On Thursday’s broadcast of “NewsNation Now,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) discussed a thwarted attack on a Hindu temple and threats to Rep. Keith Self (R-TX), and Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) and stated that one issue is “Big Tech is not
The post Krishnamoorthi: ‘Congress Has to Police Big Tech’ Because It’s Not Policing Hate appeared first on Breitbart.
La paradoja es notable. Despreciados por el pueblo, vigilados por la Inquisición y sometidos a las exigencias de una sociedad obsesionada por la limpieza de sangre, los judeoconversos lograron pese a todo alcanzar enorme poder en la España de los siglos XVI al XVIII, emparentando además con la nobleza. Durante generaciones se vieron obligados a afrontar condenas, sospechas y oprobios, pero las necesidades del imperio, tanto financieras como de servidores competentes, acabaron por encumbrarlos. La monarquía hispánica alentó esa integración convirtiendo a la sociedad española, contra lo que se cree, en una de las más dinámicas de Europa. Este es en parte El gran secreto al que alude desde su título el libro del historiador Enrique Soria Mesa, que destapa también otra realidad escondida: la del origen judío de lo más granado de la nobleza española.
© EL PAÍS
© DR
Los orígenes de Grande de España, la nueva serie de Netflix, tienen algo de metatelevisión. Mientras visitaban casas para rodar otra serie, los cineastas Juan Cavestany y Álvaro Fernández Armero se encontraron con que se repetía una misma situación: en un momento de la visita al opulento y decadente espacio aparece, tras una puerta que da a una zona fría y desangelada, el hijo de la dueña. Se trata de un hombre de cuarenta y tantos que no ha prosperado en la vida y reside en la casa como si de un guardés se tratara. Algunas de esas anécdotas en pisos que se alquilan para rodajes con el fin de poder cubrir los gastos de su mantenimiento están en los cimientos de la nueva historia de los creadores de Vergüenza y Sentimos las molestias. Eso les recordó a la película de Berlanga Patrimonio nacional, “y empezamos a fantasear con ese Madrid de palacetes y de cierta ranciedad de dinero muy antiguo”, explica Cavestany en conversación por videollamada.
©
Jones, 85, has pleaded not guilty to 21 charges of indecent assault and sexual touching
Listen to the podcast Alan Jones on Trial
The mother of the youngest alleged victim of Alan Jones continued to seek advice from the broadcaster after the teenager was allegedly indecently assaulted at Jones’s Fitzroy Falls farm, a Sydney court has heard.
The divorced mother told the Downing Centre court she had developed a pattern of not trusting herself and she continued her correspondence with Jones because: “I knew he knew about everything; he had an opinion about everything.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Bianca de Marchi/AAP
© Photograph: Bianca de Marchi/AAP
© Photograph: Bianca de Marchi/AAP
Podcaster Jennifer Welch called for the defeat of Vice President JD Vance and urged people to keep "pistols firing" toward him, drawing criticism on social media Tuesday.
During a recent segment on the "I’ve Had It" podcast, Welch condemned Vance, arguing that, during his "woke era," he married second lady Usha Vance, an Indian American, and had children but now views his family as a burden as he seeks to portray himself as President Donald Trump's successor as leader of the MAGA movement.
"I don't know what Peter Thiel did to him. I can only imagine," she said of the billionaire megadonor who has been a longtime benefactor of Vance. "You can only imagine.
DEM CANDIDATE'S BIZARRE ANTI-MAGA TIRADE ENDS WITH 'WE HAVE GUNS TOO'
"But he came out a complete antichrist-style sociopath," Welch continued.
"And considering that's all Peter Thiel talks about, the antichrist, when he himself acts like one and now his little protégé acts like one. JD Vance thinks two years from now he's going to be president of the United States, and we need to keep firing, pistols firing at all time towards this guy, because he is not fit to be a father.
"He's not fit to be a husband. He's not fit to be a vice president.
"He is a failed drag queen and a pathological liar to his core," she added. "And if he wants to inherit this cult, let him have it. Let him have it. And we will go to the polls and kick their a----."
The segment was widely shared on social media, drawing criticism from commentators.
Political rhetoric invoking violence, even when used metaphorically, has faced heightened scrutiny after the assassination attempts against President Donald Trump and the 2025 killing of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk.
Shortly after Kirk’s death in 2025, Welch laughed on her podcast as she shared footage of a "No Kings" protester celebrating Kirk’s death, adding that Democrats needed to cater to such voters going forward.
"So, listen up, Democratic establishment," Welch had said on her podcast. "You can either jump on board with this s---, or we're coming after you in the same way that we come after MAGA. Period."
REPORT LINKS ANTI-CHRISTIAN EXTREMISM AND 'ASSASSINATION CULTURE' TO ALLEGED PLOT AGAINST ERIKA KIRK
Elizabeth Pipko, host of "Made in America with Elizabeth Pipko" and a former Republican National Committee national spokesperson, spoke to Fox News Digital about the viral clip.
"The use of the word 'pistols' and the suggestion that people need to keep firing them at Vice President JD Vance is not just horrific and dangerous. It's the kind of rhetoric that raises serious questions about whether a threat has been made and whether authorities may need to investigate," Pipko said.
"But what makes these comments particularly disturbing is the context surrounding them," she continued. "Normally, when a public figure is condemned for inflammatory language, there's an argument that emotions got the better of them, that their words were taken out of context and that they never intended to suggest violence. Here, the rest of the statement strongly suggests otherwise.
"Jennifer Welch’s words show she knew what she was doing and saying and is proud of that, regardless of any potential risk to the vice president or his family," Pipko added. "And, frankly, I don't know where anyone finds the arrogance or cruelty to tell someone who they don’t know personally that they're unfit to be a husband or a father.
"Political disagreements are one thing. This is vile. You don't have to like JD Vance. You don't have to agree with a single policy he supports," she said.
"But condemning language that invokes violence against him should be the easiest thing in the world. And I sincerely hope that anyone on the left who encounters her or these comments chooses to speak out."
CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The White House, Vance’s team and Peter Thiel did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's requests for comment.
President Donald Trump warned Thursday that the United States may launch further strikes against Iran, as Washington and Israel prepare for a possible new offensive following the November midterm elections.
The post Trump Signals More Iran Strikes — ‘We May Do It a Little Bit Further’ appeared first on Breitbart.
A Michigan newspaper declared Wednesday it will no longer seek comment from the campaign of Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers over what it described as his "lies and bigoted attacks" against his Democratic rival, Abdul El-Sayed.
"For the first time in @metrotimes history, we’re no longer seeking comment from a candidate’s campaign because of repeated lies and bigoted attacks," Detroit Metro Times investigative reporter Steve Neavling announced on X.
"That candidate is Mike Rogers, whose campaign keeps targeting Abdul El-Sayed’s Muslim faith."
MIKE ROGERS PRESSES CNN'S DANA BASH ON WHY THE PRESS IS 'EAGER' TO DEFEND ABDUL EL-SAYED
Neavling accused Rogers of lying when the Republican asserted that El-Sayed hasn't disavowed the Muslim Brotherhood, pointing to the Democrat telling a town hall audience member, "Sure, yeah, absolutely" earlier in the week when asked to denounce the organization, and for suggesting El-Sayed believes "America deserved 9/11," a statement made by El-Sayed's prominent supporter, left-wing streamer Hasan Piker.
Neavling also accused Rogers of having "inflated" his counterterrorism résumé, specifically about his role in the operation targeting Osama bin Laden.
"When Metro Times asked about those claims for its Oct. 8 report, Rogers’ campaign declined to answer specific questions. It instead defended his record and repeated an unfounded allegation that El-Sayed received money from terrorist organizations," Neavling wrote in a report.
EL-SAYED, ROGERS CLASH OVER MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, TRUMP AND GUNS: 5 FIERY DEBATE MOMENTS
Neavling's article "counted the ways" Rogers allegedly lied about El-Sayed on a range of topics.
"Rogers has attacked El-Sayed, a physician and former Detroit health director, over public safety, women’s health, and Michigan’s auto industry. His own record includes opposing additional police funding, backing proposed cuts to women’s health services, and voting against measures intended to steer work to U.S. manufacturers," Neavling wrote.
During the Democratic Senate primary in July, El-Sayed was questioned about referring to himself as a "physician" because, although he has a medical degree, he is not licensed to practice medicine.
"His campaign has claimed El-Sayed wants to ban gas-powered vehicles," Neavling continued. "Bridge Michigan found that El-Sayed had supported the Green New Deal’s clean energy goals but had not directly advocated such a ban. During the July primary debate, El-Sayed opposed an electric vehicle mandate and said Michigan should continue producing internal combustion engines while developing EV infrastructure.
"Rogers once promoted the move away from gasoline as an opportunity for Michigan workers," Neavling added. "In an August 2008 message to constituents, he praised the Chevrolet Volt and described a future in which ‘clean, green cars run for hundreds of miles without using gasoline.’"
Neither the Rogers campaign nor the Detroit Metro Times responded to Fox News Digital's requests for comment.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
El-Sayed's denial that neither he nor his family had any ties to the Muslim Brotherhood came under scrutiny last week after social media posts surfaced in which his half-sister alleged that members of their family, including their mother, had been involved with the controversial Islamist group.
© Illustration by The New York Times
A judge on Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to sit for a deposition as part of his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).
U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett said Trump must give his deposition by Dec. 11 unless the discovery deadline is extended beyond Dec. 18.
This followed complaints by the BBC's legal counsel about the delay in the deposition after Trump had canceled a previously scheduled deposition for Oct. 16.
"The formerly respected and now disgraced BBC defamed President Trump by intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring his speech in a brazen attempt to interfere in the 2024 presidential election," a spokesperson for Trump's legal team told Fox News Digital.
"The BBC has a long pattern of deceiving its audience in coverage of President Trump, all in service of its own leftist political agenda. President Trump’s powerhouse lawsuit is holding the BBC accountable for its defamation and reckless election interference just as he has held other fake news mainstream media responsible for their wrongdoing."
A spokesperson for the BBC declined to comment.
JUDGE LIMITS BBC FROM RELITIGATING JAN 6 IN TRUMP LAWSUIT OVER MISLEADING DOCUMENTARY EDIT
The BBC previously filed a motion to compel Trump’s deposition. The BBC had said it understood that Trump’s deposition requires "additional planning," and he "accepted the obligations of civil litigation" when he chose to file the lawsuit.
Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC late last year for its 2024 "Panorama" documentary that distorted his remarks to supporters on Jan. 6, 2021. Critics claim the documentary was misleading because it omitted Trump's call for supporters to protest peacefully, splicing together separate portions of a lengthy address to give a wrong impression.
"We're going to walk down to the Capitol. And I'll be there with you. And we fight — we fight like hell," the documentary showed Trump saying.
In reality, Trump said, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol. And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
TRUMP WINS PERMISSION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT IN $10B DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AGAINST BBC
It wasn't until 54 minutes later that Trump called on his supporters to "fight like hell" for election integrity.
The BBC previously issued an apology for the erroneous edit and said it had pulled the program from its platforms. Despite the apology, the broadcaster has insisted the mistake is not enough for a defamation claim.
The controversy led to the resignations of BBC News CEO Deborah Turness and BBC Director-General Tim Davie.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital's Brian Flood contributed to this report.
Emily Ratajkowski has been keeping busy in Los Angeles, mixing daring mirror selfies with a little romance.
The 35-year-old model shared a bunch of photos on Instagram, leading with a mirror selfie in a plunging black one-piece swimsuit featuring a dramatic neckline and high-cut sides.
Ratajkowski paired the one-piece and wore her long brunette hair loose around her shoulders. She paired it with black shorts and sunglasses.
EMILY RATAJKOWSKI TURNS HEADS IN BIKINI-FILLED JULY PHOTO DUMP
"lotsa LA lately," Ratajkowski captioned the carousel.
Another photo captured the "Gone Girl" actress in a close-up selfie, wearing oversized sunglasses with pink and orange rollers in her hair.
She completed the off-duty glam look with oversized sunglasses and a cigarette between her lips, adjusting her glasses with one hand.
LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
The image prompted mixed reactions from followers, with several questioning the cigarette.
"What is with influencers all smoking lately… smoking hasn’t been cool in a longtime," one person commented.
PUT YOUR ENTERTAINMENT KNOWLEDGE TO THE TEST AND SEE HOW YOU SCORE
"The Unlit cig isn’t hittin’ like you think it is Emily," another wrote.
Others were more complimentary, including fellow model Irina Shayk, who commented, "My friend is 🔥🔥🔥🔥."
The Instagram carousel also included a black-and-white photograph of Ratajkowski sharing a kiss with boyfriend Romain Gavras, a French filmmaker.
In the intimate image, the couple held each other's faces as they leaned in for the kiss.
The romantic snapshot comes just days after Ratajkowski and Gavras attended the Academy Museum Gala in Los Angeles on Oct. 17.
The couple posed together at the star-studded event, with Ratajkowski wearing a striking red dress for the occasion.
The gala marked another public appearance for the couple, who previously attended the MTV Video Music Awards together in September.
At the VMAs, Ratajkowski appeared to pay a subtle tribute to Gavras through her manicure, which featured the initials "RG."
The couple first sparked romance rumors in November 2025 after they were photographed together in New York City.
Ratajkowski later shared photos of herself with Gavras on Instagram in February 2026.
GET ENTERTAINMENT SCOOP DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL BY CLICKING HERE
The model has previously spoken candidly about navigating relationships after her divorce from film producer Sebastian Bear-McClard.
In a June 2026 personal essay for The Cut, Ratajkowski reflected on a period of dating following her separation, explaining that she initially sought romantic attention as she adjusted to life as a single mother.
She described adopting a more emotionally detached approach to relationships before realizing that she had lost sight of what she actually wanted.
EMILY RATAJKOWSKI'S SHREDDED RED BIRTHDAY DRESS LEAVES LITTLE TO THE IMAGINATION AT NYC CELEBRATION
"I'd never been connected to my own desires," she wrote, reflecting on that period of her life.
Ratajkowski also explained that her divorce ultimately changed how she viewed her own independence.
"I wasn't left; I left," she wrote.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
FOX News Media announced Thursday that it will offer expanded coverage of the 2026 midterm elections across television, digital, audio and podcasts, bringing the latest results and analysis straight to viewers, wherever they are.
Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier, chief political anchor and executive editor of "Special Report," and Martha MacCallum, anchor and executive editor of "The Story," are set to co-anchor the network’s midterm election coverage with Fox News' "Democracy 26."
Coverage will begin at 6 p.m. ET on Tuesday, Nov. 3, with Fox News Channel's Dana Perino, Brit Hume, Harold Ford Jr., Bill Hemmer, Sandra Smith, Laura Ingraham, Jesse Watters, Sean Hannity, Trace Gallagher, Harris Faulkner, Kayleigh McEnany and Jessica Tarlov set to appear alongside Baier and MacCallum throughout the night.
FOX NEWS POWER RANKINGS: THE BIGGEST SURPRISES COME AFTER OCTOBER
Programming will continue into the evening and will bring the latest calls on the nationwide House, Senate and gubernatorial races straight to viewers along with projections on the balance of power in both the Senate and House as predicted by the Fox News Decision Desk.
Democrats are trying to take back majorities in the House and Senate from Republicans, who have controlled both chambers since the 2024 election.
Fox Business Network will also simulcast coverage starting at 6 p.m. ET on Tuesday until 6 a.m. ET the following day.
Viewers can expect a special early edition of "Fox & Friends First" starting at 4 a.m. ET on Wednesday, Nov. 4.
Throughout the broadcast, Fox News Channel will expand its use of augmented reality and data-driven graphics to provide real-time context for viewers as election results are tabulated.
12 RACES SCRAMBLE SENATE BATTLEFIELD AS DEMOCRATS EYE COMEBACK
The network will utilize enhanced visualizations to show how counties throughout the country voted differently from past elections, follow the balance of power in Congress and add context to key races.
In addition to Fox News Media’s coverage in New York City, senior White House correspondents Jacqui Heinrich and Peter Doocy and White House correspondent Aishah Hasnie will contribute to programming from Washington, D.C.
More than 20 Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network correspondents are also set to provide additional coverage throughout election night from across the country.
"Ruthless Podcast" hosts Josh Holmes, Michael Duncan, John Ashbrook and Shashank Tripathi, known as "Comfortably Smug," will air the "Ruthless Live! Midterm Election Show," broadcast from Washington. It will stream from 8-11 p.m. ET on Fox News Digital and Fox Nation.
WATCH: Hannity outlines what's at stake in the midterm elections
In the week before the election, "Fox & Friends" co-host Steve Doocy will take his "Breakfast with Friends" segment on the road again, talking with voters at diners in swing states.
He will start Oct. 26 at JC’s Restaurant in Burton, Ohio, before heading to Four Corners Diner in Romeo, Michigan, Oct. 27. Doocy will broadcast from Keys Café & Bakery in Roseville, Minnesota on Oct. 28, and from Bubba’s Cooks Country in Dallas, Texas, Oct. 29.
His final stop will be Big Doug’s Place in Hiram, Georgia, on Oct. 30.
"Fox & Friends First" co-host Todd Piro will continue the tour on Oct. 31 from Stacks Pancake House in Scarborough, Maine. On Election Day morning, "Fox & Friends Weekend" co-hosts Charles Hurt and Griff Jenkins will close out the series at a diner.
FOX NEWS MEDIA TOPS YOUTUBE FOR EIGHTH STRAIGHT QUARTER WITH 918 MILLION VIEWS
Fox News Digital will also bring comprehensive election coverage to America’s fingertips, including a live blog and Fox News Power Rankings, which will provide real-time updates regarding race results as polls close.
Fox News Digital’s coverage comes on the heels of the platform topping all news brands and broadcast networks in both multiplatform views and minutes in the third quarter of 2026, according to Comscore.
FOX NEWS MEDIA EXPANDS PODCAST PORTFOLIO WITH NEW ORIGINAL SHOW ‘THE GIRLS’
The Fox News app is launching a "Midterms 2026" tab with an interactive county-level map and an "Election HQ" feature, which includes an AI chatbot that answers questions about races and results using Fox News reporting. Signed-in users can also join "The Room," a live commentary feature in which users can discuss results in an interactive setting.
In the days leading up to the midterms, Fox News Audio will provide coverage across Fox News Radio (FNR) affiliates and through the Fox News App "Listen" button.
Listeners can also expect live programming hosted by co-anchors Jared Halpern and Jessica Rosenthal starting at 7 p.m. ET on Election Day, in which they will present expert political analysis and field reports from network correspondents throughout the country.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE
Listeners can also catch up on the results the morning after Election Day with a one-hour Fox News Audio special at 8 a.m. ET, available on Fox News Radio and in the Fox News app.
Before Election Day, Fox News Audio will offer midterm and gubernatorial race updates every 15 minutes on "Fox News Headlines 24/7" featured on SiriusXM.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
"The Fox News Rundown" will also present a five-part series from Oct. 26 to 30 profiling high-stakes states ahead of the midterms. Fox News Podcasts will release special episodes of "Perino on Politics," "The Bret Baier Podcast" and "The Untold Story with Martha MacCallum," along with a "Democracy '26" landing page that will be available on Fox News Audio’s platforms.
Fox News Digital's Brian Flood contributed to this report.
NYSE
Consolidation is underway at David Ellison's Skydance just a few weeks after the company closed its $110 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.
Skydance's chief product officer, Dane Glasgow, laid out the product and tech leadership structure of the combined entity in a memo viewed by Business Insider.
Four top WBD executives are leaving, according to the memo.
They include:
Duvall, Saxena, and Whitworth will stay on in an "advisory capacity as we undergo this transition," Glasgow wrote.
The company is mostly keeping Paramount executives in charge of its combined tech and product organization.
These leaders include:
A few WBD executives are staying on in Skydance's post-merger leadership, per Glasgow's memo.
They include Brinton Miller, formerly WBD's media technology and operations lead, who will serve as Skydance's executive vice president of production and studio technology, and James Crossland, formerly head of global content operations at WBD, who will serve as its EVP of global content operations.
Skydance has spent the past year revamping its tech and product team, often recruiting talent from tech companies.
Glasgow joined Paramount from Meta, while Lee joined from Microsoft's AI division. Other team leaders in its post-merger structure include head of design Suzanne Pellican, formerly a Google exec; Hugh Williams, a former Google, eBay, and Microsoft exec; and Barak Turovsky, who came to Paramount after serving as chief AI officer at General Motors and VP of AI at Cisco.
Bringing technical expertise to Paramount has been a priority for Ellison, who wants to turn the century-old media brand into a modern, tech-forward business like Netflix. The company revamped its data and insights strategy in January, and merged some engineering teams in March to bolster its streaming tech.
"We are building a product and tech organization that can compete with anybody coming out of Silicon Valley," Ellison told CNBC earlier this month.
In his memo, Glasgow expressed gratitude for the work of both Paramount and WBD staffers, writing that he was "encouraged by the early collaboration, the bold new ideas you're bringing forward, and your openness to exploring new ways of working with your colleagues."
He also acknowledged the structural changes could be disruptive.
"I know a change of this scale brings questions, especially as we get to know new teams and colleagues," Glasgow wrote. "Your leaders will share more about their organizations in the coming weeks and we'll bring our teams together soon to keep building with and learning from each other."
In 2016, the HBO comedian and political commentator John Oliver produced a terrific segment on how TV pundits routinely cite garbage science. After showing clips of newscasters and commentators making absurd claims such as, "A new study showing that drinking a glass of red wine is just as good as spending an hour at the gym," and The Today Show's Al Roker commenting, "You find the study that sounds best to you, and you go with it," Oliver commented, "No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! You don't just get to cherry-pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway."
Then Oliver added a useful rule: "If they are going to keep saying 'a study says,' they should have to provide sourcing and context or not mention it at all." (Though the segment specifically targeted the misuse of "scientific" studies, all the same principles apply to the social sciences.)
What's so noteworthy about that 2016 segment is that in his other monologues, on issues ranging from SWAT teams to homelessness, Oliver has routinely ignored the principles he laid out. In his overly simplistic takes on complex policy issues (often designed to dunk on his ideological opponents for comedic effect), he often fails to provide appropriate context and appears to be guilty of choosing research "that sounds best," as Roker put it, or at least that supports whatever point he's determined to make.
Oliver is one of America's most influential pundits, so he should be held to the highest of journalistic standards. And Last Week Tonight is indeed more diligent than many TV news programs. The show employs researchers who interview the authors of the studies it cites. Oliver is a comic, not an academic, so we can excuse him for not posting footnotes, and he routinely cites his sources on screen. When we emailed the show's producers to point out problems with their research, to their credit, they sent back a detailed response that we'll quote from in this article. (In a few cases, they pointed to Reason articles using some of the same studies, albeit with full citations and more context. In cases in which their criticisms were correct, we've annotated the original articles.)
Many of the show's researchers are former reporters and editors who abide by journalistic standards. Nevertheless, the show has a long track record of citing social science findings without the appropriate context, massaging them to support whatever point Oliver is trying to make.
In his excellent 2016 segment on scientific studies, Oliver noted: "There is a lot of bullshit currently masquerading as science. Not all scientific studies are equal. Some may appear in less-than-legitimate scientific journals, and others may be subtly biased because of scientists feeling pressured to come up with eye-catching positive results."
Cut to a 2022 segment titled "Rent," and we find Oliver citing a study that his wiser self would have characterized as "bullshit."
"Right now, there is not a single county in the U.S. where a worker earning minimum wage can afford a modest two-bedroom rental home," he said. He was citing a study designed to produce an "eye-catching" result. It was published not by a reputable journal, but by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an advocacy group that lobbies for government spending on housing and rent subsidies, including expanding the National Housing Trust Fund and increasing federal appropriations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The biases are not particularly subtle. Why would a minimum-wage worker need a two-bedroom home? In the study, "can afford" doesn't mean "have enough money to buy the cheapest available," as most English speakers would interpret it. The authors use it to mean renting a two-bedroom home at the 40th percentile price point of the local market (that is, a little cheaper than the median unit), using no more than 30 percent of their income, excluding government benefits, pensions, or other nonearned support.
Oliver also didn't mention who these minimum-wage workers are. In 2025, according to the Current Population Survey, a third of hourly workers paid the federal minimum or less lived in a parent's or grandparent's home, a fifth were married and living with a spouse, and only one in eight lived alone.
When we asked the show's producers why they failed to disclose that their source was an advocacy group seeking government funds, they pointed to the onscreen credit and responded: "We trust our viewers' intelligence enough to think they might be able to read it and conclude that the National Low Income Housing Coalition is interested in building low-income housing, nationwide, possibly even as part of a coalition."
I don't share their confidence that most viewers can read the onscreen source line and tell from the organization's name whether it's an advocacy group. There's a double standard here: When Oliver doesn't like what a study says, he's not content to just trust his viewers; he makes it explicit, as he did with the "ethanol lobbying groups" mentioned above.
Oliver's producers wrote us: "When we rely on studies from advocacy groups, we look at the underlying data and speak to researchers to better understand it; we discard many studies as a result."
This one belonged in the trash.
In a 2025 segment, Oliver cited an eye-catching statistic about how sports betting was driving a spike in bankruptcies. "Unsurprisingly, the rise of online sports betting has been found to correlate with a rise in gambling harms, with one study showing that in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase in bankruptcies, translating to about 100,000 extra bankruptcies a year."
I'll give Oliver credit for saying "correlate with" rather than "cause," but the rest of that sentence ("in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase") implies direct causality.
The bigger problem is that the "100,000" figure is clearly wrong. When I contacted the study's authors, they told me they don't know where that figure came from, and it doesn't appear anywhere in the study. Last Week Tonight's producers told us they pulled it from a Business Insider article, but in the video, Oliver said it came from the study.
If Oliver's researchers had done the same calculation as the authors, multiplying the per-person effect by the at-risk population, they'd have found about 30,000 extra bankruptcies a year, not 100,000, and a 6 percent to 7.5 percent increase, not 28 percent.
Oliver also left out important context: He was citing an unpublished working paper. The peer-reviewed version appeared after the Last Week Tonight segment aired, and it included substantive changes. Working papers from credible researchers, like this one, are valuable, but Oliver should have made it clear he was citing a preliminary draft circulated to other researchers for comment, not a published study.
In 2021, Oliver did a segment making a case for a policy called "Housing First," which includes placing more homeless people in permanent supportive housing. The problem is that building and maintaining these units is expensive, so permanent supportive housing doesn't scale easily. Oliver set out to dismiss that objection by citing research showing the alternative is even more costly.
"One study in Florida," Oliver said, "found that, just between money spent on incarceration and emergency medical treatment, their communities and local governments had spent an average of just over $31,000 per person per year, when the estimated cost of providing them with permanent supportive housing would have only been around $10,000 per year."
The Florida study's finding was an outlier. The Central Florida Commission on Homelessness commissioned it, and Housing First advocates promoted it because it produced the headline they wanted. I give Oliver credit for noting that the study "tracked a decade's worth of spending on just 107 chronically homeless people," but he left out additional context.
In 2018, a committee convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine evaluated permanent supportive housing. It concluded that there is "no substantial evidence that [it] contributes to improved health outcomes" and "insufficient evidence" that it's cost-effective.
Studies exist on both sides of this issue, and we can debate whether permanent supportive housing is more cost-effective than the alternative, but Oliver cited one study and implied it was conclusive.
Oliver also neglected to mention that the paper was written by a consulting firm led by a supportive-housing advocate, though if you looked closely, you could see the organization's name on the screen as he delivered his monologue.
Oliver and I agree that the federal government shouldn't be subsidizing ethanol. But in a 2024 segment titled "Corn," Oliver pointed to a study claiming that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline and implied that only self-interested lobbyists say otherwise.
"While ethanol lobbying groups have long argued that it slashes greenhouse emissions," he said, "one recent study found that corn ethanol produced under the renewable fuel standard has a carbon footprint at least 24 percent higher than regular gasoline."
What Oliver doesn't mention is that the 2022 study he cited was highly contested. It was challenged not only by "ethanol lobbying groups" but also by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Biden administration. The study's claim that ethanol has a higher carbon footprint than gasoline also contradicts a 2010 Environmental Protection Agency projection that ethanol would be about 20 percent cleaner than gasoline. Argonne National Laboratory, running the government's standard model, credits ethanol with cutting greenhouse emissions by more than 500 million tons in 15 years.
The problem isn't that Oliver is wrong; it's how he presented this study. Whether ethanol mandates are good or bad for the environment is a complicated, contested issue, with strong studies on both sides (and plenty of weak ones). Plucking one from the pile and reporting its findings is misleading.
Ethanol subsidies are bad because they involve politicians using mandates to buy farmers' votes, and top-down mandates generally lead to less optimal decision-making. But it's not clear that ethanol increases carbon emissions.
In a 2014 segment on police militarization after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Oliver said, "There has been a massive rise in both the number and the use of police department SWAT teams," and showed a news clip that stated: "The number of SWAT raids has gone up by 1,400 percent since the 1980s. An estimated 50,000 now take place every year." Instead of mocking the clip, as he often does, Oliver cited it approvingly.
So where did the claim of a 1,400 percent increase come from? It's based on a voluntary mail-in survey, which isn't a reliable way to gather data. No official count of SWAT raids exists, and almost nobody tracks them, then or now, so the figure rests on departments' self-reporting of how often they "deployed," with no shared definition of what that means.
The 1980s figures that form the baseline for the 1,400 percent increase in SWAT raids come from a mid-1990s survey, making them especially unreliable. No one was counting SWAT raids at the time, and there's no way to verify them.
Oliver followed that clip by citing another study: "Just keep that clip in mind," he said, "when I tell you that 79 percent of SWAT deployments are now for executing search warrants, and most of those were for drug investigations."
Again, there's missing context. That 79 percent figure comes from a small, nonrandom sample generated by an American Civil Liberties Union records request; the organization could get data from just 20 of America's roughly 18,000 police agencies.
When we pointed out to Oliver's producers that the data on SWAT teams were stripped of their context, they replied that since this segment aired, "We've become more diligent about critically interrogating the sourcing on studies in our shows." They also argued that more "recent studies," if anything, suggest that the studies they cited "understated the true scope of things." And they pointed to instances of Reason citing the same data.
I agree with Oliver's position on SWAT raids, but he really should be agitating for better data. We're permitting state violence without anyone keeping the detailed records that could help us understand the costs and benefits. But that doesn't excuse citing two studies based on weak data and presenting them as fact.
In a 2025 segment on tipping, Oliver said, "Recent analyses have found that poverty rates for tipped workers are over twice as high as for nontipped workers."
Twice as high as for which nontipped workers? The analysis he's citing included all nontipped workers in the U.S., including CEOs and neurosurgeons. Oliver, who reportedly makes $30 million a year, also pulled up the nontipped average. The right way to evaluate tipping is to match tipped and untipped workers by job: Waiters have about the same poverty rate as fast-food workers, and hotel maids about the same as other cleaners. If you control for job, age, and hours, the gap closes.
It's another study designed to generate a talking point, which isn't surprising since it was published by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive, left-of-center think tank. The organization's name appeared onscreen as Oliver delivered his monologue, but, once again, viewers would need to hit pause to look it up and figure out what the Economic Policy Institute stands for.
Oliver's 2016 segment on "scientific studies" shows that he should know better. It's possible to construct arguments by citing good research responsibly, while providing the proper context and sourcing. It's possible to follow research where it leads, instead of retrofitting it to preconceived ideas. You just have to be willing to present data that capture reality in all its messiness, even if that means it won't generate an easy laugh line.
To keep up with our video series Wrong Number featuring Aaron Brown, and to receive bonus content and more, click here to enter your email address.
The post John Oliver Warned Against Cherry-Picked Studies. Then He Cherry-Picked His Own. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Login