Gossip about Gayle King's future at CBS Mornings reaches fever pitch as 'replacement' emerges
'Gayle King's career is over,' Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Monday that reposted a New York Post article quoting a source who claimed King was in danger of losing her job. 'No talent, no ratings, no strength!!!' the president added.
Well-connected sources with knowledge of the situation indicated the same thing to Daily Mail and highlighted that 70 year-old King's contract is up in May.
It will 'most likely' not be renewed by CBS News' new owners at that point, one said amid an impending deal that will see parent company Paramount bought by a corporation called Skydance.
Another conceded King's departure was indeed likely, but that conversations were still occurring.
Staffers at the Tiffany Network spoke with Fox News on the matter as well.
One addressed swirling internal talk about Skydance CEO David Ellison - the son of MAGA billionaire Larry Ellison - pulling the plug on King as co-host.
The staffer said current network leadership has 'started to groom' Adrianna Diaz as a sort of 'heir' to King in case her contract is not renewed.
'Gayle King's career is over,' Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Monday that reposted an article quoting a source who claimed King was in danger of losing her job. 'No talent, no ratings, no strength!!!' the president added.
Another said King is 'generally liked' within the network and 'still has a lot of power in the morning when it comes to things she wants.'
The employee added how King is also 'insulated by her team' and CBS Mornings Executive Producer Shawna Thomas.
'But so are [co-hosts Nate Burleson and Tony Dokoupil] to an extent.'
Asked about the office gossip - which both of Daily Mail's sources confirmed - the other staffer said 'People are talking about it because Gayle is our biggest star, but also I don't think anyone cares that much.
'I think everyone just wants stability, so from that standpoint, people want her to stay,' they added.
A third employee said King's colleagues are somewhat divided when it comes how they feel about her personally.
The Post report Monday claimed the anchor who helped launch CBS Mornings in 2012 has pushed progressive issues onscreen that neither viewers nor senior bosses like.
The staffer told Fox News: 'A lot of people like how she says off-the-wall things. But also there's people that don't like it.
'Anytime you have a big name, they are going to be a target.'
King was also condemned for accepting a free ride to space on Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin rocket, with CBS News accused of effectively giving the space exploration company vast swathes of free advertising in return.
King inked a deal in early 2024 for two years but has seen her show fall to below 2 million total viewers.
CBS is also set to expand CBS Mornings with a third hour, despite it being in last-place.
The network recently made the decision to cancel the show of one of Trump's most outspoken critics in Stephen Colbert, saying the move was financially driven.
Others have claimed otherwise, pointing to its proximity to Paramount's $8billion merger with Skydance, which was approved days after the decision last month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Experts sound off after Trump and NASA fast-track a nuclear reactor on the moon: ‘The whole proposal is cock-eyed'
Fast-tracking a NASA plan to build a nuclear reactor on the moon may sound dubious. Experts say that's because it is. 'The whole proposal is cock-eyed and runs against the sound management of a space program that is now being starved of money,' national security analyst, nuclear expert and author Joseph Cirincione told The Independent. Nuclear has been used in space since the 1960s. That's nothing new. The U.S. launched its first test reactor into orbit in 1965, and the former Soviet Union has sent up dozens more. NASA says that a new 100-kilowatt reactor could be used to power a future base at the lunar South Pole, and fuel prospective missions to Mars and beyond. Nuclear would help to fill gaps in solar energy that occur when that side of the moon is in darkness for two weeks. The majority of space experts have said that placing a reactor on the moon is possible, so, why is NASA's current plan 'cock-eyed?' The problem is the proposed timeline. Interim NASA Administrator Sean Duffy, who also serves as President Donald Trump's Secretary of Transportation, pushed to expedite the project, detailed in a memo this week. Duffy said the administration wanted to have a nuclear reactor ready to launch by 2030. Earlier this year, China and Russia announced a plan to build a nuclear reactor for a lunar base by 2035. 'The first country to do so could potentially declare a 'keep-out' zone which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first,' Duffy said. NASA first announced in 2021 that it would put a reactor on the moon 'within a decade.' In 2024, NASA then said that their target date for delivery a reactor to the Earth-based launchpad was the early 2030s. But, Cirincione says essentially no progress has been made. 'It was in the last Trump administration that NASA had put out a press release, they had a YouTube video, they had these announcements about how they're going to develop these small, modular nuclear reactors for use on the moon, and it was going to be ready by 2026,' said Cirincione, who is vice-chair of the Center for International Policy, a non-profit that advocates for a peaceful approach to foreign policy. 'Oh, really? So, where is it?' Ultimately, the expert believes a nuclear reactor on the moon could take up to 20 years to become a reality. NASA would need a working launch vehicle, a small and adaptable reactor, and the ability to land on the moon. Right now, the SpaceX Starship is the only vehicle option – but it has exploded during several of its test flights. NASA has been working with Boeing on a Space Launch System - the main competitor to Space X's Starship - but that program would be canceled under the Trump administration's proposed cuts which slash 24 percent from NASA's overall budget. Landing on the moon is no picnic, and attempts by Japanese space companies in 2023 and 2025 ended in crashes. There are also the scientific and technological advances needed for the nuclear reactors. The reactors must be able to withstand harsh conditions on the moon, including temperatures swings from 250 degrees Fahrenheit during the day to minus 400 degrees at night. 'Small modular nuclear reactors, it turns out, are always just around the corner – a corner you never get to turn,' Cirincione said. Many scientists and nuclear energy experts have shared in Cirincione's skepticism. Dr. Kathryn Huff, a former nuclear energy official at the U.S. Department of Energy, and professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, wrote in a Bluesky social media post that she's not 'bullish' on 'unrealistic timelines.' 'The 2030 target does not align well with recent budgetary trends…' she explained in a statement, shared by the university. 'Accelerating the FSP program could come at the expense of other critical priorities, including earth science, climate observation and space-based weather forecasting – all core elements of NASA's public-serving mission.' Dr. Alfredo Carpineti, an Italian astrophysicist, wrote in IFLScience this week that the proposal is 'unfeasible.' 'Even if we allow landing the nuclear reactor on December 31, 2030, the timing is really too short for something that must not have any faults if you want to operate it safely,' Carpineti wrote. Others were more optimistic about NASA's accelerated timeline. Sebastian Corbisiero, a senior program manager at Idaho National Laboratory who leads the Energy Department's space reactor program, told The Independent that a nuclear reactor on the moon is 'doable' by 2030. 'Nuclear reactor technology has been around for decades, so its well known,' he said. 'Some key differences with a space reactor is that it needs to fit on a rocket, so there are mass and volume requirements; and that the system needs to operate in vacuum – so components will need to be built to survive that environment.' Dr. Bhavya Lal, a former associate administrator for technology, policy, and strategy at NASA, and former aerospace executive Roger Myers, recently argued that it would be possible to have nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030, and it would take $3 billion to do so. 'It's possible, but it will require serious commitment,' Lal told The Independent. But even if plans are speeded up, Lal says there's no need to worry about the prospect of the moon blowing up. It's 'simply not grounded in science,' she said.
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why gold is shining on the markets as Trump slaps Switzerland with unexpected tariffs
Donald Trump – yes him again – has sparked a surge in gold prices with the commodity hitting record highs after the White House unexpectedly announced new tariffs on 100-kilo and 100-ounce bars this week. The precious metal – a traditional safe haven during troubled times – is trading for north of $3,500 an ounce. How long before it breaches the $4,000 barrier? Those intending to buy jewellery, take note. America's decision to hit imports of gold bars from Switzerland, a major refining centre, with tariffs, was not what the industry expected and has poured rocket fuel onto an already frothy price. The FT reports that Switzerland sent $61.5bn (£45.8bn) of gold to the US over the 12 months ending in June. That would be subject to a $24bn charge under the new 39 per cent tariff applying to imports from the country. The gold price was already running hot. It is a traditional port in a storm during periods of economic and political turmoil, both on the markets and across the world as a whole. Globally the stakes are high, with geopolitical brush fires smouldering dangerously close to full-blown crises. It is also used as a hedge against inflation. With a limited supply, the price should rise if inflation starts to eat into the value of the currencies in which it is priced, especially the dollar. With US tariffs now at their highest level since the great depression, inflation is about to dig its fangs into the US economy and feast on the living standards of the US consumer. As well as imposing tariffs, Trump has been pressing the US Federal Reserve to reduce the interest rates that control inflation. While its embattled chair Jerome Powell has (so far) refused to budge, saying he needs time to evaluate the impact of the tariffs, the early departure of Adriana Kuglar from its board of governors has given the President an opening. Trump has announced that he will appoint Stephen Miran to temporarily fill the vacant seat, seen by some as a candidate for Powell's position when his term ends next year. Miran, a Harvard economist and advisor to the US Treasury, is one of the architects of its tariff policy and has pooh-poohed critics like me who have warned that the levies will inevitably stoke inflation. The appointment will give him a vote on the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) where he is widely expected to toe the Trump line. If this leads to lower US rates, and even higher inflation, it will make gold even more attractive. The tariff on Switzerland's gold bars has injected an extra cost into the market because Switzerland is part of a three pronged golden triangle, the others being New York and London, where the metal is traded. Its role is to recast the bars, from the brick-side 400 troy ounce bar favoured in London to the smaller, smartphone sized kilo size favoured in New York. Yes, I know. The UK is part-metric, whereas the US is all imperial in terms of measurements. But whoever said any of this was supposed to make sense? As recently as 2004, with the rest of the City using screens, the gold price was still being 'fixed' in the offices of NM Rothschild, an old school merchant bank, on St Swithin's Lane, London. As part of the process, each of the market makers involved had a desk with a phone and a miniature union flag. These were raised when they wanted to pause the process to take soundings, and lowered when they were ready to fix. The proceedings were conducted in conditions of high secrecy – no outsider (so far as I know) was ever allowed to watch. However, I was once lucky enough to be allowed a rare visit to the rather underwhelming but still quaint room in which the fix took place. The process was modernised, becoming phone based (in line with other precious metal fixes) when NM Rothschild pulled out. But participants still call 'flag' when they wish to pause. Cute. These days, the London Bullion Market Association prefers to call the fix a 'benchmark', not least because it became clear that the process was being fixed in the negative sense of the word, along with several other of the City's benchmark prices, in the string of scandals that followed the 2008 global financial crisis. Barclays ultimately ended up getting hit with a £26m penalty 'for failing to adequately manage conflicts of interest between itself and its customers as well as systems and controls failings, in relation to the gold fixing'. But the twice-daily event persists because, even though the spot price of gold moves up and down through the day, market participants find it useful. What is Trump's rationale for gold tariffs? The conspiratorial part of me briefly wondered whether this was part of a cunning plan to muck up the international market and push people towards Bitcoin, which the president is a notable enthusiast for. Bitcoin can play a similar role to gold in hedging against inflation because there is also a limited supply and it is priced in dollars. But no, it really isn't that deep. For a start, the Bitcoin market scarcely needs any help. The cryptocurrency has more than quadrupled in value over the three years in which gold has almost doubled. Inflation will keep both commodities hot. Just as likely, given the way these tariffs have been concocted, is that someone in the US government choked on some fondue or a piece of gruyère cheese, and acted in a fit of pique. Together, this archaic corner of the City and Trump's capriciousness have served up something bleakly comic, unless that is, you're planning to buy gold jewellery for an engagement or a wedding or perhaps, because you just like wearing it. Then it's not funny at all. Will Trump pay a price at the polls? He seems determined to give his opponents a golden opportunity they really don't deserve.
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Modi vows to deepen India-Russia ties despite Trump tariffs
Narendra Modi has vowed to deepen India's ties with Russia, despite Donald Trump's tariff threats over buying Russian oil. India's prime minister described Vladimir Putin as a friend following a 'good and detailed' phone call that came days after the US president doubled tariffs on Indian goods to 50 per cent because of the Russian oil trade. 'Had a very good and detailed conversation with my friend President Putin. I thanked him for sharing the latest developments on Ukraine,' Modi said in a post on X on Friday. 'We also reviewed the progress in our bilateral agenda, and reaffirmed our commitment to further deepen the India-Russia Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership.' Peace talks in Alaska Referring to India and Russia's annual bilateral summit, he added: 'I look forward to hosting President Putin in India later this year.' In a joint statement issued later, the two leaders reaffirmed the commitment to their countries' partnership. Putin is scheduled to meet Mr Trump in Alaska on August 15 for talks over the war in Ukraine. The tariffs placed on India by the US are aimed at pressuring India over its imports of Russian oil, the money from which is helping Putin fund his war. Bur Mr Modi's comments suggest that despite the pressure from Mr Trump, India has no plans to pull away from Russia. 'The only big power that India is comfortable with is Russia,' Praveen Donthi, a senior analyst for India at International Crisis Group, told The Telegraph. ' Russia has been an all-weather ally of India. It's been a long and reliable friend. It is like a legacy relationship that goes back six decades and India cannot suddenly go out of that and cannot jump into the US and the West bandwagon. 'Trump is using that to put pressure on India by citing India's stance on the Russia -Ukraine war.' Last week, Mr Trump described India and Russia's economies as 'dead', and accused India of not caring about those killed in the conflict in Ukraine. And he has indicated that he may even pause trade talks with India until the oil issue is 'resolved'. Rejecting the idea of speeding up negotiations for a bilateral trade agreement, he said: 'No, not until we get it resolved,' apparently referring to his demand that India cease importing Russian oil until the war in Ukraine is over. Russia has expressed solidarity with India amid pressure from Mr Trump, who has imposed 50 per cent tariffs that are set to come into force on Aug 27. 'Sovereign countries have the right to choose their own trading partners,' Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, said, criticising calls to 'force countries to sever trading relations' with Russia as 'illegitimate'. India has defended its Russian oil purchases, calling it a move necessitated by 'global market conditions'. Rajnath Singh, the Indian defence minister, has deferred an upcoming US visit for several months as the tariff dispute casts a shadow. It was originally scheduled for the last week of August. On July 1, Pete Hegseth , the US Defence Secretary, had a phone call with Mr. Singh – their third this year – during which he invited him to the US for an in-person meeting to advance bilateral defence cooperation.
