You might have thought that Bill O’Reilly’s exchange with Maxine Waters was the most racist thing to come out of Fox News yesterday. But, details from a new lawsuit filed by two of the network’s black female employees may have overshadowed O’Reilly’s horrific moment.

According to a report from the New York Times, the two employees–Tichaona Brown and Tabrese Wright, both of whom worked at the network’s payroll department–filed a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court, citing that they were subjected to “top-down racial harassment,” from Judith Slater, the Fox comptroller who had worked for the network for almost two decades. Slater was fired after an internal investigation, according to a story first reported by The Wrap. The timeline of Slater’s firing is unclear, but a statement from the network obtained by the Times claims that Slater was fired at the end of February.

Brown and Wright’s lawsuit targets Slater, Fox News, and 21st Century Fox, which owns Fox News. The lawsuit claims that Slater repeatedly made racist and disparaging comments about black people that played into egregious stereotypes, and that the network did not do much to address Slater’s behavior, which made for a hostile work environment. Here are some of the lawsuit’s details as reported by the New York Times:

The women . . .  accused Ms. Slater of making numerous racially charged comments, including suggestions that black men were “women beaters” and that black people wanted to physically harm white people.

They also said that Ms. Slater claimed that black employees mispronounced words, such as ‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘month’ and ‘ask,’ and that she urged Ms. Brown to say those words aloud in a meeting. Ms. Wright said Ms. Slater once asked if her three children were all ‘fathered by the same man.’

[…]

The suit also includes allegations that Ms. Slater made disparaging comments about Ms. Wright’s hair and credit score. She and Ms. Brown said Ms. Slater had mocked the Black Lives Matter movement and referred to their majority-black department as the ‘urban’ or ‘Southern’ payroll department.

According to the New York Daily News, the suit also alleges further details of Slater’s racist behavior, including, but not limited to responding to Brown’s goodbyes at the end of the day by raising her hands up in the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” movement, referring to her commuter train to New Jersey as the “Bombay Express, expressing her belief that Chinese men have small penises, and asking Brown and Wright to teach her how to beat box.

In a statement reported by the Times, the company said that “there is no place of inappropriate verbal remarks like this at Fox News,” but were disappointed that Wright and Brown filed the lawsuit because the company believes it already took swift and appropriate action to remedy the situation.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Fox News Hit With a New Lawsuit Alleging Racial Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Megyn Kelly has announced a move from Fox News, her home for over a decade, to NBC, where it is rumored she will join the morning talk shows. Her Fox program, “The Kelly File,” was ranked consistently as one of the most popular cable news programs, with over 2.7 million viewers last year. Sources have stated that NBC is giving Kelly a daytime show that will fill the slot currently running the third hour of the “Today” show, as well as an anchor spot on a Sunday night news program. Kelly’s departure leaves a seat open in a critical late-night time slot, and there is already a flurry of speculation over who will replace her. There are also questions about whether her move will inspire Bill O’Reilly, Fox’s most profitable anchor, to jump ship when his contract ends later this year. Fox currently has no female host in prime time, which bodes ill for a network still reeling from a massive sexual harassment lawsuit.

Kelly has stated her decision to leave Fox is focused around the work-life balance available at NBC. Yet it is impossible to ignore her clash with Donald Trump in the wake of his incendiary comments about her after the Republican primary and the environment created by Roger Ailes, who Kelly called out for sexual harassment. In the wake of Trump’s inflammatory comments questioning her journalistic integrity, Kelly became symbolic of a righteous crusade against Trump. She was profiled in numerous magazines, gained more attention for her show and became a symbol of strength in the face of sexism.

However, the positive press that Kelly received after the debate can be largely categorized as beneficial to her personal brand rather than beneficial to women in journalism as a whole. In the rush to lift her up to icon status, the public seemed to forget the often blatantly racist tone of “The Kelly File” and the fact that, until the Republican primary, she produced the same rhetoric that the rest of the Fox News team does. Kelly was a frequent target of “The Daily Show” under Jon Stewart’s reign and was lambasted for holding shouting matches rather than interviews on her show.

So which version of Megyn Kelly did NBC sign up for: the pundit who railed against the “War on Christmas,” and defended racist emails in the Ferguson police department, or the heroine who was, according to some, the only Republican woman to stand up to Trump? Unfortunately, Kelly’s inflammatory statements from her Fox years will probably come with her to NBC–after all, Kelly claiming that Michelle Obama promotes a culture of victimization will get more clicks and comments than a clip of her calmly reporting the news or interviewing an actor on a press tour for their latest film. Kelly may have moved to a new network and a new time slot, but her star power is wrapped up in the persona she built at Fox News–and that persona demands drama.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What Should We Expect from Megyn Kelly at NBC? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Bolivian Government Won’t Take Bill Gates’ Chickens

Bill Gates, billionaire and philanthropist, has made it his life’s mission to provide aid to impoverished countries. In his most recent efforts, he planned to donate 100,000 chickens to the country of Bolivia, as a part of an initiative called Coop Dreams.

But the response he received was less welcome than expected. The minister of land and rural development in Bolivia told The Financial Times: “[Bill Gates] does not know Bolivia’s reality to think we are living 500 years ago, in the middle of the jungle not knowing how to produce. Respectfully, he should stop talking about Bolivia, and once he knows more, apologize to us.”  Ouch, need some ice water for that burn, Bill?

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

“The Birth of a Nation,” Nate Parker’s biopic of Nat Turner that examines the slave rebellion Turner led in 1831, had a week that was nothing short of epic at Sundance. Not only did the film snap up the grand jury prize and receive the audience vote for best film at Sundance, Parker sold his project to Fox Searchlight for a record-breaking $17.5 million. Parker was offered an even larger sum for the film from Netflix, but ultimately turned it down because he dislikes the passive nature of Netflix viewing and hopes to engage audiences more actively through traditional cinema. Parker’s decision to go with Fox Searchlight is no doubt financially savvy but it requires him to sacrifice control over his film. Take a look at what happens to an independent film after it is purchased from a film festival lineup:

Why Fox Went Shopping at Sundance

When the Sundance Film Festival began in 1978, indie film-making was an open and amorphous genre that welcomed directors and casts from all walks of life. The one thing the films at the festival had in common was that they were built outside of the traditional studio “system.” Sundance was built on an outsider identity, and, as Joe Reid points out, that created a brand for Sundance that is simultaneously gratifying and limiting. Directors who present their films at Sundance may be operating outside of conventional studios, but by bringing their films to the festival, they hope to gain access to the resources that only a large studio can provide.

As the festival became more popular, studios became increasingly interested in plucking films from the theaters of Park City. “Birth of a Nation” is not Fox Searchlight’s first purchase at Sundance, nor will it be the last. Only a handful of Sundance films have reached the commercial and critical success of movies produced and released by large studios, but companies like Fox Searchlight are hoping to recreate the enormous success of that elite group of movies. In addition, several film critics have debated whether Fox Searchlight picked up “Birth of a Nation” in response to this year’s #OscarsSoWhite trend, aiming to correct the lack of diversity in the prestigious film awards for next year.

What This Deal Means for Nate Parker

After selling “Birth of a Nation” to Fox Searchlight, Parker is not removed from his role as director, writer, and lead actor but he will have to relinquish some control to the buyer. According to Lawyers for the Creative Arts, when a film is purchased by a studio, a deal is struck over the control, financing, liability, and tax involved in producing the film on a larger scale. Sundance directors are usually allowed to retain control over the film, protecting their intellectual property, but they may not take such an active role on the business side of the venture. Parker will likely not have to make adaptations to the script or the length of the film but Fox Searchlight will now take control of distribution and marketing of the film. The studio will control when the film is released to general audiences, how the film is advertised in the media, and how the cast and director should promote the film in the run-up to its large-scale release. In short, Fox Searchlight will decide how and when non-Sundance viewers will see Nate Parker’s creation.

The Fox Searchlight deal has already made Parker a household name and the release of the film to the general public should only cement that image. However, Sundance founder Robert Redford has publicly cautioned Sundance directors not to get swept up in the large studio system. In a 2002 interview with the Harvard Business Review, Redford said that

For beginning filmmakers at Sundance, the devil’s bargain is very tempting, and it’s easy for them to strike it the wrong way. If they go straight for the stardom, glamour, and money, they run the risk of sacrificing their artistic integrity. So at the beginning of the festival, I spend a few minutes talking to all the filmmakers. I remind them that Sundance is for them—and ‘them’ means the films. I outline the bargain very clearly for them: ‘What will you do when a studio offers you a tidy sum in return for control over your next project?’ I remind them that they have to decide how to negotiate this question, and I ask them if they are strong enough to stand up for their art.

The fame and connection to a traditional studio that Parker’s Sundance deal brings may be the type of devil’s bargain that Redford cautions against but Sundance organizer Geoffrey Gilmore has argued that the commercial success of Sundance films is not a negative for young directors–on the contrary, it sets them up for profitable, sustainable careers.

Why Does Film Marketing Matter?

Parker’s film has been hailed by the Sundance crowd as a triumph but it could be a commercial flop if Fox Searchlight does not market it appropriately. Parker created the film hoping to create conversation and incite action but if Fox Searchlight emphasizes certain aspects of the film over others, it could lose that message.

“Birth of a Nation” has been labeled a risk for the studio because of its violent content, which will most likely necessitate an R rating. Fox Searchlight is still riding high on the success of “12 Years a Slave,” which also portrayed the brutality of slavery realistically and received an R rating. However, even the most professional marketing teams can do a poor job promoting a film if they don’t target the correct audience, as evidenced by numerous commercial flops in the past several years from Hollywood’s biggest studios. The film’s trailer alone can influence the success of the film, and as there is currently no official trailer for “Birth of Nation,” Fox Searchlight will have to take on that responsibility. The studio will have to decide what scenes it should publicize, where it should place its advertisements, and which actors should go on press tour during the film’s release.

The rise of social media has drastically altered the film promotion landscape and Fox Searchlight will have to adjust its marketing strategy accordingly. All the positive feedback that “Birth of a Nation” has generated this month is going to die down as moviegoers shift their attention from Sundance to the Oscars, and the studio will have to recapture that positive attention if it wants the movie to perform successfully once it is released.

Conclusion

The Sundance Film Festival has gradually transformed from a space for outsider film to a hunting ground for major studio representatives. “Birth of a Nation” is just one of the films picked up by major studios and online content providers at this year’s festival but the Fox Searchlight’s major investment in the film puts an incredible pressure on it to perform well. Nate Parker’s film performed well in the festival environment but it will be subjected to a much broader audience once it is released to mainstream cinema, where its success will hinge largely on the marketing campaign that Fox Searchlight will lead in the coming months. If Fox Searchlight can drum up significant interest in the film, it could be the frontrunner for next year’s awards season but if Fox Searchlight bungles the marketing campaign, “Birth of a Nation” may sink into obscurity. It is a common tale that a critically acclaimed film performs poorly at the box office, not because audiences weren’t interested in its content, but because audiences did not even realize it was there. Independent filmmakers who sell their movies to major studios may be cashing out but they are also taking on a significant risk by allowing an exterior party to take control of the business aspect of the project.

Resources

The New York Times: ‘The Birth of a Nation’ Sweeps Top Awards at the Sundance Film Festival

Deadline: Bart & Fleming: The Big Sundance Deals

BBC Culture: Is Sundance a Victim of its Own Success?

The Atlantic: The Power of the Sundance Brand

Hollywood Foreign Press Association: The Brisk Business of Sundance 2016: Let It Snow, Show Me The Money

New York Daily News: ‘Birth of a Nation’: Why Sundance Fave is a Big Deal Amid the #OscarsSoWhite Controversy 

Forbes: Nate Parker’s ‘Birth Of A Nation’ Cannot Be Allowed To Be An All-Purpose Solution To #OscarsSoWhite

Harvard Business Review: Turning an Industry Inside Out: A Conversation with Robert Redford

The Nation: Long Live Indie Film

Lawyers for Creative Arts: Legal Issues in Film Production

Variety: Sundance: The Math Behind Fox Searchlight’s Record-Shattering ‘Birth of a Nation’ Deal

The Telegraph: 2015’s Biggest Box Office Flops

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse: The Effectiveness of Film Trailers: Evidence from the College Student Market

California Polytechnic State University: Current Trends in the Marketing and Promotion of Movies Using Social Media

WIRED: How The Birth of a Nation Became Sundance’s Biggest Sale Ever

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Beyond Sundance: What’s Next for “The Birth of a Nation?” appeared first on Law Street.

During the 6th (oh god, why?) Republican debate last night, there was a powerful moment when Canadian-ish Ted Cruz and sentient troll doll Donald Trump had a show-down about “New York values.” Cruz previously stated that Trump “embodies New York values” and then elaborated during the debate. Trump parried with arguably with his best moment to date; watch the entire exchange below:

Trump gave a compelling response to a clear attempt from Cruz to stereotype and insult America’s largest city–but New Yorkers still aren’t happy with Cruz’s generalizations and insinuations. The New York Daily News, which is well known for its biting covers, responded to his comment this morning with a somewhat cheap shot at Cruz’s Canadian birth:

Stop the presses! A new Page 1… DROP DEAD, TED: https://t.co/68hKgqmjBxpic.twitter.com/veDsxLYDTN — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) January 15, 2016

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also released a statement, pointing out the hypocrisy of Cruz’s statement, given that his father is an immigrant, and stating: 

He doesn’t know what New York values are because New York is in many ways the epitome of what formed this nation and what keeps it strong. The Statue of Liberty is in our harbor.

Others took to Twitter to emphasize their frustrations with Cruz’s comments. 

Tip: if your spouse works on Wall St. and you hold fundraisers in Manhattan, maybe avoid complaining about “New York values”

— Emma Roller (@emmaroller) January 15, 2016

Uhhh. If New York values include tolerance, inclusion, and bodily autonomy for women, sure. Okay.

— roxane gay (@rgay) January 15, 2016

He even got some crap from Republican Congressman Peter King (although this was before Cruz explained what he meant by “New York values” last night). King stated:

Memo to Ted Cruz: New York Values are the heroes of 9/11; the cops who fight terror; and the people you ask for campaign donations. Go back under a rock

As a diehard “West Wing” fan, my first thought was this scene, when the implication behind a “New York sense of humor” was made as clear as day during the show’s pilot episode: it means Jewish.

Cruz’s comment was clearly an attempt to play on an us vs. them rhetoric that has existed ever since New York’s initiation as the cultural mecca of the U.S. It was a calculated political statement to be sure–Cruz knew that he probably wasn’t going to win New York anyways–probably not in a primary, and almost certainly not in a general–so why not pander to the Americans who see New York as a hotbed of immorality and run-amuck liberalism? It was dog whistle politics at its finest: “New York values” is a code word for immoral the same way that “San Francisco values” is a codeword for LGBTQ, or “urban” is a codeword for “Black people.”

Cruz’s risk came back to bite him in the ass, at least in the press, but I don’t know that it will hurt him in the long run. The idea that New York isn’t “real America,” is, to some conservatives, a valid concept. Erick Erickson, conservative pundit extraordinaire, made that loud and clear during the debate:

New York City is not America. Y’all keep defending it though.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) January 15, 2016

Let’s put it this way–it’s no secret what Cruz was talking about when he said “New York values”–New Yorkers got it, and so did everyone else on that stage. It wasn’t new, and it wasn’t surprising, but we’ll have to see if it makes a difference in Cruz’s fight to defeat Trump.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz Blasts “New York Values”: We All Know What that Means appeared first on Law Street.

A judge just struck down accusations of plagiarism against “New Girl,” arguing that there was not enough evidence for the plaintiffs, writers Stephanie Counts and Shari Gold, to prove that the show’s concept was originally theirs. So, despite the fact that Counts and Gold were asking for the show’s production to cease, it’s safe to say we’ll be all seeing “New Girl” on FOX for at least a little while longer.

Counts and Gold claim that the premise of “New Girl” resembled the pilot of a show they wrote, called “Square One.” In their lawsuit, Counts and Gold posited that there were a few different ways that the people behind “New Girl”–namely Peter Chernin, whose company produces “New Girl,” and showrunner Elizabeth Meriwether–could have seen the “Square One” script.  One was that Counts and Gold showed the script to an independent producer named Holly Harter, who shared it with a the William Morris Endeavor (WME) talent agency. Chernin and Meriweather were also represented by WME at the time–Counts and Gold allege that it could have fallen into their hands through the agency. Another theory presented by Counts and Gold was that Meriweather knew a WME agent named David Karp–they argued he could have somehow given her the script. Either way, Counts and Gold argued that WME was the path that connected their show and “New Girl,” and therefore included WME and several of its agents in the lawsuit as well.

Counts and Gold claimed that the similarities between “Square One” and “New Girl” were obvious. For one, the premise is similar–Counts based her version on her real-life experience of discovering her husband was cheating and then moving into a bachelor pad with three male roommates. That’s almost exactly how “New Girl” starts, although the “new girl” character has a cheating boyfriend, not husband. Additionally, Counts and Gold argue that they actually suggested Zooey Deschanel, the lead of “New Girl” as the start of “Square One,” and that some of the characters featured in the show were similar, including one of the male roommates who is a bartender.

However, in a decision handed down just before the new year, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson proclaimed that Counts and Gold didn’t have enough evidence to show that Meriweather or others involved in the production of “New Girl” could have accessed the “Square One” script. Additionally, he pointed out that the similarities alleged by Counts and Gold weren’t very strong, writing:

Moreover, even assuming arguendo that a triable issue of access exists, no reasonable jury could conclude that there are substantial similarities in the plot, sequence of events, characters, mood, pace, setting, theme or dialogue between ‘Square One’ and ‘New Girl.’ For these reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

So, the lawsuit has been essentially stopped in its tracks–Counts and Gold won’t get the money they were looking for, or the cessation of all future episodes. It’s certainly good news for “New Girl’s” fans–and good timing too, as the show returns to FOX tonight with a new episode.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “New Girl” Plagiarism Lawsuit Shot Down by Judge appeared first on Law Street.

Stars of the hit show “Bones” on Fox are suing the network, claiming they were cheated out of millions of dollars. Emily Deschanel and David Boreanaz, as well as executive producer Kathy Reichs, the anthropologist whose life story loosely inspired the show, filed the suit this week against 21st Century Fox, Fox Entertainment Group, 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, and Fox Broadcasting.

Each of the stars–Deschanel and Boreanaz–have contracts that entitle them to three percent of the series’ profits, while Reichs’ contract entitles her to five percent. All three are claiming that Fox employed tricks such as claiming the show was running a deficit, despite its status as the longest broadcast drama on the network, to avoid paying them that money.

The plaintiffs additionally claim that Fox allowed affiliates to license the series for below-market rates without consulting them, which reduced the amount of money they could earn. The plaintiffs additionally allege that Fox misrepresented or hid key documents in the process, and “failure to offset production charges with product-placement revenue.” The plaintiffs claim that many of these revelations came to light when they exercised their rights to request an audit; that audit discovered more than 20 different accounting violations.

Finally, they claim that when Fox entered into contracts with them for the fifth and sixth seasons:

It did so under the threat of cancelling the series unless plaintiffs accepted its non-negotiable license fee figure, and then concealed information about the true value of that figure.

All said and done, the three claim that Fox’s practices led to them being “cheated out of more than $100 million in gross revenues and being overcharged many additional millions of dollars in alleged expenses.”

Deschanel, Boreanaz, and Reichs aren’t the only ones who are having issues with the way they were compensated by Fox for “Bones.” Barry Josephson, another executive producer on the show filed a similar suit last week, making the same claims about Fox’s accounting practices.

Currently “Bones” is still airing, but it’s unclear whether or not this lawsuit will affect the show’s future. The plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial as well as a real and punitive damages, so that could keep everyone wrapped up for a while. So, “Bones” fans, you may be seeing drama in the courtroom, rather than on the TV moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Bones” Stars Emily Deschanel and David Boreanaz Sue Fox appeared first on Law Street.

The folks over at Fox and Friends learned a valuable lesson in social media engagement this week–actually, who knows if they’re even paying attention, considering they met the same fate as the NYPD’s failed #myNYPD campaign earlier in 2014 . The morning show hosts tried to build a year-end social media swell with this tweet featuring Survivor contestant turned talk show host Elisabeth Hasselbeck:

2014 has been a year full of things we don’t want to see in the New Year. What are YOU over? Comment with #OverIt2014 pic.twitter.com/FjE8C989d3

— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) December 30, 2014

I’m guessing that what ensued isn’t exactly what the team had hoped for. Twitter responded–and continues to do so today–with a barrage of tweets attacking the network for a variety of offenses from homophobia to religious intolerance. Check out some of the responses in the slideshow below.

[SlideDeck2 id=30936 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Well, That Didn’t Work Out How Fox News Planned #OverIt2014 appeared first on Law Street.

With the end of the Colbert Report, so ended an era. Facebook and Twitter were full of people lamenting the end of Stephen Colbert and his late night character, saying things like, “Where am I going to get the news now?” and “Who can I trust to tell the truth once he’s gone?” Surely, it’s a good mix of people who understood the characters Colbert played and those who honestly felt like his show was reality. Where exactly are Americans getting their news, and what impact does it have?

When it comes to politics, Americans watch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News more often than they watch traditional or local news. But what does it mean for the future of comedy news, news in general, and the way we react to it?

Where do we get our news?

Even at a time when television viewing numbers are falling due to an increase in streaming sites and a general lack of traditional watchers, most Americans get their news from television or television-backed news sites.  Pew Research Center analyzed Nielson data and its findings showed a lot about the television landscape, but even more about the people who watched it. These are the findings:

Almost three out of four U.S. adults (71 percent) watch local television news and 65 percent view network newscasts over the course of a month, according to Nielsen data from February 2013. While 38 percent of adults watch some cable news during the month, cable viewers—particularly the most engaged viewers—spend far more time with that platform than broadcast viewers do with local or network news.

While it is interesting to note how many people watch the news, it is more poignant to look at what news people watch, as simply watching news doesn’t mean too much in the age of bias and deep-pocketed politicians. Take a look at that study for a more in-depth view of what exactly people are watching.

Cable

Fox News

Fox News has been getting a great deal of negative publicity in the last few years, even more so than before with the growing popularity of internet memes and altered videos. As such, Fox News attracted an average of 264,000 primetime viewers in that key 25-54-year-old demographic, a number so low that the network hasn’t seen it since 2001. One of the biggest draws to the station is Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor as well as an author, syndicated columnist, and political commentator. His audience remains at over 2.1 million viewers per episode, but once again, the number skews toward the older crowd.  Still, the Daily Kos points out that, “every Fox program in primetime dropped by double-digits, with Bill O’Reilly taking the deepest dive. Sean Hannity posted some of his lowest numbers ever in his new 10:00 pm time slot.” Things are not looking good for the company unless it can swing in some newer, fresher hosts and programming.

According to the Daily Mail, the average viewers at MSNBC and CNN are 60, and the average is 62-64 for the broadcast networks; however, the average viewer of Fox News is not quite the rich, white, Rush-Limbaugh loving man that the liberal bias would have many believe. In Frank Rich’s New York Magazine article, he paints a clearer picture of the typical Fox News viewer:

The million or so viewers who remain fiercely loyal to the network are not, for the most part, and as some liberals still imagine, naïve swing voters who stumble onto Fox News under the delusion it’s a bona fide news channel and then are brainwashed by Ailes’s talking points into becoming climate-change deniers. They arrive at the channel as proud, self-selected citizens of Fox Nation and are unlikely to defect from the channel or its politics until death do them part.

So what does watching Fox News say about you? You lean conservative, you are probably older, and you are typically from a middle-to-upper class household. Still, the station has an audience–maybe not entirely from that coveted advertising swath, but it has one, which is more than some other stations can boast.

CNN

If Fox News is drowning, CNN is already dead in the water when it comes to that key demographic, with only 99,000 viewers in the 25-54 sector in May 2014, according to Politico. Anderson Cooper 360 is still the top program on CNN with an average of 452,000 total viewers, and 145,000 in the key range.

The average CNN viewer, however, isn’t the type of person who will tune in for nightly news broadcasts or scheduled programming. Instead, it is becoming the go-to for hot topics and current events that interest people, such as the recent social justice protests, Ferguson special reports, Ebola, weather emergencies, and presidential addresses.

Still, the station has been doing some reshaping lately to help its numbers and push forward into the next era of broadcast. Brian Stetler explained:

Now, there is some overall shrinking going on. But the better word for what’s happening in media today is “reshaping.” Through layoffs, through cuts, through new investments, “reshaping” for the digital future that really feels more like the digital present. It’s already here. None of this context makes it any easier to say goodbye to our colleagues. In fact, it may make it even harder, because the fact of media, THE fact of media in 2014, is that reshaping of all kinds is going to continue.

So the viewership of CNN is changing, but it’s typical audience remains the same. Mostly liberal, younger but not too young, and transient people who don’t often sit and watch the news on a nightly basis. Still, take a walk around your local mall, sit at the dentist, or walk through an airport, and it is the station you are most likely to see.

MSNBC

MSNBC is one of the newer news channels, founded in 1996, and dedicated to broadcasting news programs 24 hours a day. It is owned by NBC Universal (82 percent) and Microsoft (18 percent), and its sister channels range from CNBC to The Weather Channel. What you see on MSNBC, however, is very different from what you see on the other stations.

One of the more famous programs, The Rachel Maddow Show, is seeing some pretty low ratings this season. The push now is to bring in younger viewers to round out the audience that is growing older fairly quickly. Still, it is considered the go-to network for those who consider themselves politically progressive.

MSNBC is constantly changing, more so than many of the other news stations. It works with viewers, though stays pretty close to its ideals, which many critics say lean too left. Some say that the network is setting itself up as the antithesis of Fox. Most recently, the network has taken a bit of a tumble in the ratings. According to the Huffington Post, MSNBC was down across the board, including declines in the key viewing demographic of nearly 20 percent, and president Phil Griffin vowed to make changes in 2015.

Still, shows like Morning Joe and Hardball with Chris Matthews finished ahead of their time slot competitors on CNN.

News Competitions

Another interesting revelation from Pew:

In one finding that may seem counterintuitive in an era of profound political polarization, significant portions of the Fox News and MSNBC audiences spend time watching both channels. More than a third (34%) of those who watch the liberal MSNBC in their homes also tune in to the conservative Fox News Channel. The reverse is true for roughly a quarter (28%) of Fox News viewers. Even larger proportions of Fox News and MSNBC viewers, roughly half, also spend time watching CNN, which tends to be more ideologically balanced in prime time.

So what does this viewing mean? Here are just a few more statistics from that study to keep in mind as we delve deeper into the individual stations:

• “More than one-quarter (28 percent) of the people who watch Fox News also tune in to MSNBC. An even higher number (34 percent) of MSNBC viewers turn on Fox News.”
• “There is even more crossover viewing when it comes to CNN. Slightly more than half (54 percent) of MSNBC viewers watch CNN, while 44 percent of Fox News viewers tune in to CNN. Healthy segments of the CNN audience also watch Fox News (39 percent) and MSNBC (38 percent).”
• “Overall, five percent of the adult American population watches both MSNBC and Fox News. That is slightly lower than the percentage that watches both CNN and Fox (8 percent) or CNN and MSNBC (also 8 percent).”
• “Despite some crossover, there are also viewers who watch only one of the three cable channels: Fox News Channel narrowly has the largest singularly dedicated audience. About one-quarter of American adults (24 percent) watch only Fox News, 23 percent watch only CNN and 15 percent watch only MSNBC.”

What about local news?

Local news, whether it is for a region or a smaller community, has also taken the backseat when it comes to key viewers. Airtime is a big factor in these problems–local news is often shown when people are coming home from work or sitting down to eat dinner. Fewer people are tuning into these broadcasts–even entertainment ones–choosing instead to watch reruns of other popular shows that air at the same time. Local news, as a rule, reports more on local activities and not just big political events, so those who are tuning in to see that information will go to bigger channels.

News Through Comedy: The Daily Show and Beyond

It may seem obvious that a “replacement” news source for Stephen Colbert would come from his “rival” and the person who preceded his time slot. In fact, he needs no introduction, as Jon Stewart is one of the most trusted faces in media, and his program, The Daily Show, is where Stephen Colbert got his start in the genre. His style takes a bit of getting used to, but give him a second chance before leaving Comedy Central. His ratings are higher than most of the other news outlets, and he does it all with a little bit of humor that “real” news stations cannot get away with. According to the Daily Mail, his show averages 2.3 million viewers per episode, putting him far ahead of others news outlets in not only viewers, but also in that 25-54 range. In fact, The Daily Show is consistently ranked the top late-night news show among the key demographic.

In 2012, a study even found that people who watch The Daily Show are more informed than people who watch Fox News. This could be because the face of The Daily Show isn’t the only person who reports on the show–there are a bevy of people who do humorous investigations. The Daily Show viewers tend also to be more educated, younger, and far more liberal than the audiences of other news sources.

There are other similar shows that have been picking up momentum lately. Most notably, Last Week with John Oliver on HBO has been breaking boundaries and bringing in more and more viewers. Of course, Oliver was a correspondent on The Daily Show, so his segments sometimes emulate Stewart’s, somewhat like Stephen Colbert’s did. In fact, Matthew Jacobs of the Huffington Post named Oliver’s program as 2014’s best television show, stating: “The year’s most surprising contribution to television is a show that bucked conventional formats, left us buzzing and paved the way for a burgeoning dynasty.” Gawker’s Jordan Sargent claimed Last Week Tonight is “the new Daily Show,“ while simultaneously criticizing The Daily Show for abandoning those “who have moved on from caring about Fox [News] and Republicans.”

So what can take the place of Stephen Colbert? Not much. When Stephen signed off, he wasn’t just leaving Comedy Central and satirical news behind, he was leaving behind a character that informed us while making us laugh. Time will only tell; so few thought that Jay Leno could be replaced, but his successor, Jimmy Fallon, has hit his stride to great success.

Conclusion

To get a well-rounded view of any political or social topic, it pays to do the research, find the facts from a variety of sources, and make your own decisions. Don’t shy away from Fox News, but also tune in to The Daily Show. The most important thing is that we consume news and current events through some medium. Sure, we have to understand the biases and we have to contemplate the “spin” on each story; however, it’s important to tune into news on television, as it is often the best way for us to visually learn about any given topic. How we receive our news has changed drastically, but now you can get it at the drop of a hat from many different sources.

Resources

Primary

Pew: How Americans Get TV at Home

Additional

New York Magazine: Stop Beating a Dead Fox

Daily Kos: Fox News Suffers Worst Ratings In Thirteen Years – And That’s Not Their Big Problem

CNN: Reshaping at Major Companies

The Wire: Fox Viewership is Getting Even Older

Politico: May Cable Ratings Spare No One

Media Bistro: October 2014 Ratings

Daily Mail: The average age of Fox News Viewers is 68 and a Majority of Them are Politically Conservative and White

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to Pew. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comedy or Cable: Where Do Americans Get Their News? appeared first on Law Street.

Thursday night, President Obama announced an executive action that will protect millions of undocumented immigrants and restructure the United States’ priorities when it comes to immigration enforcement. And he used some fighting words. Obama stated:

The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every Democratic president for the past half century. And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.

Obama’s speech–just weeks after the Democrats basically got trounced in the midterms–was powerful, and regardless of how both his political allies and opponents are acting on the Hill, will make a real difference in the lives of millions of people who call America home.

But if you were interested in watching this speech, you may have had a hard time finding it. The big TV networks–ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS–chose not to air the speech. Instead, CBS presented an episode of The Big Bang Theory; Fox network viewers saw Bones; and viewers tuning to NBC were able to enjoy The Biggest Loser: Glory Days.

While cable stations like Fox News, CNN, and Univision carried it, the big four networks chose not to and opted for their regular programming instead. That was their choice. When the President is giving an important speech, the White House can put in an official request that the speech be carried. In this case, the White House did not, apparently after hearing from networks that they weren’t too enthusiastic to postpone their normal programming. At one point, a supposed network insider called the speech too “overtly political.”

Obviously, this choice on the networks’ part wasn’t just about politics–it was about money. In today’s epoch of pretty predictable political apathy, you get more viewers when you show beloved shows like Shonda Rhimes’ Grey’s Anatomy than when you show the same President Obama speech on immigration that every other network has access to. And when you get more viewers your advertisers are happy. And then you make more money. It’s a pretty simple equation.

The story gets more complicated than that though. You see, stations like FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS are national, but each place has their local affiliate that actually controls what that locale sees. That’s why I, living in D.C., can watch NBC but see a different morning news team than my parents living in Connecticut. There is some flexibility, apparently, because a few local affiliates gave a big middle finger up to their national stations, and showed the speech anyway. POLITICO found that:

A quick look at some major media markets found that the NBC affiliates in New York, Washington, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas and Phoenix; the ABC affiliates in Washington, Chicago, Boston and Kansas City; the Fox affiliates in Boston, Chicago, Dallas and Miami all aired the speech live. CBS affiliates were less likely to air the speech when it fell during the hit show “The Big Bang Theory,” though several of their affiliates outside the East Coast did air it live.

There seems to be fodder for an interesting internal struggle here–networks balked at the idea of showing Obama’s speech for presumably centrally financial reasons. But not everyone was willing to play ball, and the places where the speech ended up being shown are certainly illuminating. With a few exceptions, it seems like channels that showed the speech were in either more liberal areas, or areas like Dallas and Miami, known for larger immigrant populations. As strategic as the call was to not show the speech by big networks, the local stations took their own strategies into account.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Could You Watch Obama’s Speech? Depends Where you Live appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, October 23, 2014, NBCUniversal agreed to pay $6.4 million to settle claims that it violated labor laws over its unpaid internship program.  NBCUniversal’s decision to settle is pivotal because it marks a huge step toward eliminating unpaid internship programs completely.

The lawsuit against NBCUniversal began when Monet Eliastam, the lead plaintiff of the lawsuit, interned at Saturday Night Live for 25 hours per week or more and did not receive compensation. She and other unpaid interns filed a class-action lawsuit and sued NBCUniversal. Elisastam claimed, according to the Hollywood Reporter, that NBCUniversal “misclassified its workers as unpaid interns and thus denied them benefits like a minimum wage salary, overtime pay, social security contributions, and unemployment insurance.”

The Hollywood Reporter further reports that a United States District Court will have to approve the settlement, but if it stands, $1.18 million of the total $6.4 million will go to plaintiffs’ attorneys, Elliastam will receive a $10,000 service payment, and five other plaintiffs will receive service payments of $5,000 and $2,000 rewards. The rest will go to NBCUniversal interns, and the average settlement payment to interns will be $505 for those who interned in New York since July 3, 2007, in California since February 4, 2010, and in other states since February 4, 2011.

Unpaid interns have filed cases against Fox, Sony, Warner Brothers, and Viacom, and companies like Conde Nast have also settled unpaid internship cases. Unpaid internship cases are thus becoming the norm, which it should be.

As a law student, I have had my fair share of unpaid internships. One summer, I worked 35-40 hours per week at an entertainment company and did not receive a dime. Instead, I received credit and had to take an externship class. On the surface, that may not seem terrible because I got to apply three more credits to my total needed to graduate. However, I had to pay a few thousand dollars to take the externship class because the minimum amount of credits that my loan would pay for was six, and my externship class was only three.

It doesn’t take much to realize how unfair that is. Not only did I give the company free labor, but I was out a few thousand dollars in order to get that free labor. Where is the logic in that? There is none.  The unpaid internship system is designed to take total advantage of students just so the student can put that company’s name on his or her resume. The school makes money, and the company gets free labor.

Even for students who take internships or externships during the school year and do not have the student loans issue that I did, no one wants to take a class in addition to interning.  Especially in law school, students are so busy that externship classes take a back seat to a student’s more substantive school work, internships, law journals, and/or moot court.

Moreover, the entertainment companies exist in, not surprisingly, the most expensive cities in the country. Students can’t live on unpaid internships — not when your average lunch in New York City, for example, is around $10 or more. It’s simply not feasible. Yes, you can argue that students can live on student loans, but that misses the point.  Students want to be compensated for their work and be valued as integral employees. It’s as simple as that.

Fortunately, companies are starting to pay interns because companies do not want to be victims, which has been echoed to me in several legal internship interviews.

Hopefully interns will finally begin to get paid for their work across the board, and students will not have to experience what I and millions of other students have.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured image courtesy of [Knot via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NBCUniversal Settles With Unpaid Interns for $6.4 Million appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

We’ve all seen the news coverage about the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Not just the shooting, but also the aftermath that has turned a tiny town into a rioting disaster. Just in case you didn’t hear, Michael Brown was a young black man who was shot several times and killed on August 9 by a white police officer. But did you hear about the young man in Utah who was also shot and killed by a police officer? No? I’m not surprised. Twenty-year-old Dillon Taylor was shot to death by a black police officer two days after Michael Brown.

Where is the outcry filled with blinding rage in Utah that has filled the streets of Ferguson? Why have there been no reports of Dillon Taylor’s death, except a few small pieces found here and there on random news sites? No mention on CNN, MSNBC, or any well known 24-hour news station.

Dillon Taylor, described as white and Hispanic, was shot right outside of a 7-11 on August 11 by a black police officer. I hate to quote Rush Limbaugh because I’m not a huge fan of his, but he said it best on his radio show: “In the current climate in the United States, a black person can never be the oppressor, and a white person can never be a victim.” Truer words have never been spoken. I realize that history has shown that white people oppressed blacks and other races. But the same has happened to whites, obviously not in the same way and not as widely remembered, but everyone has been oppressed in some way at some point in history. Why is the life of this young black man more important the life of a young white and Hispanic man?

The biggest point I want to make is that both of these young men should have the same amount of coverage, but they don’t and it is all based on race double standards. If you take a step back and look at the context of both of these shootings you would realize that there is no real difference except the color of their skin and that of the police officers. When will people stop and think about the bigger picture, not everything should be about color. It is about right and wrong. And for that matter we don’t even know who is right and wrong until all of the facts are released and the police officers who did the shootings have been investigated.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [DonkeyHotey via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Race Double Standards – It’s the American Way appeared first on Law Street.

In 2012, a new company called Aereo launched. It offered a revolutionary new way to watch TV. Essentially, Aereo provides subscribers with a small antenna about the size of a dime that receives TV signals. The dime is kept in a remote local area and then streams TV to any device in the house with Internet access such as a computer, tablet or smartphone. In addition, it’s possible to send the content to an actual TV if you have the correct cables or a streaming device such as Apple TV. Aereo also includes a DVR feature. All of this is extremely cheap–it costs about $1 a day, plus some DVR storage charges. Aereo began in New York City, and now includes Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Miami, and Salt Lake City. They have plans to expand to most other major cities in coming years. Aereo mostly streams basic channels and public access–not cable. For some more background on the company from the Intellectual Property side, check this out. 

Aereo is a great solution at a time when more and more people, mainly young people, can access most of their TV needs online. Services like Netflix and Hulu+ are cheaper than a traditional cable plan. Itunes allows you buy a subscription to one show for a season, which is convenient when you only want one show on a given cable network. I don’t have a TV or cable package–people are always shocked when I tell them this, but a combination of Netflix, inviting myself to watch shows at friends’ houses, and other internet sources work just fine for me. Earlier this year, a tech reporter for HuffPost reviewed Aereo and was pretty happy with the convenience for a cheap price.

Almost as soon as Aereo started, it received ire from the largest broadcasting companies. ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX are officially involved in lawsuits, while other networks, such as Univision, have voiced their support for their fellow networks. The case has gone through a few series of appeals, and as on Friday, the Supreme Court announced their decision to take the case. On every appeal, the courts have so far sided with Aero.

The legal argument made by the broadcasting companies boils down to the fact that they are not receiving compensation for Aereo’s services, the way they do from a company such as Verizon or a local provider. Aereo also doesn’t have a license to show any of this content. Paul Clement, a lawyer for the network stated the case raised issues in copyright law that, “profoundly affect, and potentially endanger, over-the-air-broadcast television.”

Aereo’s response is that they do not create public performances, which law prevents, but because they just send individual signals, that is not the case. They just access the signals that the TV channels have broadcasted, and that consumers have always had the right to use antennas to access TV. The court has sided with Aereo twice on that argument so far, but the start-up still encouraged the Supreme Court to take the case.

The case does have some interesting potentially implications. For example, if Aereo wins, some broadcasting companies may move towards subscription streaming (FOX has already threatened this), which would be costly and difficult.

The ultimate question at issue here is, as it seems to be so often these days, the intersection between law and technology–technology has clearly outpaced the law. But is that a bad thing? The Supreme Court will shed some light on that topic in coming months.

[ABC News]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Miguel Pires da Rosa via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post TV Streaming Makes it to Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.