SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " hated " 45 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
'I don't want to be hated': Banned youth baseball coach speaks out after viral incident
Michael Ryals, a youth baseball coach banned by a national sports organization after a viral incident, talked with USA TODAY Sports about the matter.
‘He hated women’: Explosive abuse, new Nazi tattoo allegations from exes rock Platner's campaign
Graham Platner's ex-girlfriends allege rape fantasies, violent episodes and heavy drinking in new report as Maine Democrat faces mounting scandals.
My son made me a soccer fan. Now, it's World Cup or bust.
I thought I hated sports, but my son made me fall in love with soccer. Now, I'm doing everything I can to get us to the World Cup.
Chicago Bears youth movement faces training camp test
The Chicago Bears are a team on the rise. The Monsters of the Midway put the league on notice in 2025 by winning the NFC North, which is possibly the toughest division in football, winning a Wild Card game against their hated rivals, and pushing the Los Angeles Rams to the absolute brink in the ...
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 will fix something players hated years ago
Movement should feel a whole lot better in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4
One Movie Later: Buddy Finds the Nightmare Lurking in Childhood Nostalgia — Entertainment & Lifestyle
One Movie Later: Buddy Finds the Nightmare Lurking in Childhood Nostalgia by James Coulter Barney the Dinosaur needs no introduction to anyone raised in the '90s or early 2000s. His bubbly, saccharine cheer made him beloved by toddlers and hated by older kids and adults, so much so that "I hate you, you hate me..." — Local reporting from Polk County, Florida.
‘Decades in Sports’: How the 1980s Miami Hurricanes became one of the most hated teams in sports history
Many dominant teams have defined the 150-plus year history of college football, but few left a bigger mark than the 1980s Miami Hurricanes.
A Two-Person Startup Has Fixed One of the Most Hated Sounds in Modern Life
A couple of enterprising sound designers have taken on the challenge of producing more pleasant beeps for the humble microwave.
Sitcom king Chuck Lorre says Roseanne Barr ‘fundamentally hated’ her show’s writers: ‘It was malice’
Lorre, who created hits like “Two and a Half Men” and “The Big Bang Theory,” got his start writing for the tempestuous stand-up on “Roseanne.”
How Epstein and Bannon tried to reshape EU politics, hated Merkel
The Epstein files show not only how he abused women and girls while mixing with powerful people, but also how he tried to influence politics in Europe.
College football analyst names most hated fan base in 2026
A new 2026 ranking names Tennessee Volunteers fans college football's most hated, citing their confidence, passion and SEC swagger as key factors.
Habs Daily: Hurricanes Preview, Hated Canadiens, Victoire Glory
Here are the Montreal Canadiens and NHL news items you may have missed on Wednesday. Montreal Canadiens News Abby Roque […]
Fans hated how referees took over Bills-Broncos in OT
Refs, man.
Friend re-launches its AI pendant with a speaker that talks to you, for twice the price
Everyone hated it, so Friend is making it even more expensive.
Bobby Kotick’s lawyers sent me a bad email (and later apologized)
The message I had received was unsettling—for a moment. Then it was just really confusing. Back on January 20 of this year, at 5:15pm ET, I received an email with the subject line “Legal Correspondence re Bobby Kotick.” It was from the law firm Clare Locke, a firm I’d heard had been emailing reporters in recent years about their coverage of Kotick, the former, longtime CEO of Activision Blizzard. The letter was threatening. A lawyer from the firm introduced themselves as “defamation counsel to Bobby Kotick.” They issued a “demand” that I “correct” a Game File article I’d published a week prior. The article that had irked them had been a scoop of sorts. I’d written about a a 2022 lawsuit brought by a Swedish pension fund, AP7, over Microsoft’s purchase of Activision Blizzard. The suit wasn’t news, but I was first to review and report about Kotick’s extensive pushback to the fund’s claims. The pension fund’s core contention was that the sale had been rushed by Kotick to avoid the consequences of sexual misconduct scandals swirling around the company in 2021. (He’d not been accused of misconduct himself in those suits, to be clear.) As I wrote at the time, Kotick had denied the allegations of the rushed sale. Beyond that, Kotick used a December 2025 reply to the Swedish fund’s lawsuit to assign blame for those workplace scandals, the bad press and even for the AP7 lawsuit. I’d found Kotick’s arguments novel and newsworthy. Across nearly 3,000 words, I explained Kotick’s take: that a Swedish gaming company was behind the Swedish fund’s lawsuit (the Embracer group; they denied it); that the Microsoft-Activision deal was not rushed and was secured at what Kotick felt history had proven to be an optimal price for shareholders; that he believed a conspiracy of people at unions government agencies, PR firms and the media had spun up claims of widespread workplace misconduct at Activision Blizzard in 2021. The article gave context for all of this, letting readers assess the claims and weigh their credibility. As I’d later write to Kotick’s lawyers: I would be surprised if you could point to any news article about Bobby Kotick in the last five years that has spent more of its wordcount articulating his point of view. He is welcome to do an interview with Game File any time. Nonetheless, there they were in my inbox that Tuesday evening: Clare Locke, the law firm that secured a $787.5 million settlement from Fox News over false statements about voting machines. They were emailing me, threatening that failure to comply with their demand could support a claim of “actual malice,” a legal standard for libel. Unless… Unless, they said, I added a key paragraph to my article. This was a paragraph that I already knew Kotick’s lawyers had been emailing reporters about for at least a year, and it was a paragraph that was already in my article. The paragraph they wanted is from a 2023 settlement that California’s Civil Rights Department struck with Activision Blizzard. The settlement had closed a two-year-old lawsuit over alleged sexual discrimination at the game maker. The paragraph basically said that claims of systemic or widespread sexual harassment—or of execs like Kotick tolerating such behavior—had never been proven. I’d already seen proof that Kotick’s lawyers had pushed for the settlement’s language to be added to reports about 2021 sexual discrimination and misconduct lawsuits brought against Activision Blizzard by California and, separately, by the U.S. federal government (both suits were since settled). I knew that Kotick and his lawyers felt that the California settlement language should be mentioned in the same breath as references to an article he hated and denied, a November 2021 Wall Street Journal article claiming Kotick knew “for years” of sexual misconduct at Activision Blizzard. So, in the Game File article that Clare Locke emailed me about, in the interest of ensuring I was being fair and balanced regarding the person I was covering, I had already included the following excerpt from the California settlement [emphasis added in bold]: (Kotick has repeatedly pushed back against that November article in the Wall Street Journal, citing among other things, language from a court-approved consent decree as part of Activision’s 2023 $54 million settlement over the California suit. It states: “no court or any independent investigation has substantiated any allegations that: there has been systemic or widespread sexual harassment at Activision Blizzard [or] that Activision Blizzard senior executives ignored, condoned, or tolerated a culture of systemic harassment, retaliation, or discrimination.”) On the evening of January 20, I was incredulous. How do you write a four page legal threat about a week-old article and miss this? While scrambling to also make my kids dinner, I wrote a lengthy reply to Clare Locke’s lawyers, basically asking them to cool it with the threats and to start making sense. In part, I wrote: I hope you can understand why I am having trouble understanding what you’re asking for, when the statement you’re demanding to see in Game File’s article already appears in Game File’s article. Actual malice, as you know, refers to a reckless disregard for the truth. I’m not sure what your argument is when my article already states your client’s position. Here is where I should remind you, the reader, that I am an independent journalist. I publish on Substack, and have availed myself of the Substack Defender program that provides writers on the platform with legal support. But I’m no Wall Street Journal or New York Times, nor even IGN or GameSpot when it comes to such things as, well, having a legal department. There are more fun things for me to do as an independent journalist than writing back to a powerful law firm representing a very rich person. On the evening of January 20th, I was just trying to cook some pasta, broccoli and chicken nuggets for hungry twins. Nevertheless, I wrote back to them. Two hours later, I got a reply. Summarizing: A lawyer for Clare Locke said they’d “reviewed an incomplete version” of my article and they “apologize for the confusion.” (My guess: Someone didn’t read past the piece’s paywall, even though they’d had a full week to scrounge up the funds to do so. What I’d published above the paywall was balanced, as was what came after.)1 That was almost that, but something about the situation bothered me. The letter had been marked “confidential.” I hadn’t agreed to that, and I disliked the idea that powerful people on the beat that I cover would act like they could unilaterally control what I might tell my readers about. On the morning of the 21st, having already gotten the powerful law firm to back off, I oh-so-wisely re-approached them with just one more thing. I thanked them for clearing things up the night before but noted that I’d never agreed to keep their letter confidential. I’m all for agreeing with a source to keep things off the record, but that’s the thing. We have to agree. You can’t just declare it. I’m not bound by that. I wrote to Clare Locke’s lawyer and said, in part: I trust the matter is resolved. It was disappointing to have to spend less time with my kids last night in order to address your legal letter. Family time’s precious. I will add, for clarity’s sake, that, while your letter stipulated that it was confidential, I did not agree to those terms. In the future, should you wish to communicate with me confidentially, I am happy to agree to classifying our communication as “off the record” prior to the actual communication—as is standard with any professional journalist. The firm’s lawyer replied, not directly addressing the confidentiality issue but asserting that the matter was resolved. Why I didn’t write about this until now In May, I told this story on an episode of Simon Parkin’s podcast My Perfect Console, but I held off on sharing it directly with Game File readers. I held off to avoid stepping on the toes of another reporter, the journalist Mikhail Klimentov. He’d interviewed me in the spring of 2025 about an investigation he was working on regarding Bobby Kotick lawyers pressing the media to add the California settlement language to stories referencing the 2021 lawsuits. And about how some outlets had changed their stories and how some simply deleted them. Initially, I was a third-party source for Klimentov’s reporting, providing on-the-record context about the state of the games media. I’d heard about the letters but hadn’t put the time into pursuing the story. I thought it was interesting, and I was glad he was covering it. When the outlet that Klimentov was going to run his reporting in dropped the story, I began talking to him about potentially publishing his reporting on Game File. This was tentative. Then, in January, when I got my own Clare Locke letter, I told Klimentov that I didn’t think it would make sense for me to publish him, not with me now being part of the story. I had my own version of this situation to tell. But I wished him well and said I’d refrain from telling my tale until he could get his reporting out there. Last Friday, Klimentov finally ran his investigation, in a nearly 48-minute video report for People Make Games. It covers various Clare Locke letters, how media outlets reacted to them and what to make of all this. His video weighs the merits of Kotick’s request and looks at some of the articles that were changed (one of which had a glaring error). I highly recommend watching it: (Note, I did some editorial consulting for a People Make Games video last year but nothing to do with this report.) While many outlets haven’t left any public evidence that they updated their Kotick coverage at Kotick’s counsel’s request, at least one has. Back in October 2025, the mainstream outlet Reuters applied the most transparent article update I’ve seen. On the 3rd of the month, they published an article about the state of the Swedish pension fund’s lawsuit. Days later, they added this: In an October 7 letter sent after publication of this article, Kotick’s defamation counsel disputed claims of widespread harassment at Activision. “Not a single investigation, court finding, verdict, or ruling ever concluded that there was any merit” to the allegations of widespread harassment at Activision, Tom Clare and Nick Brechbill of Clare Locke wrote. I’ve never added a statement to my article on Game File, because none was needed. Not for fairness’ sake, nor to meet any demands of Kotick’s lawyers. I’ve nevertheless wanted to be transparent with Game File readers. If someone powerful is questioning my reporting, is threatening a lawsuit over it… if that threat is part of a pattern involving other games media outlets and if, in my case, the whole thing ran into a ridiculous ditch, I want you to know about it. I also share this as a real example of how I handle threats to Game File. I stand up for my own reporting, even when it’s not comfortable to do so. (In that same category of standing up for the work I do, I’ll point to an incident in late August. Asocial media post I published to X/Twitter regarding reporting I did about Take Two and GTA VI was hit by bogus copyright claim by a firm working for the publisher. I pushed back and got it reversed; even while a bigger games media outlet let themselves be censored. This is the other reason I’m sharing this story: To emphasize that dealing with threats from powerful people is one of the costs of covering the video game industry independently and as fearlessly as possible. This is where you come in. Your support, through free and paid subscriptions (sign up here!), can help me keep doing that. It can ensure that I’ve got the back-up I need. And it can help make fiascoes like this even less of a worry, so I can spend my evenings dealing with more important things, such as making sure I steam the kids’ broccoli just right. 1 That pension fund lawsuit I wrote about in January has all but gone away. In May, the fund and Activision Blizzard owner Microsoft agreed to settle. Lawyers for the fund brokered a $250 million settlement for former Activision Blizzard shareholders. In the settlement, the fund’s lawyers changed their rhetoric. Where once they’d questioned the meaning of the California settlement language, they adopted a version of it for themselves. Several weeks ago, while seeking to get a court to sign off on the terms of the settlement, they proposed their fee for their work in the case: $60 million.
Purim’s two heroines and the politics of moral choice
Yesterday, we celebrated Purim. I’ll share a secret: I hate the holiday. Or rather, I’ve long hated how we celebrate it. I don’t like costumes. And the carnival spirit set against a story that ends with 75,000 dead — even if killed in justified self-defense —...
Eagles star unloads on Patriots joint practices: ‘It’s immature’
Eagles star hated playing against Patriots.
30 Day Challenge: Most hated opposing player of all time
There is only one name that comes to mind when @SamHouseholder thinks about his sworn football enemy.
Wolverine Now Officially Lets Players Turn Off Its Most-Hated Feature
Goodbye, scent trails
Growing Up With The Villains: Misfits Who Matter To Me
Deemed the most hated team in the NHL, the Vegas Golden Knights have become a league-wide punching bag for a long list of reasons. But beyond the villain narrative, they were simply my team.
David M. Shribman: The key to midterm victory: Being hated less than the other guy
LAMBS GROVE, Iowa — Move over, soccer moms, forget about NASCAR dads and dismiss even the “bunch of childless cat ladies” that JD...
Sean McVay got weirdly irate about Matthew Stafford retirement question
Sean McVay really hated a retirement question about a QB who will be 38 next season. Sure.
The U.S. Healthcare System is Already Mostly Socialized
Now that Abdul El-Sayed is the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s open Senate seat, the outcome of this crucial race will depend mainly on two things: Whether Republicans succeed in demonizing El-Sayed because he’s brown and a Muslim, and whether they succeed in demonizing him as a left-wing radical. I will defer for the now the question of whether bigotry will be effective this year, although I will address it another day. What I want to address instead is El-Sayed’s signature issue — healthcare. Yes, El-Sayed advocates Medicare for All, a position the usual suspects denounce as “socialism.” I will get to the politics of his stance soon. Today, however, I want to talk about the substance. We should be clear that El-Sayed doesn’t even call himself a socialist. On the contrary, he explicitly disavows the label, saying “I’m a capitalist who just knows about capitalism”. In fact, as I explained in a previous post, the policies that El-Sayed advocates qualify him as a social democrat, not a socialist. Still, El-Sayed advocates a system under which the government would pay almost all medical expenses. Isn’t that socialism? Well, if that is the criterion then much of U.S. healthcare is already socialist. In fact, the government’s role is so large that U.S. healthcare is better described as partially privatized socialism than as anything resembling a free market. Let’s start with the raw numbers on health insurance, which pays the bulk of Americans’ medical expenses. Americans receive health insurance either from private companies or from public programs, overwhelmingly Medicare and Medicaid. Here’s what the breakdown of coverage and spending between private and public looked like in 2024: While a majority of Americans with health insurance get it from private companies, well over 100 million of us are covered by government programs instead. And these government programs pay more total dollars for medical bills than the private insurers do. Why do government programs that cover a minority of the population account for a majority of health insurers’ outlays? Mainly because Medicare covers seniors, and we’re expensive. Also, while Medicaid covers many younger Americans, disabled and elderly beneficiaries account for most of its spending. Even by the raw numbers, then, U.S. health insurance looks as much public as private. But that understates the government’s role: Private health insurance in the U.S. is both highly regulated and heavily subsidized. This is obviously true for the insurance coverage purchased by tens of millions of Americans through the exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act. But employment-based health insurance, which covers 161 million Americans, is far more of a government creation than most people realize. For employment-based insurance exists largely because of huge implicit government subsidies that come with major strings attached. Here’s how that works. If your employer pays you $10,000, that’s taxable income. But if your employer pays $10,000 toward a company health insurance plan that meets certain criteria, it isn’t taxable. That’s a huge effective subsidy, running at more than $300 billion a year. Take that subsidy into account, along with the more than $100 billion per year spent subsidizing policies purchased under the ACA, as well as the outlays on Medicare and Medicaid, and net effect is that the government pays for more than two-thirds of Americans’ health insurance. Granted, there are strings attached. Roughly speaking, employment-based health plans can’t discriminate based on medical history — that is, they can’t deny coverage to employees with pre-existing conditions — and they also can’t offer the plans only to highly compensated employees — a health plan that is only for the C-suite is considered taxable income. So given the restrictions of the federal tax code, employer-based health insurance is a lot like Obamacare, which also prohibits discrimination based on medical history and provides subsidies to make insurance affordable to lower-paid workers. The fact is that virtually all of private healthcare insurance is already well under some form of government control through regulation and tax subsidies. How should we think about this system? First of all, is Medicare socialist? Don’t tell anyone, but the way Medicare operates — it covers every senior’s medical expenses, whatever they turn out to be, while being funded by taxes that depend on one’s income — could be summarized by the old Marxist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” And back in 1961, when Ronald Reagan was the face of a last-ditch effort by the American Medical Association to block the creation of Medicare, he denounced Medicare as “socialized medicine” and warned that it would destroy our freedom. In reality, American freedom survived until Jan. 20, 2025, while Medicare is immensely popular, with an 82 percent favorable rating in the most recent KFF survey. Medicaid, government health insurance for lower-income Americans, comes in at 73 percent. This is in sharp contrast to public views about private insurers, who are widely disliked if not hated and accused of denying essential care. Furthermore, if Medicare is socialism, then the whole U.S. health insurance system, with the government paying most of the bills and placing conditions on private insurers, is almost equally socialist. If you insist on calling any program the government pays for and regulates socialist, then U.S. healthcare would best be described as a partially privatized form of socialism. And one must ask, what is the point of the part that is privatized? Do private insurers add anything positive? Or are they simply parasites, skimming off money that could have been paying for care? The case for viewing insurers as parasites is strong. Many Medicare benefits are now delivered via Medicare Advantage, that is, plans paid for by the government but run through insurance companies. MedPAC, an independent advisory commission, estimates that last year Medicare Advantage plans were overpaid by $84 billion, thanks to practices such as “upcoding,” in which patients’ health problems are overstated to get larger sums from Medicare. Assessing the waste from employer-based insurance is harder, but most evidence suggests that private insurers have substantially higher administrative costs than Medicare does. Furthermore, the complexity of private insurance, with multiple payers all trying to deny care when they can, is a huge burden both on providers — doctors, nurses, and hospitals — and on patients. What do private insurers offer to compensate for these costs? One must go through intellectual contortions to avoid the conclusion that they are, in fact, parasites. Which brings me back to El-Sayed. In supporting Medicare for All, he’s basically calling for an end to the partial, parasitic privatization of a healthcare system that is already hugely dependent on public funding. When one looks at it that way, it’s not at all a radical proposal. Admittedly, the political lift requires overcoming the opposition to higher taxes to pay for Medicare for All. Political realism rather than economics was the reason I and many other progressives supported Obamacare, with all its complexities, rather than demanding an immediate move to Medicare for All. But the political calculus may very well have shifted since the 2000s, as Americans are fed up with a system of unaffordable premiums, rampant claim denials, and byzantine claim administration. Moreover, funding healthcare insurance through taxation would allow for a much more progressive distribution of the cost. That is, compared to the present system, middle-income households would pay less as high-income households would pay more. And the U.S. would stop wasting large sums on pointless administrative costs. So let’s be clear: El-Sayed’s healthcare platform is perfectly reasonable on the merits of cost, fairness and health efficacy. And with private insurers never more hated, while millions of Americans are losing their health insurance, 2026 may be its time. MUSICAL CODA
Chuck Lorre says Roseanne Barr ‘fundamentally hated’ her show’s writers: ‘It was malice’
Chuck Lorre, who got his start writing on ‘Roseanne’ in the ’80s, says Roseanne Barr ‘fundamentally hated’ her sitcom’s writers, because as a stand-up, ‘she made herself a superstar based on her words.’
Most hated sports teams: Where do billion-dollar LA Dodgers rank?
Dodgers' signing of another top free agent drives the rest of baseball crazy. But are they the most hated?
Healey to eliminate insurer prior authorizations for some drugs and services
Prior authorizations have long been hated by many, but insurers call them an essential tool they use to control spending.
Chuck Lorre claims CBS ‘hated’ Melissa McCarthy for lead role on “Mike & Molly”
The “King of Sitcoms” says network executives wanted “a hot young woman” in the titular role.
‘Big Brother’ winner Rick Devens opens up on cutting his ‘son’ Drew at final 3
‘Big Brother’ winner Rick Devens opens up on breaking promise and cutting his ‘son’ Drew at final 3: ‘I hated going back on that, but I do believe it’s the only reason I won the game.’
America’s shoppers are seeking revenge again
Consumers have never hated an economy as much as this one, and they’re taking out their frustrations by doing what they do best.
Top 10 Most Hated Fanbases in College Football
College football wouldn’t be college football without obnoxious fanbases. Every program has great fans, but some groups have developed reputations that make the rest of the country absolutely hate them. Here are my 10 most hated fanbases in college football. 1. Tennessee — All the Confidence, Not Enough Hardware Nobody becomes more confident after a…
Former Indiana Pacers Guard Has Signed with Hated Rival
A former Indiana Pacers guard who was a prize free agency signing has reportedly signed with the New York Knicks.
Celebrating Small Business: Harvard Place Shopping Center
For most of her life, Jessi Midstokke hated gyms. She wasn’t athletic, and most fitness studios made her feel like she didn’t belong.
I hated my dad's lawn care business. Now I run it as CEO.
Jennifer Lemcke resented her dad's Weed Man franchise as a teen. Now she's CEO, running a business that made $426 million last year.
Sports' sordid side shows in Ole Miss-LSU transfer lawsuit
Last season, Princewill Umanmielen and Devin Harper helped Ole Miss to the most football victories in school history. This season, they will play for the Rebels' hated rival, LSU.
Microsoft Finally Backs Down: The Windows 11 Taskbar Update You've Been Waiting For
Microsoft is at last reversing one of its most hated design choices—and giving users back the control they've been asking for.
The Beats 360 are what I’d bring to the gym if I hated earbuds
They protect against sweat and talkative gym bros.
Phillies Make Don Mattingly Decision After Hated Rival’s Stunning Change
The Philadelphia Phillies offered a response on their permanent manager decision after a shocking announcement from a division rival.
Scientists turn one of the world's most hated plastics into premium lubricant
Polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, is among the most common plastics on the planet but also one of the hardest to recycle responsibly. In a new study in Nature, scientists describe a method to strip chlorine from PVC and convert the remaining material into synthetic lubricant-based oils that perform competitively with commercial products.
‘Decades in Sports’: How the 1980s Miami Hurricanes became one of the most hated teams in sports history
Many dominant teams have defined the 150-plus year history of college football, but few left a bigger mark than the 1980s Miami Hurricanes.
The iPhone Air sold poorly, and now we know exactly what people hated about it
Not enough cameras? A single speaker? Poor thermals? Most of you think that the iPhone Air flopped because it fails to meet a number of expectations.
New Numbers Present Sony’s Case For Abandoning PlayStation Discs
While Sony has been shamed out of many fan-hated changes over the years, that was never going to be the case for its decision to abandon physical discs starting in 2028.
The real reasons permanent Daylight Saving Time never stuck
We tried it once...and hated it.
‘If you can’t beat ’em, eat ’em’: Italy is turning its hated invasive crab into a multimillion-dollar business
After the crabs devastated Italy’s prized clam industry, fishermen found a new strategy: exporting every crab they catch.
Saturday Game Thread vs. THEM
1pm CT on SEC Network. Yesterday’s game was a much needed victory over the hated School to the East—an extra inning 3-2 victory fueled by 7 and 1/3 IP of one run, 9 K ball by Connor “The Spice” Fennel” and a 10th inning walk-off single by Johnstone the Elder. Today, we go for win […]
‘Decades in Sports’: How the 1980s Miami Hurricanes became one of the most hated teams in sports history
There have been plenty of dominant teams in the 150-plus-year history of college football, but few have left a bigger mark on the sport than the Miami Hurricanes did during