have threatened to pull news content from their platforms over the legislation.

    Meta and Google didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The measure cleared the committee by a vote of 14-7. But it faces an uncertain future on the Senate floor.

    One member of the committee, California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla, voted against the bill Thursday and vowed to block any future floor vote on the legislation until lawmakers make several changes.

    Padilla said the legislation doesn’t do enough to ensure that actual journalists in local newsrooms will benefit from the bargaining, as opposed to hedge funds and publication owners. He also raised concerns that the bill as written could allow online platforms such as Google to charge individual internet users each time they attempt to share or click on a link to a news article, a practice Padilla warned would be harmful to the internet.

    “This bill, as written, does nothing to guarantee the protection or pay of the journalists and media workers that we’re claiming to try to protect,” Padilla said. “For us to ignore them while claiming to be fighting for them is absurd.”

    Several other senators echoed Padilla’s remarks on Thursday, including Democratic Sens. Jon Ossoff, Peter Welch and Cory Booker.

    Kennedy and Klobuchar argued that the bill — which had previously passed out of the committee during the last Congress, in 2022 — is urgently necessary in light of the closure of thousands of local newspapers nationwide since the rise of online platforms.

    “We have small towns in all of our states with news organizations that cover everything from what’s happening in the city council to reports of the local high school football and volleyball games to informing citizens that a flood is coming,” Klobuchar said. “That kind of reporting … is being undermined right now because, in a very tough market, these news reporters and news organizations are not getting the share of the revenue that they should get.”

    Kennedy urged colleagues to set aside their other views on tech platforms and news media.

    “This bill is not about whether or not you like social media,” Kennedy said. “This bill is not about whether or not you like what is happening in American news media today. This bill is about creative content. That’s all it’s about. And whether we respect creative content and value it, or whether we do not.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ron DeSantis is targeting the free speech protections that might save Fox News | CNN Politics

    Ron DeSantis is targeting the free speech protections that might save Fox News | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    As Fox News faces legal peril over its coverage of Donald Trump’s 2020 election lies, one of its most featured Republicans, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, is trying to gut the free speech protections that may ultimately save the network from financial ruin.

    DeSantis and his GOP allies in the state legislature have proposed a sweeping overhaul to defamation laws here that would make it far easier to sue news organizations in Florida. The legislation, fashioned to punish media outlets over their coverage of conservatives, would turn the state into a battleground over the future of the First Amendment.

    But in doing so, DeSantis has sparked warnings from the right that his attempts to target the mainstream media will result in headaches for conservative outlets as well. Among the most vulnerable, opponents have said, could be the media organizations that have done the most to promote DeSantis amid his ascent in the GOP.

    “I understand the emotion behind this bill, but you cannot legislate on emotion and this bill is a sword that will cut both ways,” said Trey Radel, a former Republican colleague of DeSantis in the US House who hosts a weeknight radio show on a Florida Fox News affiliate. “This bill has the potential to stifle, if not shut down, center right media and conservative talk radio.”

    The legislation as introduced takes direct aim at the landmark US Supreme Court ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which created a higher barrier for public figures to sue for defamation. The decision has been a bedrock of US media law since the case was decided in 1964, protecting news outlets from expensive lawsuits for mistakes made during the course of reporting by requiring plaintiffs to prove the reporter or outlet demonstrated “actual malice” when publishing erroneous information about a public figure.

    Fox News has leaned heavily on the ruling in defending itself from Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit. Dominion in its lawsuit has alleged Fox “recklessly disregarded the truth” during its 2020 presidential election coverage by pushing various pro-Trump conspiracies about the company’s voting technology.

    Fox attorneys cited New York Times v. Sullivan five times in its March 7 court filing asking for a summary judgment. In public statements, the network has repeatedly insisted it is protected by the precedent set in that case.

    “Despite the noise and confusion generated by Dominion and their opportunistic private equity owners, the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan,” Fox News Media said in one such recent statement.

    But if Florida Republicans get their way, those protections would be eroded. House Speaker Paul Renner acknowledged last week that the bill his chamber is considering “is designed to challenge current constitutional law” and “tee up a court case.” The push comes as two of the Supreme Court’s more conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have openly expressed a willingness to revisit the high court’s ruling in Sullivan, with Thomas calling the court’s libel precedent “policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.”

    DeSantis has for years quietly eyed going after the media’s First Amendment protections, first floating legislation targeting libel laws in December 2021, according to emails obtained by CNN. Stephanie Kopelousos, the governor’s director of legislative affairs, sent draft bill language to the office of the state Senate president, though it was not filed for the 2022 legislative session.

    His intentions became public last month at an unusually staged event during which DeSantis, seated behind a studio desk like a news anchor with “TRUTH” emblazoned on a screen behind him, signaled his willingness to turn Florida into a test case to challenge Sullivan.

    “It’s our view in Florida that we want to be standing up for the little guy against some of these massive media conglomerates,” DeSantis said.

    But that was several weeks before Dominion unleashed a trove of embarrassing text messages and testimony from Fox executives and personalities that suggested they knowingly aired Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election.

    Adding to the intrigue is the lengths to which the conservative network and others owned by Rupert Murdoch, have gone to promote DeSantis ahead of his likely bid for president. In between regular appearances on Fox programming, DeSantis in recent weeks has played catch with “Fox & Friends’” Brian Kilmeade, sat down with TalkTV’s Piers Morgan in the governor’s mansion, toured his hometown with the New York Post’s Salena Zito and granted a rare newspaper interview to David Charter of the Times of London – all reporters who work in Murdoch’s media empire. The New York Post declared the Republican governor “DeFUTURE” after his resounding reelection victory in November.

    Fox News declined to comment. But the Wall Street Journal, another Murdoch-owned outlet, recently published an op-ed by Trump’s former Attorney General Bill Barr criticizing other media outlets for their “gleeful” coverage of Fox’s “setback” instead of standing up for the protections created by Sullivan. In a plea that seemed aimed at DeSantis’ efforts, Barr urged conservatives with power not to attempt to weaken libel laws.

    “For the foreseeable future, we will likely be on the wrong side of the culture-setting consensus,” he wrote. “There are precious few conservative news outlets as it is. Why make them more vulnerable to the multitude of left-wing plaintiffs’ lawyers?”

    Republican state Rep. Alex Andrade, the sponsor of the Florida House bill, said he would “take Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch over Bill Barr every day of the week.” Andrade contended that libel laws have become so one-sided, “If you’ve been egregiously defamed by a media outlet, in 2023 you have almost no opportunity for actual recourse.”

    Andrade said he planned to tweak the bill to address some of the blowback before its next committee stop, but otherwise intended to charge ahead. The bill’s next vote is not yet scheduled.

    “The majority of the concerns are not based in reality,” Andrade said.

    Under the Florida bill, the definition of a public figure is narrowed significantly and it puts more onus on an individual to verify a defamatory allegation before publishing. Editing video in a misleading way could be considered defamation in this bill. It also allows someone to sue wherever the material is accessed – in today’s digital world, that could be anywhere in the state – which opponents say will lead to “venue shopping” for favorable judges. Courts must assume any statement made by an anonymous source is false, the bill says, which free speech advocates say would have a chilling effect on whistleblowers.

    The bill, which was also introduced in the state Senate with some modifications, has attracted an astounding array of opponents that cross the political spectrum. At a House committee hearing last week, the conservative Americans for Prosperity and the more progressive American Civil Liberties Union both testified against it. Brendon Leslie, the founder of the Florida Voice, a DeSantis-friendly conservative media outlet, warned on Twitter that progressive donors would flood conservative media with lawsuits if the bill became law. Bobby Block, executive director of the Florida First Amendment Foundation, called the bill a “blunt instrument” that has made commentary-heavy evangelical and conservative broadcast stations “incredibly nervous.” US Rep. Cory Mills, a Republican from Central Florida, wrote in a letter to state GOP legislative leaders that he was “gravely concerned that (the bills) violate free speech rights.”

    Though Sullivan is primarily known for protecting news organizations, the bill could make it easier to sue local bloggers, people who post web comments and other online speakers, opponents have warned.

    “It doesn’t just hurt … what’s been referred to as the legacy media,” said Carol LoCicero, a lawyer who has represented The Villages Daily Sun, a newspaper published by the conservative owners of The Villages retirement community. “It hurts people from all points of view. It hurts individuals. Frankly, it will hurt politicians as they’re campaigning for office and making statements about their opponents.”

    DeSantis, though, is so far undeterred. He told reporters last week that he didn’t think the bill would “cause much of a difference in terms of free speech.”

    “I do think it may cause some people to not want to put out things that are false, that are that are smearing somebody’s reputation,” he said.

    Legal experts are skeptical that the bill will be upheld even if it passes. Other Supreme Court justices have so far not shown the same enthusiasm as Thomas and Gorsuch for reviewing its precedent in Sullivan. Dave Heller, deputy director of the Media Law Resource Center, said the proposed legislation is “breathtaking in its hostility toward a free press” and Mark Lerner, an attorney who represented Newsmax in a libel dispute, called the measure “unconstitutional” and said its proponents “who think they’re championing conservative voices may be surprised that it chills them.”

    Radel, the former congressman and radio host, said conservative outlets might not survive the legal costs they could face while legal challenges move through the court system.

    “That type of scorched earth policy is going to destroy conservative talk in Florida in the meantime,” he said. “I work for a privately owned broadcasting group that will not be able to afford a barrage of lawsuits before we wait for it to go before the Supreme Court.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Universal Music Group calls AI music a ‘fraud,’ wants it banned from streaming platforms. Experts say it’s not that easy | CNN Business

    Universal Music Group calls AI music a ‘fraud,’ wants it banned from streaming platforms. Experts say it’s not that easy | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Universal Music Group — the music company representing superstars including Sting, The Weeknd, Nicki Minaj and Ariana Grande — has a new Goliath to contend with: artificial intelligence.

    The music group sent urgent letters in April to streaming platforms, including Spotify

    (SPOT)     and Apple Music, asking them to block artificial intelligence platforms from training on the melodies and lyrics of their copywritten songs.

    The company has “a moral and commercial responsibility to our artists to work to prevent the unauthorized use of their music and to stop platforms from ingesting content that violates the rights of artists and other creators,” a spokesperson from Universal Music Group, or UMG, told CNN. “We expect our platform partners will want to prevent their services from being used in ways that harm artists.”

    The move by UMG, first reported by the Financial Times, aims to stop artificial intelligence from creating an existential threat to the industry.

    Artificial intelligence, and specifically AI music, learns by either training on existing works on the internet or through a library of music given to the AI by humans.

    UMG says it is not against the technology itself, but rather AI that is so advanced it can recreate melodies and even musicians’ voices in seconds. That could possibly threaten UMG’s deep library of music and artists that generate billions of dollars in revenue.

    “UMG’s success has been, in part, due to embracing new technology and putting it to work for our artists — as we have been doing with our own innovation around AI for some time already,” UMG said in a statement Monday. “However, the training of generative AI using our artists’ music … begs the question as to which side of history all stakeholders in the music ecosystem want to be on.”

    The company said AI that uses artists’ music violates UMG’s agreements and copyright law. UMG has been sending requests to streamers asking them to take down AI-generated songs.

    “I understand the intent behind the move, but I’m not sure how effective this will be as AI services will likely still be able to access the copyrighted material one way or another,” said Karl Fowlkes, an entertainment and business attorney at The Fowlkes Firm.

    No regulations exist that dictate on what AI can and cannot train. But last month, in response to individuals looking to seek copyright for AI-generated works, the US Copyright Office released new guidance around how to register literary, musical, and artistic works made with AI.

    “In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of ‘mechanical reproduction’ or instead of an author’s ‘own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form,’” the new guidance says.

    The copyright will be determined on a case-by-case basis, the guidance continued, based on how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final piece or work.

    The US Copyright Office announced it will also be seeking public input on how the law should apply to copywritten works the AI trains on, and how the office should treat those works.

    “AI companies using copyrighted works to train their models to create similar works is exactly the type of behavior the copyright office and courts should explicitly ban. Original art is meant to be protected by law, not works created by machines that used the original art to create new work,” said Fowlkes.

    But according to AI experts, it’s not that simple.

    “You can flag your site not to be searched. But that’s a request — you can’t prevent it. You can just request that someone not do it,” said Shelly Palmer, Professor of Advanced Media at Syracuse University.

    For example, a website can apply a robots.txt file that works like a guardrail to control which URL’s “search engine crawlers” can access a given site, according to Google. But it is not a full stop, keep-out option.

    Grammy-winning DJ and producer David Guetta proved in February just how easy it is to create new music using AI. Using ChatGPT for lyrics and Uberduck for vocals, Guetta was able to create a new song in an hour.

    The result was a rap with a voice that sounded exactly like Eminem. He played the song at one of his shows in February, but said he would never release it commercially.

    “What I think is very interesting about AI is that it’s raising a question of what is it to be an artist,” Guetta told CNN last month.

    Guetta believes AI is going to have a significant impact on the music industry, so he’s embracing it instead of fighting it. But he admits there are still questions about copyright.

    “That is an ethical problem that needs to be addressed because it sounds crazy to me that today I can type lyrics and it’s going to sound like Drake is rapping it, or Eminem,” he said.

    And that is exactly what UMG wants to avoid. The music group likens AI music to “deep fakes, fraud, and denying artists their due compensation.”

    “These instances demonstrate why platforms have a fundamental legal and ethical responsibility to prevent the use of their services in ways that harm artists,” the UMG statement said.

    Music streamers Spotify, Apple Music and Pandora did not return request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • TV and film writers are fighting to save their jobs from AI. They won’t be the last | CNN Business

    TV and film writers are fighting to save their jobs from AI. They won’t be the last | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    By any standard, John August is a successful screenwriter. He’s written such films as “Big Fish,” “Charlie’s Angels” and “Go.” But even he is concerned about the impact AI could have on his work.

    A powerful new crop of AI tools, trained on vast troves of data online, can now generate essays, song lyrics and other written work in response to user prompts. While there are clearly limits for how well AI tools can produce compelling creative stories, these tools are only getting more advanced, putting writers like August on guard.

    “Screenwriters are concerned about our scripts being the feeder material that is going into these systems to generate other scripts, treatments, and write story ideas,” August, a Writers Guild of America (WGA) committee member, told CNN. “The work that we do can’t be replaced by these systems.”

    August is one of the more than 11,000 members of the WGA who went on strike Tuesday morning, bringing an immediate halt to the production of some television shows and possibly delaying the start of new seasons of others later this year.

    WGA is demanding a host of changes from the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), from an increase in pay to receiving clear guidelines around working with streaming services. But as part of their demands, the WGA is also fighting to protect their livelihoods from AI.

    In a proposal published on WGA’s website this week, the labor union said AI should be regulated so it “can’t write or rewrite literary material, can’t be used as source material” and that writers’ work “can’t be used to train AI.”

    August said the AI demand “was one of the last things” added to the WGA list, but that it’s “clearly an issue writers are concerned about” and need to address now rather than when their contact is up again in three years. By then, he said, “it may be too late.”

    WGA said the proposal was rejected by AMPTP, which countered by offering annual meetings to discuss advancements in the technology. August said AMPTP’s response shows they want to keep their options open.

    In a document sent to CNN responding to some of WGA’s asks, AMPTP said it values the work of creatives and “the best stories are original, insightful and often come from people’s own experiences.”

    “AI raises hard, important creative and legal questions for everyone,” it wrote. “Writers want to be able to use this technology as part of their creative process, without changing how credits are determined, which is complicated given AI material can’t be copyrighted. So it’s something that requires a lot more discussion, which we’ve committed to doing.”

    It added that the current WGA agreement defines a “writer” as a “person,” and said “AI-generated material would not be eligible for writing credit.”

    The writers’ attempt at bargaining over AI is perhaps the most high-profile labor battle yet to address concerns about the cutting-edge technology that has captivated the world’s attention in the six months since the public release of ChatGPT.

    Goldman Sachs economists estimate that as many as 300 million full-job jobs globally could be automated in some way by the newest wave of AI. White-collar workers, including those in administrative and legal roles, are expected to be the most affected. And the impact may hit sooner than some think: IBM’s CEO recently suggested AI could eliminate the need for thousands of jobs at his company alone in the next five years.

    David Gunkel, a professor at the department of communications at Northern Illinois University who tracks AI in media and entertainment, said screenwriters want clear guidelines around AI because “they can see the writing on the wall.”

    “AI is already displacing human labor in many other areas of content creation—copywriting, journalism, SEO writing, and so on,” he said. “The WGA is simply trying to get out-in-front of and to protect their members against … ‘technological unemployment.’”

    While film and TV writers in Hollywood may currently be leading the charge, professionals in other industries will almost certainly be paying attention.

    “There’s certainly other industries that need to be paying close attention to this space,” said Rowan Curran, an analyst at Forrester Research who focuses on AI. He noted that digital artists, musicians, engineers, real estate professionals and customer service workers will all feel the impact of generative AI.

    “Watch this #WGA strike carefully,” Justine Bateman, a writer, director and former actress, wrote in a tweet shortly after the strike kicked off. “Understand that our fight is the same fight that is coming to your professional sector next: it’s the devaluing of human effort, skill, and talent in favor of automation and profits.”

    AI has had a place in Hollywood for years. In the 2018 “Marvel Avengers Infinity Wars” film, the face of Thanos – a character played by actor Josh Brolin – was created in part with the technology.

    Crowd and battle scenes in films including the “Lord of the Rings” and “Meg” have utilized AI, and the most recent Indiana Jones used it to make Harrison Ford’s character appear younger. It’s also been used for color correction, finding footage more quickly during post production and making improvements such as removing scratches and dust from footage.

    But AI in screenwriting is in its infancy. In March, a “South Park” episode called “Deep Learning,” was co-written by ChatGPT and the tool was highly focused on in the plot (the characters use ChatGPT to talk to girls and write school papers).

    August said writers are largely willing to play ball with tools, as long as they’re used as launching pads or for research and writers are still credited and utilized throughout the production process.

    “Screenwriters are not luddites, and we’ve been quick to use new technologies to help us tell our stories,” August said. “We went from typewriters to word processors happily and it increased productivity. …. But we don’t need a magical typewriter that types scripts all by itself.”

    Because large language models are trained on text that humans have written before, and find patterns in words and sentences to create responses to prompts, concerns around intellectual property exist, too. “It is entirely possible for a [chatbot] to generate a script in the style of a particular kind of filmmaker or scriptwriter without prior consent of the original artist or the Hollywood studio that holds the IP for that material,” Gunkel said.

    For example, one could prompt ChatGPT to generate a zombie apocalypse drama in the style of David Mamet. “Who should get credited for that?” August said. “What happens if we allow a producer or studio executive to come up with a treatment or pitch or something that looks like a screenplay that no writer has touched?”

    For now, the legal landscape remains very much unsettled on the matter, with regulations lagging behind the rapid pace of AI development. In early April, the Biden administration said it is seeking public comments on how to hold artificial intelligence systems like ChatGPT accountable.

    “We can’t protect studios from their own bad choices,” August said. “We can only protect writers from abuses.”

    The strike, and the demands around AI specifically, come at a time when both the writers and the studios are feeling financial pain.

    Many of the businesses represented by AMPTP have seen drops in their stock price, prompting deep cost cutting, including layoffs. The need to manage costs, combined with addressing the fallout from the strike, might only make the companies feel more pressure to turn to AI for scriptwriting.

    “In the short term, this could be an effective way to circumvent the WGA strike, mainly because [large language models], which are considered property and not personnel, can be employed for this task without violating the picket line,” Gunkel said. Such an “experiment” could also show production studios whether it’s possible “to get by with less humans involved,” he said.

    But Joshua Glick, a visiting professor of film and electronic arts at Bard University, believes such a move would be ill-advised.

    “It would be a pretty aggressive and antagonistic move for studios to move forward with AI-generated scripts in terms of getting writers to come to the negotiating table because AI is such a crucial sticking point in the negotiations,” said Glick, who also co-created Deepfake: Unstable Evidence on Screen, an exhibition at the Museum of the Moving Image in New York.

    “At the same time, I think the result of those scripts would be pretty mediocre at best,” he said.

    However the studios react, the issue is unlikely to go away in Hollywood. Film and TV actors’ contracts are up in June, and many are worried about how their faces, bodies and voices will be impacted by AI, August said.

    “As writers, we don’t want tools to replace us but actors have the same concerns with AI, as do directors, editors and everyone else who does creative work in this industry,” he added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • EU officials accuse Google of antitrust violations in its ad tech business | CNN Business

    EU officials accuse Google of antitrust violations in its ad tech business | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Google’s advertising business should be broken up, European Union officials said Wednesday, alleging that the tech giant’s involvement in multiple parts of the digital advertising supply chain creates “inherent conflicts of interest” that risk harming competition.

    The formal accusations mark the latest antitrust challenge to Google over its sprawling ad tech business, following a lawsuit by the US Justice Department in January that also called for a breakup of the company.

    The EU Commission has submitted its allegations to Google in writing, officials said, kicking off a legal process that could potentially end in billions of dollars in fines in addition to a possible breakup that could impact part of its core advertising business.

    The commission alleges that since 2014, Google has unfairly boosted its own proprietary ad exchange — the online auction house known as AdX that matches advertisers and publishers — through its simultaneous ownership of some of the most popular ad tools for publishers and advertisers.

    For example, the commission claims, advertisers who used Google’s ad buying tools frequently had their purchases routed to AdX instead of to rival ad exchanges.

    Meanwhile, Google’s publisher-facing tools unfairly gave AdX a leg up over rival ad exchanges, the commission alleged, because Google’s publisher tools gave AdX competitive bidding information that the exchange could use to help advertisers win an auction.

    One proposed solution by the commission would spin off Google’s ad exchange and publisher tools from the ad-buying tools it provides to advertisers.

    “@Google controls both sides of the #adtech market: sell & buy,” tweeted Margrethe Vestager, the commission’s top competition official. “We are concerned that it may have abused its dominance to favour its own #AdX platform. If confirmed, this is illegal.”

    In a statement, Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of global ads, said the EU’s probe “focuses on a narrow aspect of our advertising business,” that the company opposes the commission’s preliminary conclusions and that Google plans to “respond accordingly.”

    “Our advertising technology tools help websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers. Google remains committed to creating value for our publisher and advertiser partners in this highly competitive sector,” Taylor said.

    A Google spokesperson told CNN Wednesday that the company has only just received the commission’s complaint and that it will take time to review the commission’s claims. Google also added that it will oppose calls for a breakup.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Inside the long and winding road to Trump’s historic indictment | CNN Politics

    Inside the long and winding road to Trump’s historic indictment | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The New York grand jury hearing the case against Donald Trump was set to break for several weeks. The former president’s lawyers believed on Wednesday afternoon they had at least a small reprieve from a possible indictment. Trump praised the perceived delay.

    Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had other plans.

    Thursday afternoon, Bragg asked the grand jury to return an historic indictment against Trump, the first time that a current or former US president has been indicted. The surprise move was the final twist in an investigation that’s taken a long and winding road to the history-making charges that were returned this week.

    An indictment had been anticipated early last week – including by Trump himself, who promoted a theory he would be “arrested” – as law enforcement agencies prepared for the logistics of arraigning a former president. But after the testimony of Robert Costello – a lawyer who appeared on Trump’s behalf seeking to undercut the credibility of Trump’s former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen – Bragg appeared to hit the pause button.

    Costello’s testimony caused the district attorney’s office to reassess whether Costello should be the last witness the grand jury heard before prosecutors asked them to vote on an indictment, multiple sources told CNN.

    So they waited. The next day the grand jury was scheduled to meet, jurors were told not to come in. Bragg and his top prosecutors huddled the rest of the week and over the weekend to determine a strategy that would effectively counter Costello’s testimony in the grand jury.

    They called two additional witnesses. David Pecker, the former head of the company that publishes the National Enquirer, appeared on Monday. The other witness, who has still not been identified, testified on Thursday for 35 minutes in front of the grand jury – just before prosecutors asked them to vote on the indictment of more than 30 counts, the sources said.

    Trump and his attorneys, thinking Bragg might be reconsidering a potential indictment, were all caught off-guard, sources said. Some of Trump’s advisers had even left Palm Beach on Wednesday following news reports that the grand jury was taking a break, the sources added.

    After the indictment, Trump ate dinner with his wife, Melania, Thursday evening and smiled while he greeted guests at his Mar-a-Lago club, according to a source familiar with the event.

    The Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into Trump has been ongoing for years, dating back to Bragg’s predecessor, Cy Vance. Its focus shifted by mid-2020 to the accuracy of the Trump Org.’s financial statements. At the time, prosecutors debated legal theories around the hush money payments and thought they were a long shot. At several points, the wide-ranging investigation seemed to have been winding down – to the point that prosecutors resigned in protest last year. One even wrote a book critical of Bragg for not pursuing charges against Trump released just last month.

    The specific charges against Trump still remain under seal and are expected to be unveiled Tuesday when Trump is set to be arraigned.

    There are questions swirling even among Trump critics over whether the Manhattan district attorney’s case is the strongest against the former president amid additional investigations in Washington, DC, and Georgia over both his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents at his Florida resort.

    Trump could still face charges in those probes, too, which are separate from the New York indictment.

    But it’s the Manhattan indictment, dating back to a payment made before the 2016 presidential election, that now sees Trump facing down criminal charges for the first time as he runs again for the White House in 2024.

    It was just weeks before the 2016 election when Cohen, Trump’s then-lawyer, paid adult film actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep silent about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Cohen was later reimbursed $420,000 by the Trump Organization to cover the original payment and tax liabilities and to reward him with a bonus.

    That payment and reimbursement are keys at issue in the investigation.

    Cohen also helped arrange a $150,000 payment from the publisher of the National Enquirer to Karen McDougal to kill her story claiming a 10-month affair with Trump. Trump also denies an affair with McDougal. During the grand jury proceedings, the district attorney’s office has asked questions about the “catch and kill” deal with McDougal.

    When Cohen was charged by federal prosecutors in New York in 2018 and pleaded guilty, he said he was acting at the direction of Trump when he made the payment.

    At the time, federal prosecutors had determined they could not seek to indict Trump in the scheme because of US Justice Department regulations against charging a sitting president. In 2021, after Trump left the White House, prosecutors in the Southern District of New York decided not to pursue a case against Trump, according to a recent book from CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

    But then-Manhattan District Attorney Vance’s team had already picked up the investigation into the hush money payments and begun looking at potential state law violations. By summer 2019, they sent subpoenas to the Trump Org., other witnesses, and met with Cohen, who was serving a three-year prison sentence.

    Vance’s investigation broadened to the Trump Org.’s finances. New York prosecutors went to the Supreme Court twice to enforce a subpoena for Trump’s tax records from his long-time accounting firm Mazars USA. The Trump Org. and its long-time chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg were indicted on tax fraud and other charges in June 2021 for allegedly running an off-the-books compensation scheme for more than a decade.

    Weisselberg pleaded guilty to the charges last year and is currently serving a five-month sentence at Rikers Island. Prosecutors had hoped to flip Weisselberg to cooperate against Trump, but he would not tie Trump to any wrongdoing.

    Disagreements about the pace of the investigation had caused at least three career prosecutors to move off the investigation. They were concerned that the investigation was moving too quickly, without clear evidence to support possible charges, CNN and others reported last year.

    Vance authorized the attorneys on the team to present evidence to the grand jury near the end of 2021, but he did not seek an indictment. Those close to Vance say he wanted to leave the decision to Bragg, the newly elected district attorney.

    Bragg, a Democrat, took office in January 2022. Less than two months into his tenure, two top prosecutors who had worked on the Trump case under Vance abruptly resigned amid a disagreement in the office over the strength of the case against Trump.

    On February 22, 2022, Bragg informed the prosecution team that he was not prepared to authorize charges against Trump, CNN reported. The prosecutors, Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz, resigned the next day.

    In his resignation letter, Pomerantz said he believed Trump was guilty of numerous felonies and said that Bragg’s decision to not move forward with an indictment at the time was “wrong” and a “grave failure of justice.”

    “I and others believe that your decision not to authorize prosecution now will doom any future prospects that Mr. Trump will be prosecuted for the criminal conduct we have been investigating,” Pomerantz wrote in the letter, which was reviewed by CNN.

    At that point, the investigation was focused on Trump’s financial statements and whether he knowingly misled lenders, insurers, and others by providing them false or misleading information about the value of his properties.

    Prosecutors were building a wide-ranging falsified business records case to include years of financial statements and the hush money payments, people with direct knowledge of the investigation told CNN. But at the time, those prosecutors believed there was a good chance a felony charge related to the hush money payment would be dismissed by a judge because it was a novel legal theory.

    Dunne and Pomerantz pushed to seek an indictment of Trump tied to the sweeping falsified business records case, but others, including some career prosecutors, were skeptical that they could win a conviction at trial, in part because of the difficulty in proving Trump’s criminal intent.

    Despite the resignations of the prosecutors on the Trump case, Bragg’s office reiterated at the time that the investigation was ongoing.

    “Investigations are not linear so we are following the leads in front of us. That’s what we’re doing,” Bragg told CNN in April 2022. “The investigation is very much ongoing.”

    At the same time that Bragg’s criminal investigation into Trump lingered last year, another prosecution against the Trump Org. moved forward. In December, two Trump Org. entities were convicted at trial on 17 counts and were ordered to pay $1.6 million, the maximum penalty, the following month.

    Trump was not personally charged in that case. But it appeared to embolden Bragg’s team to sharpen their focus back to Trump and the hush money payment.

    Cohen was brought back in to meet with Manhattan prosecutors. Cohen had previously met with prosecutors in the district attorney’s office 13 times over the course of the investigation. But the January meeting was the first in more than a year – and a clear sign of the direction prosecutors were taking.

    As investigators inched closer to a charging decision, Bragg was faced with more public pressure to indict Trump: Pomerantz, the prosecutor who had resigned a year prior, released a book about the investigation that argued Trump should be charged and criticized Bragg for failing to do so.

    “Every single member of the prosecution team thought that his guilt was established,” Pomerantz said in a February interview on “CNN This Morning.”

    Asked about Bragg’s hesitance, Pomerantz said: “I can’t speak in detail about what went through his mind. I can surmise from what happened at the time and statements that he’s made since that he had misgivings about the strength of the case.”

    Bragg responded in a statement saying that more work was needed on the case. “Mr. Pomerantz’s plane wasn’t ready for takeoff,” Bragg said.

    Prosecutors continued bringing in witnesses, including Pecker, the former head of American Media Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer. In February, Trump Org. controller Jeffrey McConney testified before the grand jury. Members of Trump’s 2016 campaign, including Kellyanne Conway and Hope Hicks, also appeared. In March, Daniels met with prosecutors, her attorney said.

    And Cohen, after his numerous meetings with prosecutors, finally testified before the grand jury in March.

    The second week of March, prosecutors gave the clearest sign to date that the investigation was nearing its conclusion – they invited Trump to appear before the grand jury.

    Potential defendants in New York are required by law to be notified and invited to appear before a grand jury weighing charges.

    Behind the scenes, Trump attorney Susan Necheles told CNN she met with New York prosecutors to argue why Trump shouldn’t be indicted and that prosecutors didn’t articulate the specific charges they are considering.

    Trump, meanwhile, took to his social media to predict his impending indictment. In a post attacking Bragg on March 18, Trump said the “leading Republican candidate and former president of the United States will be arrested on Tuesday of next week.”

    “Protest, take our nation back,” Trump added, echoing the calls he made while he tried to overturn the 2020 election.

    Trump’s prediction would turn out to be premature.

    Trump’s call for protests after a potential indictment led to meetings between senior staff members from the district attorney’s office, the New York Police Department and the New York State Court Officers – who provide security at the criminal court building in lower Manhattan.

    Trump’s lawyers also made a last-ditch effort to fend off an indictment. At the behest of Trump’s team, Costello, who advised Cohen in 2018, provided emails and testified to the grand jury on Monday, March 20, alleging that Cohen had said in 2018 that he had decided on his own to make the payment to Daniels.

    Costello’s testimony appeared to delay a possible indictment – for a brief time at least.

    During the void, Trump continued to launch verbal insults against Bragg, calling him a “degenerate psychopath.” And four Republican chairmen of the most powerful House committees wrote to Bragg asking him to testify, which Bragg’s office said was unprecedented interference in a local investigation. An envelope containing a suspicious white powder and a death threat to Bragg was to delivered to the building where the grand jury meets – the powder was deemed nonhazardous.

    The grand jury would not meet again until Monday, March 27, when Pecker was ushered back to the grand jury in a government vehicle with tinted windows in a failed effort to evade detection by the media camped outside of the building where the grand jury meets.

    Pecker, a longtime friend of Trump’s who had a history of orchestrating so-called “catch and kill” deals while at the National Enquirer, was involved with the Daniels’ deal from the beginning.

    Two days after Pecker’s testimony, there were multiple reports that the grand jury was going into a pre-planned break in April. The grand jury was set to meet Thursday but it was not expected to hear the Trump case.

    Instead, the grand jury heard from one last witness in the Trump case on Thursday, whose identity is still unknown. And then the grand jury shook up the American political system by voting to indict a former president and 2024 candidate for the White House.

    [ad_2]

    Source link