Meghan Markle has a new Netflix cooking show — and people are already ready to hate it

Meghan Markle’s forthcoming cooking show, “With Love, Meghan,” hasn’t even debuted yet and it’s already being sliced and diced online. Scheduled to premiere Jan. 15 on Netflix, the series promises a glossy blend of culinary escapades, celebrity cameos and sunlit glimpses of The Duchess of Sussex’s life in Montecito — but the reaction to its trailer has been swift and cutting, a barrage of disdain that feels both predictable and overdetermined, as if the mere existence of the show is some kind of affront.

Meghan Markle has become the kind of figure many people love to hate. Or, perhaps more accurately, hate to love. Whatever she does seems to provoke a disproportionate response, caught in a cultural ouroboros of royal drama, racial politics and celebrity gossip.

Not just Paris: How did the "celebrity who can't cook" become food TV's fastest growing genre?

The trailer for “With Love, Meghan” — a montage of postcard-perfect California landscapes, Markle’s warm narration and staged scenes of domesticity — has drawn criticism for being insipid, overly curated and tone deaf in the midst of global economic hardships. (For what it’s worth, multiple interior design publications have also already run special reports on why Markle’s all-white set kitchen — located in a mansion about two miles from the Royal couple’s private residence — is not boring).

To be sure, it’s not as if the format itself is groundbreaking. Celebrity cooking shows have long thrived on the aspirational: Ina Garten whisking eggs in her immaculate Hamptons kitchen, Martha Stewart serenely picking herbs from her sprawling gardens. Even Gwyneth Paltrow’s wellness-lifestyle branding has leaned heavily into the fantasy of abundance.

There’s also the exhaustion factor. Food television has been shifting for years, moving away from showcasing the mastery of chefs like Jacques Pépin or Julia Child to the less polished charm of celebrities dabbling in the kitchen. Shows like “Selena + Chef” and “Luda Can’t Cook” feel like exercises in branding as much as entertainment, where culinary expertise is secondary to the sparkle of the star. By the time Markle enters the fray, it’s less a new idea and more a familiar format dressed in California sunlight.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

And yet, Markle’s show isn’t just another entry into an overstuffed genre. It comes burdened with the expectations and criticisms that have dogged her since she first entered the public eye. The stakes for her seem higher, the judgment more immediate and harsh. Where other celebrity cooks are allowed to flub a recipe or lean into the ridiculousness of their fame — I think of Paris Hilton struggling to make an edible brunch alongside Kim Kardashian on “Cooking with Paris” — Markle is expected to justify her presence at the table. Why this? Why now? Why her?

One difference, of course, is that Markle isn’t white — and her most vocal detractors often seem eager to weaponize this fact, cloaking their disdain in terms like “tone deaf” or “unrelatable,” words that feel, at best, insufficient to explain the level of vitriol she attracts. For instance, Meghan McCain, former conservative host on “The View,” took to X, formerly Twitter, to slam the series and Markle for being “utterly tone deaf.”

"Now that she wants to be American again instead of British aristocracy, what she seems to forget is Americans want real, raw, uncensored,” McCain wrote. “All of this even in the trailer is highly curated, produced and out of touch. There have been 2 terror attacks in 2 days, major wars raging and Americans can't pay for groceries. We are a country in rage, uncertainty and intensity right now.

She continued: "This concept is ill advised. I would have told her to do a show helping bring fresh food to food deserts in low income neighborhoods. Do something to help people instead of your ego. This is why the world doesn't like you, nothing else. Just completely and utterly tone deaf to the moment."

Yet for all the pre-release scorn, “With Love, Meghan” could represent something rare in the genre: a space for a Black woman, still an anomaly in food television, to explore food and culture, something Chef Adrian Lipscombe explored in a post on Threads, as reported by Newsweek.

“Let's talk about the bigger picture here — where are the Black female-led shows and roles in the food world?” Lipscombe wrote. “Representation is already so scarce, and now, a show that has the potential to spotlight food, culture, and storytelling is being torn apart before it even has a chance. This isn't just about Meghan Markle."

There is a persistent lack of diversity in food media, where white voices still dominate the landscape. Markle’s show, despite its polished trailer and inevitable criticisms, has the potential to disrupt this status quo. Whether it does remains to be seen.

What’s certain is that the conversation around the show will likely say more about its viewers than about Markle herself. Her detractors will frame her as emblematic of a shallow, performative elite; her supporters will counter with arguments about racism, misogyny and the impossible tightrope she’s forced to walk. Somewhere in the middle lies the show itself — a glossy, pleasant cooking program that may or may not find its footing amidst the noise.

Whether “With Love, Meghan” can transcend these dynamics feels less like a question of content and more like a referendum on Markle’s place in the public imagination. And that’s a burden no celebrity cameo or artfully styled avocado toast can ever quite overcome.

about this topic

Gen Z needs office etiquette skills, hiring managers say

Gen Z — people born between 1997 and 2012 — is graduating from college and flooding the labor market, bringing a fresh outlook and bold ideas to traditional workplaces. And not everyone appreciates it.

Nearly half (45%) of hiring managers say Gen Z is the most challenging generation to work with, according to a 2024 survey by Resume Genius. In another survey, three in 10 managers told ResumeBuilder.com they try to avoid hiring Gen Z workers, saying they lack traditional workplace etiquette. About 18% of managers have considered quitting because of the stress of managing them, according to a Nov. 5 report from online education magazine Intelligent.com.

Their top complaints? About 57% said Gen Zers have trouble making eye contact and dress inappropriately during job interviews, according to the ResumeBuilder.com survey.

Gen Z's vision of success" Nearly $600k per year

Almost 20% used inappropriate language during the interview, about 16% had an inappropriate setting during virtual interviews and 13% refused to turn their cameras on during a virtual interview. And about 9% brought a parent to the job interview, according to survey respondents.

The first two issues could be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, experts said. Gen Zers were likely in college at the time and had to transition to online classes. They became accustomed to being offscreen and may not directly correlate eye contact with paying attention.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

"I do think that Covid had something to do with it because we were already going in a trend where so many were comfortable on a phone or behind a computer," said etiquette expert Jules Hirst.

Is the knock against Gen Z valid?

Branding agency CEO Sunny Bonnell, who has about 10 Gen Z employees, said the work etiquette issue is overblown, especially when it comes to managers being less willing to tolerate boundary-crossing behavior.

"I think leaders sort of see their Gen Z boldness as a breach of professionalism," Bonnell said.

She thinks Gen Z feels less obligated to their employer than previous generations, who may have been willing to work late without extra pay, take meetings during vacations and defer to their employers.

"Gen Z was raised with the outlook of work life balance, stability and technology,” Bonnell said. "They’re watching their parents and grandparents work tirelessly, sometimes at the cost of their well-being. So many of them have decided they don’t want that."

What can be done?

Bonnell recommends Gen Zers do lots of research while job-hunting to make sure there’s a culture and values fit. If you want a company that respects work-life balance, you should find one that already does rather than expect a company to change its existing value structure.

See if you can talk to people who have worked there before or are currently employed. Ask your network if they know someone who would be willing to share.

If you’re a hiring manager looking to breathe new life into a company, you may need to be prepared to hire someone who doesn’t fit the mold.

"Sometimes Gen Z is here to question, not conform"

"Sometimes Gen Z is here to question, not conform," Bonnell said. "Companies want innovation, but are shocked when it isn't dressed in a suit."

What Gen Z needs to know

Even though some allowances should be made for youth, Hirst said there are still some basic concepts that Gen Z should understand.

First, never be late. She recommends that Gen Z workers always show up a few minutes early to Zoom meetings (you never know when technology will not cooperate and you’ll have to restart your computer).

Second, be aware of how much you’re talking about non-work topics. Sure, sometimes coworkers can feel like friends, but that doesn’t mean you can spend an hour gabbing about last night’s date.

"Think about what it is that you’re sharing — is it something that you would want to see on social media?" Hirst said. "If you don’t want that to be shared, maybe don’t share that at work."

Third, try to put your phone away during meetings and conversations. Even if you feel like you’re paying attention, you’re sending a message that the other person isn’t worth your undivided attention.

Eye contact is important, especially in a meeting with clients or patients. It shows you’re paying attention.

"If it’s uncomfortable to look them in their eyes, look between their eyebrows," Hirst said. "It will look like you’re making eye contact even if you’re not."

These etiquette lessons are important even if you’re working in a traditional field, like law or finance, that are less likely to bend toward younger generations.

about personal finance

“We’ve seen this playbook before”: British PM says Elon Musk is spreading “lies and misinformation”

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer did not name Elon Musk directly, but it was clear who he was condemning when he told reporters that people were "spreading lies and misinformation" about child abuse in his country, falsely accusing the U.K. leader of failing to prosecute foreign-born predators.

"We have seen this playbook many times — whipping up of intimidation and of threats of violence, hoping that the media will amplify it," Starmer said at a press conference Monday, the BBC reported. "Those who are spreading lies and misinformation as far and as wide as possible are not interested in victims, they're interested in themselves."

"Dangerous": Officials alarmed at Elon Musk "sowing divisions and spreading hate" in Europe

Starmer, who last year led his center-left Labour Party to victory after 14 years of Conservative rule, was addressing bogus claims spread by Musk and others that he did not take action to address the threat of so-called "grooming gangs" that targeted children for sexual exploitation. Prior to leading the Labour Party, Starmer served as director of the Crown Prosecution Service from 2008 to 2013 and was the first to bring a case against one such gang, The New York Times reported.

"When I left office, we had the highest number of child sexual abuse cases being prosecuted on record," Starmer said Monday. "The victims here suffered terrible abuse and then they weren't listened to."

Musk, who spread the false claims on his social media platform, X, has for months targeted the current British government with far-right disinformation. In the summer of 2024, Musk asserted that "civil war is inevitable" in Britain after right-wing extremists attacked immigrants across the country, incited by a false claim — spread on X — that a child murderer had been an asylum-seeker (the alleged murdered was in fact a native-born British citizen).

More recently, Musk has called for the freeing of the fascist anti-immigrant activist Tommy Robinson and, over the weekend, asked his followers if they believe the U.S. government should forcibly "liberate" Britain. Starmer, speaking Monday, accused Musk and others of "trying to get some vicarious thrill from street violence that people like Tommy Robinson support," per the Associated Press.

Musk's support for the British far right comes after he dropped more than $250 million to elect Donald Trump and follows his public endorsement of Alternative for Germany, an extremist party that critics say is led by Nazi sympathizers.

about Elon Musk

Trump considering key change to tariff plan: report

President-elect Donald Trump might alter his plan for across-the-board tariffs of 10 or 20% on all nations, according to the Washington Post.

The plan is still moving forward, but the tariffs may target "critical imports," the Post reported, citing three people familiar with the matter. Trump's team is discussing tariffs on industrial metals like steel, iron, aluminum and copper, medical supplies and energy production, per the Post.

Trump denied the report. “The story in the Washington Post, quoting so-called anonymous sources, which don’t exist, incorrectly states that my tariff policy will be pared back. That is wrong,” he wrote in a post on Truth Social.

A manufacturing renaissance won't be easy

The revised plan would represent a significant shift from Trump's campaign pledge to enact tariffs on everything coming into the U.S. He had vowed to impose 25% tariffs on goods coming from Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on imports from China unless the countries stemmed the flow of migrants and drugs into the U.S.

But tariffs could be politically unpopular in the U.S., where economists have warned they would cause a spike in consumer prices and inflation. Trump has said he "can't guarantee" the tariffs won't raise prices for Americans, who cited the economy as their top issue in the Nov. 5 election.

His scaled-back plan is still "strikingly aggressive," the Post reported. Trump has said the tariffs are needed to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.

Some countries have pushed back. In December, the Canadian province of Ontario threatened to restrict electricity exports to the U.S. Canada retaliated against Trump's tariffs in his first term by putting billions of new duties against the U.S.

Mexican Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard said in November that a 25% tariff would hit the automotive sector and raise vehicle prices for consumers by thousands of dollars. The industry represents nearly 25% of all North American vehicle production, per Reuters.

about tariffs

Melania Trump documentary in the works from Amazon and Brett Ratner

Melania Trump is going to have her moment in the spotlight.

The soon-to-be-returning first lady has granted Amazon Studios and director Brett Ratner permission to produce a documentary film on her life. According to Variety, the documentary began filming last month after President-elect Donald Trump won the 2024 election against Vice President Kamala Harris. This will mark yet another film about the Trump family, following Ali Abbasi's film, "The Apprentice," starring Sebastian Stan as a young Trump.

An Amazon spokesperson said the film — executive produced by Melania — will be “an unprecedented, behind-the-scenes look” at the first lady and her marriage to the incumbent president.

The studio has slated the documentary for a later 2025 release in theaters and streaming on Prime Video.

"The Apprentice" illuminates the making of our once and future strongman president

The untitled Melania documentary is the first major film production Ratner has worked on since 2014’s "Hercules." The filmmaker had been shunned from Hollywood because of numerous sexual harassment allegations from stars like Olivia Munn, Elliot Page and Natasha Henstridge. At the time, the "Rush Hour" series filmmaker denied the claims, but major studios like Warner Bros. severed ties with Ratner.

Ratner has no glaring ties to Trump, however, the director used Trump International Hotel & Tower as the primary location for his thriller "Tower Heist" in 2011. Variety reported that Trump visited the movie set at least once. Ratner also was formerly in partnership with Trump's former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in a $450 million financing deal with Ratner's production company RatPac-Dune Entertainment and Warner Bros.

“Prime Video will be sharing more details on the project as filming progresses and release plans are finalized. We are excited to share this truly unique story with our millions of customers around the world,” Amazon said in a statement on the upcoming doc.

about this topic

Nikki Glaser triumphs as the host of a revived 82nd Golden Globes

Last year’s Golden Globes telecast provided its strongest case yet for its retirement from public life. The previous version of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association imploded after having the open secret of its corruption exposed. NBC, its longtime broadcast partner, dumped it.

Even after Dick Clark Productions (owned by Penske Media Corporation, which also owns every major Hollywood trade publication) and Eldridge Industries, a private equity firm, snatched its cadaver from the side of a Hollywood freeway and CBS agreed to air its production, no entertainer of note wanted to get its lingering stink on them. They had to make do with Jo Koy, who had mere days to prepare and bombed spectacularly.

The Globes certainly took its sweet time in tapping a woman to host solo.

For reasons having absolutely nothing to do with Koy – “Barbenheimer,” mainly — the 81st Golden Globes garnered the telecast’s highest ratings in four years, guaranteeing the show would go on. But Koy’s faceplant made a person wonder if the Globes requires any human shepherds. Its ceremony went host-free for its first 38 years, as well as between 1996 and 2009.

On Sunday, Nikki Glaser proved all that it needed was the right one, and to give that person time to prepare her material.

The Globes certainly took its sweet time in tapping a woman to host solo. That’s right: Glaser is the first, and it took 82 Globes telecasts for that to happen. She’s a seasoned TV host, having helmed “Not Safe with Nikki Glaser” on Comedy Central and playing the ringmaster on “FBoy Island.”

Another claim to fame of Glaser's is talking frankly about sex and pornography – she's a big fan of both. “I am absolutely thrilled to be your host tonight,” she said in her opener, “And I gotta say, this feels like I finally made it. You know? I’m in a room full of producers at the Beverly Hilton Hotel, and this time all of my clothes are on. That was worth it!”

The 2025 Golden Globes winners list

For years, the Golden Globes telecast spiked its reputation as the awards season’s most freewheeling, booze-fueled broadcasts by employing Ricky Gervais, who pushed the boundaries of good taste.

Gervais’ increasing coarseness was interrupted by the one-two punch of Tina Fey and Amy Poehler playing the part of everybody’s funny friend in the room. Gervais reveled at making Globe attendees angry; Fey and Poehler would take a few clawless swipes but generally left the impression that they were laughing with them.

Maybe Glaser studied those approaches. Maybe she naturally understands that nobody wants to walk away from this self-congratulation fest with a bitter taste in their mouths. However she prepared, the comedian found a way to plant her flag in the middle of the Globes’ rowdiness scale. The extent to which Glaser slayed her part cannot be overstated. She was spicy without immolating her targets, respectful without feeling phony or fawning. We will remember her for the right reasons and some saucy jokes.

Mind you, Glaser still knew when and how to dance on the edge. After acknowledging the truth about what the Globes mean to the industry by joking, “Tonight, we celebrate the best film and hold space for television,” Glaser launched her first rocket into the blue.

“’Wicked,’ ‘Queer,’ ‘Nightbitch’: These are not just words Ben Affleck yells after he orgasms. These are some of the incredible movies nominated tonight,” she joked, then continued with: “’The Bear,’ ‘The Penguin,’ ‘Baby Reindeer’: These are not just things found in R.F.K.’s freezer. These are TV shows nominated tonight.”

For the most part, Glaser kept her promise not to roast anybody, merely delivering the equivalent of a light blowtorch caramelizing to seasoned pros like Harrison Ford and Stanley Tucci, who gamely grinned when Glaser ventured to pull off a Diddy crack.

In reaction to the audience groaning at a line about “Challengers” being more sexually charged than one of the disgraced hip-hop producer’s credit cards, she said, “I’m upset too! The afterparty’s not going to be as good this year. But we have to move on! A ‘Stanley Tucci Freak-Off’ doesn’t have the same ring to it. No baby oil this year, just lots of olive oil.”

Other than that, and an extended riff on Timothée Chalamet’s confusingly sparse mustache (“You have the most gorgeous eyelashes on your upper lip,” she said) Glaser’s contributions added to the production instead of distracting from it. Not all her punchlines landed solidly, but none turned off the audience in the room or viewers watching at home.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

And if you’ve watched enough award shows over the years, you might recognize the chances she took with her version of bits other hosts attempted before only to die onstage. Way back in ancient times, Oscar host David Letterman tried to wring yuks from saying Uma Thurman’s name and Oprah Winfrey’s over and over again and was met by silence; Glaser imitated Adam Sandler saying Chalamet’s name, then got Sandler himself to say it, and it was dumb. But we laughed. Sorta.

Glaser knows awards shows gags are insipid. She lowkey acknowledged what indulgent duds musical performances can be when she donned a miter, threatening to mash up “Conclave” and “Wicked” by singing, “You’re gonna be . . . Pope-ular” before pretending to get the hook from the production booth.

“Wait, this sucks?”. . .This whole thing sucks?” she says in her pretend earpiece. “I’m embarrassing myself in front of Elton John? OK, let’s skip to the next song, the TV one about ‘The Penguin,’ the ‘Insane in the Pen-gwain’? . . . That sucks too?”

Stupid live skits being a terrible idea seems obvious to everybody in 2025, but in case you’ve forgotten, a past Emmys ceremony featured the man who is now our President-elect (again) and a felon (34 times) singing the theme to “Green Acres” beside Megan Mullally.

A host can only work so much magic to make an awards show watchable, but Sunday’s 82nd Golden Globes telecast was a rare case of the production matching the talent’s enthusiasm and caliber. Ricky Kirshner and Glenn Weiss returned as the show’s executive producers and showrunners, with Weiss directing. That might have been a terrible decision given last year’s disaster but, miracle of miracles, Kirshner and Weiss turned those mistakes into a lesson.

Not across the board, of course — the presenters’ scripts were still stodgy, but when aren’t they? Besides, with teleprompter mishaps ruling the night and pros like Jennifer Coolidge going magnificently AWOL when we need them to, punch-ups are a waste of energy and time.

Instead, the attention-getters were the technological bells and whistles. This year’s Globes evolved to meet the age of streaming and online dominance by incorporating Maps-style location icons to show where a nominee was placed in the room and Pop-Up Video-style windows containing trivia about each presenter and winner.

This linked nicely to Glaser’s mid-show scorecard featuring a tally of the most thanked. Cast and crew led with 11 mentions, she announced, with moms coming in second with three, and “God, creator of the universe” netting a goose egg – one less than Mario Lopez, host of "Access Hollywood," with one. But, indeed, it’s funny because it’s true and was at times touching as when Colin Farrell used his acceptance speech for his best actor in a limited series win for “The Penguin” to thank Carolina in craft service.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Past awards shows included banners listing an actor’s past wins and nominations, but this also included details like a nominee’s first job or, for example, that the Vancouver Aquarium named an octopus after Canadian hero Seth Rogen. This may be an effort to mitigate the audience’s urge to divide attention between second screens or to capitalize on the mainstreaming of closed captioning in streaming content.

In any case, depending on what type of information consumer you are, these trivia boxes coupled with the announcers’ “did you know” offerings were either a bounteous accessory or an overload. It was nice to find out from Coolidge that Billy Bob Thornton has an emotional support coyote (which is . . . probably not true?) and that asteroid 17744 was named after Jodie Foster (which, can confirm, is true).

In the wake of Sunday’s success, the Golden Globes telecast isn’t likely to struggle with finding a host. But it could do a lot worse than inviting Glaser back for another round.

Fascinating as some of these fun facts were, the wins on the TV side were mostly predictable and, as Glaser remarked, are there to “hold space” – they have none of the impact on Emmys that the Globes have on the Oscars.

That “Shogun” and “Hacks” won the top drama and comedy series prizes were foregone conclusions, as were “Shogun” stars Hiroyuki Sanada and Anna Sawai’s best drama actor and actress wins, and “Hack” star Jean Smart and “The Bear” lead Jeremy Allen White’s win for best comedy actress and actor. All have won Emmys for their roles, and this is White’s third Globe win for “The Bear,” accepted this time in absentia.

But these were fine wins even so, as were the hardware scores for limited series winner “Baby Reindeer” and Jessica Gunning for limited series supporting actress, as well as Jodie Foster’s deserved notice for her turn in “True Detective: Night Country,” matching her Emmy win for the role. The Globes had a few surprises within their favored contenders too, like Tadanobu Asano's supporting actor clinch for “Shogun.”

That said, if the Globes had been Globes-ing like before, the biggest movie stars in the best stand-up performance category would have won. Somehow Ali Wong bested Jamie Foxx and Adam Sandler – and Glaser, who also received a nod — to claim the prize.

That was one more sparkle in a drink that washed away the garbage flavor of last year’s awards – a Corpse Reviver, let’s call it. In the wake of Sunday’s success, the Golden Globes telecast isn’t likely to struggle with finding a host. But it could do a lot worse than inviting Glaser back for another round. She’s a sure thing.

about this topic

U.S. Steel, Nippon Steel sue over blocked deal

U.S. Steel and Japan's Nippon Steel sued the U.S. government on Monday after President Joe Biden blocked their $14.9 billion merger, citing national security risks.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, is a last-ditch effort to revive the transaction, The New York Times reported. It accuses Biden and senior administration officials of playing politics in the review process.

The race to produce green steel

Biden said Friday he would bar the takeover to ensure "America has a strong domestically owned and operated steel industry that can continue to power our national sources of strength at home and abroad." He had said last March that he opposed the merger.

His final decision came after the federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States failed to reach a consensus after a year-long review. The companies argue that his previous statements meant the review process was “designed to reach a predetermined result.”

The lawsuit asked the court to set aside the Committee's review process and Biden’s order, citing "violation of the Constitutional guarantee of due process and statutory procedural requirements, as well as unlawful political influence," CNBC reported. The companies want the Committee to conduct a new review.

A second lawsuit filed by the companies accuses Cleveland-Cliffs, its CEO Lourenco Goncalves and USW union President David McCall of "illegal and coordinated actions” aimed at preventing the deal, the media outlets reported. Cleveland-Cliffs was one of the companies vying to take over U.S. Steel in December 2023.

The Times reports that although presidents can determine what constitutes a national security threat, Biden's block raised questions since Japan is a close ally of the U.S.

President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to take office on Jan. 20, has also opposed the takeover.

about this topic

By awarding unexpected films and championing new voices, the Golden Globes got their groove back

It’s January, and that means awards season has officially kicked off with Hollywood’s…fourth biggest night!

It had put up a good fight, but the Golden Globes was irreparably wounded and ready to go the way of a lame horse.

In recent years, that’s what the Golden Globes ceremony felt like: an afterthought. The show has long been the subject of jest among both the Hollywood elite and at-home viewers. Even couch pundits had begun to dread sitting through the Globes, despite the telecast formerly being required viewing for anyone who wanted to see what might happen if celebs were sat next to their competitors and plied with enough expensive champagne.

It didn’t help that years of controversy have marred the Globes, mainly a 2021 investigation by the “Los Angeles Times,” which revealed that the show’s voting body — then called the Hollywood Foreign Press Association — had no Black members. There was also Brenden Fraser alleging that the HFPA’s former president had sexually assaulted him, a long history of an extremely white winner base and a slew of hosting gigs that ranged from tepid to utterly futile. When NBC decided not to air the 2022 Globes ceremony following the voting party controversy, viewers barely batted an eye. Gee, what would be missed the most: another lame button-pusher from Ricky Gervais, or another award given to one of Hollywood’s millions of brave, white men?

The 2025 Golden Globes winners list

After sacking Gervais, shuttering the HFPA to rebrand as the Golden Globes Association and being acquired by Dick Clark Productions, it seemed like there might be one final gasp of life left in this relic of an awards show. While a one-off 2023 hosting stint saw Jerrod Carmichael doing his best to revitalize the whole affair, last year’s host Jo Koy crashed and burned during a particularly abysmal telecast. It had put up a good fight, but the Golden Globes was irreparably wounded and ready to go the way of a lame horse. But before anyone could finish loading the shotgun, we got a surprise that no one saw coming with a Golden Globes ceremony that was as close to phenomenal as the show has been in well over a decade.

The Jan. 5 ceremony was far from the tired, foot-dragging telecast that it was expected to be. Instead, a bevy of intriguing new production tricks, a superbly charismatic host in Nikki Glaser, and a handful of exciting, unexpected wins managed to rejuvenate the show as well as any Beverly Hills plastic surgeon could. The ceremony didn’t bashfully suggest the show’s potential, rather, it kicked awards season’s door wide open, telling viewers that the Golden Globes is a powerhouse brand with plenty of fight left for another round. After years of feeling like a funeral you really didn’t want to attend, the Golden Globes successfully revamped itself into the hottest ticket of awards season.

It was immediately apparent that something was different when Glaser blew past her opening joke for a slew of other knockout punchlines and jabs that followed. “Welcome to Ozempic’s biggest night!” Glaser announced with a smile. It was the kind of low-hanging fruit that another host might lob into the air, waiting for the crowd's shock to die down. But Glaser, who has been on a micro–press tour leading up to Sunday night’s ceremony, came prepared to wow. “Tonight we celebrate the best of film and hold space for television,” Glaser said before getting in a few more quips about how film and television are blurring. In fact, the only stumble Glaser took would be her off-color handful of jokes about the allegations surrounding Diddy. But as soon as she felt the crowd balk, she kept things moving and ultimately defined the tempo for the night.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Glaser had a remarkable sense of presence and pacing, and the show’s new production tricks kept the entire affair feeling deceptively intimate. In the weeks leading up to the ceremony, ads touted the Globes as the place where “the greatest from film and television come together in one room.” Angled shots that captured the audience behind presenters and wide shots of the audience sitting close to one another made the telecast feel cozy for viewers from the comfort of their couches at home. Instead of positioning itself as a prestige show and a legacy that audiences should automatically respect, the Globes intentionally crafted a show where the viewer would feel like they were in the room, taking part in the ceremonies too.

That was an especially successful endeavor when it came to the awards themselves. 2024 was an exceedingly strange year in film and television, and not just in terms of any specific works. Dramas are still being plunked into the comedy categories and, meanwhile, half of the movies up for the biggest awards of the night are either about to enter or are still in a limited release — or, perhaps, only ever had a limited release to begin with. “Emilia Pérez” led the night with a whopping 10 nominations, which was a good thing for viewers watching from home, considering that it was one of the few movies they could see before the ceremony (as long as they had a Netflix subscription). Others, like “The Brutalist,” “The Last Showgirl,” “A Different Man” and “Flow” have all had scattered release dates as they expand, if they’re expanding at all.

The inability to access some movies before awards season begins has always created a strange dissonance during the Golden Globes for viewers who don’t live in major cities. While streamers rectify that to some degree, they also prohibit viewers from getting the full theatrical experience. (What they do to devalue the importance of moviegoing is another matter entirely, and a gauche scoreboard that had distribution companies like A24 and Searchlight sitting side by side with Netflix and Max was proof you can’t teach an old dog like the Globes too many new tricks.) Undoubtedly, seeing the night’s biggest and best winners on the big screen contributed to the excitement surrounding their wins. The infamous 215-minute long epic “The Brutalist” might’ve pissed the bed in its second half, but there was no denying that director Brady Corbet deserved his win for Best Director when seeing his sweeping efforts on a massive screen.

During his speech, Corbet thanked his daughter Ada, who sat at a nearby table, tearfully peering at her father onstage as he accepted his award. While this was, of course, a happy accident for all the (probably) fine folks at Dick Clark Productions, it only helped make the ceremony all the more personal for the viewer at home. That approachability is exactly what Hollywood and the Golden Globes have been missing recently. “Emilia Pérez” director Jacques Audiard later told the audience that they would need “nerves of steel” for 2025, seemingly referring to the thorny political and social climate. His comment stressed the importance of cinema, television and the entertainment industry. We don’t just use these things as ephemeral amusement — art helps us make sense of our lives at their most critical impasses.

That the Golden Globes was even able to make any kind of cohesive throughline statement was a miracle already, but then came a handful of big wins that were so surprising that they have managed to up the show’s credibility tenfold. Two heavy hitters came in a row in Demi Moore winning Best Female Actor in a Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy for “The Substance,” followed by Sebastian Stan winning the opposite award in the Male subcategory for “A Different Man.” Moore’s speech tore the roof of the Beverly Hilton Hotel. It was the kind of invigorating speech one might save for the Oscars. But considering that her Golden Globe was the first “major” award she’s won in the span of her 45-year career, it was wise of her to take the opportunity now.

Smaller, less accessible movies are often where the larger and more important conversations are happening.

In her speech, Moore referred to a producer who once called her a “popcorn actress,” suggesting that she was only good for people who want easily digestible blockbuster fare and that she was not destined to be acknowledged for her work. “That corroded me over time, to the point that I thought, ‘Maybe this is it.” Thankfully, it wasn’t, and Moore went on to praise writer and director Coralie Fargeat, who brought her one of the most incredible roles of her long career in “The Substance.” That Moore won at all is a major achievement for someone who has been undervalued for too long, but to win for a movie like the bloody, bonkers, highly original and unapologetically French film like “The Substance” is another thing entirely. From a Cannes premiere in May to a word-of-mouth sensation last fall, that very small movie was one of the year’s biggest success stories, and it’s admirable that the Globes voters honored it with one of the biggest awards.

The same can be said about “A Different Man,” the genre-hopping story of a man who undergoes experimental treatment for his facial disfigurement condition and winds up both “better” and much, much worse off than he was before. The film bounces between comedy and chaos, violence and valiance, and Stan is completely committed the whole way through. In his speech, Stan first thanked his costar Adam Pearson, who has neurofibromatosis and on whom the film’s director, Aaron Schimberg, based Stan’s character’s look. “Our ignorance and discomfort around disability and disfigurement has to end now,” Stan began. “We have to normalize it and continue to expose ourselves to it and our children, to encourage acceptance. One way we can do that is by continuing to champion stories that are inclusive.”

Stan went on to talk about the importance of discussing tough subject matters through filmmaking, once again illustrating that smaller, less accessible movies are often where the larger and more important conversations are happening. Watching performers like Stan and Moore talk about the critical state of cinema and its changing guard was a major get for anyone who loves entertainment already. But seeing musicians like Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross accept an award for their “Challengers” score, Latvian animated film “Flow” beat out Pixar and DreamWorks, and Brazilian actress Fernanda Torres win over established North American Hollywood luminaries was a truly refreshing sight to boot. I can’t remember the last time I found the Golden Globes refreshing, let alone current in any sense of the word.

While I’m hesitant to crown this a new dawn for the show, it certainly is a bit of bright morning light beginning to stretch up from the horizon. That the Globes have been able to make it through the dark for this long is something of a marvel. That the show has listened to its critics, thoughtfully revamped itself and has been unique enough to lead the awards season conversation by handing trophies to unexpected, well-deserved recipients, even more so. Hollywood loves a comeback, and if the Globes keep up the work at this level, this show could be one for the ages.

about this year's Golden Globes

Donald Trump has turned Jan. 6 into a triumph

Four years ago today while I watched on television as Donald Trump supporters stormed the Capitol during the joint session of Congress to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election I thought to myself, "it's finally over. Trump can't possibly come back after this." Until then I had assumed that he would immediately start his comeback. It didn't occur to me that he could survive inciting this violent assault, especially since he egged it on as it was happening:

At 2:24 p.m. Trump tweets that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution…" pic.twitter.com/0M5VIy7lt5

— USA TODAY Graphics (@usatgraphics) January 8, 2021

As we later saw on video, the crowd soon began chanting "Hang Mike Pence!"

Trump is using tragedy to hide his bait and switch

Later in the evening Trump finally emerged and put out a video telling the rioters he understood why they were so upset about all the evil people who "stole" the election but they needed to go home now. He said he loved them and that they were very special:

"Go home, we love you, you're very special"

President Trump repeats false claims the US election was 'fraudulent', following one person shot and an improvised explosive device found on #Capitol grounds.

Follow live: https://t.co/9WUWn0WfmL pic.twitter.com/5gWVrb3tBz

— Sky News (@SkyNews) January 6, 2021

Over many hours we watched as bizarre Trump supporters occupied the Senate floor and took possession of the dais. The Capitol was vandalized and trashed and rioters beat police over the head with American flags. It was the most shockingly surreal event I've ever witnessed in American politics. The whole world was stunned by the live pictures we saw over the course of that momentous afternoon.

On January 6, rioters coming from a pro-Trump rally broke into the U.S. Capitol, resulting in deaths, injuries, arrests and vandalism.

Here's an in-depth look into how the incident unfolded. https://t.co/w5igPwlg5U pic.twitter.com/3pvim71IsO

— ABC News (@ABC) January 10, 2021

Yet later that night, once the police and National Guard restored order and the rioters dispersed, Congress returned to the Capitol and they certified the election. For many people that signaled that the guardrails had held, that the Constitution was intact and that American democracy was preserved.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

But when 147 Republicans still voted to overturn the election even after all that had happened, it was clear to me that was premature and that Trump wasn't done with us yet. They were all politicians, after all, with a much better knowledge of how the system works than most Americans and they knew his insistence that he'd actually won the election was a lie. Yet they voted to steal the election anyway, despite the violent insurrection that had taken place just hours earlier.

Oh sure, many Republicans did make statements condemning the insurrection and criticizing Donald Trump for his incitement. But within days you could feel them starting to pull back, especially after they experienced moments like this when Lindsey Graham was faced with rabid Trump supporters angry that he'd said "count me out."

WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE – A group of supporters of President Trump confronted Senator Lindsey Graham at Washington's Reagan National Airport. Police escorted Graham from the area pic.twitter.com/CoAWXLHoLE

— Reuters (@Reuters) January 9, 2021

Over the course of many months, between law enforcement and the media investigations culminating in the incredible work of the Jan. 6 committee, the evidence showed over and over again exactly what had happened. Donald Trump was psychologically incapable of admitting that he lost and certain people around him were more than willing to push the envelope to see if they could get away with overturning the results of an election. Through sheer chutzpah and mind-numbing repetition, they first managed to persuade many of Trump's most loyal voters that the election had been stolen. They flooded the zone with accusations and lies and when Republican officials denied that there were irregularities and recounts showed no discrepancies they attacked the officials. When the courts failed to find evidence of fraud and dismissed all but one case they claimed the courts were biased. They even managed to excuse Trump's trying to cajole election officials into "finding" thousands of votes to put him over the top on tape. And it worked. By Jan. of 2021, 66% of Republicans believed the election was stolen.

They proved that it was possible to beguile tens of millions of voters into not only believing a Big Lie when Donald Trump told it but even when they'd seen with their own eyes that it wasn't true.

Jan. 6 was their last-ditch effort to overturn the election. Had Mike Pence agreed to pretend that there was a legitimate controversy about the election results in the swing states where they'd recruited activists to pretend to be alternate electors they might have succeeded. The whole thing was a corrupt set-up engineered by Trump henchmen. The idea was to reject those states to lower the threshold of required electoral votes allowing Trump to win. If the Democrats objected, as they certainly would, Trump planned to then try to throw the election to the House (as the Constitution provides if it was a tie) in which case Trump would also win. (The mastermind of that coup plot, John Eastman, was even later revealed to have been counting on his good friend Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to step in to issue a stay of the Georgia electoral count to give them the hook they needed.)

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

It was a ridiculous idea made up out of whole cloth, but Donald Trump 100% bought into it. On Jan. 6 when it became clear that Pence wasn't going to play ball, Trump decided to shoot the moon and send his crazed, overwrought followers to the Capitol to intimidate the Congress and stop the count. There could be no other reason to tell them to march down there.

They didn't succeed in keeping Donald Trump in office but they won something even more important. They proved that it was possible to beguile tens of millions of voters into not only believing a Big Lie when Donald Trump told it but even when they'd seen with their own eyes that it wasn't true.

The whole country watched the riot unfold in real time. There were hours and hours more of video that emerged in subsequent days. Witnesses from Trump's own inner circle testified about his state of mind and how he behaved that day. And there have been hundreds of court cases decided by juries finding that people who participated in the event were guilty of crimes. Yet the New York Times published a depressing article over the weekend examining how Trump and his minions have managed to completely turn Jan. 6 upside down in his supporters' minds. They've convinced them that the rioters not only did nothing wrong that day, but they are now supposedly being held as political prisoners and hostages. They say there wasn't much damage to the Capitol, Mike Pence wasn't really in danger, the whole thing is overblown and it's the Jan. 6 committee that should be jailed rather than those who beat cops nearly to death on the steps of the Capitol that day.

The article lays out the full trajectory of this new Big Lie that is so preposterous you'd think the people who believe it must be living in another dimension. But it's had an effect even on the population that doesn't believe the conspiracy theories that the Trump voters do. Many people understandably have come to accept that it really wasn't a threat to democracy or the Constitution since Donald Trump was elected to a second term in what everyone agrees was a fair election and therefore, the system still works, no harm no foul.

But it didn't work. Trump was never held accountable either because of partisan support in the Senate which voted 57-43 to impeach him after Jan. 6, falling short of the 2/3rds supermajority which would have precluded him from running again. (Only seven Republicans voted to convict.) And the law was just too slow to hold him responsible even though both federal and state grand juries returned indictments of him and his co-conspirators for what they did. The Supreme Court eventually weighed in in his favor on clearly partisan grounds.

We now know that if partisans are corrupt, deluded or just plain opportunistic enough and they have the will and the means to lie without shame or restraint, they can circumvent all the checks and balances that were built into the Constitution to prevent a president who plotted a coup against the United States from returning to power.

January 6, 2025, should be a reminder of the assault on our democracy four years ago. Instead, I'm afraid it's yet another reminder that far too few people in this country actually care.

about this topic

“I refuse to be trolled”: How to resist Trump and maintain peace

American democracy and society have been sick for a long time. Donald Trump’s election to the White House in 2016 was a symptom and not the cause of these deep problems. There is extreme income inequality and the gangster capitalist regime that profits from it, racism and white supremacy, a growing lack of faith in democracy and other governing institutions such as the news media and the elites more broadly, widespread social atomization and loneliness, collective exhaustion and lack of sleep, anti-intellectualism, mass death and trauma from the COVID pandemic, a broken educational system, a media culture of spectacle and distraction and an overall sense that “a return to normal” is not that great and “playing by the rules” and “working hard” to achieve the “American Dream” was a cruel joke and has been for a very long time.

Too many political observers — especially the institutionalists and centrists — incorrectly convinced themselves that Trump’s first victory was an acute aberration, in what was fundamentally a sound democracy that had widespread support and legitimacy among the American people. These supposed experts willfully repeated that same error years later, because to admit they were catastrophically wrong would be a narcissistic injury both to them personally but also to the larger political class that has given them much of their identity and social capital.

If American democracy and society were sick and ailing before, Trump’s return to power in a few weeks may be terminal.

With Trump's 2024 victory over the Democrats, Trump and the MAGAfied Republicans take control of the presidency and both chambers of Congress. Trump and the MAGA movement also expanded their base of “populist” support in the form of a rainbow coalition of malice, rage and resentment, creating what could potentially be a realigning political force in American politics that will dominate for years if not decades to come.

Donald Trump has promised to be a dictator on “day one” of his presidency. All the evidence points to Trump immediately following through on his autocratic vision and what he and his agents describe as a “shock and awe” campaign against “the enemies within” and the “poison” in the “blood” of the nation. Per Trump and his agents’ own words and meaning, this will likely be a very “bloody" and "traumatic" story.

It's Elon Musk over MAGA: Donald Trump makes his pick

It is true that President Biden achieved many great policy successes for the American people in terms of the economy, the social safety net, infrastructure and manufacturing, defeating the COVID pandemic, restoring the country’s respect and influence abroad and broadly trying to remedy the worst of the great damage caused by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans and the larger antidemocracy movement. But Biden and the Democrats were defeated in the 2024 election because they failed to effectively and consistently communicate those successes to the American people.

In all, President Biden’s time in the White House will, in the mid to far future, likely be looked back upon as some interregnum and intervening years in the larger Trumpocene. In many ways, the Biden administration and what it embodied was like a beloved relative or favorite pet that is very ill and the family convinces themselves that because today (or the last few weeks of months) has seen improvement things will somehow miraculously be fine in the end. As the world saw on Election Day, that is not what usually happens in the real world.

If American democracy and society were sick and ailing before, Trump’s return to power in a few weeks may be terminal. Even more tragically, this is the poison that the American people chose for themselves: Donald Trump won the Electoral College and the popular vote.

On what appears to be America’s now semi-permanent democracy crisis and state of emergency, Steven Levitsky, who is the author of numerous books including “How Democracies Die” and “Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point”, told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes during a recent interview that, “I’ve been trying to think of a happy ending and it’s getting harder and harder."

The problem is, as I mentioned earlier, relatively ending well has often emerged after a period of really bottoming out. You really see political elites sort of doing the right thing after really horrible experiences of authoritarianism, thinking about places like Chile and Uruguay, Spain and Portugal and South Korea too.

I think, there will be an election in 2028. I’m not as pessimistic as some. I don’t think we’re sliding into fascism. I think there’s a very good chance that the Democratic Party wins the 2028 election, but it’s not clear how we rebuild a consensus in favor of basic small D democratic politics.

Ultimately, Donald Trump and MAGA’s repeat ascendance to power reflects how American democracy and society in 2025 exist in a state of competitive authoritarianism and what is, in many ways, a shambling corpse.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

In an attempt to make better sense of our collective emotions (and tumult and upset) in these weeks before Trump’s return to power, reflect on the previous year and the election, and what may come next, I recently spoke to a range of experts.

Rick Wilson is a co-founder of The Lincoln Project and a former leading Republican strategist. He is the author of two books, "Everything Trump Touches Dies" and "Running Against the Devil: A Plot to Save America from Trump – and Democrats from Themselves."

Look, we’re obviously disappointed with the outcome of the election, but we always knew it would be close. This country remains very evenly split and Trump doesn’t have nearly the mandate that his minions are trying to portray. The House of Representatives is as close as it gets and has a weak Speaker who’s completely unable to manage the chaos caucus.

"As Inauguration Day grows closer, we are gearing up for another fight and plan to take it to Trump every single day."

It was a chaotic year with more moving parts than any election in modern history and we knew all along it was a toss-up. But while we lost an election, we weren’t wrong about the threat Trump poses and we aren’t wrong about the chaos that’s coming. Look at the end-of-the-year budget battle where Trump and Musk threw a wrench into the works at the last second without any regard for the consequences.

As Inauguration Day grows closer, we are gearing up for another fight and plan to take it to Trump every single day. We will contest his insane cabinet picks and continue to tell the world when the emperor’s not wearing any pants. We refuse to bow down to an undemocratic administration. The future of the nation remains at stake. We already see Trump trying to silence the media and push corporations into not opposing his plans. Someone needs to step into the void and rally the opposition.

As for what comes next, Trump meant what he said on the campaign trail and he’s following through. He’s looking to implement tariffs that will hammer the middle class, will try to deport millions of people by putting the military on American streets and will retreat from the world leaving dictators like Putin to run roughshod all over Europe. That’s the nightmare scenario.

But one constant remains — Trump cannot help himself. He’s an agent of chaos who has to inject himself into every story, whether it’s helpful or not. He nearly derailed the budget to cause a shutdown and weakened Johnson even more. He empowered Musk and is now upset he’s stealing the spotlight and his influence.

And as always, I remain hopeful that the American people will see the terrible consequences and push back to correct his oversteps.

Jennifer Mercieca is a historian of American political rhetoric. She is a professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at Texas A&M University and author of several books, including "Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump."

It's hard for me to look back on 2024 without feeling nihilism — nothing mattered. The truth about Trump didn't matter. The threat that Trump poses to the nation and the world didn't matter. The legacy media didn't matter. The Harris campaign didn't matter. If none of those things matter, then what are we even doing talking about it — who is this for, who will read it and will they care?

I've been thinking a lot of a line that Jean Baudrillard wrote in "The Ecstasy of Communication": "Let us be Stoics: if the world is fatal, let us be more fatal than it. If it is indifferent, let us be more indifferent. We must conquer the world and seduce it through an indifference that is at least equal to the world's. To counter the acceleration of networks and circuits the world will seek slowness, inertia." Let us be Stoics. If the nation is indifferent to the threats to democracy, let us be more indifferent. They'll miss democracy when it's gone.

Trump's return is still surprising. It's understandable. It was predictable. But it's still surprising to me that power-mad anti-democratic forces succeeded in taking over the nation and electing the most dangerous person in America as president.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

I'm looking at Trump assuming office in 2025 with dread, calling to mind what Daniel Webster said about Andrew Jackson taking office in 1829. "His friends have no common principle — they are held together by no common tie. My opinion is that when he comes, he will bring a breeze with him. Which way it will blow, I cannot tell." Though, unlike Jackson in 1829, we have a pretty good idea of what kind of "breeze" Trump will bring with him. My goal is to face 2025 realistically. I hope to focus on the things that I can do to help defend democracy in America — mostly by staying in my lane and explaining anti-democratic rhetorical tricks. And I refuse to be trolled. It is what it is.

I believe Trump when he says he's going to be a dictator on day one. I do not believe Trump when he says that he'll only be a dictator on day one. No one assumes dictatorial power and then gives it up.

Good luck to us all!

David Pepper is a lawyer, writer, political activist and former elected official. His new book is "Saving Democracy: A User's Manual for Every American."

I enter the New Year knowing that Trump and his allies’ promises pose many risks to our nation, the democracy we’ve known, our communities and the lives of countless Americans. So, clear-eyed about these risks, of course, I worry.

At the same time, with weeks passed since the election, the word that best describes my current mood is “resolute." Why? Because I know that people in this country have overcome worse than what we must overcome now — waging their battle for democracy from far more perilous ground than where most of us stand today. Still, they overcame it all. So can we.

Another lesson from past periods of democratic backsliding is that how we react now shapes the extent of the damage done by the forces subverting democracy and the rule of law. There will be damage either way. But history tells us that the risk of anti-democratic moments like this is that they can set in for long periods of time — lifetimes, even. Or they can be overcome in far shorter periods of time.

So, what we do in the coming days, weeks and months will likely determine if we spend the rest of our lives feeling the worry we feel now, or if we are able to overcome our challenges far sooner than that. I resolve to make it the latter. One reason the passage of time amid these dark moments is dangerous is because of how quickly the collective memory of Americans evolves and can fade entirely. This underscores an especially weighty responsibility on those of us of a certain age: to preserve and pass on our lived memories of how liberal (the classic definition of the word), representative democracy operates in its best days. We must not allow the current times to settle in as the new normal as memories of better times disappear.

We must also stay resolute because Trump and his minions will act quickly. They will throw as much at the country at once as they can. Test boundaries and barriers. Offend our sensibilities. And this will happen on multiple fronts to keep us occupied and distracted, despondent and in chaos. And that means the coming months are key. How we respond NOW is key. Every win early win matters. Finally, there is the inevitability that although they won narrowly, the right will act as if they won with an overwhelming mandate. They are already framing the election that way and using that “big mandate” to justify everything so far. This means they will overreach. That overreach will include dangerous and disturbing actions. It will involve policies that harm the lives and well-being of everyday Americans.

And, importantly, it will involve decisions that prove to be politically toxic at the moment, or over time. This overreach after a very close election presents a near-term opportunity.

We must seize it. To use another phrase — they will break it; we must ensure they own it.

And to do so, the timing works in our favor. Think of it this way — the next four years are the second Trump term.

And the inevitable failures of his overreaching policies, incompetence and toxic and divisive politics will become clear amid the build-up to the midterm of Trump’s second term. And we all know what happens in the midterms of second terms, right? 2006….2014…Now….2026.

It’s the midterm of Trump’s second term. His assurance that he knew nothing about Project 2025 will have proven to be a lie; those and other toxic policies will have hurt everyday Americans by the millions; his entire approach will have offended a wide swath of Americans; his extremism will motivate others who sat out this election, or didn’t believe the worst of our warnings.

But that will only happen if we are on offense and engaging Americans everywhere to see it all and respond. So that’s where I am. Resolute. To keep going.

about this topic

Toxic masculinity links the New Orleans attacker and the Las Vegas bomber

As I noted in passing last week, the striking thing about the life of Shamsud-Din Jabbar is how much it reads like the boilerplate biography of any random Jan. 6 defendant or MAGA-inspired criminal. The 42-year-old who allegedly murdered 15 people at the New Year's festivities in New Orleans appeared, on paper, to be relatively successful in his career: 8 years in the Army, a degree from Georgia State, and a $125,000 a year job for an accounting firm. But his personal life was a mess. He was thrice divorced in 10 years, and at least two of the divorces were acrimonious and required repeat court interference. His divorce lawyer even fired him. His financial mismanagement meant his healthy salary didn't go far enough, and he had to be forced to make back payments on child support.

Like so many men facing personal troubles, Jabbar didn't get the help he needed. Instead, he turned to radicalizing voices online, which led him to believe that he needed to double down on toxic masculinity. It's a story we hear over and over, from so-called incels who commit mass shootings to Donald Trump fans who attack government buildings to terrorists imbibing ISIS propaganda. Rather than taking responsibility for their personal failures and striving to do better, men of all stripes turn to the internet where they're greeted by a sea of influencers, ready to tell them that it's other people — women, people of different races or religions, the "woke mob" — that is to blame. In some cases, as happened here, they go far enough down the rabbit hole that they talk themselves into violence.

Rather than taking responsibility for their personal failures and striving to do better, men of all stripes turn to the internet where they're greeted by a sea of influencers, ready to tell them that it's other people — women, people of different races or religions, the "woke mob" — that is to blame.

Thankfully, no one but the bomber was badly hurt in the Las Vegas suicide bombing that happened the same night as the Bourbon St. attack, but the parallels between Jabbar and Matthew Livelsberger aren't hard to spot. Like Jabbar, Livelsberger was a troubled man who picked a highly symbolic location, blowing up a Cybertruck in front of a Trump hotel. Both men had checkered romantic histories, and Livelsberger appears to have told multiple people he feared he suffered from PTSD. Like Jabbar, Livelsberger seems to have acted on a belief that he was going out like a hero, standing up for his far-right ideology and using his death to call on fellow MAGA believers to commit acts of terrorism.

"Try peaceful means first, but be prepared to fight to get the Dems out of the fed government and military by any means necessary," he wrote in his final manifesto. He declared the U.S. is "terminally ill and headed toward collapse," complained that people don't believe "[m]asculinity is good and men must be leaders" and made tired Twitter jokes calling Vice President Kamala Harris a "DEI candidate" and President Joe Biden "Weekend at Bernie's." He concluded, "Rally around the Trump, Musk, Kennedy, and ride this wave to the highest hegemony for all Americans!"

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

Livelsberger defensively insisted the bombing "was not a terrorist attack." This sentiment is belied not just by the violence of the act itself and his calls for MAGA men to use violence because "a hard reset must occur for our country."

BREAKING: Las Vegas Metro police release more letters from bomber Matthew Livelsberger where he tells Americans to “rally around” Donald Trump, Elon Musk and RFK Jr. https://t.co/RKxmEd5PFv pic.twitter.com/V7AN110STN

— David Charns (@davidcharns) January 3, 2025

Friday, the Washington Post published an in-depth report on the role self-radicalization plays in ISIS violence. In many cases, reporters Souad Mekhennet and Joby Warrick write, "the perpetrators appear to have been driven less by ideology or politics than by rage over personal failings." They largely follow the story of Beran Aliji, the 19-year-old Austrian whose plot to attack a Taylor Swift concert was thankfully thwarted by authorities. The contours of his story are familiar to anyone who knows examples like Elliot Rodger, the UCSB incel killer, or Jacob Chansley, the infamous "QAnon Shaman" at the Jan. 6 riot. Aliji was a lost soul with few friends and serious mental health issues. Instead of getting help for his issues, Aliji turned to online sources that promoted toxic masculinity. He embraced overt misogyny and developed an obsession with guns and knives, telling police he posed for photos with weapons because he "wanted to be cool and brag about it."

Aliji's brand of toxic masculinity was radical Islamic propaganda, which eventually led him to ISIS, which he saw "as a means of gaining an identity and purpose." There are many flavors of this pitch aimed at lost men worldwide. In the U.S., groups like the Proud Boys offer a similar tactic: Join them, and you'll be transformed from a nobody to a warrior fighting for the supposedly noble MAGA cause. Online incel communities are less positive in their marketing but push a similar message, that the world is a fallen place and only this group of men see the truth of it. Christian nationalist churches, such as the one attended by Trump's Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegeseth, pump out huge amounts of online content valorizing male violence and female oppression. A lot of people fall into these radical communities after imbibing months or even years of "softer" versions of the same "feminism is bad, toxic masculinity is good" messaging from influencers like Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh, or Ben Shapiro.

Whether it's radical Islam or MAGA vitriol, the appeal is obvious. They allow the troubled man to blame others, especially women and "woke" culture, rather than look to themselves. They offer a false promise that their ideologies will transform followers from losers to heroes. What they actually sell them is more of the same poison that led to their problems in the first place: toxic masculinity. They're encouraged to be domineering toward women and bombastic in their rigid worldviews, both of which alienate them further from people in their lives. But they often respond by digging even deeper into the radicalizing materials, and all too often, they act out violently. In some cases, as with Aliji or the would-be Pizzagate shooter, they're stopped before anyone gets hurt. All too often, they're not.

MAGA was all about "masculinity" in 2024 — too bad they have no idea what that word means

Right now, most media focus on men and online radicalization focuses on the "demand" side of the equation, looking at the psychological factors that drive men to seek out these influences. That's important, but sources I spoke with last year for an in-depth report on radicalization also felt attention must be paid to the "supply" side. American University professor Brian Hughes explained that pre-internet, it was relatively rare "to encounter extremist propaganda or an extremist recruiter." With the internet, however, "you can't avoid radicalizing material. Propaganda is everywhere."

More will likely be learned about Jabbar, but what we already know suggests he's part of this larger trend. Bruce Riedel, a counterterrorism expert, told the Washington Post that Jabbar is "a classic case" of someone who "finds now a cause to justify his life and his rage" in the radical Islamic ideology he found online. After an initial investigation into whether Jabbar had accomplices, federal authorities have determined he acted alone and was "inspired" by ISIS propaganda.

Similarly, while Livelsberger hinted at his intent to friends and an ex-girlfriend, he ultimately seemed self-directed. Like Jabbar, he appears to have been lost and felt that this final act of violence would give him meaning. His letter suggests he believes he'll be a hero to men who share his radical political views. Both men were caught up in the sick logic of toxic masculinity, where being "good" is about being dominant and hateful. It's a worldview that reimagines ugly behavior as noble, and it's not a surprise it so often ends in violence.

about this topic

Massive study of adolescent brains puts “gateway drug” theory into question

Those who grew up when Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) pamphlets were common in the school counselor's office are probably familiar with the “gateway drug” theory, which suggests the use of one substance like cannabis or alcohol will send a person down the path to try “harder” drugs like cocaine or meth later in life.

The gateway drug theory and many other ideas about drug use have been put into question in recent years as more resources are dedicated to understanding substance use, which has been highly stigmatized for decades. After initially labeling cannabis as a gateway drug in 2010, President Joe Biden even later walked back his stance, saying in 2019: “I don’t think it is a gateway drug. There’s no evidence I’ve seen to suggest that.”

Why more young people are “sober curious”

The roots of substance use disorder are complex and not fully understood, but one of the hallmarks of addiction is understood to be caused by repeated drug use that neurologically changes the brain. Because the use of one substance like alcohol or nicotine is associated with the use of other drugs like cannabis, many have drawn causal links between the use of various drugs in theories like the gateway drug hypothesis. However, this idea has been highly debated, and as the understanding of substance use has improved, scientists began to understand that people may have a “common liability” to substances in general and that drug use is influenced by a host of factors.

"Our behavior is determined basically by our brain and our experience, and our experience can affect our brain as well."

A new study published late December analyzed brain scans of adolescents before and after they first tried alcohol, nicotine or cannabis, shedding light on one factor that could be influencing whether people decide to start using drugs. Writing in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Alex Miller, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of psychiatry at Indiana University School of Medicine, and his team found that adolescents who initiated substance use had differences in certain brain structures compared to kids who didn’t use drugs. Importantly, most differences existed before they started using alcohol, nicotine or cannabis.

“The study sort of helps us highlight which regions may be important to further explore, with respect to their association as pre-existing risk factors for substance use initiation,” Miller told Salon in a phone interview.

Structural brain differences have been previously found in people who use drugs and were assumed to be effects of drug use, said Dr. Jonathan Foulds, a professor of public health sciences at Penn State College of Medicine who was not involved in the study. This study shows certain differences were there among adolescents who used substances prior to use, meaning they could not have been caused by the substance use, he said.

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.

“Our behavior is determined basically by our brain and our experience, and our experience can affect our brain as well,” Foulds told Salon in a phone interview. This study "casts doubt on some of the prior gateway theories because it seems like many of the same brain differences that are a risk factor for nicotine use are also a risk factor for alcohol and cannabis use.”

The differences observed in the study were small but statistically significant within a large sample size close to 10,000 participants, Miller said. Specifically, those who initiated these substances before age 15 had larger overall brains and a thinner prefrontal cortex in certain regions compared to kids who didn’t initiate drug use. The prefrontal cortex is responsible for things like decision making and information processing, and some research has found that a thinner prefrontal cortex is associated with more impulsive behavior and risky decision making, which could be linked to kids initiating substance use, Miller said.

On the other hand, some of the measures observed in this study went in the opposite direction to what is observed in brain scans of people who have substance use disorder. For example, heavy drug use has been linked to smaller overall brain sizes, and heavy cannabis consumption has been linked to smaller hippocampal volumes. In this study, substance use was linked to larger overall brain sizes and larger hippocampal volumes.

Importantly, this doesn’t mean that children with these differences in anatomy will inevitably go on to try drugs, said Dr. Bertha Madras, a psychobiology professor at Harvard Medical School, who was not involved with the study either. There are dozens of risk factors that influence whether kids use drugs, including genetics, accessibility to substances, and the prenatal environment.

It may be that some other factor is influencing the anatomical differences and drug use, like a predisposition to risky behaviors or teens’ perception of how harmful substance use is, Madras.

“Integrating the whole picture would give us a much better view of what the risk factors for using drugs are and what the risk factors that are consequent to drug use are,” Madras told Salon in a phone interview.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

This analysis uses data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which was designed to follow a large group of children over many years to help determine the neurological origins and consequences of substance use. Miller said he plans to use the data to try and tease out what is behind these brain differences and whether they are due to genetics or potential environmental risk factors.

In October, another study using the ABCD dataset found that certain brain activity in childhood could predict substance use initiation and that this was associated with children’s exposure to pollution.

“Understanding the complex interplay between the factors that contribute and that protect against drug use is crucial for informing effective prevention interventions and providing support for those who may be most vulnerable,” said Dr. Nora Volkow, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in a press release.

about drug policy

Canadian teen with bird flu was on life support, new report reveals

In November, a teenager in British Columbia was infected and hospitalized with bird flu, caused by the H5N1 virus. While most cases have been mild, commonly characterized by conjunctivitis and respiratory symptoms, this previously healthy Canadian teen was hospitalized from the virus in critical condition. Their symptoms started with double conjunctivitis, also known as pink eye, and turned into a fever and coughing. A few days later the teenager was admitted to intensive care after developing acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“This was a healthy teenager prior to this, so no underlying conditions,” said British Columbia’s health officer, Bonnie Henry, at a news conference at the time. “It just reminds us that in young people this is a virus that can progress and cause quite severe illness.”

"Concerning" bird flu mutations in Louisiana patient underscores pandemic potential of H5N1

Now, a recent report brings to light more details about the teenager’s case. In the report, published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), researchers explain that the 13-year-old girl spent weeks fighting for her life after contracting a severe H5N1 infection from an unknown source. In finding her diagnosis, researchers say that she initially tested positive for influenza A, but not the seasonal subtype. Further testing suggested she had a high viral load of a novel influenza A infection, which researchers discovered to be the H5N1 avian flu.

The next day doctors started her on oseltamivir, also known under the brand name Tamiflu. However, her respiratory functions declined rapidly causing her to be intubated. She was also placed on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), a machine that is a form of life support for people with life-threatening illnesses. In addition to the ECMO machine, the teenager received a plasma exchange and two more antiviral medication treatments — amantadine and baloxavir.

In an accompanying editorial, experts noted while mutations were detected in her case, it’s “unclear whether these mutations were present in the infecting virus or emerged during the course of the patient’s illness.”

In other words, it’s unclear if the virus mutated to be more severe in humans.

“The mutations evident in the Canadian case highlight the urgent need for vigilant surveillance of emerging mutations and assessment of the threat of human-to-human transmission,” the editorial stated, adding that vaccine development and therapeutics are also needed — perhaps to treat more severe illness. “The Canadian case showed higher viral loads in the lower airway and very prolonged shedding, despite therapy, which highlights the potential need for longer therapy.”

Researchers concluded their editorial with an acknowledgment that “many questions remain.” For example, the severity of cases is likely to depend on host immunity, the route of exposure, or other changes in the virus.

Currently, the CDC says that the risk to most Americans remains low.

“We do have candidate vaccines and antivirals available to try to mitigate severe influenza in the case of wider spread,” the report stated. “That said, a balance between enhanced vigilance and ‘business as usual’ is needed.”

about bird flu

“Shōgun” sweeps 2025 Golden Globes

"Shōgun" had a winning evening at the 82nd Golden Globes.

The historical Japanese drama scored the big win on Sunday night for best television drama, beating out powerhouse shows like "Squid Game," "Slow Horses" and "The Diplomat." The show's first season, starring Hiroyuki Sanada, Anna Sawai and Tadanobu Asano, dominated its stiff competition in other categories as well. The series' lead actors took home the top prize in their respective categories.

"Shōgun" has had its brooms out for quite a while. The series swept the major categories of the 2024 Emmys in September, scoring a record 18 awards out of its 25 nominations.

Sanada's decades-long career in films like "Last Samurai," "Mortal Kombat" and "John Wick 4" have highlighted his impact and importance in global cinema, but his win at the Golden Globes was for best performance by a male actor in a television series drama was a first.

The 2025 Golden Globes winners list

"I'd love to say thank you for everyone who's been in my life. All of you have brought me here," Sanada said after his win. "I’d like to say to the young actors and creators in the world: Please be yourself. Believe in yourself and never give up. Good luck.”

Sawai also won her first-ever Golden Globe. Sawai plays Toda Mariko, a noblewoman who is a translator between Toranaga and an English mariner in "Shōgun."

“Thank you to the voters for voting for me, even though I would vote for Kathy Bates any day,” Sawai said, shouting out her fellow nominee, who was nominated for “Matlock.” Asano clinched the win for best performance by a male actor in a supporting role on television for his work as Kashigi Yabushige, the Lord of Izu.

During his acceptance speech, Asano introduced himself to the audience.

"Wow, maybe you don't know me. I'm an actor from Japan and my name is Tadanobu Asano," he said. "This is a very big present for me! I'm very happy. Thank you!"

about "Shōgun"

Aubrey Plaza skips Golden Globes ceremony days after husband Jeff Baena’s death

After news of filmmaker Jeff Baena’s death broke, it seemed unlikely that Baena’s wife, Aubrey Plaza, would attend Sunday’s Golden Globes ceremony. Shortly before Baena’s death, the Golden Globes Association announced that Plaza would be a presenter at the show’s Jan. 5 ceremony. But, unsurprisingly, Plaza was nowhere to be seen on the red carpet outside or inside Los Angeles’ Beverly Hilton Hotel.

Indie filmmaker Jeff Baena, husband of Aubrey Plaza, dies at 47

Plaza married Baena in 2021 after the couple had been dating for 10 years. She also starred in his films “Life After Beth” and “The Little Hours,” the latter of which she co-produced. Plaza was also nominated for a Golden Globe award last year for her role in Season 2 of HBO’s “The White Lotus.” It’s not known who filled in for Plaza, or which award she was slotted to present.

But though Plaza was absent from the ceremony, the love from her industry peers was not. During his acceptance speech for Best Director of a Motion Picture, “The Brutalist” director Brady Corbet made sure to mention Plaza and Baena just as he was capping off his address to the audience.

“I would also be remiss not to mention that I am humbled to be in such excellent company, filmmakers I genuinely admire,” Corbet said on stage. “Hundreds of very devoted people worked on this film for years, before, during and after its realization.”

As he reached the end of his time, Corbet gave a brief, heartfelt shout-out to Plaza. “Finally, tonight my heart is with Aubrey Plaza and Jeff’s family,” Corbet said before bidding the audience goodnight.

about Aubrey Plaza

“Universe told me, ‘You’re not done'”: Demi Moore’s Golden Globes win is her first award in decades

Demi Moore is finally receiving her flowers.

The 62-year-old actress strutted to the Golden Globes all the way from her hotel in pumps and a metallic gown, primed and ready to take home one of the night's biggest awards. Moore faced a stacked field of nominees for for best female actor performance in comedy or musical, including Cynthia Erivo, Amy Adams and Zendaya. When her moment finally came, "The Substance" actress rose to the occasion with a heart-wrenching acceptance speech.

"I've been doing this a long time, like over 45 years, and this is the first time I've ever won anything as an actor. I'm just so humbled and so grateful," she said in her speech.

The 2025 Golden Globes winners list

Moore has been nominated for four Golden Globes in her decades-long career, with her three prior noms coming for her work in 1991's "Ghost" and 1997's "If These Walls Could Talk." Her portrayal of an aging aerobic television personality in the body-horror satire "The Substance" finally got her over the hump.

"30 years ago, I had a producer tell me I was a popcorn actress. At that time, I made that mean that this [award] wasn't something I was allowed to have," she said. "I thought I couldn't be acknowledged, and I bought in, and I believed that."

Moore said the script for "The Substance" shook her out of that belief.

"This magical, bold, courageous, out-of-the-box, absolutely bonkers script came across my desk…and the universe told me, 'you’re not done,'” she shared on Sunday night.

“I had a woman say to me, 'Just know you will never be enough. You can know the measure of your work if you just put down the measuring stick,'" Moore said. "I treat this as a marker that I do belong. "I treat this as a marker that I do belong."

Demi Moore accepts her #GoldenGlobe: "Today I celebrate this as a marker of my wholeness and of the love that is driving me, and for the gift of doing something I love, and being reminded that I do belong." https://t.co/QUzDz2Lepj pic.twitter.com/CWCzDX2xOi

— Variety (@Variety) January 6, 2025

about "The Substance"

The 2025 Golden Globes winners list

The 82nd annual Golden Globes really held space for some phenomenal film and television.

The star-studded evening, hosted by comedian Nikki Glaser, marked her as the first solo female host in the awards show's history. Glaser, also nominated for her comedy special "Nikki Glaser: Someday You’ll Die" — although she lost to Ali Wong — followed in the footsteps of four-time female hosts and long-time comedy friends Tina Fey and Amy Poehler.

This year's nominees highlighted a zest for immersive cinema experiences, whether you've been shushed at the theater for singing "Wicked," gasped at "Dune: Part Two's" score and cinematography, or shipped the love triangle in the sports drama "Challengers."

Television favorites like "Abbott Elementary," "The Bear" and "Squid Game" are still bright spots, seasons into their shows. "Squid Game" even garnered a nomination for best drama television series before its second season launched on Netflix. But one show above all, Shōgun, took home awards by the armful.

How "Squid Game" Season 2 received a Golden Globe nomination before it even premiered

Here are the 82nd Golden Globes winners in full:

Best Motion Picture – Drama
"The Brutalist" WINNER
"A Complete Unknown"
"Conclave"
"Dune: Part Two"
"Nickel Boys"
"September 5"

Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy
"Anora"
"Challengers"
"Emilia Pérez" WINNER
"A Real Pain"
"The Substance"
"Wicked"

Best Motion Picture – Animated
"Flow" WINNER
"Inside Out 2"
"Memoir of a Snail"
"Moana 2"
"Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl"
"The Wild Robot"

Cinematic and Box Office Achievement
"Alien: Romulus"
"Beetlejuice Beetlejuice"
"Deadpool & Wolverine"
"Gladiator II"
"Inside Out 2"
"Twisters"
"Wicked" WINNER
"The Wild Robot"

Best Motion Picture – Non-English Language
"All We Imagine As Light"
"Emilia Pérez" WINNER
"The Girl with the Needle"
"I’m Still Here"
"The Seed of the Sacred Fig"
"Vermiglio"

Best Performance by a Female Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama
Pamela Anderson — "The Last Showgirl"
Angelina Jolie — "Maria"
Nicole Kidman "Babygirl"
Tilda Swinton — "The Room Next Door"
Fernanda Torres — "I'm Still Here" WINNER
Kate Winslet — "Lee"

Best Performance by a Male Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama
Adrien Brody — "The Brutalist" WINNER
Timothée Chalamet — "A Complete Unknown"
Daniel Craig — "Queer"
Colman Domingo — "Sing Sing"
Ralph Fiennes — "Conclave"
Sebastian Stan — "The Apprentice"

Best Performance by a Female Actor in a Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy
Amy Adams — "Nightbitch"
Cynthia Erivo — "Wicked"
Karla Sofía Gascón —"Emilia Pérez"
Mikey Madison — "Anora"
Demi Moore — "The Substance" WINNER
Zendaya — "Challengers"

Best Performance by a Male Actor in a Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy
Jesse Eisenberg — "A Real Pain"
Hugh Grant — "Heretic"
Gabriel Labelle — "Saturday Night"
Jesse Plemons — "Kinds of Kindness"
Glen Powell — "Hit Man"
Sebastian Stan — "A Different Man" WINNER

Best Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role in Any Motion Picture
Selena Gomez — "Emilia Pérez"
Ariana Grande — "Wicked"
Felicity Jones — "The Brutalist"
Margaret Qualley — "The Substance"
Isabella Rossellini — "Conclave"
Zoe Saldaña — "Emilia Pérez" WINNER

Best Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role in Any Motion Picture
Yura Borisov — "Anora"
Kieran Culkin — "A Real Pain" WINNER
Edward Norton — "A Complete Unknown"
Guy Pearce — "The Brutalist"
Jeremy Strong — "The Apprentice"
Denzel Washington — "Gladiator II"

Best Director – Motion Picture
Jacques Audiard — "Emilia Pérez"
Sean Baker — "Anora"
Edward Berger — "Conclave"
Brady Corbet — "The Brutalist" WINNER
Coralie Fargeat — "The Substance"
Payal Kapadia — "All We Imagine as Light"

Best Screenplay – Motion Picture
Jacques Audiard — "Emilia Pérez"
Sean Baker — "Anora"
Brady Corbet, Mona Fastvold — "The Brutalist"
Jesse Eisenberg — "A Real Pain"
Coralie Fargeat — "The Substance"
Peter Straughan — "Conclave" WINNER

Best Original Score – Motion Picture
Volker Bertelmann — "Conclave"
Daniel Blumberg — "The Brutalist"
Kris Bowers — "The Wild Robot"
Clément Ducol, Camille — "Emilia Pérez"
Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross — "Challengers" WINNER
Hans Zimmer — "Dune: Part Two"

Best Original Song – Motion Picture
“Beautiful That Way” by Andrew Wyatt, Miley Cyrus and Lykke Li —"The Last Showgirl"
“Compress / Repress” by Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross — "Challengers"
“El Mal” by Clément Ducol, Camille and Jacques Audiard — "Emilia Pérez" WINNER
“Forbidden Road” by Robbie Williams, Freddy Wexler, Sacha Skarbek — "Better Man"
“Kiss the Sky” by Delacey, Jordan K. Johnson, Stefan Johnson, Maren Morris, Michael
Pollack and Ali Tamposi — "The Wild Robot"
“Mi Camino” by Clément Ducol and Camille — "Emilia Pérez"

Best Television Series – Drama
"The Day of the Jackal"
"The Diplomat"
"Mr. & Mrs. Smith"
"Shōgun" WINNER
"Slow Horses"
"Squid Game"

Best Television Series – Musical or Comedy
"Abbott Elementary"
"The Bear"
"The Gentlemen"
"Hacks" WINNER
"Nobody Wants This"
"Only Murders in the Building"

Best Television Limited Series, Anthology Series or Motion Picture Made for Television
"Baby Reindeer" WINNER
"Disclaimer"
"Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story"
"The Penguin"
"Ripley"
"True Detective: Night Country"

Best Performance by a Female Actor in a Television Series – Drama
Kathy Bates — "Matlock"
Emma D’Arcy — "House of the Dragon"
Maya Erskine — "Mr. & Mrs. Smith"
Keira Knightley — "Black Doves"
Keri Russell — "The Diplomat"
Anna Sawai — "Shōgun" WINNER

Best Performance by a Male Actor in a Television Series – Drama
Donald Glover — "Mr. & Mrs. Smith"
Jake Gyllenhaal — "Presumed Innocent"
Gary Oldman — "Slow Horses"
Eddie Redmayne — "The Day of the Jackal"
Hiroyuki Sanada — "Shōgun" WINNER
Billy Bob Thornton — "Landman"

Best Performance by a Female Actor in a Television Series – Musical or Comedy
Kristen Bell — "Nobody Wants This"
Quinta Brunson — "Abbott Elementary"
Ayo Edebiri — "The Bear"
Selena Gomez — "Only Murders in the Building"
Kathryn Hahn — "Agatha All Along"
Jean Smart — "Hacks" WINNER

Best Performance by a Male Actor in a Television Series – Musical or Comedy
Adam Brody — "Nobody Wants This"
Ted Danson — "A Man on the Inside"
Steve Martin — "Only Murders in the Building"
Jason Segel — "Shrinking"
Martin Short — "Only Murders in the Building"
Jeremy Allen White — "The Bear" WINNER

Best Performance by a Female Actor in a Limited Series, Anthology Series, or a Motion Picture Made for Television
Cate Blanchett — "Disclaimer"
Jodie Foster — "True Detective: Night Country" WINNER
Cristin Milioti — "The Penguin"
Sofía Vergara — "Griselda"
Naomi Watts — "Feud: Capote vs. The Swans"
Kate Winslet — "The Regime"

Best Performance by a Male Actor in a Limited Series, Anthology Series, or a Motion Picture Made for Television
Colin Farrell — "The Penguin" WINNER
Richard Gadd — "Baby Reindeer"
Kevin Kline — "Disclaimer"
Cooper Koch — "Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story"
Ewan McGregor — "A Gentleman in Moscow"
Andrew Scott — "Ripley"

Best Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role on Television
Liza Colón-Zayas — "The Bear"
Hannah Einbinder — "Hacks"
Dakota Fanning — "Ripley"
Jessica Gunning — "Baby Reindeer" WINNER
Allison Janney — "The Diplomat"
Kali Reis — "True Detective: Night Country"

Best Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role on Television
Tadanobu Asano — "Shōgun" WINNER
Javier Bardem — "Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story"
Harrison Ford — "Shrinking"
Jack Lowden — "Slow Horses"
Diego Luna — "La Máquina"
Ebon Moss-Bachrach — "The Bear"

Best Performance in Stand-up Comedy on Television
Jamie Foxx — "Jamie Foxx: What Had Happened Was"
Nikki Glaser — "Nikki Glaser: Someday You’ll Die"
Seth Meyers — "Seth Meyers: Dad Man Walking"
Adam Sandler — "Adam Sandler: Love You"
Ali Wong — "Ali Wong: Single Lady" WINNER
Ramy Youssef — "Ramy Youssef: More Feelings"

about this topic

FBI: Bourbon Street attacker recorded visits to French Quarter using Meta smart glasses

Shamsud-Din Jabbar paid several visits to New Orleans in the months before his deadly New Year's Day attack on Bourbon Street.

In a press conference on Sunday, authorities revealed that Jabbar visited New Orleans twice while planning the assault on the French Quarter that killed 14 and wounded dozens more. They shared that he wore a pair of Meta smart glasses during a trip to the historic center of the city, recording scenes on Bourbon Street in October. The details of his November visit are currently unknown.

"He was in town at least two days. During that time, Jabbar, using Meta glasses, recorded a video as he rode through the French Quarter on a bicycle," FBI New Orleans special agent in charge Lyonel Myrthil shared. "This video shows Jabbar during that trip in October with his Meta glasses. As we continue to learn more about that trip, we ask anyone who may have seen or interacted with him to contact us."

Trump is using tragedy to hide his bait and switch

At the same press conference, authorities shared that the former U.S. Army soldier had also traveled to Cairo, Egypt and Ontario, Canada in the months prior to the attack. His motivation for those trips is unknown. They shared video and photos of Jabbar in New Orleans in the hours leading up to the assault.

Jabbar was killed in a shoot-out with police after crashing his truck into a forklift on Bourbon Street. Improvised explosive devices were later found farther up the street. A transmitter believed to be a detonator was found in the truck with Jabbar. Officials say he was wearing Meta glasses at the time of his attack but had not turned them on.

about terrorism

“Look, we didn’t”: Schumer denies Democrats hid Biden’s mental state from voters

Chuck Schumer flatly denied that Democratic Party leadership hid Joe Biden away from voters during the president's abandoned 2024 campaign.

In a Sunday visit to NBC's "Meet the Press," Schumer was confronted with his own words about President Biden's health from February. He called the line that a then-81-year-old president was in decline a bit of "right-wing propaganda."

"His mental acuity is great," he said in the clip. "It’s as good as it’s been over the years."

That defense came mere months before Biden's disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump, a showing so poor that it eventually led to Biden dropping out of the 2024 election. Even with those facts in hand, Schumer was defiant that Democrats did not willingly mislead voters about Biden's health.

Host Kristen Welker asked Schumer to defend himself to voters who believed they'd been duped.

"Look, we didn’t,” he said flatly before quickly changing the subject to the record of the Biden administration. “He’s had an amazing record. The legislation we passed, one of the most significant groups of legislation since the New Deal."

Schumer called Biden a "patriot" and a "great guy" before pushing back against the widely held belief that Biden was pushed out due to public perception of his fitness.

"When he stepped down, he did it on his own because he thought it was better, not only for the Democratic Party, for America," Schumer said. "We should all salute him."

Welker pressed the issue one more time, asking bluntly if Schumer thinks Biden could have served for another four years. Having already used his strongest dodge, Schumer declined to answer.

"I’m not going to speculate,” Schumer said.

Watch below via NBC:

“Give me the green light”: All hail the “Squid Game” manosphere mascot

Out of all the surprises “Squid Game 2” yields, the most bizarre may be the love/hate attraction to Thanos, Choi Seung-hyun’s lavender-haired, pill-popping hooligan.

Player 230 – real name Choi Su-bong – is the mascot for every would-be alpha whose inflated sense of specialness is precisely what makes him ordinary. In the “Squid Game” dorms he’s just some guy with a douchey haircut until another player recognizes him from TV or the Internet, awestruck by his showing as the runner-up in the final round of a show called "Rap Underground." Not the winner, the also-ran.

When it’s revealed Thanos’ 19 billion won of debt is the result of buying into a cryptocurrency scam, that tracks. He’s that deadly combination of shallow, narcissistic and unable to accept responsibility for his actions. He says "bro" unironically. His cheeseball flirtations open with him calling women “señorita” (but . . . why?). Before the killing begins, when other contestants are asking why they were kidnapped after agreeing to participate, he takes his time to complain about his fit.

“What’s with these shoes?” he asks a guard, holding up one of the generic white slip-ons everyone's wearing. “My shoes are limited edition! They’re hard to find! Are you going to replace them if they get ruined?”

His B-level talent is enough to earn him the fame he's incapable of gaining by way of his craft — and his lyrical skills are pure yikes.

“Red, orange, yellow, green, I’m a legend, Thanos . . . look at us in the blue-green, now give me the green light,” he freestyles to some slow-blinking bunny more concerned with looking cute than staying alive before “Red Light, Green Light” kicks off. Then he delivers the clincher line in English while flourishing a finger-heart: “I like . . . you.”

Moments later, when her brains are splattered across his face, he realizes he's just another face in a cheap crowd of death targets. Instead of that epiphany humbling him, it's emboldening, goosed by a dose of chemical courage gleaned from the cross-shaped pharmacy around his neck. Thanos shakes off this incomplete pass and barrels forward.

"A huge net positive": Controversial "Squid Game" character challenges Western representation ideals

When the people around him nervously freeze for fear of being gunned down, Thanos skips and leaps. The killing floor becomes his playground. He stretches his arms wide like a child in the throes of a sugar rampage, pushing groups of strangers to their deaths, grinning as snipers take them out. It is difficult to say whether his ego or the drugs make him feel more invincible. Since he’s perpetually high, why not both?

“Squid Game” creator Hwang Dong-hyuk constructed his dystopian story around the universally relatable despair of indebtedness and desperation. Perhaps the sheer existence of Thanos is his underhanded acknowledgment that people don’t like to think too deeply about the moral of the story. It’s too real, too depressing. The brazen death spectacle seizes our attention instead — the more cartoonish and brutish, the better.

Hence this second-rate rapper playfully rendered by one of South Korea’s best hip-hop artists — Choi, who performs by the name T.O.P.

Choi spent most of his career with the K-pop sensation BigBang. But in 2017, he pled guilty to using cannabis, which is still illegal in South Korea. He received a 10-month suspended jail sentence and retreated from performing – by choice, possibly, but likely by necessity.

“Squid Game” represents the artist’s comeback and a risky one at that. The show’s international audience can’t help noticing Thanos for better or worse, but most reactions have been appreciative. South Korea’s audience is not as amused, taking issue with the character’s copious drug use and shocked that a star who copped to using drugs in real life would play a drug-abusing party predator in a globally popular TV show.

T.O.P, of South Korean boyband Big Bang arrives at the Seoul Central District Court for hearing on his marijuana usage case on July 20, 2017 in Seoul, South Korea. (Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images)

Choi isn’t trying to divorce his reputation from his characterization, even if the actor has said his goal was to deliver a performance that’s as realistic as possible. T.O.P.’s fans have caught the winking references to his real-life stage persona and this bizarro version Hwang wrote for him, down to pausing when he forgets the lyrics in the scene described above.

The real artist halted at that moment, embarrassed to have lost his flow. Thanos never had one; he’s all style and flash, and that’s more than enough to make it on a two-dimensional screen.

But the character works because of the actual performer’s sense of knowing. Artists can sniff out genius from fakes, and Thanos sure looks like a parody of a pretender T.O.P. has encountered in the wild.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Perversely, though, the moment that really adds the villainy to Choi’s shoddy wordsmith comes in the fourth episode when he tries to work his plastic charm on Player 380, Se-mi (Won Ji-an). Thanos, the Internet-bred Alpha male flanked by two sad little hype men, steps up to the young woman with facial piercings and a don’t-mess-with-me attitude, expecting to be worshipped. She sees him for what he is and plays him right back.

Ultimately their psychological games don’t work out in either of their favor – each is eliminated, although Thanos earns the forked-up ending he gets.

But their chemistry sparks because of what each represents. Thanos is the manosphere, the embodiment of the sexism permeating every sector of South Korean society (and, indeed, much of the world). South Korea has the widest pay gap between men and women among the nations monitored by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Women are persistently discriminated against and targeted for misogynistic violence and violations such as deepfake porn.

Se-mi responds by donning the Gillian Flynn Cool Girl’s mask, feigning enough interest for Thanos and his boy to think she’s playing to get when in truth she’s stringing him along until he’s no longer useful to her. Once Thanos realizes he can’t control Se-mi he turns his other male teammates against her. But, like every addled maniac, his hatred lacks focus. If he can’t take out his rage on Se-mi, maybe the pregnant girlfriend of the man who swindled him will suffice.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

“Squid Game”’s explosion as a worldwide phenomenon can be attributed to a variety of factors. Some, like the giant killer doll robot from “Red Light, Green Light,” are singular and inimitable. Anyone can put on some version of its players’ green athleisure wear and be recognized as a player which, if the show’s scenario were real, is all most of us would qualify to be.

The greatest difference between the first and second seasons of “Squid Game” is the broader range of individual personalities. Hwang wrote more extensive backstories for his secondary ensembled players, more reasons for the viewer to invest in them as people instead of just numbers.

Thanos, however, doesn’t have much mystery to him because we know his type. Go anywhere on the planet and you’ll recognize him as a problem from across the street – the propped-up Andrew Tate wannabe with no substance underneath the sparkle and empty assurances.

G-Dragon, Taeyang, T.O.P, Daesung and Seungri of Korean band Bigbang receive the Best Worldwide Award during the MTV Europe Music Awards 2011 live show at at the Odyssey Arena on November 6, 2011 in Belfast, Northern Ireland. (Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic/Getty Images)

Choi plays him accurately enough to rankle his home country’s audience, and believably enough to earn the rapper new fans in the U.S. and elsewhere. The hope is that they’ll be more impressed with his real persona than the unhinged supervillain he created. Given what “Squid Game” theorizes about fan worship, not even that is a certainty.

"Squid Game 2" is now streaming on Netflix.

about this topic

“That’s really sad”: Pelosi clowns Trump for screening 2020 election denial doc at Mar-a-Lago

Nancy Pelosi has a message for Donald Trump: move on.

During a visit to CBS' "Face the Nation," the former House speaker said the president-elect's obsession with the election he lost to Joe Biden in 2020 is "almost sick."

"It's really sad. This really is sad," Pelosi said when told about a documentary Trump screened at Mar-a-Lago that questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 election. "It's almost sick that he would be thinking that… He's won the election now."

Pelosi told host Margaret Brennan that Trump should be "triumphant" about his win and upcoming second term. She pitied his inability to move past his grievances and admit defeat.

"To be still trying to fight a fight that he knows he lost is really sad," Pelosi said.

Nancy Pelosi on Trump screening a documentary at Mar-a-Lago claiming he won the 2020 election: "That's really sad … it's almost sick … he's won the election now … he should be triumphant about that." pic.twitter.com/xoQQI9Kkew

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 5, 2025

The Revolution of 2020: How Trump's Big Lie reshaped history after 220 years

Trump maintained his election denialism throughout the 2024 campaign, even getting Vice President-elect JD Vance in on the act. The author and former Ohio senator spent much of the campaign dancing around a straight answer to whether President Biden won the election in 2020.

Trump continued to push his belief that the 2020 election was rigged in his first televised interview after Election Day. On NBC's "Meet the Press," Trump said that his 2024 victory only came because this year's presidential election was "too big to rig."

"If I won that election, which you know how I feel about it. I won't get into it, because we don't need to start that argument," he said at the time. "I think it's an easy argument, it was really proven even more conclusively by the win that I had on this one."

about Nancy Pelosi

Study reveals the foods with the highest plastic contamination, from fast food to staple ingredients

Ahead of the new year, consumers nationwide were hit with several food recalls linked to E. coli, Listeria and Salmonella outbreaks. Last September, a deadly listeria outbreak concerning sliced deli meats forced Boar’s Head to indefinitely shut down its plant in Jarratt, Virginia. In November, bagged carrots sold at Sprouts, Trader Joe's, Wegmans and other retailers were recalled following a deadly E. coli outbreak. And as of recently, Marketside Broccoli Florets sold at Walmart were recalled due to potential contamination with Listeria monocytogenes.

Unfortunately for consumers, bacteria aren’t the only things plaguing their foods. A recent study by PlasticList, an independent research group, found that plastic contamination is quite rampant in the foods we eat.

Per Newsweek, PlasticList tested nearly 300 food products — from distilled water and baby food to hamburgers and store-bought rice — and found high levels of phthalates, a group of chemicals used to make plastics more flexible and durable. The chemicals were especially high in fast food menu items, including Burger King's chicken nuggets and Wendy's hamburgers.

Surprisingly, fast-casual chains that pride themselves on serving higher quality and “healthier” options had exceptionally high amounts of plastic contamination. Shake Shack’s cheeseburger was one of the most contaminated fast foods on the list, along with Sweetgreen's Chicken Pesto Parm Salad.

Organic carrots sold at Trader Joe's and other retailers recalled following deadly E. coli outbreak

Additionally, organic food products contained high levels of plastic contamination. Same with everyday staples, like Whole Foods Organic Long Grain White Rice, Whole Foods Organic Pasta Spaghetti, Whole Foods Boneless Beef Ribeye Steak (Pasture Raised) and Whole Foods Boneless Beef Ribeye Steak (Grass Fed).

When it came to beverages, the highest levels of phthalates were found in McDonald's Vanilla Shake (<4,500 nanograms per serving). Whole Foods Mozzarella String Cheese Low-Moisture Part-Skim (<280 nanograms per serving) had the highest levels among all dairy products. Microwaved Kraft Mac & Cheese (<700 nanograms per serving) was number one in the prepared meals category. And Whole Foods Cold Smoked Atlantic Salmon (<570 nanograms per serving) had the most contamination among seafood products.

Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.

Microplastics are especially detrimental to human health because they can mimic hormones and disrupt the body's chemical messengers. They can also cause build-up in cells and tissues and interfere with the body’s endocrine and immune systems. Phthalates, especially, have been linked to breast cancer, decreased fertility, obesity, asthma and reproductive problems.

The study, which was published on December 28 and conducted in the Bay Area, “cautioned against drawing high-confidence conclusions from these results,” according to Newsweek. Researchers said the findings “represent point-in-time results from a small number of product samples” and may not full represent “actual product contents, with testing methodologies varying,” the outlet specified.

about food recalls:

Some tax policies are set to expire in 2025

When Donald Trump first became president in 2017, one of his signature legislative victories came from passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). The law reoriented the tax code in many ways, such as by slashing tax rates, particularly for high-income earners and corporations.

Yet because the TCJA significantly reduced government revenue and therefore increased the federal deficit, many parts of the law were written to expire at the end of 2025 in order to satisfy congressional rules. Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress find themselves back in power as they decide the law's fate.

The situation is similar to when President Barack Obama faced the expiration of tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush. The Obama administration made most of the tax cuts permanent, while mostly letting those that affected wealthy individuals expire.

Not all investments need to succeed

Trump has stated his intentions to not only extend the TCJA but also introduce new cuts, which could reduce what many Americans owe in taxes each year while driving up the federal debt.

While you might not have much direct say in what gets passed in 2025, being up to date on potential changes can go a long way toward optimizing your taxes.

Pump the brakes

It's important to realize that even if no new legislation comes about, there generally won't be any changes until 2026, as the TCJA runs through tax year 2025. So while you might be trying to cram in some last-minute tax planning moves for tax year 2024, there's not particularly anything TCJA-related to rush into now.

Moreover, with Trump returning and Republicans in control of the House and Senate, there's arguably less urgency to do any tax planning moves before we see what legislation ends up passing.

"We were operating in an atmosphere of kind of a sense of urgency to do all these things before the end of 2025, and I think that landscape's changed, where most likely there's probably room to rethink and to take a longer time period" to make tax planning moves, said Kat Grier, wealth manager at Merit Financial Advisors.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

For example, before the election many people were focused on moves like Roth conversions to try to get ahead of income tax brackets potentially going up, or moving assets out of estates due to the possibility of a lower estate tax exemption, Grier said.

Now, "I think we have an opportunity to see early on in 2025 what could come out of Congress with an extension of some of the major provisions that were in" the original TCJA, she added.

Taxes vs. debt

While the Trump administration is likely to try to extend many of the expiring TCJA provisions, some of the more ambitious plans to cut taxes may face pushback, even with Republican majorities.

It's possible that some tax rates may lower, like the top tax bracket going from 37% to 35%, and maybe removing or raising the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, said Edwin G. Oswald, a former legal advisor to the U.S. Treasury during the Clinton administration and co-author of "From Ronald to Donald: How the Myth of Reagan Became the Cult of Trump."

"Trump has also talked about perhaps exempting Social Security payments from tax, and no tax on tips, among other things," he added. Yet "butting against this is the national debt, which is now around $36 trillion."

The national debt has long been increasing, but the pace has picked up, with the total now about $10 trillion more on an inflation-adjusted basis compared to when Trump first took office.

"There's going to be just more fiscal pressure, I think, now than eight years ago in terms of how rich this tax bill can be," Oswald said.

To help partially offset some of the costs of Trump's proposed tax changes, there could be some reversals of tax policies established under President Joe Biden, particularly energy-related tax credits stemming from the Inflation Reduction Act.

Generally speaking, tax law is forward-looking rather than retroactive, so even if things like tax credits for electric vehicles are removed, there could be "some latitude moving into 2025 in terms of tax credits still being available," Oswald said.

Still, consumers should be aware of any tax changes like this that could affect their spending in 2025.

"If someone's seriously thinking about an electric vehicle, now may be the time to purchase that"

"If someone's seriously thinking about an electric vehicle, now may be the time to purchase that as opposed to running into perhaps some jeopardy or uncertainty as we move into 2025," Oswald said.

Don't fall asleep at the wheel

While there may be less sense of urgency from a tax planning perspective, that doesn't mean you should ignore what tax changes might come about in 2025. Although those effects generally wouldn't be felt until 2026 — or perhaps even 2027 when filing for tax year 2026 — there still might be moves to make during calendar year 2025.

"A lot of times people think about tax planning when they're in the midst of gathering all their documents when their tax return's being prepared, and it limits a lot of what the planning can be," Grier said. "And so I think proactive tax planning within the year" is important.

For example, tax-loss harvesting is an investment move that can help lower your taxes, but it needs to be done during the calendar year of the corresponding tax year. If you want to reduce what you owe when filing taxes this coming April, for example, then tax-loss harvesting before the end of 2024 may be useful for you, even though any changes to the TCJA aren't applicable to this situation.

Some other proactive tax moves: If tax rates fall due to legislative changes in 2025, you might consider delaying the receipt of some income until 2026, such as if you're a small business owner with some flexibility, explained Grier. Investing in a pre-tax retirement account like a 401(k) could also lower your taxable income in a year where tax rates might be higher than they are the next, she said.

Still, you probably don't need to rush to do anything you wouldn't normally do just because of potential changes to the TCJA. If and when there are tax code changes, you would still likely have time in calendar year 2025 to adapt. And if all of these dates and possible changes are confusing to you, then you might be better off working with a tax professional who can help guide you through tax planning rather than making a misstep on your own.

about personal finance

Journalists can be heroes: I still believe in the “enemies of the people”

Let’s counter the ceaseless scorn from the right about the "liberal media" by saying something uplifting, perhaps even grandiose, about journalists: Many of them, probably most, have been doing a Promethean job, working under greater and greater duress to present the fire of truth to the public.

Yeah, I expect some hate mail for "Promethean," because it sounds elitist and stupid all at once. But read on before you rush to compose your lovely message.

Nearly a decade ago, the standard Republican negative rhetoric about the press morphed into Donald Trump’s nonstop excoriation of journalists as “enemies of the people,” which, as effective rhetoric, has since devolved into an overarching rant about “enemies within” and the compilation of at least one actual enemies list.

Did you vote for this? (I don't know; maybe you did.)

Let's get back to Prometheus. Recently I was wearing a T-shirt from the journalism school I attended half a lifetime ago, bearing the pretentious motto "Wise Shall Be the Bearers of Light," which I noticed by reading it backward in a mirror. Then it hit me.

This was the week American journalism finally died

I'd worn that shirt for years before making the connection with Prometheus, the Titan of Greek mythology who gave fire (as well as the arts and sciences) to humanity and was punished for it by the vengeful Zeus. Prometheus found himself chained to the side of a Scythian mountain for disobeying the gods, who believed their strength depended on keeping people in dumb and servile awe.

Bringing enlightenment to humanity led to Prometheus' endless torment. I was reminded of the commonplace a friend used to roll out in my workplace, and someone probably does in yours: "No good deed goes unpunished." Prometheus was the prototype.

The way this works today is that understanding and knowledge lead to further questions that make the billionaire gods of our late-capitalist age uncomfortable. Questions like whether any country can call itself "free" without some faith in the things Prometheus gave to humanity — the arts and sciences, including unfettered journalism.

Although the importance of a free press was paramount to the founders of our republic (it's right up front in the Bill of Rights!), protecting democracy was allegedly too abstract an issue for millions of voters in the last election who put their future, and the country’s, in the hands of the inveterate liar, grifter, cheat and sexual abuser with multiple felony convictions.

Understanding and knowledge lead to questions that make the billionaire gods of our late-capitalist age uncomfortable. Questions like whether any country can call itself "free" without some faith in the truths Prometheus gave to humanity.

Not long ago, if a politician became known for lying (or even whooping in a disconcerting way) he was toast with the American public. Now, half the electorate voted for a man-child who exhibits a cartoonish mix of hubris, incompetence and maliciousness worthy of a Dickens character, even after being warned by high-level officials from his first administration, senior military officers and hundreds of experts in economics and mental health who signed public statements urging a different outcome.

And the thing is, journalists told you about all that.

But a significant chunk of the public has been trained not to listen to any such deep-staters or Nobel Prize–winning eggheads. The much-maligned press reported on all of this, over and over again, but millions of Americans either didn’t trust what they said or simply never heard it.

In November, people who read the news were far more likely to vote Democratic, but fewer people across all demographics are consuming news from traditional sources, which partly reflects a lack of trust and partly reflects understandable news fatigue around our interminable election cycles. Many people — including educated, middle-class voters — are simply tuning out political news, and you can't entirely blame them.

Right-wing ideologues created a media empire by turning politics into a pugnacious combat sport and ignoring inconvenient facts, following the Rush Limbaugh model. Throw in Elon Musk’s degradation of the once lively discourse on Twitter into the disinformation and conspiracy cesspool of X.

People who actually understood both the proposed policies and demonstrated character of both Trump and Kamala Harris tended to support the one who stood for the basic tenets of democracy, including the right to vote, the right to affordable health care, the right to a more equitable share of national prosperity and, oh yeah, the right to freedom of speech for everyone, including (or especially) real journalists.

There just weren’t enough of those people. All the good reporting in the world makes little difference if a significant portion of the population isn’t interested, doesn’t have time or has been systematically and strategically instructed to despise it. As Timothy Snyder writes in "On Tyranny," "Fascists rejected reason in the name of will, denying objective truth in favor of a glorious myth articulated by leaders who claimed to give voice to the people."

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's original commentary and analysis

Even without right-wing demagogues working to undermine them, journalists swim upstream against a strong current of human nature: Lots of people are happier not knowing the truth. Many adages apply (e.g., Lem’s, Brandolini’s), but here’s one new to me, Benford’s Law of Controversy: "Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available."

Be the bearer of dry facts or bad news, and you’ll leave me cold. Tempt me with a simplistic promise — lower grocery prices overnight! End the war in a day! Create the best-ever health care plan! — or shoot me up with the rhetorical narcotic of the latest conspiracy theory, racist dog whistle or vaguely disguised call to violence, and you’ve got my vote.

Tempt me with a simplistic promise — lower grocery prices overnight! End the war in a day! — or shoot me up with the rhetorical narcotic of the latest conspiracy theory, and you’ve got my vote.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, made that aspect of human nature its business model, and was ultimately willing to pay out $787.5 million as the price of catering to an audience that wanted to believe in Trump’s lies about election fraud. In the world of propagandists, that's just the price of doing business — at least, until they can fully corrupt the judiciary, threaten everyone else into silence and set about rewriting the history.

The right-wing attack on journalism is standard operating procedure for wealthy elites masquerading as populists (Snyder calls them "sadopopulists"). They tirelessly work the refs, describing honest media reporting “liberal indoctrination,” projecting their determination to have not only a fully brainwashed right-wing media but a brainwashed culture.

Republicans have tried to kill NPR and PBS, our best sources for free in-depth news, for decades. Now they want to further intimidate and silence journalists, by jailing them or suing them into submission.

As reported by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, such harassment is nothing new, even in this country. The State of Local News Project reports that more than 3,200 newspapers have shut down in the last 20 years, and many more are reducing their coverage. Some 55 million Americans have limited access to local news or none at all. Journalists who can find jobs are often poorly paid and enjoy little job security, thanks to constant mergers and takeovers and also to the chilling technological advance of AI, which can almost immediately produce a professional-sounding (but not necessarily accurate) account of a basketball game or town council meeting.

On top of all that dismal news for those who gather the news, journalists who haven't fled the embattled industry are threatened with recriminations by Trump.

As New Yorker editor David Remnick reminds us, presidents hating on the press is nothing new. Once upon a time, journalists actively wanted to be on Richard Nixon’s enemies list (alongside Daniel Schorr and Paul Newman). The feeling is rather different with Trump, who panders to his violence-loving cult in a way Nixon never did.

As for the right’s argument about most journalists being of a liberal bent, that almost goes without saying — curiosity and human sympathy are at the heart of nearly all forms of writing, whether in poetry, fiction, drama, philosophy, comedy or, yes, journalism. As Heather Cox Richardson recently noted, America was founded on Enlightenment principles that aimed at protecting the rights of all individuals, and Republicans are doing their utmost to undo that. That’s why their goal is sometimes described, with admirable accuracy, as the "Dark Enlightenment," a metaphorical return to the Dark Ages, with billionaire tech bros like Musk and Peter Thiel in charge of personal fiefdoms.

A second inscription at the Missouri School of Journalism, my alma mater, is also on the mark, though it’s even more mockable and highfalutin: "The Schoolmaster to the People." OK, I cringed a bit, writing that. But the ideal is sound, and I don't reject it: Teachers work to enlighten students not just so they can become productive citizens but also so they can become citizens, fully engaged in society, culture and democracy. And education is supposed to continue beyond high school and college.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Journalists work in good faith to provide the public with insight into political issues, the character of those who want to lead us, and every imaginable question in the arts and sciences. Are we sometimes, or often, overly superficial? Oh, absolutely. Do we always ask the right questions? Definitely not. When it comes to political coverage, does corporate media focus way too much on “horserace journalism” rather than exploring the issues most important to citizens? Yes, and that can be deeply frustrating.

But unlike propagandists, legitimate journalists never deliberately set out to provide bad information. They may provide misleading or poorly digested information, or information that people don't want to hear. They may offer commentary or analysis with which you vehemently disagree — but the ethics of the trade demand correct factual information, even in an opinion piece.

The conservative goal is sometimes described, with admirable accuracy, as the "Dark Enlightenment," a metaphorical return to the Dark Ages, with Elon Musk and Peter Thiel in charge of personal fiefdoms.

A journalist who reports and writes a straight news story is something like a scientist delivering an experimental study that will be tested by other scientists — except the journalist almost always has a deadline, which is typically right now. Journalism is sometimes called the first draft of history because the story is likely to change as more and better information becomes uncovered by other journalists and then by historians.

Like the muckrakers of an earlier age, investigative journalists bring to light what the powerful often want to keep in darkness. They expose what conservatives stand for — "the preservation and popularization of privilege." Like the power-mongering and philandering Zeus of mythology, they are unhappy when their bad deeds are pointed out.

Journalists told us, in great detail, about Donald Trump's lifelong pattern of abusive behavior toward women, but millions of so-called Christians who claim to believe in "family values" simply didn’t care. As Salon’s Amanda Marcotte has pointed out many times, they want women to submit to men's desires in every way.

Working as a journalist in America has never been easy, but it is now truly a Promethean task, thanks in part to our wannabe dictator and amid a splintering media environment, meddling owners and capitulating corporate overlords who cling to outdated practices in the face of the massive right-wing disinformation machine. Despite all that, journalists still do what they can to bring — yes, I'll say it! — the fire of truth to the people. They are definitely not your enemies.

about the crisis of journalism