logo
Cable News' Major Disruption, Pay and Talent Going Solo: A Candid Chat With Top UTA Agents

Cable News' Major Disruption, Pay and Talent Going Solo: A Candid Chat With Top UTA Agents

Yahoo25-04-2025

As the Washington press corp prepare to gather for this year's White House Correspondents' Dinner, the TV news business appears to be in flux. MSNBC and CNBC are being spun out by Comcast, with new strategies likely to follow; CNN chief Mark Thompson is attempting to build a new digital focus for the original 24/7 cable news channel, and Fox News is leaning into its linear strengths while preparing to launch a streaming offering inside Fox Corp.
At the broadcast networks, NBC News had a changing of the guard at its evening newscast, and CBS News did too, but a possible settlement over a 60 Minutes segment has the news division on edge.
More from The Hollywood Reporter
UTA Hires Hip Hop Agents Zach Iser and Caroline Yim
Coachella Talent Agency Count: CAA Rules in Headliners, Wasserman Leads for Most Acts Booked in 2025
The Pointer Brothers Sign With UTA (Exclusive)
UTA vice chairman Jay Sures is helping his firm's clients, who include the likes of Anderson Cooper, Chuck Todd, Norah O'Donnell, Fareed Zakaria, Jen Psaki, Abby Phillip, Jake Tapper and David Muir (among many others) navigate all of it.
Sures, joined by UTA's co-heads of its news and broadcasting department Ryan Hayden and Marc Paskin, spoke to The Hollywood Reporter for a deep dive on the current state of play.
What are you seeing right now in the media and TV news space? Because it does seem like we're in a really interesting moment where there's a lot of opportunity, but also turbulence in the business model. As agents who are helping your clients navigate this, how are you approaching the current moment?
Jay Sures: We're bullish on the news business. It will transform, it has transformed over a period of time. But given the state of the world, given the state of the global economy, given all of the things that are going on geopolitically, the news is almost more important than ever before. So we're very, very bullish on its future. We think there will be some continual disruption and transformation. But name brand talent, experienced talent who are real journalists, I believe, will be here to stay, and I think they're going to thrive in the future.
Ryan Hayden: If you look at the recent election cycle last year, to the L.A. fires this year, there's still such a need for trusted and great journalists and journalism. If you look at the ratings, that's not lost on anyone. And that's why, to Jay's point, we're very bullish on the business, because in times of need, that's who people turn to.
Marc Paskin: And also to the point that Jay made about the name brand talent, we're also finding that there are really innovative deals that can be made for those types of folks, and audiences are clinging to those trusted voices. And so for us to have a much more dynamic marketplace to play within with our clients is really exciting.
I was going to say, I am noticing with a lot of high profile talent that when they sign new deals, they're adding podcasts, they're adding digital and streaming products. It does seem like the days when you had one job and your job was to anchor for one hour on this day, or whatever it might be — not that those deals don't exist at all anymore — but I'm definitely seeing more star talent doing more things in more places.
Sures: I think the key here is entrepreneurialism. People are constantly trying to look at either a combination of reinvention or getting ahead of the curve, and that could include a podcast, that could include going on Substack, that could involve a newsletter that could involve the creation of intellectual property, meaning that if you have a great podcast that tells an amazing story that creates intellectual property in its own right, it can be repurposed and a TV show can get made out of it. Entrepreneurship is really what we're seeing as kind of the the focus, and I think is the trend of the last 365 days.
You kind of alluded to it, but you are seeing some high profile former television talent that have gone independent to YouTube or launched podcasts, or, in some cases, taking something they had developed at a media company and taking it independent. At the same time, you are also seeing what I would call news or commentary creators really growing an audience on their own.
It seems like there's a convergence happening here where the creator economy of news and opinion and the more traditional, professionalized economy of news and opinion seem to be converging in some way. Are you seeing that too?
Paskin: Absolutely, and we represent some of the foremost names in that space, and are very proud to do so. We represent some YouTubers who reach millions and millions of viewers every single month. It's a massive megaphone and comes with a tremendous responsibility that they take very seriously, because they don't have the standards and practices team of NBC News or CNN helping guide them in the podcasting and audio space. So we are seeing this convergence, and I think what we are hopeful for is that all of this stuff can play together. It doesn't have to be an either/or. It can be a both/and actually. And I think we're in the early stages of seeing that convergence happen. And I think you will see more and more names coming from the digital landscape into the legacy linear space. And I think you're going to see some people in the legacy linear space play in the digitally native space. And that mix of opportunity is really exciting.
People have been talking for years about consolidation, I don't know if that's going to happen right now, given the current administration's seeming antipathy towards many of the media companies that are that are in the space but do you foresee consolidation? And how would you navigate that, given that the pool of opportunities in the traditional space does seem to be dwindling, even as the entrepreneurial opportunities continue to grow.
Sures: I think we're definitely going to have consolidation, that's undeniable. I mean, it's right before our very eyes right now. And when you look at a number of these larger media companies, I think it's safe to say when we look forward in 12 or 24 months, there's going to be some significant consolidation amongst those companies for a whole host of reasons. But when it comes to news, it's not so easy just to consolidate news. There's no world where we're going to wake up and CNN and MSNBC are going to be one company. There's no scenario where we're going to wake up and CBS and ABC News are going to be the same company. So I think there will be consolidation. I'm not so sure that the news space in general, will get quite as consolidated as the general media space.
I mean, there were rumblings that in the event Warner Bros. Discovery does a deal, they might spin off CNN.
Sures: That's something different. Comcast created spinco for MSNBC and CNBC and a number of their other properties. It wouldn't be inconceivable that that Warner Bros. Discovery would create their own version of Spinco with the Turner networks and CNN and all their linear networks. And it wouldn't be inconceivable that Skydance-Paramount did the same thing. That's a possibility. But that's not exactly consolidation. That's taking out legacy assets out of their main companies and creating an additional company that might have a different philosophy. It might be a more of a cashflow business as opposed to a growth business, and those will be decisions that were made by bankers and executives on what's going to be right for stock prices, etc. But I don't think that's necessarily bad for the news business. In fact, if anything, it could potentially give more independence to the news business and give it a little bit more cover in the current political environment.
Freeing news from some of the other sides of the business could be beneficial for news organizations.
Sures: I think that's a possibility. Look, I think news organizations feel under pressure right now, given the political environment, and understandably so. And what I think we all need to do, all of us that are involved in the news business and journalism in general, is to do everything in our power to protect quality journalism. It is a tenet of democracy and a free press is healthy for everybody, and when it's under pressure, those are times where I think we need to be mindful and acknowledge it, and do everything in our power to make sure it remains free and and open.
I think that we are at a moment where the relationship between the government and the press is pretty low. Between the AP pool situation and some of the decisions the White House has made as an agent. How do you who has clients that, you know, that kind of, are kind of in the middle of this, yeah. How do you try to help them or guide them or advise them?
Sures: Same thing every time. Focus on the journalism. Make journalism the central piece of what you're doing. Make sure that you're living up to the highest standards of journalism. And I think if you do that, you'll see the other side of this, but focusing on quality journalism has to be the centerpiece and the mantra, I know I speak on behalf of Ryan and Marc that when we speak to all of our clients, that's the number one piece of advice that we give everybody. Doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on.
I suspect this year's White House Correspondent's Dinner is probably not going to necessarily have the same toner or tenor of the last few years or as it once did in the past. How are you going into this year's event? I know you still have your your party scheduled, that's become a big part of the weekend, but how are you kind of thinking about this year's dinner and the mood in Washington.
Sures: It's the same thesis every year, which is, how do we bring together news, entertainment, media, sports, fashion, all of these areas into one place and create an environment and a party where we can bring everybody together to celebrate journalism. That's the thesis of the party. That thesis is not going to leave us anytime soon. There will be certain people who will come this year that didn't come last year. There will be people that won't come this year. But our thesis of bringing a large swath of people from different walks of life to celebrate journalism. That's the central theme, and that's not going to go away.
When you're advising talent on if they're interested in doing a podcast or a newsletter or something that is perhaps outside of the traditional television realm, how do you figure out with them what the right entrepreneurial opportunities are? You can debate a lot of different things that you can do entrepreneurially, but some things are right for some people not Right for other people.
Hayden: Each talent is different, so there's no cookie cutter response to that. And so it's sitting down with the client and really strategizing to figure out what makes sense for the type of journalism they're doing, and what their personality is, and trying to figure out, are we going to focus on the written word? Are we going to focus on in front of the camera? Is there going to be audio? Is that a combination of audio or visual? And so each client is totally different, but when we sit down, we try to tailor the strategy and the representation to their strengths, and that's what we focus on.
Paskin: The other thing that I think is one of the key differentiators for UTA is our access to data and our capacity to leverage data to help make smart, thoughtful choices on behalf of our clients. It's a cornerstone of how we approach representation across the board, and so we are able to think about somebody's audience in a very specific way and determine if we believe an audience is primed for a specific platform versus another. And that affords us an opportunity to make thoughtful, informed choices and perhaps build an audience in other forms and formats that we think could be material down the road.
I've certainly heard stories about anchors not getting the types of big dollar deals that they did in the past. I've also heard people that are getting raises, partly due to the entrepreneurial nature of doing more things, taking on more roles. What is the current marketplace for star talent? Do you think, has it peaked, or is there still room to grow there?
Sures: I don't know if it's peaked. I mean, stars are stars. Mega stars are always going to get paid in any business, whether it's news, movies, television, music. Mega stars bring something that's unique, and I think they're always going to do well, and they bring something bigger than just ratings to the companies that they work for. Sometimes they're the face of the company, and that's hard to put a value on.
We haven't seen this dramatic downward pressure, where people are getting cuts and some of the stories that have been written about in the news. And that's why I think there's a slight disconnect between how it's being reported in the news and what's really happening in reality, and when you hear us say that we're bullish on the news business, it's because of the trends that we're seeing with our clients.
Clearly, there's a market for news, and the market for news is growing. It's shifting. The platforms that the people are getting their news and opinions from is shifting, but there's no less desire for people to get that information.
Sures: There's cycles in news. Local news will garner steam during certain periods of time depending on what's going on in the local world, the national media could see big bump-ups during election cycles and midterm cycles and depending what's going on. So we're definitely in a very cyclical business. But in the long run, once again, I just think that news is critical to everyday living and everyday life, and as a result, it's going to be around for a long time to come.
When you talk to the executives at these companies, at your CNNs or MSNBCs or Foxes, to what extent are they focused on the changes in consumption and how they can pivot, while they still have the strong linear revenue stream to take advantage of?
Sures: Each company is approaching it differently. Each company has a different strategy. And the broadcast networks are different than the cable companies, and there's a significant differentiation amongst the cable companies, I think they all look at it differently, but the overwhelming theme, which you alluded to in your question, is that linear is declining because of cord cutting, but it will hit a bottom at some point, I think relatively soon, and there is increased consumption on a digital basis, and people are willing to pay for subscription products. So I think what we're seeing is the equilibrium trying to be found on where these sort of factors meet. And I think we're coming to a place where it's becoming more clear where that equilibrium level is going to end up.
Do you think that if there's a star talent, that they can become the focus of a subscription offering within that larger ecosystem?
Hayden: I do 100 percent, and I do think you see people gravitate more towards star talent, sometimes more than they do an overall network. And I think that's where we're positioned very well to take advantage of that.
Best of The Hollywood Reporter
How the Warner Brothers Got Their Film Business Started
Meet the World Builders: Hollywood's Top Physical Production Executives of 2023
Men in Blazers, Hollywood's Favorite Soccer Podcast, Aims for a Global Empire

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Perspective: Surprise! Married parents aren't miserable — they're America's happiest adults
Perspective: Surprise! Married parents aren't miserable — they're America's happiest adults

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Perspective: Surprise! Married parents aren't miserable — they're America's happiest adults

'Steve! (martin) A Documentary in 2 Pieces' covers the eclectic career of one of the world's most successful comedians, Steve Martin. Comedy, acting, playwriting, art collecting, banjo playing — Martin's oeuvre encompassed an impressive array of interests and his friends, which included prominent actors, writers, artists and musicians. But Martin still found happiness elusive even at the heights of fame. Discovering a single empty table at one of his normally sold-out venues provoked enough insecurity to switch from comedy to movies, but the angst and loneliness persisted — until he married at 61 and had a child at 67. 'My whole life is backwards,' Martin observed in 2024. 'How did I go from riddled with anxiety in my 30s, to 75 and really happy? How did this happen?' The happiest group of Americans, according to leading marriage expert and researcher Brad Wilcox of the University of Virginia, are people married with children — pushing back in his data-based book 'Get Married' on stereotypes of childless people as less stressed and more satisfied than parents. Wilcox's academic data challenges a popular narrative that emerged yet again when prominent pop singer Chappell Roan claimed 'all parents are miserable.' 'All of my friends who have kids are in hell,' Roan explained on the 'Call Her Daddy' podcast, setting off an explosion of commentary everywhere, from BuzzFeed to MSNBC to the Irish Independent, with many pushing back, but others agreeing that raising little kids in particular can be extremely difficult. 'Children are often a strain on marriage, and they seem to lead to a dip in marital quality,' Wilcox concedes, but 'the overall picture of marriage and parenthood is rosier than the popular press would suggest.' This familial contentment, however, depends on a selfless mindset, a 'we before me' approach crucial to making marriage meaningful and parenthood deeply fulfilling. 'When people get married, what do they do with their finances?' asked a recent caller to Dave Ramsey's financial advice podcast. She seemed taken aback by Ramsey's response that husbands and wives combine everything, asking, 'What if one person makes more than the other?' 'You're not a partnership, you're a marriage,' Ramsey pushed back. 'My wife doesn't have an income. I do not have an income. WE have an income.' Interestingly, couples with separate financial accounts are 20% more likely to divorce, according to a study conducted by the University of Colorado–Boulder. The same study also found that couples who shared their money were happier in their relationships than those who separated their accounts (including those who had both joint and separate accounts). An Indiana University study that randomly assigned newly married couples to joint accounts, separate accounts or any arrangement of the couple's choice found that, after two years, the joint-account couples 'exhibited significantly greater relationship quality' than the other couples. Wilcox brings up both studies to illustrate the effects a family-first approach has on marriage and family life — implications that are not minor. While marital advice today often emphasizes personal me-time, personal identity forging and the pursuit of personal ambitions, couples who end up sharing more in common are more likely to report happier marriages. And it's not just money. According to a YouGov survey, couples sharing the same last name not only held a stronger sense of family identity, but were more likely to be happily married and less likely to have plans to divorce than those who didn't. Sharing names, turning down job opportunities that detract from marital obligations and making personal sacrifices for each other reflects selfless attitudes that make a big difference in marriage, according to the State of Our Unions Survey of 2022. After controlling for education, income and race, the survey found 'we-before-me' couples much more likely to report being 'very happy' in marriage and also more likely to say divorce is 'not at all likely' in the future than couples with a 'my own needs first' attitude. Marriages in which only one spouse takes on most of the selflessness, however, 'can run aground' according to Wilcox. The sacrifices need to be mutual. Writer Julian Adorney shares that 'my marriage to my wife works because both of us practice a sort of self-emptying love.' He goes on to critique the book,'The Value of Others,' which ultimately views marriage as a dying institution to be replaced by gig-economy relationships lasting not 'till death' but 'until this relationship no longer provides adequate value for us both.' Today, notions of sacrifice and selflessness must not only compete with transactional-economic models, but also with a plethora of demands that make up what Northwestern University Professor Eli Finkel labels today's 'All-or-Nothing Marriage.' Finkel's book by the same name explains that 21st century couples hold high expectations for a partner to 'be all things to them.' Such inflated expectations of personal gratification and self-actualization, Finkel acknowledges, create a fragile basis for lasting unions and could be considered a major force behind family instability rates. Yet the book has some blind spots. 'Something you will not find discussed anywhere in All-or-Nothing Marriage is the importance of sacrifice,' writes marriage and family professor Scott Sibley. Marriage expert Alan Hawkins emphasizes the importance of helping couples understand that there are seasons of life when most couples must live in the valleys, sacrificing some lofty ambitions to manage busy lives with children and work. Rather than working to find their highest fulfillment, he says, couples sometimes just need help to 'keep things good enough to make it through a stressful season of life together.' Demands for transcendence, wholeness, meaning, worth and communion within a single relationship, theorized Sarah K. Balstrup in an insightful study, burdens romantic relationships with a host of needs formerly satisfied through religion. Relationships, she writes, 'have become the primary mythology of the sacred in the collective tongue' of Western culture; however, mere mortals have difficulty providing the needs that religion and God formerly satisfied. Wilcox's 'Get Married' book delves into the ways religious affiliation meets the higher needs of couples while prioritizing values like selflessness, fidelity and the worth of child-raising, according to an impressive array of research and data. To summarize, church attenders are significantly happier in marriages, less likely to divorce and are more satisfied with their lives in general. Moreover, religious couples exhibit greater sexual fidelity and commitment, and higher levels of relationship quality, including greater sexual frequency and satisfaction. Not all religious couples are happy, Wilcox acknowledges, but those who regularly attend church, mosque or synagogue tap into social networks that encourage self-denial and healthy marital interaction while discouraging behaviors that derail relationships. Add to that a meaningful sense of the cosmos and rituals that help couples deal with suffering (shared prayer is a predictor of higher quality marriages), and even a good–enough marriage with family-first priorities may not need to spend 24/7 on self-actualization to reach higher levels of happiness. In the divorce drama 'Kramer vs. Kramer,' the highest-grossing film of 1979, Dustin Hoffman's character Ted, whose wife has left him, gradually trades his workaholism for a deep father-son bond forged through countless meals, chores, conversations, and a harrowing trip to the emergency room. Ted's trajectory also includes a growing selflessness born of sacrificing for another's growth. When Ted faces an uphill battle for child custody, he sits down with a legal pad one night to weigh the pros and cons of keeping Billy. As the con list lengthens with exhausting annoyances, the pro list remains vacant until Ted slips into Billy's room and holds his sleeping child. After that, Ted calls the lawyer and says he's willing to fight for custody. The intangible benefits of having kids are difficult to calculate in the short-term, day-to-day frenzy of meal-making, mess-cleaning, tantrum-throwing and adult-child boomeranging that is child-rearing. Maybe that's why society's advantages vs. disadvantages list of having kids circa 2025 looks similar to Ted's — minus the tender child-hugging that wipes out the cons in the end. Wilcox explains that, amid the divorce surges of the 1970s, fertility levels fell below the replacement rate for the first time in United States history, only to rise to replacement level until around 2009. After that came a decade of ambivalence about child-bearing that saw cultural forces of individualism, hedonism and workism take precedence over kids, who limit, says Wilcox, 'options, choices, and freedom — and force us to grow up.' The 'Childfree Life' depicted in the iconic 2013 Time cover story replete with a vacationing couple on the beach became more appealing, as did more time spent at the office building careers. Currently, childlessness has now risen to the point that 1 in 4 young women today will have no posterity. Contributing to the perception that children aren't worth it may have been a 2016 study reporting that parents are 13% less happy than their childless peers. However, 'there is only one problem with this handwringing about parenthood,' Wilcox points out. 'It no longer fits the data ... today, that is most definitely not true.' Current research backs up this reversal. Parents, especially married parents, are more likely to report their lives are more meaningful and happier than nonparents while childless Americans are more likely to report their lives are lonely and less meaningful and happy. Indeed, 'today's men and women (ages 18 to 55) in their prime who have children report the greatest happiness and the most meaning in their lives,' writes Wilcox, 'even after controlling for factors like education, race, and ages.' Wilcox refers to psychologist Paul Bloom's insightful book 'The Sweet Spot: The Pleasures of Suffering and the Search for Meaning' to explain the paradox of children bringing both distress and happiness into parents' lives. While too much suffering can be debilitating, too little struggle in a life of pleasure and pursuits of the self leads to meaningless and unhappiness. The ups and downs of parenthood provide opportunities for adversity and stress — along with generous doses of meaning, compassion and greater selflessness that even medical studies correlate with 'authentic-durable happiness.' While marriages tend to see a dip in happiness as they transition into parenthood and the relationship becomes more strained, a review of literature on parenting finds that 'many initial challenges encountered at the time of new parenthood are transient in nature.' Marriages that were solid before the baby inserted itself into daily life usually remain solid, even with all the new stresses and sleepless nights. (It's marriages that were struggling before the transition to parenthood that are the ones most likely to see a significant dip.) 'The fact that more than three-fourths of adults already have or want to have children should itself be evidence that something very fundamental is at work,' writes James L. McQuivey, whose review of the research finds that more than a third of Americans wish they had more children than they currently have, and that 'an astonishing 88% agree that 'having children is one of the most important things I have done.'' Clearly, not everyone wants to or can become a parent. Reasons for not having kids are deeply personal and vary widely. While some may indeed want to sit leisurely on a beach, others, like Mother Teresa, prove that parents don't corner the market on selflessness. Many young adults feel ambivalent because their financial situations are too tenuous to buy a home or support a family, and still others wanted to parent, but infertility or life circumstances interfered. Catherine Rossi's poignant essay 'Not in the (Motherhood) Club,' describes her 20s full of work, a boyfriend and energy that somehow shifted in her 30s. 'With the seven-year guy long gone, I struggled to find another,' she writes, and then 'was hit full force in the face,' as her 30s became 40s, that 'there was a club.' Motherhood. And she would never be in it, feeling ostracized as everyone's lives began and continued to revolve around their children. No one should be stereotyped as selfish or feel ostracized for not having children, but a societal narrative that 'all parents are miserable' is not only untrue, but dissuades young adults from participating in what many find the most rewarding part of life. George Bailey. What a life. First the longed for dream of travel and Europe postponed, actually demolished, to salvage the family business and keep Bedford Falls from falling prey to Mr. Potter's evil machinations. Then marriage to Mary followed by multiple children — further imploding dreams of architecture, explorations and making it big. No wonder George questions, at a desperate juncture, whether his life is worth anything in Frank Capra's film classic 'It's a Wonderful Life,' as all his selflessness seems for naught. One of today's influencers might call George miserable, living in hell. It takes a hapless angel named Clarence to give George a vision of what his family and friends' lives would be like without his altruism (spoiler alert: pretty terrible). The movie ends with George surrounded by a grateful wife and thankful kids, relatives and a household full of friends. Mr. Potter, with money and power to make every wish come true, comes off as the truly miserable one compared to George's wonderful life. Maybe family-first, we-before-me selflessness offers its own angelic perspective during the desperate junctures of marriage and child-rearing, removing us from near-sighted annoyances and heartaches to give us the long view that sacrifices are worth it, and that hard times can bring out the best in us. Writer-surgeon Richard Selzer (1928-2016) was particularly adept at taking miserable medical situations and reframing them through the ennobling actions of a selfless spouse. In Selzer's essay 'Tube Feeding,' a husband tenderly ministers to a wife with an inoperable brain tumor, unable to eat. He devotedly carries out his daily duty when the feeding tube suddenly dislodges, so he nervously scrambles to reattach the tube, a nauseating process. Not wanting his wife to sense his distress, the husband discreetly hurries to a bathroom where she hears him throwing up. In another Selzer essay, he must cut a small nerve to remove the tumor in a woman's cheek — leaving the young wife with a twisted, clownish mouth. As Selzer encounters his patient and her husband back in her hospital room, he asks himself, 'Who are they? ... He and this wry mouth I have made, who gaze at each other so generously, greedily?' 'Will my mouth always be like this?' she asks, and Selzer replies yes, 'because the nerve was cut.' The wife remains silent, but the husband smiles and says, 'I like it ... it is kind of cute.' 'All at once I know who he is,' Selzer continues. 'I understand and I lower my gaze. One is not bold in an encounter with a god. Unmindful, he bends to kiss her crooked mouth and I am so close I can see how he twists his own lips to accommodate to hers, to show her that their kiss still works.' This article is the fourth of a series on the future of marriage in America.

Granholm: Democrats would ‘welcome' Musk ‘helping us out'
Granholm: Democrats would ‘welcome' Musk ‘helping us out'

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Granholm: Democrats would ‘welcome' Musk ‘helping us out'

Former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said Tuesday that Democrats would 'welcome' tech billionaire Elon Musk 'helping us out' after an intense clash between Musk and President Trump last week. 'I think the Democrats would welcome him helping us out, [not] politically, but — financially, etc.,' Granholm said at Politico's 2025 Energy Summit. 'But, maybe, maybe not, I don't know. I'm not running.' Last Thursday, a fight between Musk and Trump over the president's 'big, beautiful bill' escalated rapidly on Musk's X platform and Trump's Truth Social platform. The president said the tech billionaire 'just went CRAZY!' and threatened Musk's government contracts. Musk alleged on X that Trump had ties to convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein. The public spat followed the end of Musk's recent service in the Trump administration and an alliance with the president that appeared to start off strong. Musk endorsed Trump in July 2024 in the wake of Trump surviving an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. Musk's service in the administration was marked by intense backlash from those on the left and Democrats over actions taken by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency on the federal government. Trump's ex-personal attorney Michael Cohen on Saturday said that Trump isn't done with Musk yet. 'They're going to really go after Elon Musk like nobody has seen, ever, in this country, because they can,' Cohen told MSNBC's Ali Velshi. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Week of June 2 Cable News Ratings: All 3 Networks See a Primetime Upswing
Week of June 2 Cable News Ratings: All 3 Networks See a Primetime Upswing

Yahoo

time7 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Week of June 2 Cable News Ratings: All 3 Networks See a Primetime Upswing

This is TVNewser's basic cable network ranker and cable news report for the week of June 2, 2025. The three cable news networks can feel good about their respective performances, especially during primetime. Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN all experienced week-to-week gains in total viewers and the Adults 25-54 demo. MSNBC and CNN recorded double-digit gains in primetime in both measured categories and had across-the-board gains during total day. President Donald Trump's feud with Elon Musk clearly played well for these two networks as they captured additional viewers during a relatively slow news period. Meanwhile, Fox News finished the week as the only network with a week-to-week decline in either of the dayparts. However, FNC still finished ahead of its cable rivals as well as the NBC and CBS broadcast networks in weekday primetime total viewers. NETWORKS: According to Nielsen Live Plus, same-day data, FNC averaged 2.378 million total viewers and 256,000 A25-54 viewers during primetime. The network saw a +4% rise in total viewers and a +7% rise in the demo compared to the week prior. Fox News averaged 1.460 million total viewers and 177,000 A25-54 viewers in total day viewing. Week-to-week it was down -1% in the former category, but up +1% in the latter. FNC moved back to first place in total primetime viewers and climbed from fourth to third in the primetime demo among all basic cable networks. In total day, it remained No. 1 in total viewers and climbed from No. 3 to No. 2 the demo demo. MSNBC's primetime lineup averaged 965,000 total viewers and 92,000 viewers in the A25-54 demo for respective gains of +34% and +42% in both measured categories. During total day, MSNBC averaged 584,000 total viewers and 57,000 demo viewers for respective gains of +16% and +21% relative to the prior week. Among all basic cable networks, MSNBC jumped from fifth to third in total primetime viewers and climbed from No. 24 to No. 16 in the demo. During total day, it landed in second place in total viewers and 12th place in the demo. CNN averaged 619,000 total viewers and 108,000 A25-54 viewers during primetime for gains of +66% in the former category and +77% in the latter. The network's live airing of George Clooney's Tony-nominated play Good Night, and Good Luck on June 7 provided a boost, bringing in 2.011 million total viewers and 223,000 demo viewers. In total day, the network averaged 391,000 total viewers and 66,000 demo viewers for respective gains of +27% and +35% in those measured categories. In relation to all the cable networks, CNN climbed from 14th to fifth place, and jumped from No. 27 to No. 9 in the demo. It moved sixth to fifth place during total day, and leaped from No. 16 to No. 8 in the demo. When looking at these networks' performance during the same period a year ago (the week of June 3): During primetime, Fox News increased +11% in total viewers and +19% in the demo. During total day, the network saw gains of +12% in total viewers and +21% in the demo. MSNBC dropped by -17% in total viewers and -19% in the demo. During total day, the network was down -23% in total viewers and -27% in the demo. In primetime, CNN jumped by +28% in total viewers and +23% in the demo. During total day, it dropped -3% in total viewers and -7% in the demo. PROGRAMMING: Fox News held 14 out of the Top 15 spots of the most-watched cable news shows of the week in total viewers, with The Five (3.432 million viewers at 5 p.m. ET) leading the way. MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show (2.118 million viewers at 9 p.m. ET on Monday) finished at No. 7. The Five (347,000 viewers) also landed in first place among A25-54 viewers, with FNC once again occupiying 14 out of the 15 top spots. The Rachel Maddow Show (212,000 viewers) came in at No. 9. Prime Time Fox News MSNBC CNN • Total Viewers: 2,378,000 965,000 619,000 • A25-54: 256,000 92,000 108,000 Total Day Fox News MSNBC CNN • Total Viewers: 1,460,000 584,000 391,000 • A25-54: 177,000 57,000 66,000 Week 6-2-25 Cable Ranker by Adweek on Scribd

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store