Elections

The show, inspired by a 19th-century shipwreck, has had previous runs in Berkeley, Calif., and Washington.“Swept Away,” a new musical featuring songs by the Americana band the Avett Brothers, is planning to open on Broadway this fall, following productions in California and Washington.The musical is inspired by a once-famous shipwreck: In 1884, a British yacht called the Mignonette was wrecked at sea, and the four-man crew’s desperate efforts to survive, which included cannibalism, led to a protracted and influential legal battle. The details of the ordeal have been changed for “Swept Away,” which is set in 1888 on a whaling ship off the coast of New Bedford, Mass.Much of the musical’s score is drawn from “Mignonette,” a 2004 Avett Brothers album inspired by the shipwreck. But the score also includes songs from four other Avett Brothers albums and an original song the band wrote for the stage show.The band announced that the musical would be coming to Broadway during a concert on Friday night at Forest Hills Stadium in Queens. Some of the actors who have performed in previous iterations of the show joined them onstage.The musical features a book by John Logan, who won a Tony Award for writing “Red.” The director is Michael Mayer, who won a Tony for directing “Spring Awakening.”The show has had two previous productions, in 2022 at Berkeley Repertory Theater in California, and last winter at Arena Stage in Washington. Thomas Floyd, a critic for The Washington Post, called it “transfixing” and said “this morality tale launches with toe-tapping propulsion before anchoring for an intimate elegy on grief and guilt.”A spokesman said the musical would open this fall at a Shubert theater, but said the production was not ready to confirm the specific timing or location. The principal actors from the previous productions — John Gallagher Jr., Stark Sands, Adrian Blake Enscoe and Wayne Duvall — joined the Avett Brothers onstage Friday night, and were introduced as “the cast of the soon-to-be-officially Broadway show.”The Broadway run will be produced by Matthew Masten, Sean Hudock, and Madison Wells Live (founded by Gigi Pritzker, a billionaire film producer). More

The union representing academic workers in the University of California system said other campuses might strike, too, if officials failed to address their complaints over the handling of pro-Palestinian protests.Academic workers at the University of California, Santa Cruz, will go on strike starting on Monday to protest the university system’s handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations, the workers’ union announced on Friday.The union, U.A.W. 4811, which is part of the United Auto Workers, represents about 48,000 graduate students and other academic workers at 10 University of California system campuses and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.According to the union, about 2,000 members work at Santa Cruz as teaching assistants, tutors and researchers. The walkout would not last beyond June 30, said Rafael Jaime, the U.A.W. 4811 president. But it could still seriously complicate coursework for the spring quarter, which ends on June 13. Nearly 20,000 students were enrolled at the school as of last fall.“U.A.W. academic workers are standing up to go on strike in response to the university’s crackdown on our fundamental rights to free speech and protest on campus,” Mr. Jaime said on Friday. “The university has committed a number of unfair labor practices against workers in our union.”The announcement comes two days after University of California academic workers overwhelmingly voted to authorize the union to call for a strike. The union said it had called the vote because the university system had unilaterally and unlawfully changed policies regarding free speech, discriminated against pro-Palestinian speech and created an unsafe work environment by allowing attacks on protesters, among other grievances.About two weeks ago, dozens of counterprotesters attacked a pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of California, Los Angeles, for several hours without police intervention. Officers in riot gear tore down the encampment the next day and arrested more than 200 people.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The two companies have expressed interest in acquiring the media conglomerate, but are backing away from their $26 billion all-cash offer.Sony Pictures Entertainment and Apollo Global Management have taken a significant step forward in their effort to court Paramount, three people familiar with the matter said on Friday.The two companies have signed nondisclosure agreements with Paramount, allowing them to look at Paramount’s nonpublic financial information, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss active negotiations. Paramount previously shared materials with another suitor, the Hollywood studio Skydance.Early this month, Sony and Apollo sent Paramount a nonbinding expression of interest in acquiring the company for $26 billion. The two had been seeking to buy Paramount for its studio and then sell off other parts of its empire, which includes CBS, cable channels like MTV and the Paramount Plus streaming service.But Sony’s shareholders have fretted over the possible acquisition, given the potential cost of a bid for Paramount and the headwinds facing the subscription streaming business. Sony and Apollo are now contemplating a variety of approaches to acquire the company’s assets, but are backing away from their plan to make an all-cash, $26 billion offer for Paramount, two of the people said.Sony’s new vision for a deal could alter the dynamics of Paramount’s effort to sell itself or merge with another company. Paramount previously rebuffed Sony’s offer to buy just its studio, and Paramount’s controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, has long sought a deal for the entire company.A person familiar with Ms. Redstone’s thinking has said that a breakup of the company is not a deal breaker, depending on the terms, but that she prefers to keep Paramount intact.Ms. Redstone has blessed a deal to sell her stake in National Amusements, Paramount’s parent company, to Skydance, but Skydance’s bid for the entire company has faced significant pushback from Paramount’s common shareholders.Paramount let an exclusive negotiation window with Skydance lapse in recent weeks, but the two are still talking, and Skydance remains interested in a deal.The deal talks are happening at a tumultuous time for Paramount. The company’s chief executive, Bob Bakish, stepped down last month after more than a quarter-century at the company. He was replaced in the interim by three executives running an “office of the C.E.O.”: George Cheeks, the chief executive of CBS; Chris McCarthy, the chairman of Showtime and MTV Entertainment Studios; and Brian Robbins, the chief executive of Paramount Pictures. More

Good morning, US politics blog readers. The New York Times reported yesterday that a flag used by supporters of Donald Trump’s baseless claim of fraud in his 2020 election loss flew outside Samuel Alito’s house shortly before Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021. The supreme court justice, who said the flag was displayed by his wife amid a dispute with a neighbor, is a conservative stalwart on the court, and authored the decision that two years ago overturned Roe v Wade and allowed states the ban abortion. The reactions to the news have been predictably partisan, with Republican senator Tom Cotton accusing the Times of trying to “incite another mob”, Minnesota’s Democratic governor Tim Walz describing flying the flag as “not normal” and Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal saying the court’s credibility “is plummeting”.The story was the latest in a string of reports that have emerged over the past year and raised questions about the supreme court’s ethics. While these stories have generated plenty of outrage, none of the justices involved have suffered any consequences, and the conservatives remain dominant on the court, with six seats against the liberals’ three. The court is poised to soon rule on whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election – a case that could have a major impact on his rematch with Joe Biden.Here’s what else is going on today:
The House oversight committee late yesterday advanced a resolution to hold attorney general Merrick Garland in contempt for not releasing a recording of Biden’s interview with a special counsel, but only after a shouting match between lawmakers.
Biden, who polls show has lost some of his support with Black voters, will speak at the National Museum of African American History and Culture at 11.45am ET, and then meet with leaders of Black fraternities and sororities together with Kamala Harris at 3.30pm.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre takes reporters’ questions at 1pm.
The Democratic chair of the Senate judiciary committee, Dick Durbin, is calling on Samuel Alito to recuse himself from cases concerning Donald Trump and the 2020 election after the New York Times reported that a flag supporting the ex-president’s false election fraud claims flew outside the supreme court justice’s residence.Here’s what Durbin had to say:
Flying an upside-down American flag – a symbol of the so-called ‘Stop the Steal’ movement – clearly creates the appearance of bias. Justice Alito should recuse himself immediately from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6 insurrection, including the question of the former President’s immunity in US v Donald Trump, which the supreme court is currently considering.
The court is in an ethical crisis of its own making, and Justice Alito and the rest of the court should be doing everything in their power to regain public trust. This latest story is further proof that Congress needs to pass the SCERT Act to create an enforceable code of conduct for the supreme court. Supreme court justices should be held to the highest ethical standards, not the lowest.
The Scert Act would require the supreme court to adopt a code of conduct and create a mechanism to investigate violations. While the court adopted an ethics code last year, it lacks any mechanism for enforcement.Republicans are vehemently against any new regulations on the supreme court, and have the votes to prevent the Scert Act from passing the Senate.In other news, the House oversight committee last night advanced a resolution to hold the attorney general, Merrick Garland, in contempt after he refused to release audio of Joe Biden’s interview with Robert Hur, the special counsel who investigated his possession of classified documents. But the vote only took place after a messy verbal clash between lawmakers at opposite ends of the political spectrum, the Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports:The two most famous sets of initials in US politics clashed in a chaotic House hearing on Thursday, as the progressive star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or AOC, objected fiercely to an attack on another Democrat by the far-right Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, or MTG.The oversight committee hearing concerned Republican attempts to hold the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, in contempt, for refusing to release tapes of interviews between Joe Biden and the special counsel Robert Hur.Things went wrong when MTG made a partisan point, trying to tie Democrats to the judge in Donald Trump’s criminal hush-money case – which, by drawing a number of Republicans to the New York courtroom to support Trump, was responsible for the hearing starting late in the day.In answer to MTG, Jasmine Crockett of Texas said: “Please tell me what that has to do with Merrick Garland … Do you know what we’re here for? You know we’re here about AG Garland?”In response to the New York Times’s reporting, Samuel Alito acknowledged that the flag was raised outside his house, but said it was due to a dispute with a neighbor:
I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to The Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”
The Alitos live in Alexandria, Virginia, a pleasant city across the Potomac river from Washington DC, where some of their neighbors do not like them, the Times reports:
In recent years, the quiet sanctuary of his street, with residents who are Republicans and Democrats, has tensed with conflict, neighbors said. Around the 2020 election, a family on the block displayed an anti-Trump sign with an expletive. It apparently offended Mrs. Alito and led to an escalating clash between her and the family, according to interviews.
Some residents have also bridled at the noise and intrusion brought by protesters, who started showing up outside the Alito residence in 2022 after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion. Other neighbors have joined the demonstrators, whose intent was “to bring the protest to their personal lives because the decisions affect our personal lives,” said Heather-Ann Irons, who came to the street to protest.
The half-dozen neighbors who saw the flag, or knew of it, requested anonymity because they said they did not want to add to the contentiousness on the block and feared reprisal. Last Saturday, May 11, protesters returned to the street, waving flags of their own (“Don’t Tread on My Uterus”) and using a megaphone to broadcast expletives at Justice Alito, who was in Ohio giving a commencement address. Mrs. Alito appeared in a window, complaining to the Supreme Court security detail outside.
As you can see in the below tweet from the New York Times, the flag flown outside the conservative supreme court justice Samuel Alito’s house was simply an upside-down American flag:But as their story notes, flying the flag that way had, by early 2021, become a symbol of support for Donald Trump’s false claims that his loss in the November 2020 election had occurred due to fraud:
Turning the American flag upside down is a symbol of emergency and distress, first used as a military S.O.S., historians said in interviews. In recent decades, it has increasingly been used as a political protest symbol — a controversial one, because the flag code and military tradition require the paramount symbol of the United States to be treated with respect.
Over the years, upside-down flags have been displayed by both the right and the left as an outcry over a range of issues, including the Vietnam War, gun violence, the Supreme Court’s overturning of the constitutional right to abortion and, in particular, election results. In 2012, Tea Party followers inverted flags at their homes to signal disgust at the re-election of President Barack Obama. Four years later, some liberals advised doing the same after Mr. Trump was elected.
During Mr. Trump’s quest to win, and then subvert, the 2020 election, the gesture took off as never before, becoming “really established as a symbol of the ‘Stop the Steal’ campaign,” according to Alex Newhouse, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder.
A flood of social media posts exhorted Trump supporters to flip over their flags or purchase new ones to display upside down.
“If Jan. 6 rolls around and Biden is confirmed by the Electoral College our nation is in distress!!” a poster wrote on Patriots.win, a forum for Trump supporters, garnering over a thousand “up” votes. “If you cannot go to the DC rally then you must do your duty and show your support for our president by flying the flag upside down!!!!”
In an appearance on MSNBC this morning, Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic senator who serves on the judiciary committee, said the revelation that a pro-Trump flag flew outside Samuel Alito’s house further undermines the supreme court’s credibility.Polls indicate public approval of the supreme court has declined over the past two decades, which Blumenthal blames on the conflicts of interest that have developed among its conservative justices. He called on Chief Justice John Roberts to order Alito and Clarence Thomas, a fellow conservative whose wife was involved in efforts to stop Joe Biden from taking office, to recuse themselves:Blumenthal has been among the Democratic lawmakers that have pressured Roberts and the justices to tighten their ethics following reports of their connections with wealthy conservatives:The revelation that a flag used by supporters of Donald Trump’s baseless 2020 election fraud claims flew outside the house of Samuel Alito comes as the court is considering whether to give the ex-president immunity from the federal charges brought against him for his attempt to block Joe Biden from assuming office.In oral arguments in the case last month, the supreme court justice and other conservatives seemed partial to Trump’s claim that he should be immune from at least some of the charges, since they concern his conduct while acting in his official capacity as president. That raises the prospect of a decision that could have the net effect of further delaying his trial, potentially until after his November presidential election rematch against Biden.During the oral arguments, Alito, together with fellow conservative Brett Kavanaugh, seemed worried that future presidents could be affected by a denial of immunity to Trump. Here’s a recap of their viewpoint, from the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell:
Alito and Kavanaugh suggested they were particularly concerned about zealous prosecutors going after former presidents once they left office for “mistakes” if the supreme court decided that presidents had no immunity from criminal prosecution.
“It’s not going to stop, it’s going to cycle back and be used against the current president and the next president and the next president after that,” Kavanaugh said.
The government disputed that prosecutors could wantonly target former presidents, arguing there were checks and balances in the judicial system like the grand jury process.
Alito was dismissive of the grand jury suggestion, bringing up the adage that a grand jury could indict a “ham sandwich”. When Dreeben said prosecutors don’t charge people who don’t deserve it, Alito responded: “Every once in a while there’s an eclipse too.”
For more on the case, and how the supreme court’s decision could affect it, here’s our story from April:Good morning, US politics blog readers. The New York Times reported yesterday that a flag used by supporters of Donald Trump’s baseless claim of fraud in his 2020 election loss flew outside Samuel Alito’s house shortly before Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021. The supreme court justice, who said the flag was displayed by his wife amid a dispute with a neighbor, is a conservative stalwart on the court, and authored the decision that two years ago overturned Roe v Wade and allowed states the ban abortion. The reactions to the news have been predictably partisan, with Republican senator Tom Cotton accusing the Times of trying to “incite another mob”, Minnesota’s Democratic governor Tim Walz describing flying the flag as “not normal” and Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal saying the court’s credibility “is plummeting”.The story was the latest in a string of reports that have emerged over the past year and raised questions about the supreme court’s ethics. While these stories have generated plenty of outrage, none of the justices involved have suffered any consequences, and the conservatives remain dominant on the court, with six seats against the liberals’ three. The court is poised to soon rule on whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election – a case that could have a major impact on his rematch with Joe Biden.Here’s what else is going on today:
The House oversight committee late yesterday advanced a resolution to hold attorney general Merrick Garland in contempt for not releasing a recording of Biden’s interview with a special counsel, but only after a shouting match between lawmakers.
Biden, who polls show has lost some of his support with Black voters, will speak at the National Museum of African American History and Culture at 11.45am ET, and then meet with leaders of Black fraternities and sororities together with Kamala Harris at 3.30pm.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre takes reporters’ questions at 1pm. More

While President Biden tries to assuage voter concerns about his age in a presidential race that includes the two oldest men ever to seek the White House, a couple of miles away in the U.S. Senate, the gerontocracy remains alive and well — and little commented upon.The recent news that two octogenarians — Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont, 82, and Angus King of Maine, 80 — are each running for another six-year term generated little in the way of criticism or worry over age of the kind that Mr. Biden has faced.Their races, which both men are likely to win, are a reminder of how the Senate’s roster is chock-full of lawmakers staying in office at an age when most people are well into retirement. At the start of this Congress last year, the average age of elected officials was 64 in the Senate and 57.9 in the House.“They’re not in short supply around here,” Senator Peter Welch of Vermont, 77, said of octogenarians.Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader who swept aside concerns about his health after experiencing two freezes on camera last year, plans to step down from leadership at the end of this year. But Mr. McConnell, 82, has not committed either way to retiring or running again when his term ends in 2027.President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump are the two oldest men ever to seek the White House.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The company said it will work to remove content about drugs like Ozempic, extended fasting and more from the “For You” feed.Emma Lembke did not know what an algorithm was when she started using social media.The then-12-year-old was thrilled when her parents gave her permission to join Instagram. She quickly followed all kinds of accounts — from Kim Kardashian to Olive Garden, she said — and was soon spending five to six hours a day on the app. Then one day she searched for “ab workouts,” and her feed shifted. She started seeing 200-calorie recipes, pro-anorexia posts and exercise routines that “no 12-year-old should be doing in their bedroom,” she said.Ms. Lembke, now 21, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2023 about how social media led her to disordered eating, and what she and other advocates see as a dire need for stronger regulation to protect social media’s youngest users.Social media platforms have promised to take more action. On Friday, TikTok enacted what some experts called one of the most well-defined policies by a social media company yet on weight and dieting posts. The company’s updated guidelines, which come as TikTok faces a potential ban in the United States, include new guardrails on posts that show “potentially harmful weight management behaviors” and excessive exercise.TikTok said it will work to ensure the “For You” page, which serves as the main content feed on TikTok and is driven by an algorithm that caters to a user’s interests, no longer shows videos that promote “extended intermittent fasting,” exercises designed for “rapid and significant weight loss” or medications or supplements that promote muscle gain. The new regulations also aim to crack down on posts from influencers and other users promoting products used for weight loss or to suppress appetite, such as drugs like Ozempic. They also aim to curb content promoting anabolic steroid use.Under the new policy, machine learning models will attempt to flag and remove content that is considered potentially dangerous; a human moderation team will then review those posts to see if they need to remain off the For You feed, should be removed from age-restricted feeds or should be removed from the platform altogether, said Tara Wadhwa, TikTok’s director of policy in the United States.The elimination of problematic TikToks from the main feed is meant in part to “interrupt repetitive content patterns,” the new guidelines said. Ms. Wadhwa said the company wants to ensure users aren’t exposed to diet and weight loss content “in sequential order, or repeatedly over and over again.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

This month’s picks include crypto terrorism, gaslighting, an undercover mission and more.‘13 Bombs’Stream it on Netflix.The espionage action-thriller “13 Bombs” acutely blends quick back-stabbing with big explosions. In the film, interest rates and economic inequality are running rampant in Jakarta, Indonesia. To even the odds, a Robin Hood-type group, led by a mysterious figure code-named Arok (Rio Dewanto), has planted 13 bombs across the city that will explode if thee group isn’t paid a ransom in crypto cash. As a result, two unwitting crypto traders named Oscar (Chicco Kurniawan) and William (Ardhito Pramono) are picked up by Karin (Putri Ayudya), a steely counterintelligence agent who is worried about a mole in her ranks.The director Angga Dwimas Sasongko loves a good shootout, and this film brims with them. As Karin races through Jakarta, the highlights include a SWAT-led raid on an office building and an all-out assault on Arok’s hide-out. You could probably fill an entire theater with the number of bullets fired just in these two raucous scenes, and probably slice through glass with the film’s sharp and shattering editing.‘The Childe’Rent or buy on most major platforms.Marco (Kang Tae-joo) is a boxer taking dives and using the payoffs to care for his ailing Filipino mother (Caroline Magbojos). His father is a rich Japanese man his mother had an affair with, and Marco is an outcast because of his mixed-ethnic parentage. A possible golden ticket arrives when his father, who he has never met and is now dying, flies him from the Philippines to Japan with promises of finally building a relationship. Instead, Marco is thrust into a power struggle between his wealthy half brother (Kim Kang-woo) and half sister (Jeong Ra-el) for the family business. Even worse, an assassin known as the Nobleman (Kim Seon-ho) has been hired to kill him.While Marco is a sympathetic lead, it’s the zealous Nobleman — who switches from hunting Marco to befriending him — who is the real draw: He is gleefully sadistic, laughing as he savagely kills every goon the half brother sends after Marco. In a film with wonderful verticality — the camera tilts upward for exciting rooftop chases — Kim is extraordinarily athletic. By the final hallway confrontation in the bowels of a luxurious mansion, he is soaked in blood and loving it.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Several universities struck agreements with pro-Palestinian demonstrators to end disruptive encampments on their campuses. But some of those agreements are already under fire.At the University of California, Berkeley, student activists got their president to agree to support a cease-fire in Gaza. At Rutgers University, they won a promise of scholarships for 10 Palestinian students displaced by the war. Brown University pledged that its board of trustees would vote on divesting from Israel.As protests over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza have roiled college campuses across the country, dozens of universities have moved to shut down encampments and arrest demonstrators. But more than a dozen institutions have struck agreements with protesters over the past few weeks that effectively conceded to some of their demands.None of them offer outright pledges to end the billions of dollars that college endowments have invested in companies that are said to support Israel’s occupation, a key demand of most of the protesters; some offer little more than amnesty for students suspended as a result of the protests or vague pledges to widen the curriculum in Palestinian studies.But already, the agreements have come under criticism both from other student activists, who say that not enough concessions were extracted, and from conservatives and Jewish advocacy groups, who complain that they are rewarding students who disrupted campuses and violated university policies.The agreement at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, which included a call for a cease-fire in Gaza and a promise not to punish students involved with the encampment, “sets a dangerous precedent for future incidents on campus,” local Jewish advocacy groups said in a statement.One university president, Mike Lee, of Sonoma State University, even found himself in trouble with his bosses after he promised protesters on Tuesday an academic boycott of Israel, a concession that no other deal included. The next day, Mildred Garcia, the chancellor of the California State University, which Sonoma State is part of, called the agreement “insubordination” and announced that Mr. Lee was on leave. More