ReportWire

Tag: television

  • Home Run: Blue Jays’ season finale a ratings hit | Globalnews.ca

    [ad_1]

    TORONTO – The Toronto Blue Jays’ regular-season finale – a 13-4 rout that clinched the division title – was a ratings home run for domestic rights-holder Sportsnet.

    The network says Toronto’s victory over the Tampa Bay Rays on Sunday averaged 2.36 million viewers on television and via streaming, making it Sportsnet’s most-watched Blue Jays regular-season broadcast ever.

    Related Videos

    Story continues below advertisement

    Alejandro Kirk homered twice as the Blue Jays secured the American League East crown for the first time since 2015.

    For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

    Get breaking National news

    For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

    The Blue Jays earned a bye to the AL Division Series with the victory. They will play the winner of the wild-card series between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees.

    Game 1 in the best-of-five series is scheduled for Saturday at Rogers Centre.

    Sportsnet says the average audience for the full season was 906,800 viewers per game, a jump of 51 per cent from the 2024 campaign.

    This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 30, 2025.

    &copy 2025 The Canadian Press

    [ad_2]

    Globalnews Digital

    Source link

  • Ashley Hollis on winning season 27 of

    [ad_1]



    Ashley Hollis on winning season 27 of “Big Brother” after 83 days in the house – CBS News










































    Watch CBS News



    Ashley Hollis outlasted twists, backstabbing and evictions to be crowned the winner of the CBS reality show “Big Brother.” She joins “CBS Mornings Plus” to reflect on the experience.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • How Madison Prewett Troutt Spun a Messy ‘Bachelor’ Season Into a Conservative Influencing Career

    [ad_1]

    Advice like this is overtly provocative—but Prewett Troutt says she doesn’t want to spark discord with her words. “I don’t want there to be hatred and division and violence and loss and brokenness and sin,” she says. “I mean, those are things that are really hard to see and to witness. And I love everybody, so I want everyone to love everyone.” To her, a religious revival seems like the solution to the country’s woes. “I don’t think we have a political problem. I don’t think we have a racial problem. I don’t think we have a gender problem,” she says. “I think we need Jesus.”

    Prewett Troutt grew up in a fairly cloistered world before she took a limo to The Bachelor’s crowded mansion in 2019. Raised in Alabama by her father, a coach for Auburn University’s basketball team, and mother, a Bible teacher, she was involved in her family’s Assemblies of God church community and the wider evangelical subculture. After leaving The Bachelor, she was hurt to see how other conservative Christians responded to her choice to participate in a reality dating show.

    “It was really hard for me after I came off the show,” she says. “There were some months where I really struggled with wanting to be a part of a church, because I felt so judged and hurt by the church.” For months, Prewett Troutt says, she kept her distance.

    But marrying Troutt brought her back into the fold—and into a more modern church, where conservative theology goes hand-in-hand with athleisure and Nike Dunks. “My husband and I moved to Waco, Texas, right after we got married, and he was working at a local church called Harris Creek,” she says. She credits their pastor, Jonathan Pokluda, with helping her develop as a public speaker.

    Prewett Troutt’s plan to present an aesthetically attractive Christianity to the wider world is not without its challenges. In July, a video of the Troutts laughing about their eventual intention to spank their daughter—they’re currently parents to Hosanna, who was born in January 2025—inspired widespread outrage on TikTok and YouTube. Over 500 commenters on The Bachelor’s subreddit weighed in on the incident, and most of their remarks were strongly negative.

    For Prewett Troutt’s detractors, the spanking video was a reminder that despite her large reach, she is still firmly ensconced in a bubble. Even other evangelicals complained that she and Troutt were repeating old, debunked ideas about how Christians should raise their children, without having the experience to know that their advice could be harmful. Because she gained her audience through The Bachelor, she may be less equipped to navigate the challenges of sharing unpopular views online as she’d be if, say, she’d spent those years debating atheists instead.

    In the meantime, Prewett Troutt says that she and her husband are “learning” from the negative reaction to the spanking video. “I always want to listen before I speak. I always want to take it to God and ask him to lead me and guide me,” she says. “We take it to wise counsel and just say, like, ‘Hey, where did we mess up? Where did we fall short? Can y’all be praying for this?’ And so that’s what we’ve done.”

    And for now, the criticism she’s gotten for remarks that seem out of step with modern culture are only making her more determined to stay the course. “I think there’s always something to learn anytime you get backlash,” she says. “It doesn’t make me want to shrink back or speak out less. It actually just makes me want to be even more bold, and be even more unashamed of God’s truth that I believe is the only thing that’ll set us free.”

    [ad_2]

    Erin Vanderhoof

    Source link

  • Is Trump’s Attack on the Media Following Putin’s Playbook?

    [ad_1]

    In 2000, NTV, a Russian television channel known for its independent, muckraking coverage, was among the country’s most watched stations.The evening news reported on atrocities committed by Russian forces in Chechnya and on corruption schemes that implicated top officials in the Kremlin. Its correspondents had looked into the possibility that the F.S.B., the successor agency to the K.G.B., was behind a series of mysterious apartment bombings that had helped solidify Putin’s power. NTV’s owner, Vladimir Gusinsky, an oligarch who began his business career by founding one of the first for-profit worker coöperatives in the country, had faced all manner of governmental threats and attacks, most of which were thinly disguised as disputes over corporate debts.

    That May, days after Vladimir Putin was inaugurated to his first term as Russia’s President, a high-ranking Kremlin official conveyed a list of demands to NTV. If the channel hoped to survive, the official said, it must end its investigations into corruption in Putin’s entourage, abandon its unflinching coverage of the war in Chechnya, and more readily coördinate its editorial policy with the Kremlin.

    A final demand pertained to one of the more popular shows on NTV: “Kukly,” or “Puppets,” which featured caricatured puppet versions of various members of the country’s political and business élite. In one episode, which had aired a few months earlier, Putin’s puppet appeared in the role of Little Zaches, a character from an E. T. A. Hoffmann fairy tale, an allegorical satire of how readily people can be fooled by superficial charmers. Putin was portrayed as an unsightly troll, who, by an act of magic—a spell cast by the puppet version of Boris Berezovsky, the magnate who helped engineer his rise to the Presidency—comes to appear beautiful and virtuous, the subject of great adulation and deference.

    Putin, NTV journalists and editors learned, was incensed not just by the mocking tone and the implication that his popularity was based on P.R. hocus-pocus but also by the fact that his puppet was, like the character in the original Hoffmann story, short and rather ugly. “He took this as a personal attack, an anthropomorphic insult,” Viktor Shenderovich, one of “Kukly” ’s chief screenwriters, told me. The puppet’s short stature was a metaphor, Shenderovich said. “But where Putin got his education”—the late-Soviet-era K.G.B.—“they don’t believe in metaphors.” The official told the channel that the “first person,” meaning Putin, should disappear from “Kukly.”

    Shenderovich nominally complied. The next episode of “Kukly” featured Putin as God—only not in puppet form but as a burning bush and a storm cloud. (An updated version of the Ten Commandments made an appearance: “Thou shalt not steal, unless He permits it.”) In any case, NTV’s fate was set. Before long, a media holding company of the Russian state energy giant Gazprom took a majority stake in the channel, ending its independence and giving the Kremlin decisive influence over its editorial policy.

    Many at the channel, including Shenderovich, left; those who stayed quickly learned the new rules. “My greatest sorrow was that so many of my colleagues effectively helped Putin become who he did,” Shenderovich told me. “At first, Putin wasn’t strong enough to defeat everyone. He was far from omnipotent. But, by bending to him, they participated in creating what, over time, became his aura of unchecked power.” (Shenderovich left Russia in 2022, after a libel probe was opened against him at the request of a close Putin associate.)

    The takeover of NTV also set an important precedent. Many more individuals and institutions would be suborned and co-opted. With one of the country’s most influential media outlets brought to heel, Shenderovich told me, “everything else became possible.”

    I spent a decade living in Moscow, during which time independent journalists went from being intimidated and marginalized to being essentially outlawed. I wanted to ask the central players in the drama at NTV—who, at the time of their channel’s crisis, looked to the United States as a model of free expression and democratic values—what they made of the ongoing standoff between Donald Trump and the American media. Shenderovich noted that, for the health of a polity, its norms—what’s considered morally permissible—can often matter more than the laws that formally govern it. And those norms can change quickly, with much of society managing to adapt to a prolonged state of unfreedom. “People tend to accept new rules imposed from above quite readily,” Shenderovich said. “Unfortunately, it turns out the U.S. is no exception.”

    In July, CBS announced that it was cancelling Stephen Colbert’s late-night program, which the network said was “purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night.” On September 17th, ABC suspended the late-night show hosted by Jimmy Kimmel, because of comments Kimmel had made in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder. Both Colbert and Kimmel have been frequent critics of Trump. And both of their networks had previously paid millions of dollars to settle lawsuits brought by the President. ABC paid fifteen million dollars to settle a Trump defamation suit stemming from comments made on air by George Stephanopoulos; Paramount Global, which owned CBS, paid sixteen million to settle a suit over a “60 Minutes” interview with then Vice-President Kamala Harris which Trump had claimed was unfair to him. In April, the executive producer of “60 Minutes” resigned, writing in a memo to staff that CBS’s corporate owners had undermined the program’s editorial independence: “It has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it.”

    [ad_2]

    Joshua Yaffa

    Source link

  • No simulcast deal for Jays’ game Friday night | Globalnews.ca

    [ad_1]

    TORONTO – Baseball fans in Canada should not expect a repeat of a deal that allowed Sportsnet to air a simulcast of Apple TV’s Friday Night Baseball broadcast that featured the Toronto Blue Jays last week.

    As a result of the agreement, the streamer was given the rights for Friday’s game between the Blue Jays and Tampa Bay Rays.

    “Apple has it exclusively,” a Sportsnet spokesperson said Thursday afternoon in an email.

    Sportsnet, the Canadian team’s domestic rights-holder, reached a deal with the Blue Jays, Apple TV and Major League Baseball ahead of last Friday’s game between Toronto and Kansas City.

    That matchup had the potential to be a playoff clincher for the Blue Jays. The Royals pounded Toronto 20-1 that night but the Blue Jays would secure a post-season berth two days later.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Related Videos

    Entering Thursday’s games, there was a scenario that could have seen the Blue Jays move into a potential clinch situation for the American League East Division title on Friday.

    For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

    Get breaking National news

    For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

    But when Toronto defeated the Boston Red Sox 6-1 and the New York Yankees beat the Chicago White Sox 5-3, the Blue Jays’ magic number was trimmed to three. That left Saturday as the earliest possible clinch date.

    Instead of airing on Sportsnet, Friday’s Jays-Rays matchup will only be shown on Apple TV+, leaving non-subscribers without a viewing option.

    There were no plans to change that arrangement, a baseball source confirmed Thursday.

    Almost all Blue Jays games air on Sportsnet, but a handful of Toronto games throughout the 162-game season air on Apple TV+ as part of the streamer’s partnership with MLB.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Toronto is looking to win the East crown for the first time since 2015. The Blue Jays hold the tiebreaker over the Yankees in the event they finish the regular season on Sunday with the same record.

    The top two division winners will earn byes to the best-of-five division series. The other four AL playoff teams will play in best-of-three wild-card series.

    Toronto made the playoffs three times between 2020 and ’23 but was swept in the wild-card series each time.

    The Blue Jays haven’t won a post-season game since 2016. Toronto’s last World Series title came in 1993.

    Sportsnet and the Blue Jays are owned by Rogers Communications.

    This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 25, 2025.


    &copy 2025 The Canadian Press

    [ad_2]

    Globalnews Digital

    Source link

  • No simulcast deal for potential Jays’ clincher | Globalnews.ca

    [ad_1]

    TORONTO – Baseball fans in Canada should not expect a repeat of a deal that allowed Sportsnet to air a simulcast of Apple TV’s Friday Night Baseball broadcast that featured the Toronto Blue Jays last week.

    As a result of the agreement, the streamer was given the rights for this Friday’s game between the Blue Jays and Tampa Bay Rays. The matchup could be a potential division clincher for Toronto.

    “Apple has it exclusively,” a Sportsnet spokesperson said Thursday afternoon in an email.

    Sportsnet, the Canadian team’s domestic rights-holder, reached a deal with the Blue Jays, Apple TV and Major League Baseball ahead of last Friday’s game between Toronto and Kansas City.

    That matchup had the potential to be a playoff clincher for the Blue Jays. The Royals pounded Toronto 20-1 that night but the Blue Jays would secure a post-season berth two days later.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Related Videos

    A similar scenario exists this week. Depending on results from Thursday’s games, the Blue Jays could have a chance on Friday to win the American League East Division title for the first time since 2015.

    For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

    Get breaking National news

    For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

    However, instead of airing on Sportsnet, the Jays-Rays matchup will only be shown on Apple TV+, leaving non-subscribers without a viewing option.

    There were no plans to change that arrangement, a baseball source confirmed Thursday.

    Almost all Blue Jays games air on Sportsnet, but a handful of Toronto games throughout the 162-game season air on Apple TV+ as part of the streamer’s partnership with MLB.

    Entering play Thursday, the Blue Jays had a magic number of four to clinch the East. Toronto was tied with the New York Yankees for first place but the Blue Jays hold the tiebreaker advantage.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Chances of a Friday clinch scenario were certainly possible but appeared unlikely.

    A Toronto win over the Boston Red Sox on Thursday night, coupled with a New York loss to the Chicago White Sox, would trim the Blue Jays’ magic number to two.

    However, the slumping Blue Jays had dropped six of their last seven games entering the series finale against the Red Sox, who were only three games back in the East.

    The Yankees, meanwhile, were looking to complete a three-game sweep of the lowly White Sox, who are in last place in the American League.


    On Friday, the Blue Jays-Rays game will start a couple minutes after the start of the Yankees-Orioles matchup. If Toronto entered that game with a magic number of two, the Blue Jays would claim the East crown if they beat the Rays and if New York lost to Baltimore.

    The regular season continues through Sunday.

    The top two division winners will earn byes to the best-of-five division series. The other four AL playoff teams will play in best-of-three wild-card series.

    Toronto made the playoffs three times between 2020 and ’23 but was swept in the wild-card series each time.

    The Blue Jays haven’t won a post-season game since 2016. Toronto’s last World Series title came in 1993.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Sportsnet and the Blue Jays are owned by Rogers Communications.

    This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 25, 2025.

    &copy 2025 The Canadian Press

    [ad_2]

    Globalnews Digital

    Source link

  • Extended interview: Billy Crudup

    [ad_1]



    Extended interview: Billy Crudup – CBS News










































    Watch CBS News



    Billy Crudup discusses his career, what’s in store for Cory Ellison in the latest season of “The Morning Show” and more.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ audience members talk show’s return

    [ad_1]

    Audience members who attended Tuesday’s taping of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” described the late night host’s monologue as “unifying.”

    Kimmel returned to television on Tuesday after Disney’s ABC pulled the talk show off the air last week over the host’s comments about the death of conservative speaker Charlie Kirk. The short-lived hiatus lasted about a week, with ABC announcing on Monday that Kimmel would return to air the following day.

    As audience members exited the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood on Tuesday, they described Kimmel’s opening monologue as being full of heart.

    “It was a great show. He’s amazing,” Dana from Philadelphia said. “He was gracious, he was standing up for freedom of speech, funny. He was wonderful. It was a great show, a great experience.”

    Burbank resident Kathy also had positive things to say about the monologue.

    “He made sure that what he said was very clear,” she said. “He explained just enough about his feelings … he made sure he won that message of everyone coming together and understanding where we stand as a country.”

    Dana echoed that sentiment of unity.

    “To me, it felt very unifying,” she said. “The audience was behind him. He was just very, again, gracious and just really a champion for freedom of speech.”

    Dean from Long Island agreed and said he watched the show with an open mind.

    Tuesday’s taping was set to begin at 4:30 p.m. PST. Alex Rozier reports for the NBC4 News at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025.

    “It was just more unifying,” he said. “I consider myself an Independent, I try to stay out of this side, that side, but it was touching. It was nice. I don’t need to hear it; I already believe that. I think a lot of other people need to hear it.”

    While audience members had glowing reviews of Kimmel’s return, some social media users have expressed disappointment in his return and in his monologue.

    Shortly before Kimmel’s return aired, President Donald Trump sharply expressed his displeasure with the show’s comeback. In a social media post, the president alluded to potentially suing the network over the show’s return.

    “I can’t believe ABC fake news gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “The White house was told by ABC that his show was canceled! Something happened between then and now because his audience is gone and his ‘talent’ was never there.”

    [ad_2]

    Karla Rendon

    Source link

  • Jimmy Kimmel clarifies he didn’t mean to make light of Charlie Kirk’s killing in late-night return

    [ad_1]

    Jimmy Kimmel returned to late-night television Tuesday after a nearly weeklong suspension and nearly broke down in tears, saying he wasn’t trying joke about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

    “I have no illusions about changing anyone’s mind, but I do want to make something clear, because it’s important to me as a human and that is, you understand that it was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man,” Kimmel said, his voice breaking. “I don’t think there’s anything funny about it.”

    Kimmel added: “Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group for the actions of what … was obviously a deeply disturbed individual. That was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make.” He said he understood his remarks last week to some “felt either ill-timed or unclear or maybe both.”

    Kimmel criticized the ABC affiliates who took his show off the air. “That’s not legal. That’s not American. It’s un-American.” Two stations groups that represent about a quarter of ABC affiliates, Sinclair and Nexstar, had said they would not show Kimmel’s program on Tuesday.

    He thanked the people who supported him, and even people who don’t like him who stood up for his right to speak, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. “It takes courage for them to speak out against this administration,” he said. “They did and they deserve credit for it.”

    Kimmel nearly broke down again in praising Kirk’s widow, who publicly forgave her husband’s killer. If nothing else comes from the past few weeks, he said “I hope it can be that.”

    Erika Kirk, wife of slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, spoke at a memorial for her husband and said Charlie’s mission was to help young men like his killer.

    ABC, which suspended Kimmel’s show last Wednesday following criticism of his comments about the Kirk’s assassination, announced Monday that “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” would return after the network had “thoughtful conversations” with the host.

    Kimmel admitted that he was mad when ABC suspended him, but praised his bosses for putting him back on the air. “Unjustly, this puts them at risk.”

    He mocked Trump for criticizing him for bad ratings. “He tried his best to cancel me and instead he forced millions of people to watch this show,” Kimmel said.

    The decisions by Sinclair and Nexstar left ABC stations in Washington, D.C.; St. Louis; Nashville, Tennessee; and Richmond, Virginia, among the cities airing something else. WJLA-TV, the Sinclair-owned station in Washington, instead aired a newscast and an episode of the chain’s show, “The National Desk.”

    Kimmel, who has been publicly silent since his suspension, posted Tuesday on his Instagram account a picture of himself with the late television producer and free speech advocate Norman Lear. “Missing this guy today,” he wrote.

    ABC suspended Kimmel “indefinitely” after comments he made in a monologue last week. Kimmel, who has been a relentless Trump critic in his comedy, suggested that many Trump supporters were trying to capitalize on Kirk’s death and were “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.”

    Kimmel, who has been a relentless Trump critic in his comedy, suggested that many Trump supporters were trying to capitalize on Kirk’s death and were “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.”

    FCC chair accuses host of misleading the public

    Trump-appointed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr last week said it appeared that Kimmel was trying to “directly mislead the American public” with his remarks about Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old Utah man charged with Kirk’s killing, and his motives. Those motives remain unclear. Authorities say Robinson grew up in a conservative family, but his mother told investigators his son had turned left politically in the last year.

    “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said before ABC announced the suspension. “These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

    Those remarks set a backlash in motion, with Republican Sen. Ted Cruz saying that Carr acted like “a mafioso.” Hundreds of entertainment luminaries, including Tom Hanks, Barbra Streisand and Jennifer Aniston, signed a letter circulated by the American Civil Liberties Union that called ABC’s move “a dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation.”

    Congress members responded sharply after ABC suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” following host Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

    Podcaster Joe Rogan weighed in Tuesday on Kimmel’s side. “I definitely don’t think that the government should be involved — ever — in dictating what a comedian can or can’t say in a monologue,” Rogan said. “You are crazy for supporting this because this will be used on you.”

    Some consumers punished ABC parent Disney by canceling subscriptions to its streaming services.

    Trump had hailed Kimmel’s suspension and criticized his return, writing on his Truth Social platform: “I can’t believe ABC Fake News gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back … Why would they want someone back who does so poorly, who’s not funny, and who puts the Network in jeopardy by playing 99% positive Democrat GARBAGE.”

    Actor Robert De Niro appeared on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on Tuesday, impersonating Carr being interviewed by Kimmel. De Niro, as Carr, said the FCC had a new motto, “sticks and stones can break your bones.”

    Isn’t there more to the saying, Kimmel asked, that words can never hurt you?

    “They can hurt you now,” De Niro responded, saying you have to make sure to say the right ones.

    Kimmel took the stage to a long standing ovation and chants of “Jimmy, Jimmy.” One audience member, Walter Bates, said after the taping that Kimmel’s discussion of Kirk’s wife “was a very moving moment. I got very emotional and so did my wife.”

    Trump’s administration has used threats, lawsuits and federal government pressure to try to exert more control over the media industry. Trump sued ABC and CBS over news coverage, which the companies settled. Trump has also filed defamation lawsuits against The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, and successfully urged Congress to strip federal funding from NPR and PBS.

    After pulling out of her planned performance at the premiere of Hulu’s Lilith Fair documentary in protest over Kimmel’s suspension, singer-songwriter Sarah McLachlan appeared on Kimmel’s show as the musical guest. McLachlan had been booked on the show prior to the preemption, a representative told The Associated Press.

    The other guest was actor Glen Powell.

    The suspension happened at a time when the late-night landscape is shifting. Shows are losing viewers, in part because many watch highlights the next day online. CBS announced the cancellation of Colbert’s show over the summer. Kimmel’s contract with ABC reportedly lasts through May.

    CBS’ “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert, in his own opening monologue Monday, grabbed his recently won Emmy Award for outstanding talk series, saying, “Once more, I am the only martyr on late night!”

    ___

    Associated Press journalists Maria Sherman and Hillel Italie in New York, Alicia Rancilio in Detroit and Liam McEwan in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    David Bauder | The Associated Press

    Source link

  • The Best Roku for Most People Is Under $30 on Sale

    [ad_1]

    Our favorite 4K streaming device, the Roku Streaming Stick Plus (9/10, WIRED Review), is marked down to just $29 on Amazon, a healthy discount off its already wallet-friendly price. It’s easy to use, extremely compact, and priced well under its competitors. It can turn a dumb 4K TV into a smart streaming platform in under 10 minutes with minimal fuss, and there’s a reason it’s our Editors’ Pick for 4K streaming devices.

    Photograph: Parker Hall

    Roku

    Streaming Stick Plus (2025)

    You might even consider the Streaming Stick Plus if you already have a smart TV and the interface is slow or buggy. Maybe it’s an older model and the years of updates have finally caught up with it. The Roku’s interface is clean and snappy, but even better, it’s incredibly easy to use, great for anyone who just wants to sit down with their popcorn and get movie night going.

    It has great picture quality and feature support too, particularly for the price. It can stream content up to 4K, with support for HDR10, and you’re really only missing Dolby Vision, a high-end HDR codec that’s only found on the most premium televisions (and no Samsung models to date). It has no issue jumping from app to app, and it doesn’t get warm like some previous generations.

    The Streaming Stick Plus is surprisingly compact too, with a slim body that’s designed to squeeze into an HDMI port without blocking the ports around it. Most TVs have an extra USB port for powering devices like this on the back, which means you won’t need to find an outlet or a spot on your entertainment stand.

    Once reserved for the more premium Roku devices, the updated Streaming Stick Plus now has voice controls. Our reviewer Parker Hall was impressed with how well it worked, and he found it particularly useful for finding where a particular show or movie was streaming if he wasn’t sure.

    There are only a few other 4K streaming devices at this price point, and this is our favorite of the bunch, thanks to its super straightforward interface and snappy streaming. Extras like a compact form factor and voice controls only sweeten the deal, especially when there’s a discount involved.

    [ad_2]

    Brad Bourque

    Source link

  • Brendan Carr says networks must serve the ‘public interest.’ What does that mean?

    [ad_1]

    On his ABC late-night show last Monday, Jimmy Kimmel criticized President Donald Trump and his followers for their actions since Charlie Kirk’s murder. Within days, Kimmel’s show was suspended, after Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr publicly threatened reprisal. (Kimmel’s show is set to return to the air Tuesday.)

    The entire affair was blatantly improper, as a federal official leaned on a private company to censor an employee’s protected speech. Carr, meanwhile, says he’s just pursuing the “public interest.” What does that actually mean? Just about anything a regulator wants, it turns out.

    Unlike other forms of media, radio and network TV stations broadcast over public airwaves, which the FCC polices by issuing broadcast licenses. Federal law authorizes the FCC to ensure licensees serve “the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

    “Generally, this means [a broadcaster] must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license,” the FCC claims.

    Carr often cites the “public interest” as his goal for FCC actions. “Broadcast media have had the privilege of using a scarce and valuable public resource—our airwaves. In turn, they are required by law to operate in the public interest,” he wrote in November 2024, the day after Trump announced he would appoint Carr to head the agency. “When the transition is complete, the FCC will enforce this public interest obligation.”

    In his current role, Carr has evoked the “public interest” to justify numerous FCC actions—including investigations of Comcast’s relationship with NBC affiliates and a San Francisco radio station’s coverage of immigration enforcement in San Jose, and accusing NBC of “news distortion” for its coverage of an immigration case.

    “One thing that we’re trying to do is to empower those local stations to serve their own communities,” Carr told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson last week. “And the public interest means you can’t be running a narrow partisan circus and still meeting your public interest obligations.”

    Who’s to say if Carr’s actions are in those local communities’ best interest? Law and judicial precedent actually give him some pretty considerable leeway.

    “Perhaps no single area of communications policy has generated as much scholarly discourse, judicial analysis, and political debate over the course of the last seventy years as has that simple directive to regulate in the ‘public interest,'” Erwin G. Krasnow and Jack N. Goodman wrote in a 1998 article for the Federal Communications Law Journal, a publication of Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law. “If the history of this elusive regulatory standard makes anything clear, it is the fact that just what constitutes service in the ‘public interest’ has encompassed different things at different times.”

    Congress first included the phrase “public interest, convenience, and necessity” in the Radio Act of 1927, but did not define it—leaving it for future regulators to interpret. “Our opinions have repeatedly emphasized that the [FCC]’s judgment regarding how the public interest is best served is entitled to substantial judicial deference,” the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in 1981’s FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild. Subsequent legislation expanded the government’s regulatory power but largely kept the “public interest” standard intact.

    “Few independent regulatory commissions have had to operate under such a broad grant of power with so few substantive guidelines,” Krasnow and Goodman wrote.

    One would imagine the “public interest” is best served by respecting the First Amendment and defending free speech. “The FCC has long held that ‘the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views,'” according to the agency’s website. “Rather than suppress speech, communications law and policy seeks to encourage responsive ‘counter-speech’ from others. Following this principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some views or expressions may be highly offensive.”

    But that would directly contradict Carr’s actions: Over the past week, Carr not only pressured a broadcaster to punish one of its hosts over intemperate comments, he gloated over the host’s suspension and pledged daytime chat show The View might be next in his crosshairs.

    The “public interest standard” is in fact “not really a standard because it doesn’t tell you what they can’t do,” Thomas W. Hazlett, an economics professor at Clemson University, tells Reason. “There is some formal structure to the process, but in terms of an actual regulatory standard, it basically means that we’re going to make rules according to what we think is right. And of course, if you want to do things that are different and exercise power in a certain direction, you’ll talk a lot about public interest because it’s a very wide berth for justifying what you’re trying to do. It does dress it up a little bit, that it’s not just politics, it’s bigger than that, but not really: It’s what the five members of the commission vote to do, and that’s the beginning and the end.”

    As Reason‘s Robby Soave noted, one person who understood this was Ayn Rand, who wrote in 1962 that a government-enforced public interest standard was simply a more sophisticated form of censorship, “for stifling the freedom of men’s minds.”

    [ad_2]

    Joe Lancaster

    Source link

  • Inside Fox News Host Dana Perino’s New Jersey Beach Home

    [ad_1]

    Dana Perino, dressed in pink pants, a pink and white shirt and silver shoes sits at a desk in her beach home. The bright green wallpaper behind her displays a plant motif.

    Soon after Dana Perino joined the Fox News Channel in July of 2011 to be one of the five hosts on the talk show “The Five” her boss asked about her off-camera summer plans.

    Dana Perino, dressed in pink pants, a pink and white shirt and silver shoes sits at a desk in her beach home. The bright green wallpaper behind her displays a plant motif.

    “And I remember thinking ‘I don’t think I can afford a summer plan in New York,’” said Ms. Perino, who was the White House press secretary for the last 16 months of George W. Bush’s administration.

    Dana Perino, dressed in pink pants, a pink and white shirt and silver shoes sits at a desk in her beach home. The bright green wallpaper behind her displays a plant motif.

    But in 2017, thanks to a sufficiently bulked-up bank account, she and her husband, Peter McMahon, the founder and CEO of a start-up that manufactures medical devices, had not just a summer plan, but a summer place — a newly acquired house in Bay Head, New Jersey. Without traffic, it was precisely one hour and six minutes from the couple’s primary residence on the west side of Manhattan.

    [ad_2]

    Joanne Kaufman

    Source link

  • ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ to return Tuesday, Disney announces

    [ad_1]

    Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night talk show, which Disney suspended following the host’s comments about the Charlie Kirk assassination, will return to ABC on Tuesday, the company announced.

    “We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday,” said a statement from the network.

    ABC suspended Kimmel indefinitely after comments he made about Kirk, who was killed Sept. 10, in a monologue. Kimmel said “many in MAGA land are working very hard to capitalize on the murder of Charlie Kirk” and that “the MAGA gang” was “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.”

    Kimmel has hosted “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on ABC since 2003 and has been a fixture in television and comedy for even longer. He is also well known as a presenter, having hosted the Academy Awards four times.

    Backlash to Kimmel’s comments about Kirk was swift. Nexstar and Sinclair, two of ABC’s largest affiliate owners, said they would be pulling “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” from their stations. Others, including several fellow comedians, came to his defense.

    There was no immediate comment from Nexstar and Sinclair in response to messages from The Associated Press.

    President Donald Trump, one of Kimmel’s frequent targets, posted on social media that Kimmel’s suspension was “great news for America.” He also called for other late night hosts to be fired.

    Kimmel was asked in an interview with Variety this past summer if he was worried that the administration would come after comedians. He expressed concern that a crackdown could be on the way.

    Congress members responded sharply after ABC suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” following host Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

    “Well, you’d have to be naive not to worry a little bit,” he said. “But that can’t change what you’re doing.”

    Kimmel’s suspension arrived in a time when Trump and his administration have pursued threats, lawsuits and federal government pressure to try to exert more control over the media industry. Trump has reached settlements with ABC and CBS over their coverage.

    Trump has also filed defamation lawsuits against The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Republicans in Congress stripped federal funding from NPR and PBS.

    Brendan Carr, the head of the Federal Communications Commission, issued a warning prior to Kimmel’s suspension that criticized Kimmel’s remarks about the Kirk assassination.

    “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

    Carr denied on Monday that he threatened to revoke ABC’s local station licenses because of Kimmel’s remarks.

    “Jimmy Kimmel is in the situation he’s in because of his ratings. Not because of anything that’s happened at the federal government level,” Carr said at the Concordia Annual Summit.

    The suspension also happened at a time when the late night landscape is shifting. CBS announced the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s show over the summer

    Kimmel’s contract with The Walt Disney Co.-owned network had been set to expire in May 2026.

    Word of the reinstatement came as hundreds of Hollywood and Broadway stars — including Robert De Niro, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston, Selena Gomez, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep — urged Americans “fight to defend and preserve our constitutionally protected rights” in the wake of Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension.

    More than 430 movie, TV and stage stars as well as comedians, directors and writers added their names to an open letter Monday from the American Civil Liberties Union that argues it is “a dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation.”

    Also Monday, ABC’s “The View” weighed in on the controversy after not raising it for two episodes after Kimmel was suspended. Co-host Whoopi Goldberg opened the show saying: “No one silences us” and she and her fellow hosts condemned Disney’s decision.

    ___

    [ad_2]

    The Associated Press

    Source link

  • The FCC’s Involvement in Canceling Jimmy Kimmel Was ‘Unbelievably Dangerous,’ Ted Cruz Says

    [ad_1]

    Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) is happy that ABC decided to indefinitely suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show. But like Fox News political analyst Brit Hume, Cruz is not happy about the role that Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), played in that decision. By threatening TV stations that carried Jimmy Kimmel Livewith fines and license revocation, Cruz warned in his podcast on Friday, Carr set a dangerous precedent that could invite similar treatment of conservative speech under a future administration.

    “I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said,” Cruz declared, referring to the September 15 monologue in which the late-night comedian erroneously suggested that Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a college in Utah five days earlier, was part of the MAGA movement. “I am thrilled that he was fired. But let me tell you: If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said; we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives.”

    In an interview with right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday, Carr warned that there are “actions we can take on licensed broadcasters” that dared to air Kimmel’s show, including “fines or license revocations.” He added that “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Either “these companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel,” he said, “or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

    Hours later, Nexstar, which owns 32 ABC affiliate stations, announced that it would preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live! “for the foreseeable future beginning with tonight’s show.” Sinclair, which owns 38 ABC affiliates, likewise said it would “indefinitely preempt” Jimmy Kimmel Live! beginning that night. ABC, which produces the programming aired by those affiliates and owns eight of the network’s stations, fell in line the same night, saying it would “indefinitely” suspend the show.

    Cruz likened Carr to a mafioso. “He says, ‘We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way,'” the senator noted. “And I got to say, that’s right out of Goodfellas. That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar [and] going, ‘Nice bar you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.'”

    In fact, Carr’s threat was more explicit than that. “This sort of status quo is obviously not acceptable,” he declared, saying it was “past time” for “these licensed broadcasters” to say, “Listen, we are going to preempt, we are not going to run, Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out, because we licensed broadcaster[s] are running the possibility of fines or license revocations from the FCC if we continue to run content that ends up being a pattern of news distortion.”

    That rationale for punishing stations that carried Kimmel’s show was absurd on its face. The policy to which Carr alluded applies to a “broadcast news report” that was “deliberately intended to mislead viewers or listeners” about “a significant event.” While Kimmel’s remarks were certainly misinformed, it is doubtful that he intended to “mislead viewers.” It seems more plausible that he committed to a partisan narrative without bothering to ask whether it was supported by the facts, an example of carelessness rather than deliberate deceit. But whatever you think of Kimmel’s intent, a comedian’s monologue is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a “broadcast news report.”

    By abusing his power to exert pressure on ABC and its affiliates, Cruz said, Carr was setting an example that Democrats are apt to copy. “Going down this road, there will come a time when a Democrat…wins the White House,” the senator said, and “they will silence us. They will use this power, and they will use it ruthlessly. And that is dangerous.”

    Although “it might feel good right now to threaten Jimmy Kimmel,” Cruz said, “when it is used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it….It is unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying, ‘We’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.'”

    Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) agreed that Carr’s involvement in kiboshing Kimmel was “absolutely inappropriate.” The FCC’s chairman “has got no business weighing in on this,” Paul said on Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press. “If you’re losing money, you can be fired. But the government’s got no business in it. And the FCC was wrong to weigh in. And I’ll fight any attempt by the government to get involved with speech.”

    Conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson perceives a similar danger in Attorney General Pam Bondi’s response to online commentary that celebrated Kirk’s murder or justified violence against conservatives more generally. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech,” Bondi said last week, erroneously asserting a constitutional distinction between “free speech” and “hate speech.” She later claimed she had in mind “threats of violence that individuals incite against others.” But the speech that offended Bondi generally would not meet the First Amendment test that the Supreme Court established in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which requires advocacy that is both “directed” at inciting “imminent lawless action” and “likely” to have that effect.

    “This is the attorney general of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, telling you that there is this other category…called hate speech,” Carlson remarked on his show last Wednesday. “And of course, the implication is that’s a crime. There’s no sentence that Charlie Kirk would have objected to more than that.”

    With good reason, Carlson said: “You hope that a year from now, the turmoil we’re seeing in the aftermath of his murder won’t be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country. And trust me, if it is, if that does happen, there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that, ever. And there never will be. Because if they can tell you what to say, they’re telling you what to think.”

    It is encouraging that at least some of President Donald Trump’s allies recognize that freedom of speech is unreliable unless it protects their political opponents. But Trump himself seems oblivious to that point. When asked about Cruz’s criticism of Carr on Friday, Trump described the FCC chairman as “a great American patriot,” adding, “I disagree with Ted Cruz on that.”

    Of course he does. For years, Trump has been eager to wield the FCC’s powers against broadcasters who air programming that offends him. During Trump’s first administration, he averred that “network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked.” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai rejected that suggestion in no uncertain terms. “I believe in the First Amendment,” he said. “The FCC under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment, and under the law the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.”

    Trump’s views on the subject have not changed. Last week, he cheered Kimmel’s suspension as “Great News for America” and urged NBC to fire Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, two other late-night comedians who are often critical of him. “Do it NBC!!!” he demanded. In case there was any doubt that Trump was not merely offering advice as a businessman or TV critic, he signed that Truth Social missive “President DJT” and later clarified the underlying threat. “You have a network and you have evening shows, and all they do is hit Trump,” he complained to reporters. “It’s all they do….They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.” When network newscasts “take a great story” and “make it bad,” he averred, “that’s really illegal.”

    The difference this time around is that the FCC’s Trump-appointed chairman, an avowed free speech champion, has no constitutional compunction about using his powers to bully broadcasters into submission. “They give me only bad publicity or press,” Trump said on Thursday. “I mean, they’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away. It will be up to Brendan Carr.”

    [ad_2]

    Jacob Sullum

    Source link

  • Trump ramps up criticism of broadcast networks amid Jimmy Kimmel turmoil

    [ad_1]



    Trump ramps up criticism of broadcast networks amid Jimmy Kimmel turmoil – CBS News










































    Watch CBS News



    President Trump warned Friday that he may go after more television networks following ABC’s decision to pull late-night host Jimmy Kimmel off air for comments he made about the response to Charlie Kirk’s death.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • The Grave Threat Posed by Donald Trump’s Attack on Jimmy Kimmel

    [ad_1]

    On Wednesday evening, ABC indefinitely suspended Jimmy Kimmel, the host of its late-night show, after Kimmel discussed in his opening monologue the Trump Administration and the conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was murdered last week. Some viewers accused Kimmel of erroneously suggesting that Kirk’s alleged shooter was MAGA, which Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, called “some of the sickest conduct possible.” Hours before the suspension was announced, Carr raised the idea of punishing local television stations that continued to air Kimmel’s show. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he said. Kimmel’s suspension was the latest in a string of attacks by the Trump Administration on media outlets, and especially on broadcast television networks. Disney, which owns ABC, and Paramount, which owns CBS, had already settled two frivolous lawsuits (for defamation and deceptive editing, respectively) that Trump brought against them. CBS News, now under new ownership, has taken a number of steps—such as hiring a conservative ombudsman—that were pushed by Carr. On Thursday, Trump explicitly stated that networks employing late-night hosts critical of him should potentially have their broadcast licenses revoked.

    To talk about Kimmel’s suspension, and more broadly about authoritarian leaders and their response to comedy, I called Michael Idov, a novelist and filmmaker who ran GQ Russia between 2012 and 2014, and wrote and directed the 2019 film “The Humorist,” about a fictional comedian in the late Soviet era. (Idov’s most recent novel is “The Collaborators.”) During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed the similarities and differences between Trump’s and Putin’s approaches to cracking down on comedy and culture, the speed of Trump’s attack on institutions in his second term, and Russian comedy under Putin’s rule.

    What did you think when you first heard this news about Jimmy Kimmel? What did it recall for you?

    Slightly more than a decade ago, there was a spate of firings in the Russian media of more or less independent editors and producers who were one by one replaced by Putin loyalists. And an acquaintance of mine, in reference to several of these firings, coined a phrase that became a Russian meme at the time: “Links in a fucking chain.” Every time somebody would get fired and replaced, somebody would write “links in a fucking chain.” Honestly, that was my reaction. Last month, I saw that the Trump Administration declared that the National Endowment for the Arts’ creative-writing fellowships are going to be cancelled, and grants will now be contingent on writing on such topics as “Make America Healthy Again.” That to me was even more reminiscent of things I’d seen during my time in Russia.

    It took more than a decade of Putin’s rule for the Russian Ministry of Culture to even start suggesting preferred themes to filmmakers and TV creators. And when they started suggesting themes, it was a scandal. Vladimir Medinsky, the Minister of Culture at the time, would say things like, “Oh, we want to see more films about heroic cosmonauts or the Olympics and the Second World War,” et cetera. People would say, “How dare he suggest topics like that?”

    Can you step back and discuss the time line for the different changes in Russia? It seems like you are saying that they went after journalism before culture, to some degree.

    Right. The first attacks on the news media came very early, within a year of Putin coming to power. In 2001, the network that was owned by an oligarch named Vladimir Gusinsky was taken over. And that was part of Putin’s first wave of consolidating power—in this case, getting out from under the oligarchs that helped put him in power. I would argue that the second wave came after 2004, in the wake of the so-called Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Putin and his people realized that they have to start paying attention to the internet and youth culture, and start creating these sort of AstroTurf movements, as well as generally keeping tabs on what’s going on in the online space. It had not occurred to them before.

    But the overarching tendency here is that every time this happened, it was a reaction to an external event. Until the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in 2022, repression of the media was always in response to something, and they took what they felt they needed and left the rest alone. Every time there was something that they wouldn’t touch. For example, glossy magazines were exempted for many years because the thinking went that, Well, the glossy-magazine culture is basically the urban élites talking to themselves, and we don’t really need to get into that space as long as we control TV news and daily newspapers. As time went on, the government felt it needed to control more aspects of the media and just the general informational space in order to stay in power.

    Does the idea that these restrictions were often prompted by external factors fit with your answer that the early moves against the media were Putin trying to take power from the oligarchs who helped get him in power?

    Well, I think that was the external factor. Putin saw firsthand, in 1996, under Boris Yeltsin, that a media strategy, which back then meant TV ads and skewed reporting, could swing an election. The first move was to close that loophole and to make sure that an independently held TV network with a robust news operation can never create a popular challenger to him. So that was the need. My long-held view on Putin is that he lacks anything resembling a master plan or a strategy. He is, however, a brilliant tactician with the sole purpose of surviving and keeping himself and his friends in power. And, basically, he will espouse any ideology or hold up or hoist any flag in order to make that happen. When, in the two-thousands, for example, it seemed more advantageous to present himself as a liberal reformer, he was a liberal reformer. When, in 2012, it was temporarily expedient to have Russia become almost like a religious state and really, really empower the Patriarch as one of the main decision-makers in the country, he did that.

    This is the head of the Russian Orthodox Church?

    [ad_2]

    Isaac Chotiner

    Source link

  • Sportsnet and Apple TV reach deal for Jays game | Globalnews.ca

    [ad_1]

    TORONTO – Baseball fans will now be able to watch the Toronto Blue Jays game on Friday night on the team’s regular broadcast home in Canada.

    Sportsnet, the club’s Canadian rights-holder, said Thursday it had struck a deal with Apple TV to simulcast the road game against the Kansas City Royals on Rogers airwaves.

    The game was originally set to air exclusively on Apple TV+, which would have left non-subscribers without a viewing option. At the time of the agreement, the Blue Jays were in position to potentially clinch a playoff spot in the series opener.

    However, Toronto dropped a 4-0 decision to the Tampa Bay Rays on Thursday afternoon and the Cleveland Guardians beat the Detroit Tigers 3-1. Toronto’s magic number to clinch a post-season berth remained at three, leaving Saturday as the team’s earliest possible clinch date.

    Related Videos

    Story continues below advertisement

    “This is a really exciting time of year for Blue Jays fans, and we wanted to try and find a way for Canadians to watch Friday’s game on Sportsnet, especially at this pivotal moment of the season,” a Rogers spokesperson said in an email. “In working with the Blue Jays, Major League Baseball and Apple TV, glad we found a way.”

    For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

    Get breaking National news

    For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

    Sportsnet and the Blue Jays are owned by Rogers Communications.

    Almost all Blue Jays games air on the national sports network. A handful of Toronto games throughout the 162-game season air on Apple TV+ as part of the streamer’s partnership with MLB.


    In a post on its website, Sportsnet said it will carry the Apple TV+ production of the game broadcast. The network added it would produce its regular pre-game show and post-game coverage.

    Sportsnet said it recently approached MLB to engage the streamer on a potential deal.

    In its website post, Sportsnet said that MLB facilitated an agreement, which will also see Apple TV take over exclusive broadcast rights of Toronto’s home game against the Tampa Bay Rays on Sept. 26.

    The regular season continues through Sept. 28.

    Toronto last made the playoffs in 2023. The Blue Jays were swept in their last three post-season appearances dating back to 2020.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Toronto hasn’t won a post-season game since making a second straight American League Championship Series appearance in 2016. The Blue Jays last won the World Series in 1993.

    This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 18, 2025.

    &copy 2025 The Canadian Press

    [ad_2]

    Globalnews Digital

    Source link

  • Brendan Carr Isn’t Going to Stop Until Someone Makes Him

    [ad_1]

    To Genevieve Lakier, a professor of law at the University of Chicago whose research focuses on free speech, Carr’s threats against ABC appear to be “a pretty clear-cut case of jawboning.” Jawboning refers to a type of informal coercion where government officials try to pressure private entities into suppressing or changing speech without using any actual formal legal action. Since jawboning is typically done in letters and private meetings, it rarely leaves a paper trail, making it notoriously difficult to challenge in court.

    This Kimmel suspension is a little different, Lakier says. During the podcast appearance, Carr explicitly named his target, threatened regulatory action, and within a matter of hours the companies complied.

    “The Supreme Court has made clear that that’s unconstitutional in all circumstances,” says Lakier. “You’re just not allowed to do that. There’s no balancing. There’s no justification. Absolutely no, no way may the government do that.”

    Even if Carr’s threats amount to unconstitutional jawboning, though, stopping him could still prove difficult. If ABC sued, it would need to prove coercion—and however a suit went, filing one could risk additional regulatory retaliation down the line. If Kimmel were to sue, there’s no promise that he would get anything out of the suit even if he won, says Lakier, making it less likely for him to pursue legal action in the first place.

    “There’s not much there for him except to establish that his rights were violated. But there is a lot of benefit for everyone else,” says Lakier. “This has received so much attention that it would be good if there could be, from now on, some mechanism for more oversight from the courts over what Carr is doing.”

    Organizations like the the Freedom of the Press Foundation have sought novel means of limiting Carr’s power. In July, the FPF submitted a formal disciplinary complaint to the DC Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel arguing that Carr violated its ethical rules, misrepresenting the law by suggesting the FCC has the ability to regulate editorial viewpoints. Without formal rulings, companies affected by Carr’s threats would be some of the only organizations with grounding to sue. At the same time, they have proven to be some of the least likely groups to pursue legal action over the last eight months.

    In a statement on Thursday, House Democratic leadership wrote that Carr had “disgraced the office he holds by bullying ABC” and called on him to resign. They said they plan to “make sure the American people learn the truth, even if that requires the relentless unleashing of congressional subpoena power,” but did not outline any tangible ways to rein in Carr’s power.

    “People need to get creative,” says Stern. “The old playbook is not built for this moment and the law only exists on paper when you’ve got someone like Brendan Carr in charge of enforcing it.”

    This vacuum has left Carr free to push as far as he likes, and it has spooked experts over how far this precedent will travel. Established in the 1930s, the FCC was designed to operate as a neutral referee, but years of media consolidation have dramatically limited the number of companies controlling programming over broadcast, cable, and now streaming networks. Spectrum is a limited resource the FCC controls, giving the agency more direct control over the broadcast companies that rely on it than it has over cable or streaming services. This concentration makes them infinitely easier to pressure, benefitting the Trump administration, Carr, but also whoever might come next.

    “If political tides turn, I don’t have confidence that the Democrats won’t also use them in an unconstitutional and improper matter,” says Stern. The Trump administration is “really setting up this world where every election cycle, assuming we still have elections in this country, the content of broadcast news might drastically shift depending on which political party controls the censorship office.”

    [ad_2]

    Makena Kelly

    Source link

  • Did you ask the FCC if you can make that joke?

    [ad_1]

    Jimmy Kimmel pulled off the air: Yesterday evening, ABC News (a subsidiary of Disney) announced it was suspending comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show “indefinitely” following factually inaccurate comments he made about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

    Of course, comedians have no obligation to be factually correct. Kimmel’s show is intended as a hybrid between comedy and news, though, so it’s fair to wonder whether he does. “The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” said Kimmel during his Monday night monologue. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.” A montage of President Donald Trump followed, making fun of how, though people have claimed Kirk was like a son to the president, he’s moved on rather quickly.

    It wasn’t especially good or funny. It also was somewhat anodyne. To overly psychologize for a moment, I wonder whether Trump pivoted to talking about construction at the White House when reporters asked him about Kirk’s death because he is, in fact, distraught about it but didn’t feel up to going there. We can’t know. Kimmel’s shot felt cheap. But Kimmel is allowed to be bad—he’s been bad for a while.

    The issue is that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair Brendan Carr suggested the agency might punish ABC, pulling its broadcast license in retribution. On conservative Benny Johnson’s podcast, Carr suggested Kimmel’s comments were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the FCC was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”

    “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” said Carr, ominously. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead.”

    “Just before ABC’s announcement, Nexstar Media Group said that its stations that are affiliated with ABC would pre-empt Kimmel’s show ‘for the foreseeable future beginning with tonight’s show,'” reports CNBC. Nexstar, which owns 10 percent of ABC’s affiliate stations, is in the process of securing FCC approval for a $6.2 billion merger with Tegna, which owns roughly 5 percent of the affiliate stations.

    “Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED,” wrote the president on Truth Social. “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!!”

    Courage sure is an interesting word choice, given that Trump’s own agency threatened them with consequences (though he’s not wrong if we’re solely judging him as a media critic).

    “I don’t think this is a legal issue,” said former federal prosecutor Joseph Moreno on CNN. “I don’t think this can be pointed to the FCC or the Trump administration and say, well, this is about them going after Kimmel because of what he said. Personally, I think it’s more of a cultural issue. And I got to tell you. I’m about as moderate a Republican as you can get. I’m from New York. I have not been comfortable watching late-night television for 15 years because when you have conservative leanings and you’re constantly mocked and you’re constantly feel like you’re doing something wrong, you shut it off. You don’t watch it anymore.”

    Some people have made the point that the FCC might have given Disney/ABC cover to do something they already wanted to do, and do it in a way that makes the Trump administration look like the bad guys:

    I also think this point is very fair, which is that this didn’t start yesterday. If you haven’t noticed the extraordinary media jawboning—indirect censorial pressure directed at private companies from the federal government—over the last few years, you haven’t been paying much attention:

    “The government pressured ABC—and ABC caved,” wrote Ari Cohn of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “The timing of ABC’s decision, on the heels of the FCC chairman’s pledge to the network to ‘do this the easy way or the hard way,’ tells the whole story. Another media outlet withered under government pressure, ensuring that the administration will continue to extort and exact retribution on broadcasters and publishers who criticize it. We cannot be a country where late night talk show hosts serve at the pleasure of the president. But until institutions grow a backbone and learn to resist government pressure, that is the country we are.”

    Cohn makes a good point, both that this is the direct result of government coercion that is wrong and disturbing, and that these institutions should not be in the business of caving. It’s disturbing to see massive law firms, media outlets, and organizations that should have some amount of fuck-you money choose the path of cowardice. But given that Disney has been interested in fighting the government before (albeit in a different context), the fact that they weren’t willing to do so this time makes me think maybe Kimmel was already a goner.

    Jawboning done so explicitly, so publicly, serves to intimidate other networks and generate compliance. But jawboning done by the Biden administration, during the COVID-19 pandemic (both to suppress public health information and to promote Democratic candidates and bury scandals), possibly disturbs me more, because it was covert, hard to uncover and to see the full extent of. I can’t decide; both are horrible. No matter which party’s in power, you get government coercion—you just get the privilege of deciding which flavor.


    Scenes from New York: “A Long Island cop swindled a sick fellow officer out of $200,000 with claims of business investment—but instead blew the cash on OnlyFans, gambling and luxury living like a new car, prosecutors said,” reports The New York Post. “Nassau County police officer Leonard Cagno, 39, allegedly duped his colleague out of the cash as he recovered from an unnamed serious illness then blew it all within two months, cops said Wednesday as he was slapped with a grand larceny charge.”


    QUICK HITS

    • For a contrast in how comedy can be dealt with, consider Charlie Kirk’s reaction to being parodied on South Park.
    • The right-wing take on all this, from Lomez, which I don’t agree is aspirational but I think identifies the problem and describes the MAGA mindset quite well:

    “We are finally seeing the first real consequences of major institutions having spent the last decade undermining the facade of liberal neutrality they at least used to claim as an ideal. This facade actually mattered quite a lot, and even though it was obviously never entirely sincere and even though conservatives were always out numbered and often poorly represented, they at least felt like participants and stakeholders in these institutions. During the Trump years this all went away. Conservatives were aggressively ousted, even as token voices, and the facade came down to reveal a perverse and illiberal set of political and cultural directives underneath it that were explicitly antagonistic to more than half of the country and denied them as legitimate participants in public life. Despite this, MAGA won (again), and, surprise, surprise, do not intend on preserving the institutions that declared them illegitimate political actors. This is, in fact, MAGA’s core promise.”

    • “An immigration judge in Louisiana has ordered pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., deported to Syria or Algeria for failing to disclose certain information on his green card application, according to documents filed in federal court Wednesday by his lawyers,” reports Politico. “Khalil’s lawyers suggested in a filing that they intend to appeal the deportation order, but expressed concern that the appeal process will likely be swift and unfavorable.”
    • America loves cocaine again,” by The Wall Street Journal. “Cocaine sold in the U.S. is cheaper and as pure as ever for retail buyers. Consumption in the western U.S. has increased 154% since 2019 and is up 19% during the same period in the eastern part of the country, according to the drug-testing company Millennium Health. In contrast, fentanyl use in the U.S. began to drop in mid-2023 and has been declining since, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

    [ad_2]

    Liz Wolfe

    Source link

  • “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” “preempted indefinitely,” ABC says

    [ad_1]



    “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” “preempted indefinitely,” ABC says – CBS News










































    Watch CBS News



    ABC said the late-night show “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” will be “pre-empted indefinitely” following the host’s comments made in response to the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

    [ad_2]
    Source link