Who could have predicted that age-gating large sections of the internet in a crusade to shield children's eyeballs from vaguely defined "harmful content" would have disastrous consequences and wouldn't ultimately protect kids? Apparently, the United Kingdom's online regulator, Ofcom, couldn't. 

On Thursday, Ofcom released a report assessing whether the government should make changes to the content categories of the 2023 Online Safety Act, a set of laws which require companies operating in the U.K. to prevent children from "accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content and provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they do arise." The act's "child safety regime" (Ofcom's words) went fully into effect in 2025, when porn websites in the country began checking IDs. Unfortunately, as Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown has pointed out, the age-verification rule has impacted far more than adult websites. Already, the Online Safety Act has age-gated a wide range of content, including war news, the "NoFap" subreddit, and a historic art image, creating a mass chilling effect online. 

Ofcom's report, however, says little about these age-gating concerns for adults, and its own findings highlight the act's underwhelming results. In the report, Ofcom notes that "Most children in the UK say they have encountered at least one piece of harmful content online in a four-week period." It adds that "at a total level there was no significant change in the proportion of children encountering harmful content over the first nine months after the children's safety duties came into force in July 2025." So, it appears the act is requiring adults to fork over their IDs to access a wide range of content, some of which is innocuous, while playing a never-ending and unsuccessful game of whack-a-mole trying to eliminate "harmful" online content from kids' feeds. 

Instead of suggesting to repeal the Online Safety Act because it does not seem to be working or because it imperils online freedom, Ofcom's report proposes to broaden the law's scope. The regulator recommends adding "body stigma content and depression content, currently identified by Ofcom as kinds of non-designated content, to the category of priority content that is harmful to children." Priority content is defined as "content that services must protect/minimise the risk of children in age groups judged to be at risk of harm from encountering." In other words, online platforms could have more reasons to potentially age-gate, block, or avoid publishing out of fear of violating the law. 

The report does not address the U.K. government's plans to ban children under the age of 16 from accessing social media, and Ofcom says it will soon publish an assessment of "what highly effective age assurance looks like" for determining whether someone is 16 or older. But if the social media ban unfolds anything like it did in Australia, where kids are easily circumventing it, it is likely to flop, just as the Online Safety Act has.

The post The U.K.'s Online Safety Act Has Been a Failure. Regulators Want To Broaden It Anyway. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

There has been much consternation this week about the use of fake polls in the media, with some government officials promising swift, and legally dubious, punishments for broadcasters that use them. 

The use of these fake polls came to light on Wednesday, when The New York Times reported that "well-known polling aggregators," including the paper itself, had been citing fake surveys by Wedgewood Polls. The fake polling scheme was revealed when the outlet FivePlusOne contacted Wedgewood Tuesday for comment about an investigation into the pollster. That night, Wedgewood posted a now-deleted statement declaring that it was an "experimental project to demonstrate the vulnerabilities, lack of oversight, and overall barrier to entry in the modern polling industry." The fake pollster claimed it was "far too easy" to be taken seriously in media and public commentary. 

A similar "social experiment" was revealed in August, when the Los Angeles Times reported that a poll by Median Strategies showing Mayor Karen Bass "leading ahead of Councilmember Nithya Raman by a wide margin" was "bogus." An earlier poll by Median Strategies showed Francesca Hong, who lost her race for Wisconsin governor, up by more than 20 percentage points. Median Strategies told the Times that the firm was "created as a short term social experiment to examine how purported polling information could enter and spread through the political information ecosystem without independent verification."

If Wedgewood's polling stunts were in fact social experiments (pollster Nate Silver is very skeptical of this explanation), then the experiment worked. Nobody is completely immune to deceit. And while savvy media consumers have become more attuned to detecting AI writing and video fakes, masses of people still fall for more than fake polls, as they have for a long time.

In 2018, when the word "slop" meant food for pigs and before anyone wrote posts using ChatGPT, the Intelligencer asked the question: "How much of the Internet is fake?" The answer, the outlet concluded, was "a lot."

At the time, Reason's Nick Gillespie noted that the article was a "sobering and obvious revelation that much of what we browse, engage, and interact with is in some fundamental way, total bullshit." Gillespie solemnly observed, "we're living not in the disintermediated, utopian world chronicled in the early days of Louis Rossetto and Jane Metcalfe's Wired, but something closer to the endlessly creative, weird, off-kilter, semi-insane world imagined by Philip K. Dick and, later, Neal Stephenson."

Eight years later, the "semi-insane" world is no less insane, and humans, as they always have, are falling prey to increasingly intricate schemes and hoaxes. In September, Semafor's Max Tani revealed that a large number of YouTube videos—several of which garnered hundreds of thousands of views—were made by "ghost creators." In these videos, presented as news reports, real actors were paid to read AI-written scripts "laced with misleading claims and outright falsehoods." According to Tani, these "accounts appear to be run not by political operatives trying to win, or foreign intelligence efforts seeking to destabilize the US, but by engagement junkies detached from the stakes of politics." While any semi-media-literate person in 2026 could tell you that not all YouTube videos should be taken as fact, the scale of the operation was staggering. 

The deception crisis plagues the media as well. Recently, the platform Qwoted, which connects journalists with sources, had to remove a supposed art therapy expert from its website after her "details were found to be false," reported the Press Gazette. According to the Gazette, the fake therapist's insights had been cited in several outlets, including Psychology, Forbes, Glamour, and Vice. I have also raised concerns about news outlets and commentators citing polls published by EduBirdie, a Cyprus-based company that sells human-written academic papers to students for $8 a page (ethics aside, what a bold business model in the AI age).

So what is to be done? As Gillespie wrote in 2018, there are existing legal levers to root out fraud, but any top-down approach to squashing online lies "will be poorly applied, repressive, and ultimately arbitrary." Government-led crackdowns on COVID-19 "misinformation" have proven him right. Outsourcing the arbitration of truth would only diminish our access to information, and no one entity, particularly the government, should be trusted to determine what is true or false. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has not learned much from the pandemic era and has instead repeatedly tried to crack down on media coverage it doesn't like.

Ideally, media organizations would act as B.S. detectors, but clearly, they often fail to do so. So, consumers are left to wade through lies, AI hoaxes, and so-called "social experiments." This may be tedious work, but it is necessary for consumers to evolve as technologies change. This sleuthing for scams may even be enjoyable. Why pay to have your brain scrambled by Nathan Fielder's Elizabeth Holmes documentary when you can drive yourself insane by tracking down and scrutinizing widely cited statistics and polls?

The post Worst <i>Nathan for You</i>–Style Scheme Ever? A Polling Company Claimed Its Fake Polls Were a Social Experiment. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

• George Brett Olson is one of a set of comedians who've called out AI accounts for ripping off their work.
• Olson said he was upset with Meta for allowing the situation to persist on its platforms.
• Instagram's top exec said the platform is invested in promoting original content and would look into the issue.

This as-told-to essay is based on an interview with George Brett Olson, one of several comedians who have lately called out AI accounts for ripping off their jokes. It's been edited for length and clarity. Instagram head Adam Mosseri said he would look into what could be done about the issue and that the platform was invested in driving traffic to original content.

I started doing stand-up in 2021 after getting burned out from being a winemaker. I'd been doing live shows, and this joke I made about, ironically, AI stealing jobs went viral. The whole joke was about AI stealing jobs and people still blaming immigrants, which is very silly when the most powerful people were saying, "We're literally coming to take all your jobs."

Then a friend sent me the video of this lady doing the joke. He's like, "AI is for real, for real, stealing your jokes." It was basically me, in my clothes, but it's a 42-inch butt. It's just the pornification of women online. It was very strange.

I'd been doing that joke for a year. I thought of it after working out with my buddy, and we were talking, walking. It takes a lot of work to get a joke stage-ready. It's a lot of repetition, tweaking, driving from place to place to perform. Comedy's not easy. So it's pretty sad to see it happen, especially when the AI comedians who are stealing jokes have more followers than the people they're stealing from.

I asked the account behind the joke if she was real. She said yes. Then I asked, "Did someone help you do this?" And she just left me on read. She also left a comment saying, "Sorry, won't happen again," and removed a bunch of videos.

I've had a bunch of followers try to report it. Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, replied and basically said, "Not all AI's bad. We don't know how we're going to stop it, but people shouldn't be able to steal. Seems like we should do something about that."

[This was Mosseri's exact comment: "I don't think it's practical for us to try and ban AI content from the platform. It's gonna be harder and harder to identify, and it's not all bad content (though yes, there is plenty of slop). But we are very invested in trying to drive more traffic to original content creators, and if an AI creator is ripping off content wholesale, it would be good for us to work out what we can do about that. I'm not sure what it would be, but I'll make sure to talk to the team and look into it."]

I blame Meta, not the AI

I don't blame someone for stealing. That's just someone trying to make a buck with the tools they have available. We want to hold people responsible that do not have the mechanisms of power because we can't hold an institution accountable.

I feel demoralized more by Meta's response. The language that's coming from all of them is that we're powerless, and this is inevitable, and there's nothing we can do. 
And it's just not true. And you just have to sit, be powerless, which is demoralizing.

As a comedian, you just want to sell tickets to your shows, engage with live people. That's why most of us post on social media — so people see that you're funny so they come to your live shows. I do live shows every week.

If we flood the internet with agents, and we don't know the difference anymore between what's real and what's not, this could be the death of the internet. Hopefully more people come to live shows. Because the one thing about AI comedians is: You can't see them live.

Show features live chat sessions with breeders, a podcast and updates on dogs’ progress from birth to weigh-ins

A 24-hour Finnish TV show dedicated entirely to the live progress of a dog and her six newborn puppies is drawing millions of viewers.

As well as a 24-hour webcam, Pentulive (Puppy Live) includes live evening chat sessions with the dogs’ breeder, a podcast and an instant notification service that updates followers on the puppies’ progress – from their birth to weigh-ins and first nail trims – for eight weeks.

• James Dumoulin has turned street interviews with moguls into a business on track for $37 million in revenue this year.
• School of Hard Knocks uses staged drama to hook viewers and sells consulting services and memberships.
• Dumoulin and his partners aim to expand and become the "Barstool Sports of business content."

As James Dumoulin approaches a private equity investor in Lagos, Nigeria, there's an ominous moment when a bodyguard holding a rifle puts his hand up and demands the content creator stop.

"I have a channel with 24 million followers," the School of Hard Knocks cofounder responds, and then asks if he can interview the investor, Adesuwa Rhodes, for one minute about how she got rich.

Rhodes steps forward, dressed in a vibrantly patterned suit, and begins answering Dumoulin's questions, explaining how she broke into the business, the importance of persistence, and her faith in God.

The video's formula — mixing a high-drama street interview with advice from the wealthy and successful — has been distilled down to a science by 24-year-old Dumoulin, and helped him create a company that's on track to do $37 million in revenue this year, profitably, according to copies of financial documents he provided to Business Insider. The initial set-up is also, as Dumoulin readily explains, partly scripted.

"They're screaming at me, and it looks like a war is about to break out, and then I get her to calm them down," he said of how he blocked out the Rhodes scene. "And she gave some incredible sound bites and advice."

Street interviews, which have their predecessors on radio and TV, have been reborn as one of social media's hottest formats. Standout stars of the genre include Kareem Rahma of "Subway Takes," who gets opinions on hot topics from strangers, and TikToker Caleb Simpson, who asks people what they pay in rent and tours their apartments. As the format has grown increasingly lucrative, it's also become more orchestrated. Rahma and Simpson have both leaned into celebrity appearances, for example.

In Dumoulin's case, the upfront drama of the street encounter is contrived, a way to draw the viewer in and hook them so they'll listen to the interview, which is where he says the valuable information actually resides. He asks his subjects how they made their money, what their leadership principles are, and for advice for future entrepreneurs. The conceit is that they're lessons not taught in school.

"People love tension," Dumoulin said. "They want to see that conflict, they want to see what's going to happen, and then the payoff is a great interview on the back half. That's why I think our videos do really, really well."

Dumoulin's success in the creator economy — where the term "authenticity" is employed like a sacred totem — raises a host of questions about what it means to be "real," and how much it truly matters if you're entertaining and informing your audience. Any questions of authenticity haven't seemed to hamper the growth of School of Hard Knocks, though, which has nearly 11 million Instagram followers and over 7 million on TikTok, plus several million more on YouTube and other platforms.

Dumoulin said he'd consider a video a failure if it got under a million views.

The 'Barstool Sports of business content'

The videos serve as the center of an operation — run by Dumoulin, his brother Jack, 26, and their childhood friend Josh Smith, 28 — that contains a slew of businesses. The partners say they expect their media revenue to double over the next six months.

"One of the long-term visions of the School of Hard Knocks is to create the Barstool Sports of business content," James Dumoulin said.

The brand has done long-term sponsorships with companies including Shopify, ZipRecruiter, and Alibaba, but advertising isn't the most lucrative part of the business. The core moneymaker is School of Content, which provides social media consulting to small businesses.

The other two contributors are Hard Knocks Agency, a short-form video production and social media management agency for business owners, and School of Mentors, a membership community for aspiring entrepreneurs. Members pay $19 or $49 a month for live calls, workshops, and training with founders and operators.

Jack Dumoulin said the subscribers to its Mentors community are people who want to connect with successful entrepreneurs and learn from them, while the agency's clients are established businesspeople who want to build their personal or company brands.

"Founder-led brands are becoming a really, really big thing, where we're seeing more and more founders become the face of brands, their product, their service, or their company," Jack Dumoulin said.

Monica Khan, CEO of Creator Revolution, which helps creators build businesses and advises companies on influencer strategy, said she sees strong demand from execs and founders for help building personal brands, and business-to-business (B2B) creators are stepping up.

School of Hard Knocks took a smart approach by building a media brand first by interviewing entrepreneurs, then turning that credibility into a service, Khan said.

"We're going to see a lot more of that," she added.

The School of Hard Knocks cofounders have also invested in real estate, including a portion of an apartment complex in San Antonio and commercial properties.

The founders went through several pivots

The Dumoulin brothers grew up in a military family in Northern Virginia and became friends with Smith while serving in the same Boy Scouts troop. All went on to become Eagle Scouts.

James Dumoulin attributes some of their success to the mentoring they got from the military dads who ran the troop. He recalled the especially long conferences they'd have with scout leaders evaluating them for advancement to the next rank, and the scoutmaster who used to say, "There's never enough time to do it right, but there's always enough time to do it again."

"That resonated with us," he said.

The three reconnected in Austin in 2020. Josh Smith had gotten into digital marketing, and Jack Dumoulin, who had won a trophy in a worldwide Microsoft Excel competition, had become a junior analyst at Buc-ee's. James Dumoulin was in college, making TikTok videos. They combined their skills to make online content.

School of Hard Knocks was by no means an overnight success. They experimented with several approaches, including giving their own business advice. People didn't care about a 20-year-old kid's perspective on business, James Dumoulin said.

"Ultimately, we were like, 'What if we tried doing interviews?'" he said. "'What if we were the ones that were able to go seek advice from the most successful people?'"

They started approaching people cold on the street, asking them for interviews, and more often than not, getting blown off.

"It was just constant rejection after rejection," James Dumoulin said. "You'd probably have to go to 100 people before you get anybody to even look at you in the eye."

Their big break came in 2022 when they intercepted Mark Cuban outside the South by Southwest festival and asked for an interview. The gregarious entrepreneur obliged.

"That one interview was so powerful for us, because I leveraged it in so many other interviews," James Dumoulin said.

Eventually, PR agents were calling them to have their clients be featured on the channel.

The videos are carefully planned

School of Hard Knocks videos have a spontaneous feel that belies the meticulous planning behind them.

They start with a cold open, often creating tension by involving a security guard or other bystanders. For an interview with Ring founder Jamie Siminoff, James Dumoulin roped in a few employees from a store on Rodeo Drive where he met Siminoff and asked them to stand in a group, chatting. Dumoulin asked the group who the richest of them was. As briefed, they pointed to Siminoff, who said he was an inventor who made "something on your front door."

James Dumoulin reshoots the opening several times until he's satisfied with the result. The rest of the interview is shot in one take. He approaches his subjects with hearty enthusiasm and said he does minimal research on them, to preserve a certain amount of natural surprise in his reactions. All told, he takes five to seven hours to edit videos that are between a minute and a half and two minutes long.

"He's got unbelievable guests," said Josh Suggs, founder of StreetTalk, an ad agency built around impromptu street interviews. "He has real A-list celebrities. So I think people naturally want to hear what an A-list celebrity is going to say. At the same time, he asks a question people want to hear: How much money do you make? It's very scroll-stopping questions."

Some subjects — like Shaq and Tom Cruise — are household names. Most are not. James Dumoulin said the best-performing videos are unknown moguls because they create a curiosity gap.

He doesn't press his guests on controversial topics. Convicted felon "Wolf of Wall Street" Jordan Belfort and streamer Adin Ross, who has hosted far-right creator Nick Fuentes and self-described misogynist influencer Andrew Tate on his stream, get the same treatment as everyone else.

A platform reality check

The cofounders said that when their content started to take off, around 2022, they got a reality check about dependence on platforms.

They said their content was making about $30,000 a month, mostly from Facebook, when they were unexpectedly demonetized by the platform for what James Dumoulin said was an "unoriginal content violation." (They've since been reinstated.) Their monthly revenue dropped to $5,000. They said it was a wake-up call that they had to find other, more predictable sources of income. They started their first offshoot, the Hard Knocks Agency, in 2023.

"Sometimes you're not in control, because you don't own the platform," James Dumoulin said. "It made us realize, 'We've got to create a media company.'"

The School of Hard Knocks founders are also aware of the risk they run of being dependent on a single person. That's why they're adding new brands like Hard Knocks Business and Hard Knocks Women, with Hard Knocks Sports to come. The goal is to get to eight channels by the end of the year.

"If it is all really relying on one person, if something happens to that person, the whole company's kind of screwed," James Dumoulin said. "And so I think that's why it is very, very important to have that distribution beyond just one channel."

• Influencer marketing can be messy and unpredictable.
• We asked top creator marketers about the main challenges they face when running campaigns.
• Marketers said choosing talent, approving content, and forecasting reach create the most headaches.

Influencer marketing has ballooned into a $12 billion industry in the US. And yet, running campaigns can still feel unpredictable.

Business Insider asked more than a dozen executives at top brands like Poppi, E.l.f. Beauty, and the National Football League what challenges they face when working with creators. Three common pain points emerged.

First, it's tough to find relevant talent amid a growing pool of content creators. It can also be tricky to agree on content copy when balancing a brand's messaging goals with the creator's own voice. Lastly, campaign performance can be erratic as social-media algorithms become more personalized and harder to crack.

Buying influencer ads, unlike TV spots or display ads, requires a human touch. It's tough to automate (despite some attempts to do so). Forty-five percent of brands said they relied on manual processes like spreadsheets, emails, and DMs to run creator campaigns, according to a June survey of 209 executives conducted by Northwestern University and LTK.

"We're dealing with people, and making content is their time and their business, and it's hard," said Lindsay Burstein, senior director of integrated social and communications at Keurig Dr Pepper. "We're always looking for ways to do it faster and in a way that feels more real-time so that we're keeping up with the pace and the culture of the internet. But also knowing that these are people. They have lives. They have other commitments."

Read on for more details on the common pain points that emerged from our conversations with marketing executives at 14 brands. These execs were recently featured in Business Insider's 2026 list of innovative influencer marketers.

1. It's hard to find the right creators for your brand when there are so many

• "The landscape of the influencer, creator, and affiliate model is changing every single day, and new people are coming in and identifying as an influencer," said Patrick O'Keefe, chief integrated marketing officer at E.l.f. Beauty. "I would love a model or a plan or a program that would capture all the new people coming into this space in real time."
• "We've just seen this space get so much more saturated than it ever has before," said Kiara Kempski, vice president of global consumer marketing at The Knot Worldwide. "The game of scale is totally changing."

2. Breaking through the noise

• "The feed is so loud right now," said Anna Doré, Rothy's vice president of brand and communications. "In this AI-driven algorithm world where we're all being served the same content on the feed, we, more than ever, are going to be looking to great tastemakers."
• "There is a ton of content that's just content for content's sake that's out there," said Ian Trombetta, the National Football League's senior vice president of global social, creator, and content marketing. "The creative bar is going up in order for us to drive that organic reach and engagement."
• Ninety to 95% of the content that we see in our own feeds is not from accounts we follow, Keurig Dr Pepper's Lindsay Burstein said. "Followership matters a little, but not nearly as much as I think it once did because the algorithms just don't favor it the way that we used to."

3. Agreeing on content that works for both a brand and a creator's audience

• Some brands "are a little bit too prescriptive and don't allow the creators to do what it is that they really are good at, which is understanding their audience and how to create great content and formats that work for their audience," the NFL's Trombetta said.
• "Overbriefed" projects are "not the business that we want to be in," said Sophia Sesto, Poppi's vice president of culture. "We want to take these opportunities and work with the talent to make something special" and "lean into their personalities and let them carry the brand forward with us."
• "For a long time, the industry treated creators as ad placements," said Samim Sadrzadeh, director of creator content and partnerships at Disney. "We think that significantly undersells the value they actually bring."

• "We start from a pretty simple place, which is creators know their audiences better than we ever will," said Stacy Martinet, Adobe's chief content and creative officer. "The most effective approach has been to treat creators as creative partners, first and foremost."

• Fox-owned Red Seat Ventures is going after Substack's turf with a new newsletter option.
• CEO Chris Balfe said the company has had an early success with Tony Hinchcliffe's paid offering.
• The home of Tucker Carlson and Nancy Grace is also on the hunt for more big creators.

Fox's Red Seat Ventures is coming for Substack.

Led by Chris Balfe, Red Seat made its name running sales and production services for podcasters including Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Nancy Grace.

Now, as the lines between creators, podcasters, and writers continue to blur, it's adding newsletter functionality to its stack. The newsletter feature will live under Supercast, a company Red Seat bought this year that offers a menu of subscription options like livestreaming for creators. They can now build free and paid newsletters and track their performance on a dashboard. The newsletter feature is included in Supercast's base pricing of $0.59 per subscriber per month, with custom pricing available for big networks and media companies.

"We want to be a one-stop shop for creators," Balfe told Business Insider. "Whereas Substack has done a really good job going after written-first creators, and then adding podcasting capability on top of that, we're going at it from the other direction and saying, for most of the creators that we work with, their audio and video is their main business. So, let's add other features like email and livestreaming."

Balfe pointed to comedian Tony Hinchcliffe of "Kill Tony" as an early example of Red Seat's success in using a multifaceted approach. Since launching a subscription, Kill Tony+, Hinchcliffe has signed up thousands of people who get his uncensored, ad-free show and bonus content.

Hinchcliffe plans to create another, super-expensive tier where people would pay to get roasted by him, Balfe said.

"It would be like $10,000 or something like that to roast you," Balfe said. "We will sell out of these so bad."

He also pointed to an early pilot of Supercast's livestreaming with "This American Life," which drew more than 1,700 paying audience members.

Red Seat is aiming for 10 big deals

Balfe wants to make Red Seat a creator-economy juggernaut, with some 200 shows. The company has around 30 shows now and is looking to do a lot more deals quickly, especially in sports, lifestyle, entertainment, and tech. Red Seat's top creator deals generally pay a minimum guarantee against projected sales.

"We really want to accelerate our rate of dealmaking," Balfe said. "I think if we did 10 big deals in the next 12 months, that would be big."

Balfe disagrees with industry insiders like iHeartMedia CEO Bob Pittman, who say podcast distribution deals are getting too expensive. He said there was strong advertiser demand and that hosts have the ability to branch out into other areas. Balfe said he's doing deals where the show itself accounts for as little as 60% of the revenue, with the rest coming from other projects.

Balfe also sees the potential for creators to make longer deals. YouTubers are often used to getting short-term ad deals, while Red Seat is pushing for 12-month partnerships for its clients, he said.

"We're trying to do annual deals," he said. "YouTubers are attracted to that sort of consistency that the podcast business model has allowed."

Podcasts are TV now

Podcasting has become more of a video-first medium as it has evolved from its audio roots.

Forty-four percent of US podcast consumers watched a video podcast in the past week, up from 40% in 2025, according to a report from trade group Sounds Profitable released this month. YouTube is the top podcast platform, used by 63% in the past 12 months, ahead of Spotify (33%), Netflix (21%), and Apple Podcasts (15%).

Balfe thinks video will continue to grow its share of the pie. People are watching more podcasts on YouTube, especially on TV screens. Spotify is making the case that video consumption outperforms audio on its platform.

Major streamers are also hungry for podcasts, and linear TV players like Versant's MS NOW are looking for lower-cost programming to fill their schedules. Red Seat's shows aren't running on Fox's linear networks today, but Balfe said it's only a matter of time before that happens.

"I look at the next phase of video opportunities, and we have every streamer that wants our content now: Hulu, Peacock, and Amazon Prime, and Paramount Plus," Balfe said. "We also have the linear guys that are starting to come to us and say, 'Actually, what you're producing looks kind of like a talk show. Maybe we should just put it in late night or daytime.'"

The bill banning minors under the age of 15 from using social media online from January 1, 2027, was approved by a majority in Parliament’s plenary session late on Thursday. Only ruling New Democracy (ND) voted in favor of the bill in principle. Αong opposition parties, PASOK voted “present”, while SYRIZA, Greek Solution, KKE, Niki […]

The post Greece adopts law to ban social media access to minors under 15 appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.

• The Elizabeth Holmes documentary "You Can See Everything" earned $15.6 million in its debut weekend.
• That makes it the second-highest-grossing traditional docufilm opening weekend of all time.
• Business Insider compiled the 25 biggest documentary opening weekends using Box Office Mojo data.

Something unusual is happening right now: a documentary is drawing crowds to theaters at a level rarely seen for the genre.

The Elizabeth Holmes documentary "You Can See Everything," directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, grossed $15.6 million in the US and Canada during its opening weekend in October.

That makes it the second-biggest theatrical docufilm debut ever, behind director Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," which saw a nearly $24 million opening in 2004. "You Can See Everything" was filmed in the month before Holmes reported to prison in May 2023 after she was convicted of defrauding investors in connection with her now-defunct blood-testing company, Theranos.

Theatrical documentary premieres have become rarer since the streaming era began, as the genre has found a major audience on streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu. Besides the new Holmes docufilm, only two others on the list were from this decade: "Melania" debuted to $7.1 million in January 2026, and "After Death," a documentary about near-death experiences, opened to $5 million in 2023.

Still, theatrical docufilms were once a cultural force, especially in the 2000s and 2010s, when a wave of nature-, political-, and celebrity-focused ones premiered in theaters to much fanfare.

Here are the 25 highest-grossing traditional documentary film openings at the box office, using data from Box Office Mojo. Several hit concert docufilms, like "Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour" and "Justin Bieber: Never Say Never," earned more but were omitted from this list to focus on traditional nonfiction documentaries.

25. Whitney (2018)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $1,265,572

Directed by Kevin Macdonald, "Whitney" chronicles the life and career of singer Whitney Houston.

The documentary uses archival footage and interviews with people close to Houston to explore her rise to fame, personal struggles, and her death in 2012.

24. Imagine: John Lennon (1988)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $1,412,213

The documentary, directed by Andrew Solt, looks back on John Lennon’s life and career through archival footage, home movies, interviews, and recordings.

It covers Lennon's time with the Beatles, his solo work, and his relationship with Yoko Ono.

23. That's Dancing! (1985)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $1,506,802

Directed by Jack Haley Jr., "That's Dancing!" chronicles how dance evolved in Hollywood films through clips from musicals.

It features performances by Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Judy Garland, and more.

22. Rize (2005)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $1,574,787

David LaChapelle directed the documentary that focuses on the different dance styles across Los Angeles, including krumping and clowning.

It follows dancers who use dance as an outlet in South Central LA.

21. Babies (2010)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $2,160,460

Directed by Thomas Balmès, the documentary follows four infants from birth through their first year in Namibia, Mongolia, Japan, and the US.

20. Penguins (2019)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $2,282,593

Directed by Alastair Fothergill and Jeff Wilson, the Disneynature documentary, narrated by Ed Helms, follows a penguin as he searches for a partner and starts a family in Antarctica.

19. The Real Cancun (2003)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $2,300,000

"The Real Cancun" follows 16 American college students on spring break in Mexico.

The documentary captures the students as they party, hook up, argue, and more during a 10-day stay in Cancún's Hotel Zone.

18. Death of a Nation (2018)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $2,356,522

Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza co-directed "Death of a Nation" with Bruce Schooley.

The documentary uses reenactments and interviews to argue that Donald Trump is comparable to Abraham Lincoln and that the Democratic Party has historical ties to racism and fascism.

17. Meet the Mormons (2014)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $2,509,808

Produced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the documentary follows six church members around the world, including the US, Costa Rica, and Nepal, to depict their daily lives and beliefs.

16. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $2,970,848

Directed by Nathan Frankowski, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" challenges the teaching of evolution and includes interviews with scientists, writers, and religious figures.

15. Fahrenheit 11/9 (2018)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $3,008,563

Director Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 11/9," a follow-up to his 2004 documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," examines the political climate surrounding Donald Trump's election and presidency.

The documentary ranges from the Flint water crisis to the Parkland school shooting and criticism of Democratic leaders.

14. Religulous (2008)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $3,409,643

Comedian Bill Maher travels the world questioning believers, clergy members, and religious institutions in "Religulous," directed by Larry Charles.

The documentary takes a comedic and confrontational look at Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other religions.

13. Terror in the Aisles (1984)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $4,009,866

Directed by Andrew J. Kuehn, "Terror in the Aisles" dives into the history of horror cinema.

Actors Donald Pleasence and Nancy Allen introduce clips from films including "Psycho," "The Exorcist," "Halloween," and "The Shining," while discussing why audiences enjoy being scared.

12. Monkey Kingdom (2015)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $4,577,861

"Monkey Kingdom" follows Maya, a toque macaque, as she raises her son within the Sri Lankan jungle.

Mark Linfield and Alastair Fothergill directed the Disneynature documentary, narrated by Tina Fey.

11. Tupac: Resurrection (2003)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $4,632,847

Director Lauren Lazin's documentary examines the life of Tupac Shakur through archive footage, home videos, interviews, and Shakur's own voice recordings.

The documentary lets Shakur's recordings guide the audience through his childhood, music career, activism, legal troubles, and his death in 1996.

10. Bears (2014)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $4,776,267

"Bears" follows a brown bear mother as she emerges from hibernation in Alaska with her two cubs.

Directed by Alastair Fothergill and Keith Scholey and narrated by John C. Reilly, the Disneynature documentary tracks the family's search for food and protection as they face wolves, rival bears, and the wilderness.

9. Born in China (2017)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $4,790,367

Director Lu Chuan takes viewers across China's mountains and forests in "Born in China," a Disneynature documentary narrated by John Krasinski.

It follows a giant panda mother and cub, a golden snub-nosed monkey family, and a snow leopard raising her young in the highlands.

8. After Death (2023)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $5,051,950

"After Death" interviews people who say they had near-death experiences and returned to life.

The documentary, co-directed by Stephen Gray and Chris Radtke, also includes interviews with doctors, scientists, and others about consciousness, death, and the possibility of an afterlife.

7. African Cats (2011)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $6,003,200

Set in Kenya, the Disneynature documentary, directed by Alastair Fothergill and Keith Scholey, focuses on a family of lions and a cheetah raising her cubs.

It was nominated for documentary awards by the Environmental Media Awards and the Phoenix Film Critics Society.

6. Oceans (2010)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $6,058,958

"Oceans," directed by Jacques Perrin and Jacques Cluzaud, is a portrait of marine life around the world.

The documentary is largely filmed underwater, showcasing whales, sharks, schools of fish, and more.

5. Melania (2026)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $7,161,605

Directed by Brett Ratner, "Melania" follows first lady Melania Trump during the 20 days before Donald Trump’s second presidential inauguration in January 2025.

The film offers behind-the-scenes footage of her preparations to return to the White House, including meetings, travel, and intimate moments among family members.

4. Earth (2009)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $8,825,760

Disneynature directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield directed "Earth," which follows polar bears, elephants, and humpback whales across the different seasons.

The documentary was the first release from Disneynature in the US and was among the highest-grossing nature documentaries at the time.

3. Chimpanzee (2012)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $10,673,748

"Chimpanzee" centers on a young chimp living in the forests of Ivory Coast who is orphaned after a rival troop attacks his group.

The Disneynature documentary was directed by Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield, with Tim Allen as the narrator.

2. You Can See Everything (2026)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $15,601,418

Directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, the documentary offers a revealing portrait of Elizabeth Holmes, who was convicted of fraud and conspiracy connected to her fallen company, Theranos.

Holmes allowed the directors into her life during the 34 days before she reported to federal prison to serve an 11-year sentence. It's receiving wide critical acclaim and sparking online debate about its portrayal of Holmes.

1. Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Opening weekend domestic gross: $23,920,637

Director Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" takes a close look at President George W. Bush, the September 11 attacks, the war in Iraq, and the connections between American political and business leaders.

The documentary won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival and became the highest-grossing traditional documentary in US box-office history.

In 2016, the HBO comedian and political commentator John Oliver produced a terrific segment on how TV pundits routinely cite garbage science. After showing clips of newscasters and commentators making absurd claims such as, "A new study showing that drinking a glass of red wine is just as good as spending an hour at the gym," and The Today Show's Al Roker commenting, "You find the study that sounds best to you, and you go with it," Oliver commented, "No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! You don't just get to cherry-pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway."

Then Oliver added a useful rule: "If they are going to keep saying 'a study says,' they should have to provide sourcing and context or not mention it at all." (Though the segment specifically targeted the misuse of "scientific" studies, all the same principles apply to the social sciences.)

What's so noteworthy about that 2016 segment is that in his other monologues, on issues ranging from SWAT teams to homelessness, Oliver has routinely ignored the principles he laid out. In his overly simplistic takes on complex policy issues (often designed to dunk on his ideological opponents for comedic effect), he often fails to provide appropriate context and appears to be guilty of choosing research "that sounds best," as Roker put it, or at least that supports whatever point he's determined to make.

Oliver is one of America's most influential pundits, so he should be held to the highest of journalistic standards. And Last Week Tonight is indeed more diligent than many TV news programs. The show employs researchers who interview the authors of the studies it cites. Oliver is a comic, not an academic, so we can excuse him for not posting footnotes, and he routinely cites his sources on screen. When we emailed the show's producers to point out problems with their research, to their credit, they sent back a detailed response that we'll quote from in this article. (In a few cases, they pointed to Reason articles using some of the same studies, albeit with full citations and more context. In cases in which their criticisms were correct, we've annotated the original articles.)

Many of the show's researchers are former reporters and editors who abide by journalistic standards. Nevertheless, the show has a long track record of citing social science findings without the appropriate context, massaging them to support whatever point Oliver is trying to make.

Rent

In his excellent 2016 segment on scientific studies, Oliver noted: "There is a lot of bullshit currently masquerading as science. Not all scientific studies are equal. Some may appear in less-than-legitimate scientific journals, and others may be subtly biased because of scientists feeling pressured to come up with eye-catching positive results."

Cut to a 2022 segment titled "Rent," and we find Oliver citing a study that his wiser self would have characterized as "bullshit."

"Right now, there is not a single county in the U.S. where a worker earning minimum wage can afford a modest two-bedroom rental home," he said. He was citing a study designed to produce an "eye-catching" result. It was published not by a reputable journal, but by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an advocacy group that lobbies for government spending on housing and rent subsidies, including expanding the National Housing Trust Fund and increasing federal appropriations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The biases are not particularly subtle. Why would a minimum-wage worker need a two-bedroom home? In the study, "can afford" doesn't mean "have enough money to buy the cheapest available," as most English speakers would interpret it. The authors use it to mean renting a two-bedroom home at the 40th percentile price point of the local market (that is, a little cheaper than the median unit), using no more than 30 percent of their income, excluding government benefits, pensions, or other nonearned support.

Oliver also didn't mention who these minimum-wage workers are. In 2025, according to the Current Population Survey, a third of hourly workers paid the federal minimum or less lived in a parent's or grandparent's home, a fifth were married and living with a spouse, and only one in eight lived alone.

When we asked the show's producers why they failed to disclose that their source was an advocacy group seeking government funds, they pointed to the onscreen credit and responded: "We trust our viewers' intelligence enough to think they might be able to read it and conclude that the National Low Income Housing Coalition is interested in building low-income housing, nationwide, possibly even as part of a coalition."

I don't share their confidence that most viewers can read the onscreen source line and tell from the organization's name whether it's an advocacy group. There's a double standard here: When Oliver doesn't like what a study says, he's not content to just trust his viewers; he makes it explicit, as he did with the "ethanol lobbying groups" mentioned above.

Oliver's producers wrote us: "When we rely on studies from advocacy groups, we look at the underlying data and speak to researchers to better understand it; we discard many studies as a result."

This one belonged in the trash.

Sports Betting

In a 2025 segment, Oliver cited an eye-catching statistic about how sports betting was driving a spike in bankruptcies. "Unsurprisingly, the rise of online sports betting has been found to correlate with a rise in gambling harms, with one study showing that in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase in bankruptcies, translating to about 100,000 extra bankruptcies a year."

I'll give Oliver credit for saying "correlate with" rather than "cause," but the rest of that sentence ("in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase") implies direct causality.

The bigger problem is that the "100,000" figure is clearly wrong. When I contacted the study's authors, they told me they don't know where that figure came from, and it doesn't appear anywhere in the study. Last Week Tonight's producers told us they pulled it from a Business Insider article, but in the video, Oliver said it came from the study.

If Oliver's researchers had done the same calculation as the authors, multiplying the per-person effect by the at-risk population, they'd have found about 30,000 extra bankruptcies a year, not 100,000, and a 6 percent to 7.5 percent increase, not 28 percent.

Oliver also left out important context: He was citing an unpublished working paper. The peer-reviewed version appeared after the Last Week Tonight segment aired, and it included substantive changes. Working papers from credible researchers, like this one, are valuable, but Oliver should have made it clear he was citing a preliminary draft circulated to other researchers for comment, not a published study.

Homelessness

In 2021, Oliver did a segment making a case for a policy called "Housing First," which includes placing more homeless people in permanent supportive housing. The problem is that building and maintaining these units is expensive, so permanent supportive housing doesn't scale easily. Oliver set out to dismiss that objection by citing research showing the alternative is even more costly.

"One study in Florida," Oliver said, "found that, just between money spent on incarceration and emergency medical treatment, their communities and local governments had spent an average of just over $31,000 per person per year, when the estimated cost of providing them with permanent supportive housing would have only been around $10,000 per year."

The Florida study's finding was an outlier. The Central Florida Commission on Homelessness commissioned it, and Housing First advocates promoted it because it produced the headline they wanted. I give Oliver credit for noting that the study "tracked a decade's worth of spending on just 107 chronically homeless people," but he left out additional context.

In 2018, a committee convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine evaluated permanent supportive housing. It concluded that there is "no substantial evidence that [it] contributes to improved health outcomes" and "insufficient evidence" that it's cost-effective.

Studies exist on both sides of this issue, and we can debate whether permanent supportive housing is more cost-effective than the alternative, but Oliver cited one study and implied it was conclusive.

Oliver also neglected to mention that the paper was written by a consulting firm led by a supportive-housing advocate, though if you looked closely, you could see the organization's name on the screen as he delivered his monologue.

Ethanol

Oliver and I agree that the federal government shouldn't be subsidizing ethanol. But in a 2024 segment titled "Corn," Oliver pointed to a study claiming that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline and implied that only self-interested lobbyists say otherwise.

"While ethanol lobbying groups have long argued that it slashes greenhouse emissions," he said, "one recent study found that corn ethanol produced under the renewable fuel standard has a carbon footprint at least 24 percent higher than regular gasoline."

What Oliver doesn't mention is that the 2022 study he cited was highly contested. It was challenged not only by "ethanol lobbying groups" but also by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Biden administration. The study's claim that ethanol has a higher carbon footprint than gasoline also contradicts a 2010 Environmental Protection Agency projection that ethanol would be about 20 percent cleaner than gasoline. Argonne National Laboratory, running the government's standard model, credits ethanol with cutting greenhouse emissions by more than 500 million tons in 15 years.

The problem isn't that Oliver is wrong; it's how he presented this study. Whether ethanol mandates are good or bad for the environment is a complicated, contested issue, with strong studies on both sides (and plenty of weak ones). Plucking one from the pile and reporting its findings is misleading.

Ethanol subsidies are bad because they involve politicians using mandates to buy farmers' votes, and top-down mandates generally lead to less optimal decision-making. But it's not clear that ethanol increases carbon emissions.

SWAT Raids

In a 2014 segment on police militarization after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Oliver said, "There has been a massive rise in both the number and the use of police department SWAT teams," and showed a news clip that stated: "The number of SWAT raids has gone up by 1,400 percent since the 1980s. An estimated 50,000 now take place every year." Instead of mocking the clip, as he often does, Oliver cited it approvingly.

So where did the claim of a 1,400 percent increase come from? It's based on a voluntary mail-in survey, which isn't a reliable way to gather data. No official count of SWAT raids exists, and almost nobody tracks them, then or now, so the figure rests on departments' self-reporting of how often they "deployed," with no shared definition of what that means.

The 1980s figures that form the baseline for the 1,400 percent increase in SWAT raids come from a mid-1990s survey, making them especially unreliable. No one was counting SWAT raids at the time, and there's no way to verify them.

Oliver followed that clip by citing another study: "Just keep that clip in mind," he said, "when I tell you that 79 percent of SWAT deployments are now for executing search warrants, and most of those were for drug investigations."

Again, there's missing context. That 79 percent figure comes from a small, nonrandom sample generated by an American Civil Liberties Union records request; the organization could get data from just 20 of America's roughly 18,000 police agencies.

When we pointed out to Oliver's producers that the data on SWAT teams were stripped of their context, they replied that since this segment aired, "We've become more diligent about critically interrogating the sourcing on studies in our shows." They also argued that more "recent studies," if anything, suggest that the studies they cited "understated the true scope of things." And they pointed to instances of Reason citing the same data.

I agree with Oliver's position on SWAT raids, but he really should be agitating for better data. We're permitting state violence without anyone keeping the detailed records that could help us understand the costs and benefits. But that doesn't excuse citing two studies based on weak data and presenting them as fact.

Tipping

In a 2025 segment on tipping, Oliver said, "Recent analyses have found that poverty rates for tipped workers are over twice as high as for nontipped workers."

Twice as high as for which nontipped workers? The analysis he's citing included all nontipped workers in the U.S., including CEOs and neurosurgeons. Oliver, who reportedly makes $30 million a year, also pulled up the nontipped average. The right way to evaluate tipping is to match tipped and untipped workers by job: Waiters have about the same poverty rate as fast-food workers, and hotel maids about the same as other cleaners. If you control for job, age, and hours, the gap closes.

It's another study designed to generate a talking point, which isn't surprising since it was published by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive, left-of-center think tank. The organization's name appeared onscreen as Oliver delivered his monologue, but, once again, viewers would need to hit pause to look it up and figure out what the Economic Policy Institute stands for.

Oliver's 2016 segment on "scientific studies" shows that he should know better. It's possible to construct arguments by citing good research responsibly, while providing the proper context and sourcing. It's possible to follow research where it leads, instead of retrofitting it to preconceived ideas. You just have to be willing to present data that capture reality in all its messiness, even if that means it won't generate an easy laugh line.

To keep up with our video series Wrong Number featuring Aaron Brown, and to receive bonus content and more, click here to enter your email address.

The post John Oliver Warned Against Cherry-Picked Studies. Then He Cherry-Picked His Own. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Once again, a member of President Donald Trump's administration is threatening to punish private citizens for their speech using the power of the government.

Specifically, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) threatened broadcasters who dare to report on polls the president doesn't approve of. Even if the complaint were valid, it would be difficult to enforce without violating the First Amendment.

"During this election season, there has been a significant surge in entirely Fake Polls and Suppression Polls designed to do nothing more than interfere with the regular functioning of the electoral process and alter the normal patterns of voter turnout and enthusiasm," FCC Chairman Brendan Carr wrote on X. "Many journalists and broadcasters have been amplifying or airing these Polls without regard to basic journalistic ethics and without informing the public that those Polls lack a scientific, accurate, or even real basis."

Carr is directly adopting Trump's terminology, in addition to his erratic capitalization: The president often uses the term suppression polls to describe surveys that don't reflect in his favor. The implication is that these polls are manufactured to conceal or downplay enthusiasm for Trump or his preferred candidates, making it less likely that his supporters will turn out if they think it's a lost cause.

Carr doesn't single out any offenders, though there are some likely examples. This week, purported pollster Wedgewood Polls revealed that as part of an "experimental project," it had released surveys with "fabricated numbers" that were printed by outlets like FiftyPlusOne (which sussed out the fraud) and The New York Times.

Similarly, in August, Median Strategies withdrew two polls, then revealed that it had fabricated the results for a "social experiment."

Each scenario is deplorable. And depending on what promises were made, it's possible one firm or the other could face legal consequences.

But it's hard to see how a news outlet could face legal reprisal for just reporting the results of a survey it thought was conducted accurately.

"The FCC takes these issues seriously," Carr added. "Broadcasters are prohibited by the terms of their federal licenses from engaging in News Distortion or promoting Broadcast Hoaxes. It is important that broadcasters comply with their public interest obligations."

There are indeed rules against news distortion and broadcast hoaxes, but they're narrowly tailored to avoid conflicting with the First Amendment.

"News distortion 'must involve a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news report,'" according to the FCC. In addition, "broadcasters are only subject to enforcement if it can be proven that they have deliberately distorted a factual news report. Expressions of opinion or errors stemming from mistakes are not actionable."

The hoax rule, on the other hand, is even less applicable: It involves "broadcasting false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe," where the broadcaster "knows this information is false" and can foreseeably "cause substantial public harm" but airs it anyway, and the broadcast then "does in fact directly cause substantial public harm."

In other words, neither standard applies to a broadcaster that covered an inaccurate poll, especially without knowing at the time that it was wrong.

"Pollsters who intentionally mislead the public should answer for it, but broadcasters who report publicly available polling data should never be punished when a poll is wrong," Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic FCC commissioner, wrote on X. "FCC rules on news distortion or hoaxes do not apply to a station that reports this data in good faith."

Carr doesn't specify what he thinks should happen to any offenders, though since he tends to define "public interest" as whatever Trump says, we can make an educated guess.

Right before the 2024 presidential election, The Des Moines Register published a poll that found then–Vice President Kamala Harris leading Trump in Iowa by three percentage points. Trump ended up winning the state by 13 percentage points, but he was apparently so upset by the poll that he sued both the Register and pollster Ann Selzer, claiming the inaccurate survey constituted "brazen election interference" that violated the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act.

It was clear at the time that the lawsuit was completely meritless. Just as Carr suggested this week in his social media post, Trump was trying to create an exception to the First Amendment for "fake news."

"In the United States there is no such thing as a claim for 'fraudulent news,'" Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, wrote in a motion on the defendants' behalf. "No court in any jurisdiction has ever held such a cause of action might be valid, and few plaintiffs have ever attempted to bring such outlandish claims."

A judge agreed and dismissed the lawsuit last month.

"If someone is accurately reporting the results of a poll, that wouldn't be a false statement," UCLA law professor Rick Hasen told The Washington Post at the time. "The poll might have errors in it, but that wouldn't be a false statement."

That's as true then as it is now. Unless he can somehow prove that a broadcaster knew a pollster had faked a survey, there's no way Carr can punish someone for reporting on the results without running afoul of the First Amendment.

"Brendan Carr is not the journalism police. And he is just about the least qualified person in the country to lecture the press about journalistic ethics," Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in an emailed statement. "News broadcasters have a First Amendment right to report polling data, even if it proves to be inaccurate, just like they have a First Amendment right to report on Carr and Trump's own countless lies and distortions, even when they turn out to be inaccurate. FCC policies about hoaxes and distortions must be applied narrowly to avoid clashing with the Constitution, if they can be constitutionally applied at all."

The post FCC Chair Brendan Carr Echoes Trump, Threatens Broadcasters Over 'Fake Polls' appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Germany’s federal states are proposing that social media platforms reserve at least 20 percent of algorithmic recommendations for content from a pool of approved media outlets deemed important for opinion diversity, according to a draft under public consultation. The proposed measure is already being slammed as a state-mandated propaganda effort that would force German citizens to view content friendly to the ruling establishment parties.

The measure is part of the second stage of a planned Digital Media State Treaty developed by the Broadcasting Commission of the Federal States. Under the draft, public broadcasters such as ARD, ZDF and Deutschland Radio would automatically qualify for certain offerings.

Meanwhile, private outlets would generally need to apply and demonstrate that they meet criteria including news and political reporting, information and educational content, documentaries, local or regional coverage, original journalistic production, editorial staffing and accessibility standards. Approvals would be decided by the 14 state media authorities.

In other words, the state wants to control what people are seeing in their feeds.

As the Berliner Zeitung reports, the media law involves “media quotas with an advantage for ARD and ZDF,” which are two state broadcasters that already have a massive advantage over private competitors. Both outlets, which are notoriously in favor of mass migration and known for their anti-AfD bias, and which employ virtually all left-wing journalists, are already known for not playing on a level playing field.

Austrian remigration activist Martin Sellner, along with other right-leaning accounts, already are warning about the new plans.

Germany plans to force social media platforms to fill at least 20% of algorithmic recommendations with "diversity positive" government-regulator-approved media content.

Public broadcasters like ARD and ZDF would qualify automatically. Private outlets would need "State approval"

You cant make this up.

— Martin Sellner (@MartinSellner_) October 22, 2026

The rule would apply to algorithmic recommendations shown to users, such as in feeds or under videos on platforms including Instagram and X. Content drawn from the approved pool would still be selected according to the platforms’ algorithms and user interests. Officials have framed the quota as a way to protect journalistic content from being sidelined by engagement-driven material.

However, skepticism is obviously abundant.

“And who gets this golden seal of quality for preferential playback completely automatically? Of course, the public broadcasters. Private publishers, on the other hand, get to play the supplicants and politely apply for the status at the so-called “state-independent” media authorities. A rogue mind thinks evil of it,” wrote commentator Bernd Kaiser.

“If you want to exchange views on X in the future, the algorithm will soon forcibly serve you the curated explainer journalism from Tagesschau — right between your friends’ posts. They’re selling us this unprecedented market intervention as ‘Public Value,’ but it’s a blatant attempt to secure air superiority over online discourse,” he added.

Mündiger Bürger? Dass ich nicht lache! Weil ARD, ZDF und Co. trotz 8,5 Milliarden Euro Zwangsgebühren im Jahr immer öfter an den Interessen der Menschen vorbeisenden, greift der Staat jetzt zur digitalen Brechstange.

Die neueste Glanzidee der Länder:
Wenn das Publikum freiwillig wegläuft, zwingt man ihm die Inhalte eben per Gesetz auf.
Der geplante Digitale-Medien-Staatsvertrag sieht allen Ernstes eine 20-Prozent-Quote für Social Media vor.
Das heißt: Jeder fünfte Post in Ihrem Feed bei X oder Instagram soll künftig verpflichtend ein „vielfaltsfördernder“ Beitrag sein.

Und wer bekommt dieses goldene Gütesiegel für bevorzugte Ausspielung völlig automatisch?
Natürlich die Öffentlich-Rechtlichen.
Private Verlage dürfen hingegen als Bittsteller auftreten und sich bei den sogenannten „staatsfernen“ Medienanstalten brav um den Status bewerben.
Ein Schelm, wer Böses dabei denkt.

Wenn Sie sich künftig auf X austauschen wollen, serviert Ihnen der Algorithmus bald zwangsweise den betreuten Erklärbär-Journalismus der Tagesschau – direkt zwischen den Beiträgen Ihrer Freunde.
Man verkauft uns diesen beispiellosen Markteingriff als „Public Value“, aber es ist der völlig unverhohlene Versuch, die Lufthoheit über den Diskurs im Netz zu sichern.

Wer exzellenten Journalismus macht, braucht keine algorithmische Rollator-Hilfe durch den Staat.
Wer aber Panik vor der eigenen Irrelevanz hat, flüchtet sich in Zwangsquoten.
Wir dürfen den Elfenbeinturm nicht mehr nur teuer bezahlen, wir sollen ab sofort auch bei jedem fünften Swipe in Demut daraus lesen.

#ÖRR #Meinungsfreiheit

— Bernd Kaiser (@Bernd_Kaiser_BD) October 21, 2026

The draft was released for public comment in late September 2026, with submissions accepted until Nov. 13. It builds on an existing “public value” system that already grants preferential placement to certain media apps in app stores and on smart-TV interfaces. Some private broadcasters, such as those already holding “public-value” status, would also be eligible for the pool.

The Berliner Zeitung, a private newspaper, noted that state-funded broadcasters could expand their visibility relative to private competitors that rely on advertising or subscriptions. Critics have also pointed out that the criteria emphasize structural and production features of outlets rather than the range of viewpoints in individual posts, and that there is limited evidence the specific 20 percent threshold would increase actual diversity of perspectives.

The Digital Media State Treaty is being prepared in two parts. The first, focused largely on implementing European Union rules including aspects of the AI Act, has already advanced. Part two remains a discussion draft and would require agreement by the governments and subsequent ratification by the parliaments of all 16 German states before it could take effect.

Media regulation in Germany is primarily a responsibility of the states under the country’s dual public-private broadcasting system.

The post Germany plans to force social media platforms to fill 20% of algorithmic recommendations with ‘state-approved’ content appeared first on Remix News.

In a podcast with Paul Ronzheimer, ARD chairman Florian Hager conceded that public broadcasters have often lectured AfD voters, that migration coverage was “probably not critical enough” in places, and that journalists from academic backgrounds can lose touch with everyday realities.

During the podcast, Hager distinguished AfD politicians from their voters and said concerns about representation and trust in public media are a problem that public media must acknowledge as a problem.

“I am trying to create a separation between AfD politicians and the people who vote for the AfD,” he said, noting that the concerns of voters should not be ignored. “And if there’s a feeling that we don’t represent them, that they aren’t seen, or that they can no longer trust us, then it’s a huge issue for us. And then you can’t say it is their problem… but it’s our problem.”

These are rare admissions from an ARD chief. However, in a country where approximately a third of voters support the AfD, the party and its voters can no longer be swept aside by public media as anger over mass immigration soars.

In general, public trust has eroded in public broadcasting while the AfD consolidates its position at nearly 30 percent in national polls.

Public media’s trust problem is measurable and persistent. A Media Tenor “Zukunftsindex Deutschland” survey of more than 3,000 people found only 31 percent trust ARD, ZDF and related programs; among 16- to 29-year-olds the figure was 25 percent, and among AfD supporters it dropped to 15 percent.

WDR/Infratest Dimap data from spring 2025 put institutional trust in public broadcasting at 55 percent overall, with a clear East-West gap (higher in the West, lower in the East).

Compulsory fees continue to fund a system whose audience is shrinking relative to the political landscape, and the people who have to pay those fees are even willing to hold public demonstrations over the issue. t has strong echoes of the protests against the BBC.in Britain, where taxpaying Brits who vote for conservative parties have launched campaign after campaign for the abolition of compulsory fees to support the network.

The ideological skew inside the German journalism industry helps explain much of the uncritical migration coverage. Hager is now being forced to confront this issue, but the problem is that the vast majority of journalists working in public media are extremely supportive of left-green parties, and many of these same journalists could even be considered open-border extremists.

The 2024 TU Dortmund “Journalism and Democracy” survey of 525 journalists — with 40 percent of respondents working for public broadcasters — found 41 percent leaning toward the Greens, 16 percent toward the SPD, 6 percent toward the Left, and only 8 percent toward the CDU.

As for the AfD, it either was not listed or received support so low, at below 1 percent, that it was considered “negligible.”

In total, among those expressing a preference, left-green parties accounted for roughly 82 percent of journalists. Green Party support among journalists was several times the party’s national polling level at the time.

Meanwhile, the party that is supported about a third of the population, the AfD, does not even have 1 percent representation in the public media networks, even though those same networks are obligated by law to represent a full spectrum of the public’s political opinions.

What does this mean in practice? When the people producing the news overwhelmingly favor parties that have defended high immigration levels, expansive asylum rules, and framing that treats immigration restriction as morally unjustified, then the type of “uncritical” reporting described by Hager is the predictable outcome — not an accidental oversight.

Hager’s attitude has been repeated not only throughout German politics, but across the entire Western world. The elite, the political establishment, and the organs of the press offer a constant platitude, claiming to have not “paid enough attention” to voters and that we “need to do better” on the topic of immigration. This has been repeated ad nauseam for decades, and is only amplified when right-wing parties opposed to immigration get closer to power.

They are ultimately empty words at the end of the day meant to paper over a real crisis. Is Hager going to hire more journalists who support the AfD? The thought would never cross his mind. Is he going to start reporting on the nationality of suspects in crime reports? Highly unlikely. Is he going to start running more pieces critical of immigration? This is also unlikely, although there may be some subtle steering toward acknowledging there is a problem but that the public should never vote for the AfD to potentially fix the problem.

Notably, he also expresses worry that an AfD-led government may place curbs on the cash cow that feeds the ARD with tens of millions of euros in mandatory fees on German citizens, who have to pay to keep the ZDF and ARD running whether they like it or not.

Hager says he wants to separate AfD voters from the party and address feelings of being unseen. That is tactically sensible for an institution facing state-treaty threats and potential cuts to its funding. Yet the parties that dominate journalistic preferences – the Greens, SPD, and large parts of the center-left spectrum – continue to support higher immigration and more open policies that sharply contrast with the AfD’s core demand for sharp reductions and stricter controls.

That problem is not going away.

Even if Hager truly wanted to turn the ship around and gain back the trust of AfD voters, would there even be any institutional support for such a change of pace within the ARD itself?

The reality is that a majority of Germans want an immigration moratorium and mass deportations. They strongly reject immigration for Muslim countries. The ARD and its sprawling staff remain categorically opposed to these concepts.

For an example of this, it is important to review the case of Julia Ruhs. Her case shows, along with the cancellation of her show, that reporting critically on immigration can lead to a witch hunt within the German public broadcasters. Remix News covered the moment she learned public broadcasters had dropped her show.

A female German journalist wanted to research the topic of gang rapes by migrants in Bavaria but was labeled "racist" and "right-wing" by her colleagues. Julia Ruhs, a high-profile television presenter, said it is still a "taboo" to research topics regarding why "certain population groups are more susceptible to committing sexual offenses." "That’s when I realized the whole editorial imbalance that when you dedicate yourself to such a topic." She added that it became an environment where she was told: "You’re not allowed to say that and you’re totally racist." Ruhs is currently at the center of a significant "Cancel Culture" and media sovereignty debate in Germany. She is often described as a rare conservative voice within the German public broadcasting landscape, which is frequently criticized for having a "left-green" bias. In 2025, Ruhs was chosen to host a new experimental debate format called "Klar," co-produced by the northern public broadcaster NDR and the southern BR. The show’s mission was to reach viewers who felt alienated by mainstream media by tackling sensitive topics like migration, Covid-19, and the farmers’ protests. After the first episode on migration, a massive internal wave of criticism hit. Approximately 250 NDR employees signed an open letter distancing themselves from the show, accusing Ruhs of one-sided and populist reporting. In September 2025, the NDR officially decided to drop Ruhs as a presenter for their portion of the show, citing a desire to move toward a "multi-moderator concept." Ruhs responded on social media, calling the decision a "disgrace" and claiming she was "too right-wing for the NDR." High-profile politicians like CSU’s Markus Söder (Bavaria) and Daniel Günther (Schleswig-Holstein) criticized the NDR for stifling diversity of opinion. While the NDR canceled her, the Bavarian broadcaster BR stood by her. New episodes of "Klar" are planned from the BR broadcaster for 2026.

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) February 18, 2026

Hager is aware of this problem to a large degree. He also cites police and local officials repeatedly describing persistent problems over migration. However, he is offering nothing more than a weak mea culpa on behalf of years of ARD reporting, which has gone to great lengths to whitewash the growing problems with mass immigration.

Most importantly, Hager does not address how the ARD actually plans to change its reporting and win back the trust of these voters. Additionally, he completely fails to confront the structural imbalance in who is hired, trained, and promoted, or the compulsory funding that insulates the system from market feedback.

Damage control without altering the underlying editorial incentives or the immigration positions of the favored parties is unlikely to restore broad trust from AfD voters. If he was serious about truly diverse representation in the public media, he would require measurable diversification of political backgrounds inside the newsrooms and reporting that treats migration outcomes – crime correlations, integration failures, fiscal costs, and local pressures – with the same rigor applied to other policy areas.

The post As AfD party soars, ARD public media chief’s admission that migration coverage in Germany was ‘probably not critical enough’ is not serious appeared first on Remix News.