Steve Pond's Blog, page 91

Tyler Perry Studios Renames Netflix’s ‘She the People’ Following Nonprofit’s Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

Tyler Perry Studios quietly renamed its political comedy “She the People” last week amid ongoing litigation accusing Tyler Perry and series star and executive producer Terri J. Vaughn of lifting the name of the Netflix comedy from the political nonprofit of the same name.

Vaughn, Tyler Vision LLC and Netflix were sued earlier this year by She the People founder Aimee Allison for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The activist claimed that the Mississippi capitol-set comedy series stole its name from her own trademarked work. Allison’s nonprofit was founded to empower and embolden women of color in a new political era; the Netflix series follows Vaughn as Antoinette Dunkerson, the Magnolia State’s first Black lieutenant governor.

The trademark infringement lawsuit was filed in California on May 19, just ahead of the May 22 series premiere of “She the People” on Netflix. On July 4, the streamer debuted the trailer for Season 1 Part 2 of the series, additionally revealing its title change to “Miss Governor.” The second half of Season 1 debuts Aug. 14.

“Since at least 2018, Ms. Allison has used the ‘She the People’ mark continuously and prominently to identify and distinguish her nationally recognized work to advance the political voice, leadership and influence of women of color,” the lawsuit read. “Under this mark, Ms. Allison launched the first national summit centering women of color in politics in 2018, convened the first presidential forum focused on women of color in 2019, and has continuously used the mark across major media, philanthropic and civic platforms.”

In the suit, Allison claims that she’s been in possession of the trademark “She the People” since 2018, covering political commentary, conferences, blogs, books, and podcasts. Court documents also state that on Sept. 8, 2024, Perry’s Tyler Vision filed to trademark the phrase “She the People” for his television series, but the application was denied in April last year “because of a likelihood of confusion with Allison’s registrations.”

The plaintiff also alleges that she worked with series star and EP Vaughn through her Nina Holiday Entertainment production company in 2020 on a documentary series about women of color in politics, also titled “She the People.”

“Vaughn worked directly with Allison on this project,” the suit reads. “Among other things, Vaughn worked with Allison to develop themes for the documentary, arrange and conduct interviews with subjects and prepare pitch decks to promote and seek funding for the documentary.” The lawsuit claims all intellectual property was to be retained by Allison’s She the People nonprofit.

As it relates to Vaughn’s Netflix series, Allison claims that the series’ title “falsely indicates to consumers that the parties are sponsored by, affiliated with, or related to each other.” The nonprofit, according its website, has a “mission to build power for women of color to lead America to a new political era.” It utilizes educational programs, media, writing and live events to uplift the political power of women of color.

“The infringing mark is identical to Allison’s She the People mark,” the suit reads, stating that the show features political themes that resonate with women of color that closely overlap with the Allison’s original brand mission. “Defendants’ actions are deliberate, willful and constitute a knowing violation.”

The suit demands a trial by jury and that Perry stop the use of “She the People,” that promotion of the Netflix series under that title be blocked, that Perry’s Tyler Vision abandon his trademark application. Allison’s suit also requests monetary relief for damages, attorney’s fees and costs and punitive damages.

Representatives for Netflix declined TheWrap’s request for comment.

The post appeared first on TheWrap.

‘Dreams’ Director Michel Franco Explains Why His Jessica Chastain Drama Had to Be So Brutal and Cruel

Michel’s Franco’s latest film, “Dreams,” is sure to start conversations. Starring Jessica Chastain as a wealthy American and newcomer Isaac Hernández as a Mexican immigrant with incredible talent for ballet, it centers on the fraught relationship that their characters form. Exploring questions of power, abuse and loss, it’s still seeking distribution in the United States, though it screened as part of the 59th Karlovy Vary International Film Festival this week.

The film marks the second collaboration between Franco and Chastain after the 2023 drama “Memory,” which similarly had a central story dealing with abuse. However, where that film found moments of hope, “Dreams” is intentionally cruel, building to an ending that has left festival audiences divided. To hear it from Franco, he wouldn’t have it any other way.

In an interview with TheWrap, the filmmaker discussed working again with Chastain, why he isn’t interested in playing by conventional rules, and a conversation he had with Hernández about concerns he raised.

Courtesy of Karlovy Vary International Film Festival

Without getting into spoilers, how did you talk about this film with your collaborators? How was it when you first went to Jessica Chastain after working on “Memory” together?
The way it happened with Jessica was on a lunch break I told her that I had this other idea that I wasn’t necessarily pitching to her. Jessica and I, we have a very good relationship so it’s very easy to talk without having to think too much with how to say things. Both when I’m directing her and in life, everything is very straightforward. So I told her the thing without the guy being a ballet dancer, just an immigrant. She liked it a lot.

I didn’t know what the end was going to be, exactly. I only understand that he was a ballet dancer so that could be the end. But something similar was going to happen. The first thing Jessica said immediately was it couldn’t be more different from “Memory,” so that’s a good reason to say yes. Plus, we both were enjoying shooting “Memory.” She immediately understood that she’d be portraying a character that would challenge audiences and she wants to do that. She doesn’t want to be comfortable doing crowd-pleasers. 

She is playing one of her more cruel, almost hateful, characters, but buried under repressed desire and shame. How did you go about constructing the scenes where it would go from sex to violence, sometimes at the same time? 
Well, we both had exactly the same film in our heads. The same goes for Isaac, the new comrade, the ballet dancer — we all had the same film in our heads. The way I work with Jessica especially, or Tim Roth, with actors with that amount of experience and talent, I don’t direct them much. We talk a lot after they read the script, we go scene by scene and we discuss. But there’s a lot of surprise elements. I don’t know what they’re gonna do on the day. We don’t rehearse either. So every morning is just me and the actors and I tell them, “What would you do? Action.” No direction. Jessica has done her homework, she always knows what she’s going to suggest.

Once that makes sense, I invite the cinematographer into the room and we figure out how to shoot it. So yeah, that’s pretty much it. It gets interesting, I shoot in chronological order, so by week three or four, you can pretty much see the film from beginning to past midpoint. And Jessica would join me on every Saturday and we would sit down and watch the film. So she’s also invested in the storytelling to that extent and we may change our decisions according to what we’re seeing. We usually add scenes that aren’t scripted or we simply change things or we realize that we’re repeating ourselves a little bit and so on. She can also see how her character is coming to life. If something is not working for her, we’ll reshoot or whatever. Not that I’m doing what she wants. 

You’re collaborators.  
Absolutely. If I’m tired at the wheel, I feel like it’s better to let her take over and do the driving for a little while. I trust her to that extent. 

When it came to the component of sexual violence and assault, what was the conversation like? 
It was present from scratch. In that initial conversation, I did know that she would do something very aggressive to him, then confess, and then something else would come back. The shift of power dynamics was there from the very beginning. It was an unavoidable, terrible direction that everything is inevitably taking.

Jessica also knows that I’m one of the few filmmakers to go far. I mean, only if needed, only if it makes sense. But we’re not shy about that. I think many filmmakers would like to do it and they have the courage and the actors probably too, but studios and producers often prevent that from happening. Because they’re thinking about pleasing the audience and redemption and stuff like that. In a way, I’m taking advantage of film conventions and how lame most movies are. They make it easy to surprise an audience. 

Do you think that approach has made it difficult to get distribution? I’m especially thinking in the context of America with questions about immigration. 
No, I don’t think so. This is the first movie — I know this isn’t what you’re asking — that comes out on a larger scale in the Czech Republic. And that’s fantastic. I think that has to do with the body of work that I’ve been building, plus the film has attracted enough attention for that to happen. That’s the same for many countries where my films are doing well and they keep finding audiences. Times are challenging for film distribution. Yes, of course if I would make a film that’s more conventional it would be easier to get into the American mainstream. 

That’s not your interest? 
Well, no, I would love for that to happen and to sell 50 million tickets. But only without sacrificing my vision. If I’m doing what I’m have to do and then it’s successful, I’m very happy. But I wouldn’t change anything trying to chase commercial success. 

There are histories of immigrants being demonized as rapists, as violent sexual predators. Was there any concern about that history and the way your film engages with that in a very explicit way? 
It was discussed, mainly with Isaac, because he was going to play represent that. For him, it was troubling. But I told him that I was never going to make the film where all Americans are portrayed as evil and the immigrants are just good, with only positive qualities. That would be bulls—. So it made sense on the page and we just kept going in that direction.

There’s also a scene where Mexican authorities left immigrants from Latin American countries and Venezuela to burn alive because they start a riot. That’s based on a real incident that happened in Mexico where 80 people died exactly the way it is depicted in the film. So there’s also that additional layer where Mexican authorities treat other immigrants the way Mexicans and others are treated in the States. I think it’s important to show all slides of things. 

When you said that it was troubling for Isaac, how was it troubling? 
Well, exactly for what you said. He was afraid to be proving Trump right. I told him I don’t care about that. I care about what this man would do when he learns that he was betrayed in such a way. She says she did it for love and he’s been stripped from power, he’s been powerless forever, he’s been played with. It just seemed like a reaction his character would have. I’m not justifying it, of course. 

What was his response? 
He was reassured by Jessica, too. He was convinced that had to happen and that we couldn’t do the film we wanted to do without that. So Isaac had to agree. I mean, he knew it from scratch, but that was his biggest point from when he read the script. He wanted to do the film, but he pretty much never acted before, so for him it was interesting and challenging. 

The post ‘Dreams’ Director Michel Franco Explains Why His Jessica Chastain Drama Had to Be So Brutal and Cruel appeared first on TheWrap.

‘South Park’ Pulled From Paramount+ Outside US Amid Streaming Rights Dispute

“South Park” was pulled from Paramount+ outside of America as the streamer’s license to stream the series internationally expired amid an ongoing streaming rights dispute between Paramount and the show’s creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, TheWrap has learned.

Several international fans recently posted on social media flagging about the show vanishing from the platform. “Unfortunately, South Park has come to an end of the window in which we have the rights to carry it on Paramount+ which is why is now has to come down from the platform,” a representative for Paramount+ when asked why the series was removed.

An individual with knowledge of the negotiations reiterated the note to TheWrap, adding that conversations are ongoing secure a new deal with hopes of renewing access to the show soon. The individual also noted that “South Park” specials created specifically for Paramount+ are still available to watch outside of the U.S.

Parker and Stone’s show is currently in the middle of a complicated streaming rights dispute. In 2019, HBO Max signed a deal giving the streamer exclusive streaming access to the show in the United States. When Paramount+ was launched later in 2021, the international streaming rights to the show went to the streamer owned by Comedy Central’s parent company. But this summer the deal around the U.S. rights to “South Park” came to an end.

According to Bloomberg, Parker and Stone wanted to renegotiate their streaming rights deal and their new season orders around the same time, which is what happened to the show last time. However, Skydance — which is close to acquiring Paramount in a deal valued at $8 billion — reportedly interfered with the deal. That interference prolonged negotiations and infuriated Parker and Stone.

That’s what led to Season 27’s delay as well as the two publicly saying, “This merger is a s–tshow and it’s f–king up ‘South Park.’ We are at the studio working on new episodes and we hope the fans get to see them somehow.”

It’s currently unknown where “South Park” really will premiere on its new premiere date of July 23 or if it will be pushed back again.

The post ‘South Park’ Pulled From Paramount+ Outside US Amid Streaming Rights Dispute appeared first on TheWrap.

Trump Administration Reorg Prompts Over 1,300 State Department Layoffs

The U.S. State Department laid off more than 1,300 employees Friday as President Donald Trump’s reorganization plan continued to take shape.

According to the Associated Press, 1,107 civil servants and 246 foreign service officers were sent layoff notices Friday. They were informed that their positions were being “abolished” and that those notified would lose access to the State Department at 5 p.m.

A number of those affected headed outside the State Department with signs to protest the mass layoffs. Among them read statements like “We all deserve better” and “Thank you to America’s diplomats.”

“It’s just heartbreaking to stand outside these doors right now and see people coming out in tears, because all they wanted to do was serve this country,” New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim said of the scene.

“We talk about people in uniform serving. But foreign service officers take an oath of office, just like military officers,” Anne Bodine, a retired State Department staffer, told the AP. “This is not the way to treat people who served their country and who believe in ‘America First.’”

News of the reorganization first came back in May as part of Trump’s aggressive efforts to downsize the federal government – much under the purview of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The State Department announced it aimed for an 18% cut in workforce. It is far from the only sector under Trump’s hammer. USAID was downsized and folded into the State Department last week, and the Department of Education is being eyed to be cut entirely by the president.

Trump also issued warnings Thursday night to his fellow Republicans about siding with him when it came to defunding efforts for PBS and NPR. The choice was either do as he says or lose his support.

“It is very important that all Republicans adhere to my Recissions Bill and, in particular, DEFUND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (PBS and NPR), which is worse than CNN & MSDNC put together,” the president wrote on his Truth Social platform.

He continued: “Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

The post Trump Administration Reorg Prompts Over 1,300 State Department Layoffs appeared first on TheWrap.

‘F1’ Star Damson Idris Scoffs at the Idea of Method Acting: ‘Like, What?’ | Video

“F1” breakout star Damson Idris made clear that he is not a Method actor on Amelia Dimoldenberg’s “Chicken Shop Date” Friday.

While grabbing some chicken and chips, the beloved host and YouTube creator grilled Idris on his acting practice — but apparently reports of his Method acting have been greatly exaggerated.

“You do Method acting,” Dimoldenberg said at the top of the date.

The “Snowfall” actor avoided the question, saying,” It’s hotter than Satan’s toenails in here,” to which Dimoldenberg replied that he was in a full leather pants suit before pivotting back to the question at hand: “I heard that you like to stay in character.”

“I mean, I’m not a Method actor, like what?” he joked.

The host relented — “OK fine” — before sharing that she heard he kept an American accent at home to the chagrin of his family.

“That was in the beginning when I was just trying to figure out — that was Franklin you’re talking about,” he said, referencing his six seasons leading “Snowfall” on FX.

“Very quickly they were like, ‘Shut up and talk normal,'” he said of his family’s response to him staying in character.

Watch the exchange below:

Idris stars as Joshua Pearce opposite Brad Pitt in the Formula 1 racing film from Apple Studios. He told Dimoldenberg that he formed a close connection with famed “F1” driver Lewis Hamilton while making the film; Hamilton served as a producer.

When Dimoldenberg asked what he learned from him, he simply replied: “To drive fast. He’s the coolest guy in the world.”

The “Snowfall” actor debunked another myth Dimoldenberg proposed. She’d apparently read that he keeps a photo of Denzel Washington in his dressing room.

“Why would I?” he joked back. “I mean where is the dressing room?”

“F1” is now playing in theaters.

The post ‘F1’ Star Damson Idris Scoffs at the Idea of Method Acting: ‘Like, What?’ | Video appeared first on TheWrap.

‘Superman’ Star David Corenswet Was So In Character He Said ‘F–k You’ to Rachel Brosnahan’s Hurtful Line: ‘Shock to Us’ | Video

David Corenswet watches his language as Superman. In James Gunn’s new film, the star generally portrays the classic comic book character with an “Aw, shucks” sort of attitude. Clark Kent may lose his temper, but the Man of Steel wouldn’t dare curse in public.

Corenswet, on the other hand, incidentally let an expletive fly on set.

The actor was featured in a two-person interview for People alongside Lois Lane actress Rachel Brosnahan. In the video, the pair was asked, “What’s the most surprising thing your co-star did while filming?”

Corenswet recalled an on-camera moment where Brosnahan caught him so off guard that he cursed her out.

“She made me curse at her,” Corenswet said.

“Well …” Brosnahan laughed.

“The way she delivered one particular line made me sort of involuntarily say, ‘Oh, f–k you!'” Corenswet went on. “Which I think was a shock to all of us. She got me. She caught me off guard and made me feel really hurt in that moment, and so I — in character — shot back at her.”

You can watch the full clip below:

Neither Corenswet nor Brosnahan mentioned which scene the f-bomb dropped during, but it seems likely to have happened during the filming of an interview between Lois and Superman. In the scene, which was featured in the film’s first official trailer, the romantic couple sits down for a one-on-one interview between the Daily Planet reporter and the Last Son of Krypton. Things quickly turn heated as Lois presses Superman on questions about his attempt to quell an international invasion. The Man of Steel bends more than once, losing his cool at the line of questioning.

It’s an electric moment between the two new “Superman” stars. Not only does the interview highlight Lois’ journalistic prowess, but it also highlights Superman’s frustration as he settles into his role as a world protector early in his career.

“I give her great credit,” Corenswet said. “It’s not easy to surprise your scene partner.”

“It was fun to watch him work,” Brosnahan continued. “He’s a really fearless actor. I think he was playing with the different sides of this character all the time.”

This isn’t the only time expletives flew on the set of “Superman.” In a recent interview with GQ, Corenswet and Gunn noted that he would sometimes curse at his star’s persistent line of acting questions.

“Sometimes his questions are great, and I totally see where they make him better, and because they make him better, they make the movie better,” Gunn told GQ in an interview out Monday. “But every once in a while, it’s just one question too many, and it’s like, ‘Oh, my God, just, David, stop, stop, for a minute.’ And the beautiful thing about me and David is that he knows that about himself and he knows where my limits are. And when I say, ‘David, shut the f–k up,’ David totally gets it and does not take that personally.”

“After we finished shooting, we were hanging out and [James] affectionately — I think — described me,” Corenswet said. “He said a very nice thing: ‘You’re a filmmaker, and so you want to be involved in the filmmaking and you want to help make the film as good as possible.’ Then he said, ‘I think you’re also like a kid sticking his finger in light sockets and sometimes I gotta slap you on the wrist and say stop f–king doing that.’”

The post ‘Superman’ Star David Corenswet Was So In Character He Said ‘F–k You’ to Rachel Brosnahan’s Hurtful Line: ‘Shock to Us’ | Video appeared first on TheWrap.

FBI Director Weighs Exit Amid Epstein Files Fallout, CNN Says: ‘Anger in the MAGA Base Has Only Continued to Grow’ | Video

Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino is reportedly considering his resignation amid political fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein files revelations this week.

“There has been a lot of fighting between Attorney General Pam Bondi specifically and the leadership over at the FBI over who is to blame in this situation,” CNN’s Kaitlan Collins said Friday.

According to the news network, in the wake of MAGA outrage following this week’s DOJ and FBI announcement that there was no evidence of the long-rumored list of clients once held by the deceased American financier, child sex offender and sex trafficker Epstein, Bongino had been considering his exit over tensions with Bondi.

“Dan Bongino has told people he is considering resigning as the deputy director of the FBI over the fallout that has continued ever since this memo was released,” Collins said. “The anger inside the MAGA base has only continued to grow instead of going away as some officials inside hoped it would.”

She continued: “The context here is Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, they came from this MAGA world where they themselves had pushed a lot of questions about the so-called client list that Epstein had beforehand. Now the MAGA base is just not pleased or satisfied with what they’ve said in this memo that came out.”

The FBI and DOJ’s memo this week insists that the Trump-mandated investigation into Epstein’s criminal past “did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.” This comes mere months after Bondi told Fox News that she was in possession of a list of that very nature.

Watch CNN’s report below:

“It’s sitting on my desk right now to review,” she said back in February. “That’s been a directive by President Trump.”

The memo also landed a month after Trump and Elon Musk’s online fallout after the Tesla CEO stepped down as the head of DOGE and came out in opposition to the president’s Big, Beautiful Bill.

“Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files,” Musk said on X at the time in a since-deleted post. “That is the real reason they have not been made public.”

Watch the full CNN segment on Bongino above.

The post FBI Director Weighs Exit Amid Epstein Files Fallout, CNN Says: ‘Anger in the MAGA Base Has Only Continued to Grow’ | Video appeared first on TheWrap.

How to Watch the Katie Taylor vs. Amanda Serrano 3 Fight Live

Following two powerhouse fights, Katie Taylor and Amanda Serrano will face off Friday at Madison Square Garden for the most decorated night in boxing history.

The historic all-women’s boxing card, presented by Jake Paul’s Most Valuable Promotions, features 21 world titles on the line across five championship fights. Taylor and Serrano have already broken records in the boxing world, bringing high viewership and attendance to major venues across the globe.

For Friday’s fight, Irish fighter Taylor, 39, will defend her undisputed junior welterweight titles. Puerto Rican fighter Serrano, 36, will attempt to even the playing field and win her first match over Taylor.

The pair faced off for the first time in April 2022 at MSG, with Taylor winning on a split decision. Their most recent fight was ahead of the Paul-Tyson Netflix live event, in which Taylor won on a unanimous decision.

Keep reading for more details on how to watch the highly anticipated trilogy bout and the other female fights taking place live on Friday.

What time is the Katie Taylor vs. Amanda Serrano fight?

The night of female fights will begin at 8 p.m. ET / 5 p.m. PT with a series of preliminary fights as well as precursors to Taylor and Serrano. The four-hour event will conclude with the Taylor vs. Serrano fight. They are expected to walk in the ring at approximately 11 p.m. ET/ 8 p.m. PT.

Where can I watch?

“Taylor vs. Serrano 3” will stream live globally on Netflix and will take place in person at Madison Square Garden on Friday.

Is it streaming?

The fight will stream exclusively on Netflix.

Have they fought before?

Yes! This is the third matchup between Taylor and Serrano. Taylor leads the rivalry 2-0. They fought in April 2022 and November 2024.

What’s the structure of the fight?

The Taylor vs. Serrano fight will be contested under the standard rules for women’s boxing. There will only be 10, two-minute rounds.

What fights will take place before the main event?

Before the main event, seven different female fights will take place, four of which are preliminary fights. See the matchup details below:

Ellie Scotney vs. Yamileth Mercado, unified junior featherweight titleAlycia Baumgardner vs. Jennifer Miranda, unified junior lightweight titleSavannah Marshall vs. Shadasia Green, unified super middleweight title

Prelim fights

Cherneka Johnson vs. Shurretta Metcalf, unified bantamweight titleChantelle Cameron vs. Jessica Camara, junior welterweightsRamla Ali vs. Lila Furtado, junior featherweightsTamm Thibeault vs. Mary Casamassa, middleweightsWho hosts the fight?

Kate Scott and former world champ Andre Ward will anchor the fight with boxing legend Laila Ali contributing as an analyst. Sean Grande will call the action, joined by Seniesa Estrada and Ali for in-fight commentary.

The post How to Watch the Katie Taylor vs. Amanda Serrano 3 Fight Live appeared first on TheWrap.

‘Daily Show’ Host Ronny Chieng Is Not Too Impressed With Iran’s Sunbathing Threats Against Trump

“The Daily Show” host Ronny Chieng was not too impressed with Iran’s threats against President Trump, particularly their threat to drone strike his belly button.

The comedian spent a good portion of Thursday night’s “Daily Show” monologue discussing Trump and Iran’s ongoing feud. “They’ve been real pissy at Trump just because he dropped the world’s biggest bomb on them,” Chieng said. “OK, get over it. That was like two weeks ago. And now some Iranians are suggesting they could strike back in a very specific way.”

The show cut to a Fox News clip describing assassination threats allegedly made against the president by senior Iranian official, Javad Larijani. Reportedly Larijani said to local media, “Trump has done something that he can no longer sunbathe in Mar-a-Lago. As he lies there with his stomach to the sun, a small drone might hit him in the navel. It’s very simple.”

Chieng joked that the proposed attack affected all Americans since they now had to picture Trump’s “bare belly glistening in the sun.” He also noted that the attack sounded a little unimpressive in comparison to the U.S.’s bomb.

“Is this really a threat though?,” he asked. “What, you’re going to hit his navel with a small drone? Like, Iran went from building a nuclear bomb to, ‘We’re going to turn his outie into an innie.’ Are they threatening to assassinate him or poke him like he’s the Pillsbury Doughboy?”

The “Daily Show” host then pointed out that someone needs to tell Iran that Trump clearly preferred spray tanning to real sunbathing, something the president himself confirmed when he was asked about the alleged “sunbathing attack.” The president was asked the last time he laid out in the sun he said that he must have been around seven or so.

“Wow. I didn’t think a threat like that would unlock his core childhood memories,” Chieng concluded. “Maybe keep asking him about this stuff — like he might have an emotional breakthrough. ‘Yeah, last time I sunbathed was when I was seven. And my mom said she didn’t love me. And I forgive her. Oh my God, I’m healed. Let the immigrants stay!’”

You can watch the full “Daily Show” monologue in the video above.

“The Daily Show” airs Monday-Thursday at 11 p.m. EST on Comedy Central before streaming next day on Paramount+.

The post ‘Daily Show’ Host Ronny Chieng Is Not Too Impressed With Iran’s Sunbathing Threats Against Trump appeared first on TheWrap.

Longtime WaPo Columnist Resigns in Scathing Post Denouncing Jeff Bezos’ Influence on Editorial Policy: ‘A Death Blow’

Joe Davidson, a longtime Washington Post columnist, publicly acknowledged his resignation this week after the paper killed one of his columns for being “too opinionated,” calling out Jeff Bezos in what he described as a damaging editorial shift.

Davidson announced his departure from WaPo in his final “Federal Insider” column last month. He then expounded on his decision in a Tuesday Facebook post. He said the decision was based on a piece he’d written earlier for the paper that was spiked because it was “deemed too opinionated under an unwritten and inconsistently enforced policy.” The journalist cited he had not heard of the rule previously nor had it been enforced. Davidson, 75, joined the paper in 2005 and had been writing the column since 2008.

While Davidson said he did not have reason to believe Washing Post owner and billionaire Jeff Bezos was directly involved in the axing of his article, he noted it would be “naïve to ignore the context.”

“Starting before the November presidential election, Bezos’s policies and activities have projected the image of a Donald Trump supplicant,” he said “The result – fleeing journalists, plummeting morale and disappearing subscriptions. Since October, when Bezos blocked publication of a planned Post endorsement of Kamala Harris for president, the departure of Post talent has been shocking and included five former editors directly above me in the newsroom’s hierarchy.”

Indeed, many high-profile staffers have quit including former opinion editor David Shipley and longtime columnist Ruth Marcus. A number of the resignations came after Bezos brought in Will Lewis as CEO and made a February announcement saying the paper’s opinion section would be focused on “two pillars” moving forward, free markets and personal liberties. Davidson said that coverage of Trump stayed consistent but that the new policy restricted any scrutiny of the president. He also said he was blown away by just how strict the new editorial policy was compared to years past.

“Blocking my column because it was too opinionated was a shock. I’ve authored many pieces over my 17 years writing the ‘Federal Diary’ (renamed the ‘Federal Insider’ in 2016), that were at least if not more opinionated as the now dead one,” he said. “In that piece, I argued that ‘one hallmark of President Donald Trump’s first three, turbulent months in office is his widespread, ominous attack on thought, belief and speech.’”

The writer described the experience as a “death blow” to his life as a columnist but said he tried to stay the course to see if he “could cope with the restrictions.” He gave several specific examples of the editorial chokeholds he faced including describing a potential pay raise for federal employees as “well-deserved” as crossing the policy line. 

“As a columnist, I can’t live with that level of constraint,” he concluded “A column without commentary made me a columnist without a column. I also was troubled by significant inconsistencies in the implementation of the policy.” Davidson said that while he will no longer work at the paper he will still be a subscriber because of the outstanding journalists still there.

The news of his resignation came the same week that Lewis encouraged staffers who do not “feel aligned” with the news company’s “reinvention” to resign. Spotlighting The Post’s so-called “voluntary separation program” that offers buyouts for exiting employees, Lewis said “I truly wish you the best of luck” to employees who are weighing whether or not the company’s direction is for them — and that “if you believe in our next chapter, I’m excited for the work ahead of us.”

You can read Davidson below:

Quitting The Washington Post — or did it quit me?

Washington Post Columnist.

What a great title in the world of journalism.

But it’s not worth keeping at any cost.

For me, the cost became too great when a Federal Insider column I wrote was killed because it was deemed too opinionated under an unwritten and inconsistently enforced policy, which I had not heard of previously. My resignation, after 20 years with The Post, took effect this month.

While the policy prohibiting opinion and commentary in News section articles can be justified journalistically, it is a departure from longstanding Post practice and mandated a change in my role that I chose not to accept. Some readers who commented on my final column skewered Post owner Jeff Bezos. I have no reason to believe he was directly involved in my situation, but it would be naïve to ignore the context.

Starting before the November presidential election, Bezos’s policies and activities have projected the image of a Donald Trump supplicant. The result – fleeing journalists, plummeting morale and disappearing subscriptions. Since October, when Bezos blocked publication of a planned Post endorsement of Kamala Harris for president, the departure of Post talent has been shocking and included five former editors directly above me in the newsroom’s hierarchy. Nonetheless, Post coverage of Trump remains strong. Yet the policy against opinion in News section columns means less critical scrutiny of Trump — a result coinciding with Bezos’s unseemly and well-document coziness with the president.

Blocking my column because it was too opinionated was a shock. I’ve authored many pieces over my 17 years writing the Federal Diary (renamed the Federal Insider in 2016), that were at least if not more opinionated as the now dead one. In that piece, I argued that “one hallmark of President Donald Trump’s first three, turbulent months in office is his widespread, ominous attack on thought, belief and speech.”

The piece contained specific examples, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s alarming memo supporting deportation of Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil. Rubio said Khalil could be expelled for “expected beliefs…that are otherwise lawful.” What immigrants might believe in the future now can make them federal law enforcement targets.

Another far-reaching example I cited is Trump’s aggressive attack on speech promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). His executive order commanded federal agencies to “excise references to DEI and DEIA [“A” for accessibility] principles, under whatever name they may appear.” Also, Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, of Turkey, was abducted off the street by masked officers because she co-wrote an op-ed critical of Israel. It was a terrifying sight, caught on video, which previously would have seemed more applicable to George Orwell’s dystopian and cautionary tale against totalitarianism and thought police in is novel “1984.” This is America in 2025.

Killing that column was a death blow to my life as a Washington Post columnist. But I wrote two more articles to see if I could cope with the restrictions. That’s when I learned just how severe the policy is. In my next piece, I was not allowed to describe a potential pay raise for federal employees as “well-deserved” because of Post policy.

As a columnist, I can’t live with that level of constraint. A column without commentary made me a columnist without a column. I also was troubled by significant inconsistencies in the implementation of the policy. During this period, The Post allowed stronger, opinionated language by other staffers, including the words “viciousness,” “cruelty” and “meanness” to describe Trump’s actions.

I’m gone from The Post, but only as a journalist. Many people understandably have canceled subscriptions to protest Bezos’s actions that have damaged the news organization’s integrity. I still subscribe, and read and support the enduring fine work of Post journalists in the newspaper and digitally.

When Bezos bought The Post, he provided needed money, energy and direction. The Post continues to produce first rate journalism now, despite his morale-busting actions.

The Washington Post did not respond to TheWrap’s request for comment. The DailyBeast was first to report the news.

The post Longtime WaPo Columnist Resigns in Scathing Post Denouncing Jeff Bezos’ Influence on Editorial Policy: ‘A Death Blow’ appeared first on TheWrap.