Five more state attorneys general have joined the already established eight states in aiming to block the merger between Nexstar Media Group and TEGNA.
On Thursday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated that those holding the same office in Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Vermont have joined the federal antitrust lawsuit as plaintiffs.
“This is not controversial stuff — this merger is illegal and will give Nexstar and TEGNA the ability to control and raise prices, fire journalists, and dominate the media landscape,” Bonta said in a statement.
The previous state attorneys general included in the lawsuit were from Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Virginia, in addition to California. The attorneys general of Indiana and Kansas are both Republicans, while all the others are Democrats.
In a statement, Nexstar Media Group blasted those new members of the lawsuit, calling them “misguided” in the process.
“By aligning with private equity-backed DIRECTV, these misguided attorneys general are strangling local journalism – the most trusted source of independent, fact-based news available to Americans,” the Nexstar statement reads. “The AGs, none of whom has a track record of advocating for local media, would do well to understand the industry they purport to protect. They should also recognize the binding commitments Nexstar has made to increase the amount of local news coverage in many markets, including today’s settlement with the Ohio Attorney General. And they should be far more wary of the real drivers of the decline of local news: the unchecked rise of Big Tech platforms, the spread of misinformation on social media, and the economic pressures that have already led to widespread newsroom closures.
“Tellingly, none of them appeared on local broadcast news to discuss this issue, but their social media posts were immediate,” the statement continued. “In today’s media landscape, multi-billion-dollar technology companies compete directly with local broadcasters while facing none of the same ownership, reach, or size constraints, putting untenable pressure on the economic model that supports local news. The alternative to this deal is not more independently owned outlets – it’s the demise of your local broadcast station.”
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
A federal lawsuit is taking aim at the $110 billion merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. A group of consumers filed the complaint Thursday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
The plaintiffs say the deal will hurt competition, drive up prices, and damage journalism.
Their filing argues the combined company would have increased ability to raise consumer prices, reduce theatrical output, and diminish the quality and diversity of news programming.
The suit invokes the Clayton Act, which bars anti-competitive mergers and allows private individuals to sue. Plaintiffs are asking the court to block the deal entirely. They also want Paramount Skydance stripped of any interest in Paramount Global.
The complaint targets three markets: premium video distribution, national TV news, and theatrical releases. On the film side, plaintiffs warn the merger would leave moviegoers with fewer titles, less genre variety, and fewer meaningful choices at local theaters.
“If Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery is consummated, the combined firm would have increased ability and incentive to reduce theatrical film output and narrow release slates,” the filing states.
Paramount’s portfolio includes CBS News, Paramount+, Nickelodeon, MTV, BET, and Showtime. Warner Bros. brings HBO, HBO Max, Discovery Channel, HGTV, and Food Network.
Paramount announced the merger agreement in February. The company has not publicly responded to the lawsuit.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Sex sells, even in sports media. The fallout from photos of New England Patriots head coach Mike Vrabel and former NFL insider for The Athletic Dianna Russini continues to play out across national media. While there haven’t been any new details about the relationship Russini and Vrabel shared, both professionally and personally, in some time, the story still commands collective attention nearly a month after the initial photos were released.
However, an interesting side story has developed over the course of the coverage. This involves how Boston-based media outlets have handled the ongoing controversy. From radio hosts to podcasters to digital outlets, there’s been an overarching critique of the media’s approach in the Patriots’ home market. The latest dig at the “soft” nature of the coverage ironically came from one of Boston’s largest media personalities, 98.5 The Sports Hub’s Mike Felger.
However, in his critique of the local media, Felger landed direct shots but also failed to recognize a key element of his argument.
Keeping in mind that all opinion is debatable, Felger’s history in the market adds weight to his words. His background in newspapers provides the journalistic backbone for the points he made in his critique of Boston media.
In speaking with Awful Announcing’s Brandon Contes, Felger laid into the “outlets” that didn’t act decisively enough to meet the moment and advance the story.
“I don’t blame the Patriots reporters, because that is a tough spot if you’re a beat guy that covers that team,” said Felger to Awful Announcing. “The outlets don’t even have the guy or the girl or the columnist or the reporter anymore to go cover it. And that’s what disappoints me the most. Do you want to sell the newspaper? Do you want people to watch the news?”
Where Felger Was Right
Felger, a former beat reporter and columnist, didn’t target those doing the work. Instead, he aimed at those who could have asked the necessary questions without risking access or favor with the organization.
“It’s kind of sad, and I don’t know if it speaks to Boston as a market that we’re a little soft, maybe,” said Felger. “It speaks more to the de-staffing of local traditional media outlets…it’s also just not the mindset…I don’t know if these places have the same mentality.”
That’s a fair point. Traditional print publications have borne the brunt of staff reductions and resource cuts for years. Reporters now face greater risk when asking tough questions, as access has become more limited and increasingly replaced by franchise-produced, carefully controlled narratives.
However, last time I checked, doesn’t Felger himself work for one of these Boston media “outlets”?
Felger & Mazz is one of the country’s most successful and widely listened-to sports radio programs. The foundation of the show is rooted in the deep journalistic experience both Felger and Tony Massarotti built during their years in traditional print media.
To their credit, Felger & Mazz have discussed the ongoing controversy involving Vrabel on several occasions. In fact, they even challenged longtime Boston writer Greg Bedard on air about whether the Vrabel/Russini story is something audiences care about.
Here’s where Felger’s criticism falls short.
Where Felger Missed
While he focused heavily on “outlets,” he didn’t consider his own. His critique targeted beat reporters, who, according to Patriots reporter Ben Volin, ignored team directives and did ask Vrabel questions during his limited availability regarding the controversy.
Meanwhile, Scott Zolak, who also hosts on 98.5 The Sports Hub, openly admitted he didn’t feel comfortable discussing the situation involving the Patriots’ head coach.
Earlier today, Zo talked about why he hasn’t commented on the Mike Vrabel & Dianna Russini situation citing that he likes his jobs with 98.5 & the Patriots. Although I feel like Zo is being pathetic with this, I can at least respect his honesty here. @MikeMutnansky@bostonradiopic.twitter.com/rM7c1TXKPa
“I like my jobs, and like working here. I like working with the Patriots, doing games on TV and being with the team. For me to sit there and cast stones at this guy would not do me great things. So there’s your answer in a nutshell,” said Zolak on April 16.
So what’s softer? Reporters asking limited questions during restricted access, or a talk show host refusing to discuss a topic the audience cares about because he values job security?
Yet Felger singles out “outlets” while pointing only to newspaper reporters and editors. Not his teammate at 98.5 The Sports Hub.
Felger isn’t wrong about what’s been lost. Newsrooms are thinner. Access is tighter. The appetite for confrontation isn’t what it once was when he ran the beat. All of that is real.
But credibility in today’s sports media ecosystem isn’t built on pointing to the past. It’s built on what you’re willing to do right now, in your own chair, with your own microphone.
Could Felger have done what he believes beat reporters failed to do? A drive to the Patriots facility wouldn’t have been too unreasonable. That’s what a responsible sports talk host does. When something is missing, you go out and do the work.
In Conclusion
Journalism remains the backbone of what makes Felger and Massarotti effective. The success of 98.5 The Sports Hub proves that.
But if the standard is to “meet the moment,” then it applies across the board. Even to your teammates, and not behind a broad label of ‘outlets.’ Not just to beat writers fighting for access. But to hosts with massive platforms, protected airtime, and the freedom to say what others can’t.
You can’t call out softness in the market while excusing it in your own building.
Because the audience can tell the difference between can’t and won’t. And they don’t reward the latter. That’s the part of this conversation that matters most.
It’s not about Boston being soft. It’s about who’s actually willing to be firm when it counts.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Conventional radio programming wisdom supports the idea of shows having benchmark features. Pieces of content that run at the same time every morning. The idea is that listeners will know when that content will air and tune in to hear it, creating a daily appointment.
Many hosts push back against this idea, saying it’s too predictable. Especially if people listen in the same pattern every morning. The listener might only hear that one piece of content and never experience the full breadth of the show.
There are merits to both sides of that argument. However, what’s often missed in the discussion is what defines a true benchmark feature. Too often, the issue is that the content being used as a benchmark isn’t strong enough to drive listeners to make an appointment to tune in. In other words, any feature that doesn’t include enough dinosaurs.
At least that’s what Gregr of Audacy’s Alternative KNDD/Seattle might say. His signature benchmark is called Nerd Talk. A benchmark that’s lasted so long that he’s now into a second generation of nerds.
“Nerd Talk is the thing that I hear about the most,” Gregr says. “I recently had a mom say to me the only way she can get her kids into the car on time is at 7:45, you’re going to play Nerd Talk. So, we rush to get to the car to hear it.’”
Authenticity Works
That is what a true benchmark does for a radio show. It becomes a reason for listeners to tune in every day. There’s nothing easy about creating one that sticks with listeners like Nerd Talk.
Part of what drives the success of Nerd Talk is Gregr’s passion for the material. To be clear, this isn’t about superhero movies or TV shows with aliens. Nerd Talk focuses on real science, like dinosaurs and the recent NASA Artemis mission.
“I grew up with Mr. Wizard and Bill Nye. Being able to talk about science without having to be a teacher and deal with punk ass kids is awesome,” Gregr says.
When you listen, his enthusiasm for the content comes through clearly. A good lesson for hosts looking to find their signature bit.
“My excitement for what I’m talking about is legitimate. That’s what I think has worked for me on the radio forever,” Gregr says.
In addition, he’s happy to do his part to counter the giant wave of disinformation that’s exists. Gregr believes that internet has not helped people gather and understand information. Also the internet allows people to chase popularity for being wrong, because there is an audience for it.
Another element that’s helped propel the success of Nerd Talk is its sonic signature. A quick jingle that plays at the start of the feature. Gregr says that part came together with the station’s production director very quickly, and ended up being the feature’s identity for the past 15 years.
Endorsement Approach
While Nerd Talk may be Gregr’s signature benchmark, it’s far from the only thing he does exceedingly well. Another area in which he excels is making endorsements come alive. The best example is his Space Bed campaign which he started many years ago.
Originally, the campaign was an endorsement for a Tempur-Pedic bed that claimed to be made from “space age materials” used on the space shuttle. He began referring to it in the commercial as his Space Bed.
Over the course of the campaign, he got married and had a son which he affectionately dubbed Space Baby.
“Space baby was conceived in space bed which is how he got his nickname. It became a running joke. People still call him space baby and he’s eight now,“ says Gregr.
That campaign became so synonymous with Gregr that it came up during an interview with Pearl Jam.
“After the interview, Stone Gossard [Pearl Jam guitarist] asked me if I was going to try and sell him a mattress,” recalled Gregr. The request left Gregr confused until Gossard asked is Gregr was “the mattress guy.” At that point, it clicked for Gregr.
“That’s when I realized the idea that I was the mattress guy was a real thing in Seattle. It made me so happy to know that talking about a mattress and making a baby in it, I made a fan out of a guy. One, who by the way, is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.”
Gregr believes it’s that the best endorsement campaigns are the ones where he can be himself. He’s happy to read any script for a client. However, the ones that really catch fire are when he gets to be creative.
“I love getting to be weird,” sais Gregr. “The wonderful people at Sleep Country and at Lexus have let me do that. They wanted me to be me.”
Relating To Your Audience
Another piece of Gregr’s career success can be attributed to being inclusive. He stay’s away from divisiveness—other than maybe occasionally making fun of one certain group.
“I try make things about Seattle when I can. Making sure that everyone who wants to be a part of the show can be,” Gregr says. “Sometimes, I’ll throw a zinger at the sort of faceless billionaires which everyone can relate to. People don’t like their jobs. They’d rather be playing in the Super Bowl or going to the moon. So, it’s easy for an old punk rocker to say the billionaires are holding us back. It’s their fault.”
But he never goes too far with anything that might upset listeners. Gregr says he’s not interested in making people uncomfortable with any of his content. Instead, he’d rather make dumb jokes about dinosaurs.
He believes it’s the attitude that has helped him maintain a long, consistent career.
“They are in good hands with me. For almost two decades, they’ve trusted me not to go too far and not to say the wrong thing,” Gregr says. “If I think something is a little coarse there is always a way to rephrase it. I’m not trying to be safe but there’s always a way of punching it up and rewriting it. Finding a sillier way to say it.”
That approach builds trust with the audience and with station management.
“My motives are pure because I think it’s fun to be on the radio,” explains Gregr. “I’m not trying to see how close I can get to saying a slur. Instead, I’m more focused on how I can make a fart joke about Jupiter by calling it a gas giant.”
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
The most dangerous part of the Brendan Sorsby story isn’t that it happened. It’s that it makes perfect sense. A highly paid star college quarterback tied to major gambling activity involving his own team. Reportedly “thousands” of bets ranging from games, props, and even individual plays. Now, he’s in sports betting rehab.
That should hit like a thunderbolt. Instead, it lands like a warning we’ve been ignoring. If you’re in sports media—on air, in production meetings, selling inventory, shaping coverage—you don’t get to treat that as someone else’s problem.
This isn’t just about players anymore. It’s about the system we’ve built around them.
Start with the leagues. The NFL, NBA, MLB, and NCAA didn’t cautiously step into gambling partnerships; they sprinted. Billions of dollars, integrated platforms, official data deals, naming rights, sponsorships.
This wasn’t survival. It was expansion.
Then came the networks, and this is where the media angle stops being passive and starts being active. Pregame shows that once broke down matchups now open with lines and movement. Halftime shows don’t just tell you what happened; they explain what it meant compared to the spread. In-game broadcasts casually reference odds like they’re part of the box score. Postgame shows frame outcomes not just in wins and losses, but in covers, with segments on ESPN celebrating bad beats.
A Growing Risk
The language has changed, and with it, the way the audience consumes the game.
Now it’s gone even deeper. Player props, micro-markets, and hyper-specific wagers on individual performance. Yards, rebounds, strikeouts, even sequences within games.
Add in the rise of prediction-style markets. Where outcomes tied to performance, availability, or even decisions can be speculated on in real time. Suddenly the experience isn’t just about who wins. It’s about everything. Every play, every possession, every substitution becomes a potential financial event.
That’s where the risk explodes.
When gambling focused only on outcomes—Team A versus Team B—there was at least a buffer. Compromising that result required something big, obvious, and difficult to execute. When the market shifts to player props and micro-events, the barrier drops dramatically.
You don’t need to fix a game. You just need to influence a moment.
A missed free throw, dropped pass, or a quiet defensive lapse or minutes reduction that doesn’t quite add up. These are small actions, almost invisible in the flow of a game, but significant in the context of a wager.
Now consider who sits at the center of that. Players. Especially college players.
The NCAA asks 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds to exist in a world where gambling is everywhere. Advertised, discussed, normalized—while telling them they are completely off-limits from participating.
Yes, NIL money has changed the equation for some, but not for most. Most players aren’t cashing life-changing checks. They’re watching an entire ecosystem profit off wagers tied to their performance down to the smallest detail, while being told, “Don’t touch it.”
That’s not a guardrail, it’s a contradiction.
The Prop Problem
These contradictions create pressure. For the star quarterback, the risk isn’t worth it. For the backup, the role player, or the athlete without a financial cushion, the equation looks different. The system itself has made it clear how valuable even the smallest piece of performance can be.
That’s where this becomes dangerous. Not just for individuals, but for the integrity of the sport.
The nightmare scenario isn’t players placing bets. It’s players changing outcomes on a micro level. Not throwing a game in the obvious sense, but nudging moments. Influencing props. Affecting the margins that now matter just as much as the final score.
Once that possibility becomes credible—not proven in every case, just believable—the damage is done. Fans don’t need proof. They need doubt, and doubt spreads faster than any scandal.
So where do networks fit in? Right in the middle.
Network Responsibility
They’re not just covering games anymore; they’re contextualizing them through a gambling lens. Every mention of a prop, sponsored segment breaking down “value plays,” and every integration of prediction-style markets reinforces the idea that every element of performance has a price attached.
That’s a powerful message, and it comes with responsibility.
Right now, that responsibility is handled like a legal disclaimer. The quick “If you have a gambling problem, call 1-800…” graphic. The checkbox. It exists, but it carries little weight compared to the hours of programming that normalize—and now glamorize—gambling as part of the experience.
That imbalance matters. You can’t spend three hours making something look fun, accessible, and essential, then spend three seconds warning about the downside and call it responsible. That’s not education, it’s cover.
Hence, that’s why the cigarette comparison isn’t over the top; it’s instructive. There was a time when smoking wasn’t just accepted—it was embedded in culture. Athletes endorsed it. Ads glamorized it. The warnings existed, technically, but messaging drowned them out.
It took years, and real damage, before the system recalibrated. Gambling is following a similar path. Only faster, and with more direct ties to the product itself.
Which brings us back to the central question. Do networks run risks by diving this deep into sportsbook advertising and gambling-driven content? Of course they do, and those risks are growing.
Every added layer—props, micro-markets, prediction-style betting—tightens the connection between performance and money. The tighter that connection becomes, the more fragile the perception of legitimacy becomes.
Leagues have accepted the revenue. Networks have built it into broadcasts and are being paid a premium for it. Sportsbooks have expanded the menu. Everyone has a stake. That also means everyone shares responsibility.
A Shared Responsibility
Leagues need stronger guardrails, especially at the college level. Not just enforcement, but real education on how these markets work and how easily they can pull players into compromised situations.
Networks need to recalibrate the balance. Gambling can be part of the conversation, but it doesn’t need to dominate it. Not every pregame show needs to open with lines, and multiple odds updates. Not every postgame show needs to frame the night through betting outcomes.
The game itself must remain the centerpiece.
The messaging—the responsibility side—must be more than an afterthought. It needs to be more visible, more consistent, and more real. Right now, the industry is trying to have it both ways: profit from gambling while minimizing its impact.
Promote it relentlessly while warning about it briefly. That works, until it doesn’t.
Sorsby is a warning. Not the worst-case scenario—not even close. The worst-case scenario is the moment fans stop debating outcomes and start questioning them. Not just who won, but what was influenced along the way. The moment a missed free throw isn’t just a miss, but a question. The moment a quiet fourth quarter becomes something more than strategy.
That’s when the fabric starts to tear, and we may already be there.
No amount of ad revenue, partnership, or innovation in betting markets will matter. Sports don’t survive on wagers. They survive on belief. Right now, that belief is starting to feel like the riskiest bet of all.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
What would you rather have in your favor, perception or facts? Rockternative and radio always chooses facts, the audience doesn’t. And the fact is: perception can beat fact every time.
A lot of RockTernative stations conduct research. Perceptual, music, focus groups, online surveys. Asking the audience what they’re thinking is essential for any type of business. But that’s also when things can go sideways.
Research is only as good as its interpretation. Data isn’t the problem, it’s how it’s viewed. Two headlines can reveal the same result but lead to different actions.
Nearly half (49%) say Rock 99 is too repetitive.
The majority (51%) say Rock 99 is not too repetitive.
1 in 5 hates the morning show.
8 of 10 don’t hate the morning show.
One out of three RockTernative fans dislike Artist X.
Two out of three RockTernative fans like Artist X.
Same numbers. Same data. Different headlines. Possibly different actions. If this were a court setting, you might hear, “Leading the witness!” Science experts look at the same data and end up throwing punches over global warming. It should then be no surprise the audience can come to some wild perceptions about their local RockTernative station.
Opinions can be rooted with some fact, but they aren’t always fact. A programmer can think a song is bad, but it can still be a hit. A label can claim they have a smash on their hands, but the audience may say otherwise.
The lens we look through matters.
And in radio, the lens can get warped by personal tastes, wishful thinking, or inexperience. I’ve seen an entire room agree on data, then someone new comes in and sees something different — something they’d like to believe.
Three cautionary tales worth carrying around, all real from the rock-o-sphere.
A station just days away from a format flip was saved by their new PD who actually understood the research. Executives wanted the flip, the data wasn’t so sure. The PD won the argument and that station is flourishing today.
A major market format tweak and brand name change backfired because ownership ignored two critical steps from the research plan. They cut corners. Eighteen months later, they had to flip to something entirely different.
Music tests can get derailed when personal tastes overrun strategic thinking. Put Metallica in a Hot AC test or give Eurythmics a few slots on a Rock list and their big hits may actually look good. Garbage in, garbage out.
The takeaway here is research doesn’t always make the end decisions, interpretation does. And interpretation is a learned skill that requires real education or experience.
But what we often get is the “I know better” approach:
“I know the study says to follow Steps A and B, but we can skip those.”
“Yes, the research says that, but I think it really means this.”
This is how brands talk themselves into trouble. Ignoring or misreading is easy to do, so be sure to have an expert in the room — because it all eventually leads to action, which leads to audience usage, which leads to perceptions.
And while perceptions may be slow to form, once they do, they’re like cement. We see it in other areas: a common TV sports and news model is two “experts” arguing over differing opinions and perceptions about the exact same player or news story.
And bad perceptions can plague a brand — or even an industry — for years. Here are some historical perceptual realities still facing RockTernative.
Too repetitive, predictable
Too many commercials
No control for listeners
Too many bribes
Positioning that doesn’t match the playlist
These aren’t attacks by me. I’m on radio’s side. Those come from the audience. Every station you’ve ever worked at has heard them. And they’re largely ignored — not much has been done to combat them, other than smoke and mirrors, which don’t work anymore.
The no-repeat workday
45 minutes non-stop
The only home for Real Rock
#1 for New Rock
On-demand lunches that aren’t really on-demand
The listeners see through it.
Radio also knows some key facts it’s not given credit for.
The repetition problem is caused by other issues, occasions, and TSL
There’s no choice but to run this many commercials
If music control is given up, it’ll be the all-stiffs lunch hour
And the biggest truth — just look at the industry’s reach
True. True. And twice more.
But facts don’t always win wars or change perceptions. And as any good street corner therapist would say, “You must understand why you’re here before you can move forward.”
I am very bullish on radio’s future — the industry has everything it needs. And while the fight to be more digital and mobile is necessary, the battle to overcome some negative perceptions is just as important.
It’s absolutely doable.
But it won’t be done by positioning slogans, gimmicks, or tricks. It won’t be won by playing Power Golds one or two more times per day, or by giving away free tanks of gas (although keep doing that). And it won’t be won by screaming facts like reach that may stack on paper, but are blah, blah, blah for outsiders.
Overcoming perceptions requires real actions — doing things differently. Maybe not 24/7, but in noticeable bursts. Because perception beats facts every day of the week.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
The 2026 Midterms are coming, the 2026 Midterms are coming! We’ve flipped the calendar to May, and we are weeks away from states across the country holding primaries before the general election in November.
It will be a time for candidates to make their pitches to your audience, for you to analyze the local races as they ebb and flow through the primary and general elections, and for you to find out who the rising stars are in your backyard.
As we get set for this silly, but oftentimes entertaining season, there are a few things to keep in mind.
Why Endorse in a Primary?
I see news/talk hosts occasionally dip their toes into the water of endorsements, most notably in primaries, and I always wonder, “Why?”
What are you getting out of this? What’s the value in you potentially alienating a portion of the audience so you can act like you’re backing a “winner”? And do you lose out on interviewing other candidates who don’t want to come on your show because you’ve already picked a horse in the race?
Also, if that person doesn’t win, and then the opponent goes on to win a general election, they’ll never forget the fact that you endorsed in a primary in favor of one of their opponents.
It’s a classic example of your downside far outweighing your upside. Your endorsement doesn’t carry as much weight as you think, and you risk potentially damaging a key relationship and connection with your audience.
And considering your job is ultimately to put on the most entertaining and informative show possible, potentially losing that ability to book a key guest in a big, local political position is a loss for your audience.
Don’t Overdo Candidate Interviews
This may seem counterintuitive to my last point, but it’s not intended to be that way. Having the candidates is far less valuable than having access to the eventual winner of the election. Once they’re in office, that relationship is gold.
But as a candidate, it’s very rare you’re going to get a ton of great insight, or that “can’t-miss” sound byte. These candidates are so over-protected by the political consulting class that they are playing it safer than ever before. Plus, most regular listeners are just mildly engaged or focused on a primary until we get down to crunch time in the last couple of weeks.
Then, it’s like college, where everyone is cramming for their final exam. But months or weeks out, the occasional interview — if any at all — will do just fine. Don’t overdo it with the usual cliché answers that mean nothing, especially when most of the audience isn’t focused on the race yet anyway. And think about how much money that airtime would be worth had they paid for it. It’s likely thousands of dollars. So make them earn it.
I know for some hosts, booking the guest is important, but it has to be the right guest on the right day that moves the needle for the right reasons. Guests and candidates, for the sake of it, are not going to achieve that goal.
Not All Races Are Created Equally
Depending on your market, you may have multiple states with multiple races in each one. State-wide campaigns, congressional races, local county races, or municipal elections — they all matter in their own way, but pick and choose your times to talk about them. When there is something controversial in a race, jump on that one, even if it’s not the “biggest” of the bunch. It’s a good excuse to show your local chops and talk about anything controversial that may be happening in that race.
Think about races that are key for your hot zips, or races that impact hot zips that you want to have more of a presence in. The point is to be strategic. Don’t just talk about a race because, well, you think you should.
It’s OK to go days without talking about any local race if it’s weeks away and there’s nothing new to report. Don’t force it.
As you gear up for your local races, protect your station and show with a smart, creative strategy that keeps the election in the news cycle without letting it own everything you do on the air.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
MS NOW knows its future isn’t being built on cable. And to its credit, it’s not pretending otherwise.
That’s the clearest takeaway from remarks made by MS NOW President Rebecca Kutler about the network’s evolving digital strategy.
She laid it out plainly, identifying two distinct audiences — what she calls “super fans” engaging with linear content upward of nine hours a week, and a larger pool of “future fans” who are already consuming MS NOW content outside of traditional television. The goal, she said, is to build something in the digital space that brings those future fans into the community.
It’s an honest assessment. More importantly, it’s the right one.
Too often, legacy media organizations talk about digital transformation without actually committing resources to it. MS NOW isn’t making that mistake. The evidence is in the numbers, and the numbers are hard to argue with.
The Proof is in the Pudding
In April alone, MS NOW came just shy of 10 million podcast downloads — a 34% increase compared to April 2025. That’s not incremental growth. That’s a meaningful surge, and it reflects a deliberate investment in the podcast space. Hosts like Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Symone Sanders Townsend, and Eugene Daniels have all been given new platforms to extend their reach beyond cable. When talent of that caliber gets room to grow, audiences follow.
Then there’s YouTube. Through the first four months of 2026, MS NOW has accumulated more than a billion views on the platform. Let that number breathe for a second — a billion views. Kutler noted that NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News combined haven’t matched what MS NOW has built on YouTube. That’s a remarkable data point, and it doesn’t happen by accident. It takes investment, consistency, and a clear strategic vision for what digital engagement is supposed to accomplish.
Why does this matter so urgently for MS NOW specifically? Because the network carries the oldest average audience in cable news. That’s not an insult — it’s a demographic reality that demands a response. If the network doesn’t find ways to cultivate younger viewers now, the audience gap only widens. Digital platforms like YouTube and TikTok aren’t just bonus distribution channels. For MS NOW, they’re lifelines to the next generation of news consumers.
Kutler and her team understand that. The strategy she’s outlined isn’t vague or aspirational — it’s grounded in actual platform behavior and honest about where linear television’s limits are. She’s not overselling cable’s future. She’s building around it.
The Future
Give Rebecca Kutler and the MS NOW executive team their due. In a media landscape where plenty of organizations are still catching up to digital realities they’ve been warned about for a decade, MS NOW is making smart moves. The podcast growth is real. The YouTube dominance is real. The commitment to talent-driven digital expansion is real.
None of that guarantees long-term success. Digital platforms shift, algorithms change, and audience behavior is never fully predictable. But the foundation MS NOW is building — rooted in data, driven by talent, and honest about where its future audience actually lives — gives it a legitimate shot at remaining relevant well beyond the cable era.
That’s worth acknowledging. And in this industry, it’s worth studying.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
I roll my eyes whenever I receive an annoying email or text that says, “You have not changed your password in a while. Would you like to change it now?” It seems like I get one at least every other week. Sometimes they’re fake, so I have to double-check the source.
In truth, password reminders do need to be taken seriously. Sadly, I’m probably as guilty as anyone and don’t stick to security rules well enough.
Cybersecurity has become far more than just an IT issue. I’m reminded what Sonny Corleone said in The Godfather. “Tom, this is business. This man is taking it very, very personal.” Business and personal worlds have collided in today’s hyper-connected environment. Every email account, banking app, customer database, and cloud platform represents a potential entry point for hackers.
Companies are investing more than ever in firewalls and advanced threat detection. However, one of the most critical vulnerabilities remains ridiculously simple. Weak or outdated passwords.
Tech expert and founder/former CEO of LockerGnome, Chris Pirillo famously said, “Passwords are like underwear. Don’t let people see them. Change them very often, and you shouldn’t share them with strangers.”
While humorous, the message underscores a serious reality. Password maintenance is foundational to your digital security.
Passwords are the literal front door. Whether you’re protecting personal financial information or sensitive business data, compromised passwords have damaging consequences. Identity theft, financial loss, and reputational or operational disruption are just a few of the risks.
Avoid These Habits
One of the most common mistakes people make is using overly simple, easy-to-remember passwords.
I’m always surprised that people believe names, birthdays, 123456, or password are reliable security. In reality, they’re the first combinations hackers attempt. I know some who think just changing the ‘a’ to ‘@’ covers them, such as p@ssword. Or that using p@$$word is any better.
Security expert Bruce Schneier notes, “If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you don’t understand the problems and you don’t understand the technology.”
In other words, even the most advanced systems can be compromised by poor password practices.
We also unknowingly give hackers clues through social media. Platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram are proverbial hunting grounds for personal information. Birthdays, pet names, children’s names, favorite sports teams, anniversary dates, and even your high school can be shared or pieced together over time.
These details are exactly what many people use when creating passwords and answering security questions.
Equally problematic is password reuse. Many of us use the same password across multiple accounts. This creates a domino effect. If one account is compromised, others can quickly follow. A single data breach on a less secure website can give attackers access to email, banking, or corporate systems.
Don’t Be Fooled
One thing I implore you is to never put any financial information in an email—even to those you trust.
That means no banking or credit card information. They may not put it to bad use, but hackers certainly will. Emailing routing and account numbers is an invitation for trouble. If you can’t enter that kind of information directly into a trusted, secure payment website, call the vendor rather than emailing it.
Also, do not include your social security number in emails.
Former hacker turned IT consultant Kevin Mitnick was once one of the FBI’s most wanted hackers.
He warned, “Companies spend millions of dollars on firewalls, encryption and secure access devices. It’s money wasted because none of these measures address the weakest link in the security chain.”
That weakest link is most often human behavior. It’s all about what we share, reuse, and overlook.
Hackers don’t just check out online profiles—they study them. These insidious actors comb through your posts, photos, comments. Even old, outdated content can build a profile of who you are. Think about this. A simple birthday post can reveal a name and an age. That photo of your dog with its name in the caption becomes another common password clue.
A post as innocuous as referencing your first car or as benign as your favorite vacation spot can provide answers to common security questions.
So, never use anything you have posted on social media as even a portion of your passwords.
All of this is why strong password practices are essential.
Be Vigilant
Strong passwords are typically 12 to 16 characters and include uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers, and special characters. Most importantly, they should be unrelated to any personal information and unique for every account. Password managers can securely store and generate complex passwords. They also remove the burden of memorization.
I also use a password app that stores my passwords. It is extremely secure with its own complex password. In addition, I use multi-factor authentication (MFA), which enhances password security by requiring at least two verification methods, That could be a password and a mobile code, making unauthorized access much harder. I also like using face or fingerprint verification.
However, creating strong passwords is only part of the equation. Changing your passwords on a regular basis adds another layer of protection.
Even the most secure password can become vulnerable over time, especially if it has been unknowingly exposed in a data breach. Try to keep track of all accounts for any app you have created over the years. I personally discovered several accounts I don’t even remember creating for apps that I haven’t used in years.
You should delete those accounts before you delete the apps.
Business Approach
For businesses, the risk is even greater and the stakes are higher. A single employee login can provide access to entire networks, sensitive client data, and proprietary information. We’ve all seen what has happened to broadcast and related service companies. When their systems were compromised, it leads to costly downtime, legal liability, and a loss of customer trust that can take years—and significant expense—to rebuild.
In the end, cybersecurity doesn’t always require complex solutions.
As Kevin Mitnick also put it, “The human factor is truly security’s weakest link.” Strengthening that link through smarter password habits, increased awareness, and more cautious social media use are among the most effective ways to protect both you and your data.
You may not think about it often, but hackers spend all day doing little else.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
CBS News’ Face the Nation snapped a 12-week losing streak on April 26th, topping ABC News’ This Week with George Stephanopoulos in total viewers for the first time since January.
Averaging the two Face the Nation airings (the half-hour and full-hour editions), CBS drew approximately 2.9 million total viewers on April 26th. That edged out This Week, which pulled 2.8 million viewers on the day. The gap was slim, but the result still marked a meaningful reversal after more than two months of This Week holding the top spot.
NBC’s Meet the Press came in third in total viewers with 2.5 million, while Fox News Sunday trailed the field at 1.1 million.
The turnaround is especially striking given where things stood just a week earlier. On April 19th, This Week averaged 2.7 million total viewers — its 12th consecutive week at the top of the Sunday show rankings. Face the Nation had drawn 2.5 million that day, with Meet the Press at 2.3 million and Fox News Sunday pulling in 944,000.
In other words, all four programs saw week-over-week growth by April 26th. Face the Nation‘s combined average jumped roughly 376,000 viewers from the prior week. This Week added about 100,000. Meet the Press gained more than 200,000. Fox News Sunday saw a sizable bump, climbing from 944,000 to 1,126,000 — an increase of nearly 200,000 viewers.
The Adults 25-54 demographic told a different story. Meet the Press, anchored by Kristen Welker, led that category on April 26th with 484,000 viewers — a strong result that reinforced NBC’s consistent strength with the younger news audience. This Week followed with 419,000 in the demo, edging out Face the Nation‘s combined average of approximately 364,000. Fox News Sunday drew 208,000 in the category.
For context, Meet the Press had also topped the demo the week prior with 434,000 viewers. This Week drew 349,000 that day, while Face the Nation came in at 329,000 and Fox News Sunday at 152,000.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
