SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " viewer " 445 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
The 10 weirdest spinoffs — and whether viewers tuned in
From Beverly Hills to Miami — and from comedy to supernatural strangeness — revisit some of the oddest spinoffs in TV history, including ‘Mrs. Columbo’ and the notorious ‘Baywatch Nights.’
Paramount+ is building out its free tier to win cost-conscious viewers
Paramount+ is planning to make more movies and shows free to give users "more reasons to sign up," an internal presentation said.
World Cup Final Averaged More Than 61 Million Viewers
The final posted the largest U.S. television audience since the Super Bowl.
UFC Freedom 250 Fails to Knock Out The Ratings
(Welcome to my weekly streaming ratings report, the single best guide to what’s popular in streaming TV and what isn’t. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. If you were forwarded this email, please subscribe to get these insights each week.) If UFC fans wanted one image to say, “Hey, Paramount+ is crushing it with their UFC rights deal,” I could provide that image. Here it is: (Reminder: this is my creation of the Nielsen Top 30, since Nielsen doesn’t combine the lists or include sports. I take all three lists and combine them. Some streaming TV shows probably have higher ratings than many of the films on this list.) Look at that! UFC Freedom 250 is number one! It topped the Nielsen “Top 30” list for shows and films that made the top ten the week of 15-June. So if you’re a UFC fan or supporter of Paramount+, that’s the good news for you this week. This program topped the ratings charts for one week. Everything else is bad news, or at least a huge caveat to that story, which I’ll explain today in the first part of this week’s Streaming Ratings Report—for the weeks of 8-June and 15-June—which is a double issue since I’ve been writing on a bunch of topics recently. UFC Freedom 250 is one of the biggest streaming events of the year, and super relevant to Paramount+’s strategy, so it merited its own article. Let’s dive in! (Reminder: The streaming ratings report focuses on the U.S. market and compiles data from Nielsen’s weekly top ten viewership ranks, Luminate’s Top Ten Data, JustWatch and Reelgood interest data, Samba TV household viewership, company datecdotes, Netflix hours viewed data, Google Trends, and IMDb to determine the most popular content. While most data points are current, Nielsen’s data covers the weeks of June 8th to June 21st 2026. You can find a link to my terminology here.) Subscribe Check Out My Interview on UFC 250 at MMA Draw After you read this article, if you want even more thoughts on UFC and Paramount-Skydance/Paramount+, I did a written interview with MMA Draw. They asked me to answer some questions about UFC Freedom 250, and I was happy to chat with them. Find it here: [ The MMA Draw Newsletter Did Paramount really overpay for the UFC? What the data tells us so far If you know the history of American television, you also know that combat sports is often a leading indicator of the future… Read more a day ago · 10 likes · 1 comment · Nate Wilcox and Zach Arnold ](https://www.themmadraw.com/p/did-paramount-really-overpay-for?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web) I never thought I’d need a combat sports newsletter in my life, but the good folks at MMA Draw publish an excellent one on UFC, MMA, pro wrestling, boxing and more, analyzing both the sports themselves and the politics, economics and antitrust issues that impact them. Check the article and their newsletter out! Paramount+ Has Its Best Sporting Event of All Time…But Was It Worth It? Before we look at the UFC Freedom 250 data in particular, let’s talk about what we can’t say. Namely, let’s start with the lack of comparisons. First off, I’d love to put a chart out comparing this fight to past UFC fights on Paramount+…but we don’t have the data. This is the first time we’ve gotten Nielsen data about a Paramount+ UFC fight. As far as I can tell, Paramount provided data for the first fight, but it was a proprietary datecdote (saying it had “an average minute audience” of 5 million “views”) and then, for two fights, we got the linear viewership numbers when they aired on CBS, but no streaming data. Everything else was crickets. We also can’t compare this fight to other fights/combat sports on streaming, in particular the MMA and boxing, because Netflix also didn’t use Nielsen to track those events, opting for TVision and VideoAmp, respectively. (This isn’t Paramount’s fault, but does still suck.) We also can’t compare to UFC’s fights that used to be on ESPN+, since we don’t have any data for that, plus Disney+ didn’t have marquee fights. The comparisons would not be apples-to-apples. Can we compare to past Pay-Per-View fights? Absolutely not. The comparisons would absolutely NOT be apples-to-apples. That didn’t stop Paramount+, though, who bragged that their UFC events have reached drastically more people than past PPV fights. Duh. Sorry, but I gotta make this point again. A basic tenet of economics is that the cheaper something becomes, the more people consume or buy it. That’s Econ 101. (Sometimes pundits call things “Econ 101” that are actually like Econ 210 or even PhD-level economics, but no, this is really like first or second class basic economics.) Yet I still see one analytics firm consistently say that more people watch films on streaming than PVOD proves streaming which means that the streaming window is more valuable than the PVOD window. No, it’s not! Same thing here. Pay-Per-View events back in the day could be really, really, really expensive! So whole groups of people pitched in to buy them. That increased the perceived value of, say, the Mike Tyson fight. Or a UFC numbered event. So yes, the fact that Paramount+ makes numbered UFC fights essentially “free” if you’re already a Paramount+ member means consumption will go up. Obviously. Same for Netflix and their boxing matches. They’re talking about fights that used to cost consumers, in some cases, $50 in 1996…which is over $100 in today’s dollars. Over 1.6 million people paid that to watch the Tyson-Holyfield fight! Again, streaming is essentially “free”. Or $10 to $20, depending on what streamer we’re talking about and what tier you’re on. No wonder more people are “watching”. (Plus, Nielsen’s out-of-home viewing also helps these numbers.) UFC Freedom 250 Did Well…But I Have A Lot of Worries So what can we compare the fights to? Well, the good news is Nielsen put out that the fight averaged 7.0 million viewers for UFC Freedom 250, which is a solid number for a fight. We also know the length, at roughly 4 and a half hours. (I saw different run times, but this seems to be the consensus considering it started at 8 pm, had a delay and then finished after midnight on the East Coast. If you assume a shorter run time, then yes, the total hours viewed would go down.) That means I have the two numbers needed to add this to my Nielsen database. And then…I can compare this viewership to the NFL: And, uh, not great. But also within striking distance, mainly because the runtime for this event was so long. I’d also add that this event had viewership equal to a regular season NFL game on streaming, but if anything, it was more comparable to an NFL playoff or Super Bowl-esque event. And you can compare viewership to the top football games on broadcast, cable and streaming, and it’s not impressive at all: We can also compare it to other sports that week, including the NBA Finals and start of the World Cup: Again, not great. The NBA generated roughly four times as many average viewers each game for its NBA Finals. The World Cup has similarly big numbers. Also, that’s just a tiny fraction of the 25 most watched sporting events each week. The NBA, NHL and FIFA World Cup had many, many more games racking up hours. We could also compare this to other streaming programs to get an idea of “is this a good investment?” and here is how it ranks compared to other top Paramount+ programs: The worry here? Well, unlike scripted programming, which has rewatchability, older fights/sporting events have very little library value. Very, very few people are rewatching these fights, especially years from now. Paramount has also released datecdotes bragging about their subscriber numbers. Earlier this year, they claimed that the first UFC fight on Paramount+ brought in 1 million subscribers. Then, in their quarterly earnings report, they only ended up with 700K subs. Not great! They claimed they dropped lower-value international subscribers, but that’s why I tend to discount subscriber additions when they’re leaked to the press.1 I expect we may see a bump again for UFC Freedom 250, but I’d caution using subscriber growth so soon after these events to judge the success, since new subs with high churn (see Peacock) aren’t great either. Also, analysts often want to attribute all subscriber growth to their favorite/pet show, and that just doesn’t make sense. The biggest caveat for UFC Freedom 250 and Paramount’s very first UFC marquee event is that these could be high watermarks for the sport. UFC Freedom 250 had an incredible amount of earned media coverage compared to most UFC fights. I mean, it had wall-to-wall national news coverage in the lead up to the event. (The first fight also had a lot of promotion from Paramount since it was first.) Other fights could reach this bar—say the Conor McGregor return to the Octagon—but they’ll be fewer and far between. Was This Deal Worth It? All to ask: is this Paramount deal worth it? In this case, I think the UFC Freedom 250 numbers are more distracting than helpful. This fight did well and compares well to other top sporting events. But we know that the first marquee event was at least a third smaller, if Paramount’s own data is to be believed. And it’s likely the other fights are much, much, much smaller. And then you get to the paycheck that Paramount-Skydance paid. FIFA’s World Cup cost about the same for Fox, but clearly generated multiples more total viewership. (Though it’s only every four years.) The NBA is much more expensive, but until the playoffs, they likely didn’t pay for itself. Even still, Disney, NBCUniversal and Amazon Prime Video likely overpaid. So, in that context, the NBA may be an overpay that makes the UFC look not so bad. But two overpays don’t make an underpay, to paraphrase the old cliché about wrongs and rights. And looking at UFC Freedom 250 as the likely ceiling of MMA on Paramount+, Paramount-Skydance likely paid too much. Share 1 I would love regular reports on subscriber additions by programs, but as is, it’s mostly leaked or rumored in haphazard ways.
Mets, Phillies announcers can’t believe mid-play sunglasses move
A pet peeve of many baseball viewers is when a defensive player has their sunglasses on their hat, rather than over their eyes, when the sun is out. And during Sunday’s game against the New York Mets at Citizens Bank Park, Philadelphia Phillies rookie outfielder Gabriel Rincones Jr. did put on his sunglasses, but he…
Marco Bassetti on why global entertainment still depends on local culture
In an age when viewers can drift from TikTok to Netflix to YouTube within minutes, the World Cup remains a rare thing: a live event that can capture the attention of a huge, simultaneous worldwide audience. Banijay Live, part of Banijay Entertainment that is behind hit TV franchises including "MasterChef," "Big Brother," and "The Traitors," is producing the tournament's closing ceremony on July 19 at the New York New Jersey Stadium. Marco Bassetti, its chief executive, says earning that kind of global attention is harder than ever — and keeping it depends on understanding local culture.
The Odyssey Fans Say The Movie Needs An Epilepsy Warning
Christopher Nolan’s latest film has one segment that fans are warning new viewers about
Brenda Fricker, ‘Home Alone 2’ and ‘My Left Foot’ star, dies at 81
Oscar-winning actress Brenda Fricker, who stole viewers’ hearts as the iconic Pigeon Lady in ‘Home Alone 2,’ has died. She was 81.
NewsNight panel reacts to viewer comment about Trump’s ICE operations
NewsNight viewers are welcomed to join the debate via CNN.com. One viewer says: “people elected trump for more deportations but not by any means… Especially violent means.” The NewsNight panel responds.
Texas Rangers hit another bump navigating imperfect TV climate
The Texas Rangers dropped Victory+ as their direct-to-consumer distributor, an unpopular decision that left viewers wondering why it happened in-season and what the heck BZZR is. The Texas Rangers knew...
ECU Health welcomes 152 new resident physicians and fellows to train across Eastern NC
WCTI ABC 12 Greenville and WYDO Fox 14 Greenville offer local and national news reporting, sports, and weather forecasts to viewers in the Greenville, New Bern, Washington, North Carolina region, including Farmville, Wilson, Rocky Mount, Goldsboro, Snow Hill, Pikeville, and Simpson, North Carolina.
Wall of Entertainment Taps Chronicle Media to Power Audience Discovery and Growth for Its First U.S. Series
SAN FRANCISCO & LONDON, July 14, 2026--How do you find the exact viewers a new show is built for and turn them into a loyal, growing audience? That question is at the heart of a new multi-series partnership announced today between UK digital entertainment studio Wall of Entertainment and audience simulation platform Chronicle Media.
Wall of Entertainment Taps Chronicle Media to Power Audience Discovery and Growth for Its First U.S. Series
How do you find the exact viewers a new show is built for and turn them into a loyal, growing audience? That question is at the heart of a new multi-series p...
Disney+ could soon add a free plan
After years of unrelenting subscription price hikes that have pushed viewers toward zero-cost platforms, Disney+ may be preparing its biggest strategy shift yet. Internal reports reveal that Disney le...
Jellyfish videos reveal why science content sparks curiosity for some viewers
It can be easy to get sucked into social media for hours on end. Funny, cartoony science videos may be especially interesting, but not to everyone, according to a recent study from the University of Georgia.
Women’s Sports Sundays holding its own after replacing ‘Sunday Night Baseball’ on ESPN
ESPN replaced Sunday Night Baseball with Women’s Sports Sundays, and three weeks in, we are getting our first look at how the change is working for ESPN. Through three weeks, WNBA games on Women’s Sports Sundays are averaging 1.04 million viewers. The latest edition of Women’s Sports Sundays was by far the series’ biggest viewership…
‘Assassin’s Creed Black Flag Resynced’ review: Remake hits choppy waters
The remake of "Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag" isn't perfect, but it's a good enough excuse to play the phenomenal "Black Flag" again, writes our reviewer.
How AI changes the rules of engagement for sports viewers
Spectators will see more opportunity to move from pricey subscriptions and rigid schedules to more personalised feeds
Disney+ explores a free tier as YouTube draws TV viewers
Disney is discussing a free tier for Disney+ as US TV viewers embrace no-cost streamers like YouTube.
Exclusive | Netflix Is Exploring Live TV and Bundles as It Struggles to Keep Viewers Hooked
College student offers fresh look at downtown Sioux Falls businesses
Meet the college student who is showing social media viewers a new side of downtown this summer.
Seattle's World Cup finale draws record number of viewers
A total of 42 million viewers watched the men's USA-Belgium World Cup match on US media outlets, setting records for the sport.
Of course viewers are giving up on Netflix shows
Pivoting to short form video isn’t going to fix things.
Science review panel finds CIRES delivers exceptional value to NOAA and the nation
Reviewers concluded that CIRES consistently exceeds its goals and significantly enhances NOAA's scientific and operational capabilities.
Nielsen eyes further methodology changes ahead of football season
It appears as if Nielsen is preparing to find yet another way to keep sports viewership trending upward ahead of the upcoming football season. The audience-measurement firm, whose data is treated as the gold standard within the television business and is the currency by which networks sell advertising to media buyers, plans to formally roll…
Record 24.4M watched USMNT's World Cup win, per Fox Sports
The U.S.' victory against Bosnia-Herzegovina on Wednesday night was the most-watched soccer telecast in English language history with more than 24.4 million viewers, according to Fox Sports.
"PS5 Will Be My Last Console": After 45K Votes, 86% of DF Viewers Say Sony Should Reconsider Killing Physical Games
That's just under 40,000 people writing in to oppose Sony's plans.
ESPN reportedly favorite to renew TGL media rights
TGL, the tech-infused simulator golf league co-founded by Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy’s TMRW Sports, is in the market for a new media rights deal after having completed its second season earlier this year. The league spent its first two seasons on the ESPN family of networks, posting strong and stable viewership during a portion…
2026 John Deere Classic tee times, TV coverage, viewer's guide
Tee times, TV coverage and viewer's guide for the John Deere Classic at TPC Deere Run in Silvis, Ill.
Regulated Entertainment Platforms Have Built a Home in the NBA
The evolution of entertainment platforms in sports broadcasting has been monumental. See how the technology enhances the viewer experience.
Netflix and Superheroes Are Having a Rough Stretch on Streaming....
(Welcome to my weekly streaming ratings report, the single best guide to what’s popular in streaming TV and what isn’t. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. If you were forwarded this email, please subscribe to get these insights each week.) I have a quick prediction before we start today’s article: You might see this data in future news articles. Not my specific charts or analysis, but the core trend I’ve been monitoring—Netflix is having a lackluster Q2—will become inescapable. Often, folks want to know “What does the data say?” Well, that’s what it says. I haven’t seen this analysis hit the trades really yet, but I have a feeling some other outlets are going to start making this case soon. Remember, you read it here first. You probably have read about the problems facing superhero films at the box office this weekend. Well, this week, I explore whether superheroes are dying on TV as well! And the data says: definitely maybe! We have a lot to cover in today’s Streaming Ratings Report, which covers the two weeks of 18-May and 25-May. Today, I’m just looking at TV, like Netflix’s disappointing Q2, superhero shows underwhelming, a few TV shows dropping off the charts, The Pitt finally ending its epic run on the viewership charts (and whether “view counts” change its status as one of the biggest shows of all time), all the flops, bombs and misses, and a whole lot more. Tomorrow, I’ve got a great rundown of the film side of things. Let’s dive right in! (Reminder: The streaming ratings report focuses on the U.S. market and compiles data from Nielsen’s weekly top ten viewership ranks, Luminate’s Top Ten Data, Showlabs, TV Time trend data, Samba TV household viewership, company datecdotes, Netflix hours viewed data, Google Trends, and IMDb to determine the most popular content. While most data points are current, Nielsen’s data covers the weeks of May 18th to May 31st, 2026. You can find a link to my terminology here.) Subscribe Television - Netflix’s Q2 Slump Continues Having analyzed streaming ratings for going on half a decade, I have learned to trust my gut, but I’m always relieved when I can find actual data to back it up. For example, after a string of very popular shows like Stranger Things, Bridgerton, The Lincoln Lawyer and The Night Agent came out, week after week, in January and February, my gut wondered if Netflix had enough new and returning TV shows to sustain them throughout the year. Since then, Netflix’s post-March slate of shows has not impressed me. This week seemed to feature a potential new hit, but then, like a classic Duffer Bros. TV show, there was a twist. I speak of The Boroughs, Netflix’s latest (and last) Duffer Bros. produced show. The pitch is “Stranger Things with older actors”. And it topped the Nielsen charts: With just two weeks of viewership, The Boroughs would have been a top 25 debut show last year: But here’s the twist: Netflix has already cancelled The Boroughs! What happened? Likely a few things. First, the show didn’t do as well globally as it did in the US. As What’s on Netflix showed, it lagged behind several other shows that got cancelled. Second, its completion rate was likely low; after an initial burst of interest, it quickly dropped off on the Samba TV and Luminate charts. Third, the Duffer Bros. left Netflix for Paramount, and that may have factored into Netflix’s decision here. (Though I tend to believe that if a show is doing well, Netflix would have kept greenlighting seasons.) Still, just because I can explain why Netflix may have cancelled this show doesn’t mean I’m justifying it. In particular, as I’ve noted before, Netflix is losing a lot of their bigger shows as they reach their natural ends, and they need to replace those shows. This show had the hallmarks of a big new genre show, and it’s their biggest hit of the last few months (in the US at least), but now it’s done. Netflix’s other show this week—The Four Seasons, the second season of the “hit” show from last year—definitely disappointed. Its sophomore season had about half the viewership of the first, only 12.7 million hours. It also only had a two week run on Samba TV, and its numbers were all down on Luminate too. In other words, even with two successes, the Q2 slump for Netflix looks real: I could add to the list of disappointments: Both Lord of the Files and Man on Fire had short runs on the Nielsen charts. Running Point’s sophomore season also opened to about half its viewership, similar to The Four Seasons. A Good Girl’s Guide to Murder’s second season—see below—didn’t even make any of the three viewership charts I track, unlike the first season. Netflix is absolutely having a dismal second three months of 2026. If this Nielsen data is any indication, and I think it is, I think this will show up in Netflix’s engagement report, and maybe even their financial outcomes. And the rest of June doesn’t look much better. We have two hit shows coming back—Sweet Magnolias, one of their quietest big shows, and Avatar: The Last Airbender, a big hit for them in 2024—but the other big swings are limited series crime thrillers i.e. no future season potential. Like I said above, sometimes when I uncover a juicy nugget like this, other outlets end up writing very similar articles mimicking the data without credit. We’ll see if that happens this time! Share Television - The State of Superhero Shows on Streaming When I first heard the pitch for Spider-Noir—a Sony TV show on Prime Video that binge-released eight episodes first on MGM+ then on Prime Video two days later—I had my doubts. It’s a live-action Spider-Man show set in the 1930s, starring Nicholas Cage, based on a cameo of a character in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. No, seriously, that’s the pitch. That could either go terrifically well or horribly wrong. Great because, Spider-Man. He’s the biggest superhero we have. I’ve seen tracking numbers that put the new _Spider-Man: Brand New Da_y as the blockbuster of the year and initial pre-sales back that up. And yet this Spider-Noir pitch feels very esoteric. (Also, the eight-episode binge release feels very “Amazon copying Netflix” again.) So what’s the data say? And what does this say about the future of superhero shows?
Meteor streaks across skies, causes bright flash Sunday morning
Early risers across southeast Louisiana were treated to quite a sight on Sunday morning when a brilliant flash of light streaked across the pre-dawn sky. Around 5:00 a.m., Storm Station viewers reported seeing what looked like a large, vibrant green ball with fire trailing behind it followed by a bright flash. When small space rocks (meteoroids) slam into Earth's atmosphere at high speeds, they create the light streaks we call shooting stars
Sean Hannity Explains Puffy Face in Health Update Amid Viewer Concern
Sean Hannity gave a health update after viewers expressed concern about his puffy face and raspy voice in recent Fox News telecasts.
Fox News anchor Sean Hannity addresses viewers’ concerns over appearance
Fox News host Sean Hannity addressed online chatter about his health in a social media post on Wednesday after viewers raised concerns about his appearance on the air in recent days. “Thanks …
TikTok and YouTube are reinventing sports viewership. Broadcasters are taking note
Leagues, teams and media networks are increasingly meeting younger fans on social media as platforms like TikTok, Roblox and YouTube capture most of their time.
Fox News Star Sean Hannity Addresses Health Diagnosis After Viewer Concerns Over "Raspy Voice And A Puffy Face"
Fox News Star Sean Hannity Addresses Health Diagnosis After Viewer Concerns Over "Raspy Voice And A Puffy Face"
Sports betting boosts viewership for top-watched World Cup matches, new data shows
World Cup fever is growing, and new viewership data shows some matchups are drawing far more attention than others — with sports betting playing a major role in
'Voicemails for Isabelle' is Netflix's latest big hit — but viewers should expect tears
Zoey Deutch's Netflix rom-com has pleased both audiences and critics alike. But what viewers weren't expecting was how many tissues they would need while watching.
Hollywood and Big Tech Are at War: Fight for Attention Underway
Meta wants to steal TV viewers, Amazon and Apple are meddling with content, and traditional media companies are pursuing megadeals to try and survive.
Roku May Help Fox Avoid Aggregeddon
(Welcome to the “Most Important Story of the Week”, my bi-weekly strategy column analyzing the most important (but often not buzziest) news story of the last two weeks. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. Please subscribe.) Scrolling through links over the last week, I stumbled across this fun headline: Wow. Formula 1 (the sport, not the docu-series) is the perfect “dog not barking”. As a reminder, each week in my Streaming Ratings Report, I call out the shows that miss every viewership chart. I dub them “dogs not barking”—like the Sherlock Holmes mystery—because without any data, we forget they even exist. This is in contrast to something like, say, a film flop—cough The Mandalorian and Grogu cough—where even underperforming at the box office is widely discussed here, there and everywhere. In the US, Formula 1 is now in “no public viewership data, so not discussed” territory. After moving to Apple TV from its former home of ESPN, basically no one talks about it. Apple did publish an initial, unsourced, unsubstantiated, (dare I say unserious) datecdote claiming more folks are watching Formula 1 on Apple than ESPN, but we haven’t gotten any updates since. This stands in contrast to when the sport streamed on ESPN, and ESPN PR provided weekly viewership figures. Formula 1 was, at best, a niche sport in America—averaging 1.3 million viewers in the Big Data Plus era—but now it’s basically anonymous. (And yeah, after moving to Apple, I very, very, very much doubt its ratings increased.) Unfortunately, that story isn’t quite big enough to warrant a section in today’s “Most Important Story of the Week” column, but I wanted to call it out, because otherwise, no one else will! Certainly, no one will write articles about the silence/ratings decline, unlike when they wrote breathless articles connecting the rise in viewership to Netflix’s Drive to Survive, including Reuters just last month. (This is a topic I’ve tried to provide a moderate/nuanced/non-hyped take since 2022.) Anyway, on to this week’s issue. I was a bit worried I didn’t have a juicy topic, then the Murdochs went out and did their Murdoch thing: buying Roku. So that’s the story of the week, and it happens to touch on quite a few themes of the streaming wars and the disruption therein. I’ll cover that, plus why more consolidation in Hollywood media looks likely, more good news on the Hollywood labor front, whether we’ll see an uptick in production in Los Angeles, some Broadway and theme park news, cellphone prices going up in the third world (and possibly everywhere), and more. Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - Another Big Media & Entertainment Merger The story of the week is clearly Fox is buying Roku for $22 billion. I read a lot of good strategy takes on why Fox bought this streaming TV device maker—and I’ll have mine below—but what fascinates me more is how this deal connects to quite a few themes of the streaming wars, linking to everything from the pace of M&A to “aggregeddon” to Netflix’s recent M&A actions/inactions to the shift to advertising from pure play streaming and more. The only topic I can’t really connect it to is my old theory, “never bet against Rupert Murdoch” because he isn’t the one who did this deal; his son Lachlan inked it. (Do I think he provided advice, even at his 95 years of age? Sure.) That plus I have one additional piece of strategy for all entertainment players, inspired by this deal. So let’s dive into all those topics, starting with why I like this deal. Roku is a Great M&A Buy
Alexi Lalas scolded by former USA teammate over ‘unwatchable’ Fox Sports punditry at World Cup
The Fox Sports pundit has attracted criticism for his views, while the chemistry with fellow analysts Thierry Henry, and Zlatan Ibrahimovic has left some viewers uncomfortable
Netflix’s New #1 Show Is a Crime Thriller Everyone Can Finally Agree on
A new Netflix thriller has taken over the number 1 spot, knocking a usual chart-topper down the rankings. Viewers are calling it binge-worthy, twist-filled, and impossible to pause once you start. Find out more here.
'The View' uses Barbara Walters in on-air ad urging viewers to push back against FCC: 'Use your voice'
'The View' used Barbara Walters in a new commercial urging audience action against the FCC amid legal drama: 'Use your voice,' an ABC spot advised.
Jana Kramer almost quit “DWTS” because of 'Russian' teaching techniques: 'Do not speak to me that way'
The "One Tree Hill" star bonded with Hannah Brown, who won "DWTS" season 28, over the intense training experience that viewers don't get to see.
Proposals to keep 'Crown Jewel' sports free on streaming services
The government is proposing new legislation to prevent streaming and catch-up rights to some of the world's biggest sporting events - including the World Cup - being put behind a paywall for UK viewers.
UFL viewership stays level from Year 2 to Year 3
It seems as if the UFL, the upstart spring football league that just completed its third season, is finding somewhat of a baseline when it comes to viewership. The league averaged 674,000 viewers in its third season across ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, Fox, FS1, and NFL Network, up 1% versus average viewership in its second season…
World Cup brings political issues to the surface: 5 takeaways
The first week of the FIFA World Cup has been underscored by tensions over geopolitics, U.S. immigration policy and dramatic group stage action that is priming viewers around the world for what pro…
UND Athletics, Midco Sports extend broadcast and sponsorship partnership
GRAND FORKS, N.D. -- The University of North Dakota alongside Midco Sports announced on Thursday, June 18 the renewal of their Television and Multimedia Production and Broadcast Agreement, continuing a long-standing partnership that delivers high-quality coverage of UND Athletics to viewers across the country.
Knicks' NBA title-clinching victory over Spurs averages 24.5 million viewers
Jalen Brunson and the New York Knicks’ 94-90 victory over the San Antonio Spurs to capture their first NBA title in 53 years averaged 24.5 million viewers on ABC and
For ViewerCon, Joy Reid, Chris Witherspoon, and the ‘Raising Kanan’ cast are headed to Newark this summer
ViewerCon, a new entertainment event is making its debut in Newark this summer, betting that today’s audiences want more than
Steam machine reportedly sent to reviewers as embargo date and package contents leak
According to a new leak, the first Steam Machine review units may already have been shipped to reviewers and content creators. The rumored review embargo date and possible package contents have also surfaced.
Gene Shalit, beloved longtime film critic on the ‘Today’ show, dies
Gene Shalit, the funnyman film critic who captured the hearts of "Today" show viewers across four decades of work, has died. He was 100.
Reporter of the Day: Rachel Flynn Covers Proposed Panama City Beach Entertainment Complex
In Reporter of the Day, viewers get a chance to go behind the headlines with NewsChannel 7’s Rachel Flynn.
2026 World Cup viewer's guide: Format, new rules, predictions, how to watch and everything you need to know before kickoff
HBO Max To Be Offered Through Prime Video In New Zealand
EXCLUSIVE: HBO Max will roll out on Prime Video in New Zealand when it launches later this year. The service debuts next week on June 16 and will offered to viewers locally through Prime Video, includ...
We can create the future of science right now
Paul Litvak is the founder and Executive Director of the Robyn Dawes Institute and a Visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley. He has a PhD in Behavioral Decision Research from Carnegie Mellon where he studied emotions and the sunk cost bias. Over 15 years in industry, he solved a wide range of challenging technical problems. At Meta he created models optimizing the ad review process. At Google he ran experiments to measure social influence. At Airbnb, he was a product manager leading machine learning teams optimizing search ranking and price suggestions. He also co-founded and led product at Rhythmic Health, a venture-backed biosensing startup, creating an accurate low cost system using a color changing strip and a smart phone to measure salivary lactate. The bottleneck At this point, it is uncontroversial to say that science needs to stop using the PDF article as the unit of knowledge and currency. The unbearable slowness of scientific publishing, the profit motive and margins: I’m not saying anything new. The PDF also sucks because it’s hard to extract structured information, which makes it hard to do evidence synthesis. As a result, we do much less evidence synthesis than is needed. And evidence synthesis ultimately undergirds most policy and medical decision-making. I can see second-by-second real-time odds for any sporting or newsworthy event, but a school board can’t see the best evidence on whether their 8th graders should be taught algebra. As a society, we don’t treat this as an important problem. Again, not controversial. Not only is the problem well understood, but the solution has already been laid out. What we need is AI-assisted living evidence synthesis - (1) an open knowledge graph of atomic claims, (2) claims linked to evidence, (3) assessment and synthesis of each piece of evidence, and (4) continuous updating with new data. What few realize (yet) is that the technical capacity to build this vision for a significant portion of science already exists. Not only that, scientists and startup teams are already building many of these components. I know this because I’ve been surveying the space and talking to many of the builders. There are some missing pieces: for example, evaluations of how well some of the components work. But at this point, most of what’s missing is a fully end-to-end working integration of all of these parts. In the rest of this essay, I’m going to lay out all the parts of a working living evidence layer for science and who is working on them, and propose concrete next steps for building this system. What’s now possible The diagram above outlines the components of a living evidence synthesis platform, including some of the teams working on each component1. Scientific PDFs are processed into claims with associated evidence. The evidence is subjected to a forensic audit, methodological evaluation and robustness and reproducibility checks. Finally it’s given a weight in a continuously updating synthesis. What follows is a description and status of each component and a few of the teams working on them. Document understanding The first thing you need to be able to do is turn an article into structured data. Mostly that means parsing PDFs. There are often multicolumn layouts that confuse non-specialized PDF to text processing libraries. For scientific papers, there is the added complexity of parsing formulas and tables and figures. This is a really hot area - there are startups offering APIs, and it seems like a new open source package gets posted to Github every few weeks. What follows isn’t exhaustive. A package called GROBID was the state of the art for a while, they didn’t update their package for nearly two years until very recently. In the meantime reducto.ai released an AI powered PDF extraction API, PaddleOCR became popular, IBM released a model called Docling, and both Mistral and Gemini created models and libraries. I also know of at least one other well-funded psychology research group working on a paper parser. By contrast, there are few open evals in this space, with no extensive evals for complex table comprehension in particular. Nonetheless, I’m confident this will be a solved problem soon, given the combination of LLM advances and developer interest. Hypothesis level extraction There has been increasing interest in comprehending the extracted text of papers and linking information to evidence for each hypothesis. A lot of work has already been done. Trialstreamer (Marshall et al. 2020) and RobotReviewer LIVE (Marshall et al. 2023) demonstrated automated extraction of trial population, intervention, and outcome at scale on clinical RCTs. PaperQA2 (Skarlinski et al. 2024) and Ai2 ScholarQA (2024) extended this to retrieval-augmented question answering with citation grounding. Elicit, Consensus, and SciSpace operationalized claim-level extraction for end users. OpenEval (Booeshaghi et al. 2026) is the most recent and most ambitious: 1.96 million atomic claims extracted from 16,087 eLife manuscripts using Claude Sonnet 4.5, grouped into ~299,000 results, with LLM evaluations showing 81% agreement with human peer review on a 2,487-paper subset. None of these solutions link claims to test-statistics, as you would need to evaluate randomized controlled trials. This is why I built the evidence.guide API - to extract hypotheses and associated test statistics from behavioral science papers. The best public eval of this kind of extraction I’m aware of comes from the recent SCORE project - they had humans code thousands of psychology papers to extract their claims by hand. It would be extremely helpful to the world if all scientific PDFs were available as structured open data. I’ve been working to make this happen, both directly at Berkeley and through coordination with large entities I can’t yet speak of; as hard as it is to do, I think it’s possible2. Forensic audit A lot of work has been done on forensic audit, but some gaps remain. Of course, for biology papers that rely on images for evidence, there are a variety of tools (notably Proofig and ImageTwin) to spot anomalies. These are still well short of what sleuths like Elizabeth Bik can do on her own, but these tools are constant companions among fraud analysts. There’s someone working on auditing Excel files for anomalies, and a number of teams are automating numerical checks like GRIM and SPRITE, including Scrutiny project, the INSPECT-SR team as well as statcheck. The regcheck team is building a way to use AI to compare preregistrations to analyses in papers, to ensure there aren’t significant deviations. Nonetheless, there are many other kinds of anomalies to screen for, both public and less publicly known. And there are no formal evals for anomaly detection that I’m aware of. Still, there’s a lot to draw from in this space and I’m pretty certain we will be able to scan papers for most kinds of obvious anomalies in the near future. Methodological review This area has been white hot, though I fear for many of the startups in this space, because this capability may become commoditized. There are at least six different AI peer review companies, including Refine.ink, Reviewer3, ReviewerZero.ai, Q.E.D. Science, Paper Wizard, and Isitcredible. Coarse (a pun on refine) was also recently created as an open source alternative. These systems provide qualitative feedback on the content of papers, spotting methodological weaknesses and mathematical errors. They seem to work pretty well, and many academics report bitterly that they exceed the average quality of typical peer reviewers. But there are few evals here either. What evals exist so far involve using LLM-as-judge (circularity problems abound) or comparing against human reviews of questionable quality. What you’d ideally want is an eval that measures capturing known errors in papers3. Reproducibility and robustness Another active area has been using AI agents to automate computational reproducibility4 and robustness5 checks in papers that report numerical results. For more recent papers where data and code are available, AI agents can see whether they can re-run the analyses and produce the numbers reported in the published paper. In addition to a handful of individual academics who have been experimenting using Claude Code for this, the Institute for Replication is a leading group working on building an end to end system. The evals related to this problem are the most mature, with CORE-Bench (Siegel, Kapoor, Narayanan 2024) and PaperBench (OpenAI 2025) available to benchmark agents on this task. There is also work on getting AI agents to test alternative ways of analyzing the data to ensure the results are robust to small analytic design choices. Synthesis This is the most underdeveloped area where significant investment is required. Although some automated evidence synthesis systems exist — for example, otto-sr is building an AI agent to write systematic reviews — none of these incorporate the full range of paper level signals to weight evidence appropriately. Nor is there anything like an eval or a gold standard for a good systematic review. Arguably Cochrane reviews are the closest we have to gold standard human systematic reviews, though I’ve heard academics in the know complain about their uneven quality. A key question for a synthesis platform is how to weight anomalies and methodological issues in assessing the quality of a piece of evidence. This is an unsolved problem and one I’m very keen to work on. Continuous updating There are many pieces of basic infrastructure available for monitoring for new research and initiating updates. OpenAlex is the current open citation graph. Retraction Watch integrated into Crossref in October 2023. Scite tracks how citations support, contrast, or mention prior claims. The Living Evidence Network demonstrated continuous-update workflows in clinical guidelines. Engineering this is a relatively straightforward task. When you look over this technical architecture and all the progress being made, it’s hard not to be optimistic that a living guide to scientific evidence will be built. The stakeholders are ready The social infrastructure for this is starting to coalesce — it’s not just a pie in the sky academic exercise to imagine this coming into existence. Institutions like the Center for Open Science, the Institute for Replication, the INSPECT-SR, the Living Evidence Network and more are all working on scaling work to improve research quality. Funders are also aligned. The Sloan Foundation has funded living evidence work through COS. Coefficient Giving supports the Institute for Replication and COS. The Astera Institute and the Institute for Progress have shown interest in this space. NIH has established an Office for Replication and Reproducibility. Although there are (very unfortunately) serious headwinds in science funding generally, there is an active group of funders interested in metascience. A brief word about what I’ve been doing at RDI. First, as a Visiting Scholar at Berkeley I’ve been actively figuring out how a non-profit and a public university can conduct and make public the results of large-scale academic article data mining. With some of the money I raised from donors, I commissioned a legal analysis of recent case law and publisher text data mining (TDM) agreements in order to understand whether a massive open data mining of academic articles is possible (with caveats, it is). I’ve also been working to bring together stakeholders in this space, and identify gaps. I’ve also been doing some software development in this space, with more to come. A pilot proposal The assumption undergirding all of this is that an AI, given all this information, would make the right judgment about a scientific claim with lots of conflicting evidence, weighing all the factors appropriately. That’s the hypothesis we need to test. Randomized control trial research is the best place to focus on first. RCTs are used to make many of the important decisions in society - from medical trials to public policy changes. And they use a relatively uniform set of inferential statistics with lots of known and available diagnostics. Behavioral science experiments, within the broader realm of RCTs, should be first used as a testbed whose results can be generalized. Because behavioral science is at the vanguard of open science practices, replications abound (there are thousands of them) to serve as ground truth training data. Key Hypothesis Therefore the pilot would test, in behavioral RCTs that have been replicated, whether the quality of evidence for a claim can be used to accurately predict whether that claim will replicate. Secondary Hypotheses Compared to claims that replicated, non-replicated claims demonstrate a greater share of forensic anomalies in their source literatures. Hypothesis level claim and statistic extraction is accurate enough to scale living evidence without onerous human review costs. Replication prediction is more accurate than prediction markets6 or journal prestige. If all the different quality signals we gather do accurately predict which studies will replicate, then we can use that model to score evidence to power the living evidence layer. Why this is informative regardless of outcome If the pilot succeeds, the architecture extends to medical RCTs (where Living Evidence already operates and integration is mostly about claim representation), then to slices of basic biology with stable replication structure. If it fails, the field learns which quality signals are load-bearing and which ones metascience has oversold. Either result is a contribution to knowing what the literature supports. Implications for funders Because this burgeoning ecosystem of builders already exists, a well-informed philanthropic or government funder could play a crucial catalyzing role in bringing this future about. They could play at least three roles: creating open structured datasets, publishing open benchmarks and incentivizing the solving of key technical challenges. First, open archives of papers that the government maintains, like PubMed, could be turned into structured data amenable to large scale metascience and claim aggregation. I know the US government already has an interest in doing this, though some key open questions remain unanswered. How do you determine the best models and systems for accurately extracting information from papers? How can you establish a robust way to allow researchers to flag errors and correct them? And finally, how do you create a legal regime in working with publishers to maximize the scope of available papers? For the latter, a university or a private philanthropy may be better positioned to make structured data publicly available under journal subscription terms or fair use. Philanthropists or government funders could also coordinate to create or commission benchmarks that evaluate whether important problems have been solved. For example, an open benchmark for claim extraction from a range of different scientific article types would be extremely helpful. Ensuring the underlying data are accurate is vital for creating these evaluations. I’ve discussed opportunistically using various human-created datasets for this purpose, but a consistent problem is that errors in human data make it difficult for them to serve as a gold standard. Finally, with structured data and benchmarks available, the government or private philanthropy could use them to incentivize groups to develop machine learning systems that meet these benchmarks. Prizes are one potentially valuable tool for this. For example, you could establish a prize for a system that accurately updates a living meta-analysis for a small set of claims. Prizes are particularly useful as signals of problem importance, and can help create vibrant ecosystems of public and private research—see, for example the role the government played in kickstarting the current work on nuclear fusion. Conclusion The drawbacks of the current scientific publishing system are known. Scientists agree, metascientists agree, philanthropists agree: the published PDF plus citation graph isn’t the right substrate for maintaining a representation of the evidence base in science. The pieces needed to build the alternative either already exist or are rapidly taking shape. The community is forming around exactly this problem, with concrete partnerships and shared infrastructure. A pilot should start on behavioral science RCTs because that’s the slice of empirical science most amenable to legibility, where replication ground truth is richest, and where the failure modes are best documented. What’s been missing is the galvanizing mission to assemble these pieces into something that works. That’s what I’m proposing to build. *** 1 I have a broader field map that I’ll release publicly soon. This is me, building in public! 2 If this is something that you are excited about, please reach out and talk to me. 3 More on this very soon too! 4 This tests whether, given the code and the data, you can get the same statistics as reported in the published paper. 5 This tests whether the results are the same as a paper’s given alternative analytical decisions in conducting the analysis (like outlier omission). Closely related is the idea of a “multiverse” where you come up with many different ways of answering the same underlying research question with the same data, and test whether the results hold in all those alternative methods. There’s been work on the latter as well. 6 Some of the replications, e.g. those from the SCORE project, had paired the experiments with forecasts from prediction markets. So we get to look at this for free.
'Rivals' shocks viewers by killing off major character in surprise book change
'Rivals' just deviated from Jilly Cooper's 'Rutshire Chronicles' by killing off a major character in a surprise change from the books. Why? Because it was time for Tony to "pay some penance for what he has done."
Stanley Cup Final Game 1 draws biggest audience since 2019
The NHL’s strong television run continued with Game 1 of the 2026 Stanley Cup Final drawing its largest audience in seven years. Game 1 of the 2026 Stanley Cup Final between the Vegas Golden Knights and Carolina Hurricanes averaged 4.8 million viewers on ABC, the largest audience for a Stanley Cup Final Game 1 since…
Biden crashes Jill’s book tour with awkward ‘love’ question that leaves viewers cringing
Jill Biden's book tour stop with Whoopi Goldberg was interrupted by Joe Biden, sparking viral social media reactions about the awkward exchange.
How Science Works
The 2nd Weather and Climate Livestream is now underway. It is organized by a group of early-career researchers concerned about declining funding for the field and eager to demonstrate how weather and climate research makes a difference in our lives. Last year’s event was a great success, drawing terrific press coverage including a piece in the NY Times. This year features a strong lineup of talks aimed at a general audience — I highly recommend tuning in. Share I gave a talk yesterday about How Science Works in Three Steps. You can see the short presentation here (I’ve appended a transcript below): And please tune into the livestream here. It runs through tomorrow at 6 pm ET. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe Cleaned up transcript: Thank you, and thanks to everyone tuning in. I want to talk about something I think a lot of people don’t really understand: how science actually works. Arguments over any scientific topic — climate change, vaccines, you name it — revolve around competing claims. For climate change, the claims are: Is the Earth warming? Are humans to blame? What will the impacts be? Over the last 150 years, the scientific community has developed a remarkably robust method for sorting out which claims are true and which aren’t. That method is what I want to walk through. So how does science generate knowledge? If you ask a high schooler, they’ll give you the version they learned in ninth grade: an individual scientist forms a hypothesis, runs an experiment, and draws a conclusion. That’s more or less what happens at the individual level, though in practice it’s more iterative — you design, test, and refine all at once, landing on a slightly different idea each time until you reach a conclusion about whatever hypothesis you’ve ended up with. But this isn’t science. It’s only step one. Any individual scientist can make mistakes — scientists are human. Maybe there’s a bug in the code, maybe there’s an error in the experiment. Just because someone ran an experiment and reached a conclusion doesn’t mean it’s right, and scientists don’t treat a single result as settled truth. Step two is peer review, the first layer of quality control. The scientist writes up what they did and submits it to a journal, which sends the paper to other experts in the field. Those experts judge whether the methods are sound, whether it properly references prior work, and whether the conclusions actually follow from the data. Ask any scientist and they’ll tell you peer review is miserable — the comments come back brutal, often harsh, and you have to revise and resubmit, sometimes multiple times, before an editor finally accepts the paper. Peer review catches an immense amount of bad science, but it can’t catch all of it. Reviewers get sloppy or overworked, they miss obvious mistakes, and they can’t catch hidden errors — a bug in the code, a misread instrument. So a peer-reviewed paper making it into a journal doesn’t mean the paper is right. Nobody treats a single paper as the final word. That’s where step three comes in: the crucible of science. Important results get retested by the broader community. If you publish something interesting, it gets dissected. Sometimes people try to reproduce your work directly but more often they test its implications. If someone claims X is true, and that implies that Y is also true, then scientists will go check Y. If a claim survives this gauntlet long enough, it becomes accepted. That’s how we generate knowledge. Let me give an example: the ozone hole. In 1985 — and I doubt many people watching were around then, but I remember it well — Joe Farman and his colleagues published observations from Antarctica showing that a huge chunk of ozone was disappearing every year. This was shocking because most atmospheric chemists had expected ozone loss to occur at mid-latitudes and high altitudes, not over the South Pole. When scientists see something they don’t understand, they rush to explain it, and several competing hypotheses quickly appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. One pointed to chlorine chemistry from chlorofluorocarbons. A second blamed nitrogen chemistry, possibly driven by solar proton events — meaning the sun was responsible. A third argued it wasn’t chemistry at all but dynamics: winds were carrying naturally low-ozone air from the lower atmosphere up into the stratosphere. Then the community went to work testing which theory could survive the crucible. Aircraft flew into the ozone hole and found no nitrogen, ruling out the nitrogen theory. Measurements showed the air in the polar vortex was descending, not rising — which would bring high-ozone air down, eliminating the dynamics theory. Meanwhile, those same flights measured enormous amounts of chlorine, strongly correlated with exactly the regions where ozone was being destroyed. That became known as the “smoking gun” paper, and it established that chlorine chemistry was the cause. Through this process, a consensus emerged. And it’s worth being clear that this consensus is organic. There’s no vote, no poll, no meeting where it gets decided. Scientists go to conferences, talk to one another, and independently arrived at the same answer. It’s the ultimate free market of ideas. After the consensus was established, the peer-reviewed literature doesn’t even mention the rival theories — it simply takes chlorine chemistry as given. That’s what a consensus looks like. It doesn’t mean every single scientist agrees, but it does mean there’s no longer any legitimate debate. So where can you see what scientists actually think? It’s all in the peer-reviewed literature, which contains the entire historical record of the argument: the discovery, the competing theories, the debate, the testing, and finally the community coalescing around one answer. But there’s a lot of room for misrepresentation. You can dig up an old paper claiming the ozone hole was caused by dynamics and wave it around as if there still was a debate about the cause of the ozone hole — without mentioning that the idea was disproven long ago and that even its own authors no longer believe it. There’s a bigger problem, though: the peer-reviewed literature is written in a language I call “nerd.” It’s extremely hard to read — honestly, some of it is hard for me to follow. It takes graduate students years to work through the literature in a single field, so we can’t expect policymakers or ordinary people to do it. This is where scientific assessments come in. The most famous is the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The job of an assessment is to read and summarize the peer-reviewed literature, synthesizing what’s settled, what’s been disproven, and what remains genuinely debated. To ensure the assessments accurately summarize the peer-reviewed literature, assessments are written by large teams, which are far less prone to bias than individuals and which dilute the influence of any one scientist with an axe to grind. The teams are deliberately assembled to avoid stacking the deck, and the reports themselves go through multiple rounds of peer review. That rigorous process is exactly why you can trust them and why people consider the IPCC to be the gold standard of what we know about the climate system. An assessment produced through a different process may well not be credible. You can even watch the consensus evolve across assessments. Take the attribution of warming. The 1990 IPCC report said the observed warming was broadly consistent with model predictions but also comparable to natural variability — in other words, we don’t know whether humans are responsible. By 1995, it concluded that the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence — a sentence only a committee could write, and one that barely commits to anything. By 2001, most of the warming over the previous 50 years was judged “likely” due to greenhouse gases; by 2007, “very likely”; by 2013, “extremely likely.” The 2023 report says essentially the same as 2013 — there’s not much stronger language available. So, to wrap up: science is our ultimate tool for deciphering the universe — the most successful method we’ve ever developed for determining what’s true and what isn’t. Our understanding is written into the peer-reviewed literature, so if you want to know what scientists think, that’s where to look. And for those of us who don’t speak nerd, scientific assessments are the Rosetta Stone — they translate nerd into English. Let me open the floor to questions. Thank you.
NHL viewership maintains post-Olympic glow through conference finals
The NHL is maintaining its strong viewership pace heading into the Stanley Cup Final. Viewership for each of the league’s conference finals saw near-50% increases on both NHL broadcast partners. ESPN’s coverage of the Western Conference Finals, a Vegas Golden Knights sweep over the Colorado Avalanche, averaged 2.2 million viewers, up 44% versus last year’s…
Connecting with AANHPI sports fans for FIFA World Cup™ and beyond
Discover how to engage highly connected AANHPI sports fans ahead of the FIFA World Cup 2026™. Learn key viewership trends, streaming habits, and inclusive media strategies.
IPL 2026: Behind the scenes at JioStar — ‘The future of sports broadcasting’
This year's IPL has surpassed 1.1bn viewers across JioStar's television and digital platforms, with feeds pumped out in 12 languages
This Raunchy, Unhinged Show Is Climbing Netflix’s Charts & Sparking Major Debate Among Viewers
Season two of this Netflix series just premiered and it's already stirring up major debate among viewers. Here is why the dark comedy is dividing audiences and whether it is worth adding to your watchlist.
Baystate Health clears up billing confusion
Viewers that received care at Baystate Health told us they’ve gotten past-due notices
'Off Campus' star Ella Bright addresses age concerns over intimate scenes in provocative series
"Off Campus" lead Ella Bright, 19, addresses viewer concerns about her age gap with Belmont Cameli and partial nude scenes in the Prime Video series.
'Landman' star Sam Elliott says fans flock to hit show to escape the ‘s---' in the world today
Sam Elliott says "Landman" viewers are drawn to the show as a "great escape" from modern stress, offering his perspective on why comfort entertainment resonates with audiences.
Construction continues on several New Bern business, downtown projects
WCTI ABC 12 Greenville and WYDO Fox 14 Greenville offer local and national news reporting, sports, and weather forecasts to viewers in the Greenville, New Bern, Washington, North Carolina region, including Farmville, Wilson, Rocky Mount, Goldsboro, Snow Hill, Pikeville, and Simpson, North Carolina.
Bleacher Report launches YouTube channel for its sports cartoon fanbase ahead of World Cup
Bleacher Report is betting on animated sports content and YouTube distribution to capture World Cup fans and young viewers.
“The Office” star reveals why he wouldn't compete on “Dancing With the Stars”: 'You don't want to see that'
One memorable member of the Dunder Mifflin crew tells EW that viewers *do not* need to get an eyeful of him for one specific reason.
Keir Starmer urges TNT Sports to make Arsenal’s Champions League final free to watch
For the first time in 30 years, UK viewers will have to pay to watch the Champions League final between Arsenal and Paris Saint-Germain.
The New #1 Show with a 93 Percent 'Rotten Tomatoes' Rating Is Giving 'Heated Rivalry' Energy—& Fans Are Obsessed
A new romance drama similar to 'Heated Rivalry' is quickly climbing the streaming charts and giving viewers major early 2000s rom-com energy. Get all the details here.
Black Women, Beauty Politics and the Power of Rage in 'Is God Is'
In one of the film’s most surreal scenes, the twins at the center of *Is God Is*—Racine, “the Rough One,” and Anaia, “the Quiet One”—pretend to be strippers for a room full of men. But while Racine is welcomed, Anaia is rejected because her scarred face disrupts the men’s fantasies. That moment crystallizes one of the film’s central questions: What happens when Black women refuse to shrink themselves for the comfort of others? In Aleshea Harris’ Gothic revenge thriller, ugliness becomes both a burden and a source of power, as the film transforms into a stereotype-busting meditation on misogynoir, beauty politics and righteous rage. As the twins travel cross-country seeking vengeance against the father who burned their mother alive, Harris layers the conventions of the revenge genre with distinctly Black feminist aesthetics. The film moves between absurd comedy, trap music, intimate sisterhood and brutal violence while interrogating the ways Black women are expected to manage their pain, suppress their anger and perform acceptability. Anaia’s scarred face and Racine’s consuming rage become mirrors of the same misogynoir that shapes Black women’s lives—whether through beauty standards, domestic violence or the demand to remain silent. What makes *Is God Is* so striking is its refusal to look away from the “ugly.” Harris insists that Black women marked by violence, scars and fury still deserve visibility, complexity and even divinity. The film embraces the “angry Black woman” and the “ugly” Black woman as figures worthy of space, power and humanity. In doing so, it expands the tradition of Black feminist filmmaking by asking viewers to confront the realities dominant culture would rather ignore—and to recognize the beauty, dignity and selfhood that exist beyond respectability.
Valve Remains Silent As Racist Plantation Sim Game Trolls Everyone
Steam guidelines claim to ban 'content that is patently offensive or intended to shock or disgust viewers'
Chicago Sports Network takes to the air to beat Marquee in Cubs-White Sox series
In the streaming era, viewers still tune to broadcast TV. And it’s not about having an antenna. A vast majority of those who watched on WCIU did so through a pay-TV service, where the channel is part of a basic package.
New Interactive AI Startup Make Believe Develops Entertainment Content
Ben Relles' Make Believe counts Reid Hoffman as an investor, and is developing tech to enable entertainment that talks back to viewers.
Mercer Health awarded Acute Stroke Ready Certification from The Joint Commission
Mercer Health has earned The Joint Commission’s Gold Seal of Approval® and the American Stroke Association’s Heart-Check mark for Acute Stroke Ready Certification. Mercer Health underwent a rigorous onsite review on February 6, 2026. During the visit, a team of Joint Commission reviewers evaluated compliance with related certification standards including program management and supporting self-management. […]
Mark Consuelos Shocks ‘Live’ Audience With Surprising Viewer Question
Consuelos made a unique request during the show's 'Stump Mark' segment.
Mark Consuelos Shocks ‘Live’ Audience With Surprising Viewer Question
Consuelos made a unique request during the show's 'Stump Mark' segment.
Interstellar's most-discussed scene is treated as exotic science fiction, but the family-separation problem it dramatises is one of the more actively studied subjects in long-duration mission planning.
The scene that has stayed with most viewers of Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar is not the wave-planet, or the visualised black hole, or the climactic library of moments. It is the one in the middle of the film where Matthew McConaughey’s character, Cooper, watches twenty-three years of his children’s recorded video messages, having lost that span […]
Rousey's return draws US-record MMA viewership for Netflix
The first live MMA event broadcast on Netflix — featuring a double-comeback bout between Ronda Rousey and Gina Carano — attracted the most U.S. viewers in the sport's history. Netflix and Jake Paul’s Most Valuable Promotions reported on Tuesday that Saturday's event in Inglewood, California, drew as many as 17 million viewers worldwide, including a peak of 11.6 million in the U.S. The U.S. figure surpassed the previous MMA record of 8.8 million in 2011 for UFC on FOX 1.
ABC7's Tracy Butler provides health update
ABC7 Meteorologist Tracy Butler provided a health update to viewers.
Viewers Are Dragging This Show Online But Are Also Secretly Obsessed With It
A new season of a beloved series is already sparking intense reactions online, with viewers calling it everything from painfully relatable to full-on “rage bait.” See what all the chatter is about here.
MRN BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT: ONE Event Venue
Today on Business Spotlight brought to you by Bank of Springfield, Crissie Caccamo sits down with Garrett Riley, the new owner of ONE Event Venue, to talk about what this new ownership means for the future of the venue and to give viewers a chance to get to know Garrett a little better. ONE Event...
Googlebook finally delivers a true desktop with app icons and widgets to Google’s laptops
For over a decade, the ChromeOS desktop has been little more than a glorified wallpaper viewer. While there is definitely an appeal to that distraction-free, minimalist approach, users migrating...
AI research papers are getting better, and it’s a big problem for scientists
Journal editors and peer reviewers are being flooded with AI-generated papers that are almost impossible to detect.
Cristiano Ronaldo adds free sports streamer to his business empire ahead of the World Cup
The channel will be responsible for showing 34 matches from the 2026 World Cup, live and at no cost to viewers, including all the matches of the Portuguese national football team.View on euronews
The cinema effect: Turning films into a gateway to science
The sci-fi film Project Hail Mary, currently in theaters, is capturing the attention of both audiences and the scientific community for its science-based content. It manages to engage viewers with complex, ...
The cinema effect: Turning films into a gateway to science
The sci-fi film Project Hail Mary, currently in theaters, is capturing the attention of both audiences and the scientific community for its science-based content. It manages to engage viewers with complex, cutting-edge topics — from astrophysics to language — without sacrificing entertainment. Yet not all films strike this balance. Many, unlike this recent production, have promoted inaccurate or even misleading scientific ideas, and thanks to their wide reach, have contributed to shaping distorted public perceptions of science. Precisely by harnessing the power of cinematic storytelling, Hildrun Walter, Fritz Treiber and colleagues have used films as a tool to foster engagement and dialogue between scientists and the public. Their innovative format, Science & Cinema, described in a new paper published in JCOM, proves both effective and potentially easy to replicate.
NBC upfront heavy on entertainment, but sports viewership continues to lead in 18-49
“Football Night in America” was where NBC specifically highlighted sports late Monday’s event at Radio City Music Hall, as Mike Tirico and Bob Costas welcomed the show’s newest analyst in former Steelers coach Mike Tomlin.
New Nielsen Report Shows The Profound Impact of Asian Influence on Sports and Pop Culture
Alysa Liu and Shohei Ohtani Help Drive Viewership as 91 of the Top 100 Broadcast Programs for Asian American...
A GREAT AWAKENING ARRIVES ON HOME ENTERTAINMENT, BRINGING A POWERFUL STORY OF FAITH AND FRIENDSHIP INTO LIVING ROOMS NATIONWIDE
/PRNewswire/ -- Following its nationwide theatrical debut, A GREAT AWAKENING is set to reach audiences at home, offering viewers a new opportunity to...
Strong month of sports propels ESPN studio shows to record viewership for April
ESPN’s signature sports studio shows continued their upward trend of viewership in April with overall and individual show increases as well as several records.
2026 Truist Championship tee times, TV coverage, viewer's guide
Tee times, TV coverage and viewer's guide for the Truist Championship at Quail Hollow Club in Charlotte, N.C.
'GMA' Deals & Steals celebrating mom-owned small businesses
Tory Johnson has exclusive offers for "GMA" viewers.
Kentucky Derby Breaks Viewership Record with 19.6M
The Kentucky Derby is one of the most-watched U.S. sports events.