Skip to main content
Business

Here’s what happened when Americans received $1,000 a month in 3-year study

Share

Years ago, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman set out to discover what would happen if people were given cash every month with no strings attached. This week, the results are in from the largest universal basic income study in the U.S., though how it went depends on how one interprets the findings.

Right-leaning Reason writes, “Bad News for Universal Basic Income: Researchers found that giving people $1,000 every month for three years resulted in decreased productivity and earnings, and more leisure time.”

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

Center-rated The Register writes, “Sam Altman’s basic income experiment finds that money can indeed buy happiness: But not necessarily health.”

Keeping in tune with Straight Arrow News‘ mission of unbiased, straight facts, let’s take a look at the facts from the research paper itself.

The ground rules

Researchers randomly selected 1,000 low-income people to receive $1,000 per month with no conditions for three years. A separate control group of 2,000 people received $50 per month to participate in the research.

The people in this study had an average household income of $29,900 in 2019, so $1,000 a month translated to a 40% increase in household income.

In 2016, Sam Altman wrote about launching the Basic Income Project and his desire to answer some theoretical questions about it.

“Do people sit around and play video games, or do they create new things?” Altman asked. “Are people happy and fulfilled? Do people, without the fear of not being able to eat, accomplish far more and benefit society far more? And do recipients, on the whole, create more economic value than they receive?”

The results

Excluding the free money received, individual income fell by about $1,500 per year, or 5%. It led to a 2 percentage point decrease in labor market participation and people worked roughly 1.3-1.4 fewer hours per week.

So what did they do with that extra time? Researchers saw the largest increase in leisure time, followed by smaller increases in transportation – people are driving around doing more – and time spent on finances.

Researchers found no impact on the quality of employment. They did see hints that people were thinking about entrepreneurial endeavors and there were some signs younger participants were investing more in education.

Researcher Eva Vivalt wrote, “Overall, the negative effects on labor supply do not appear to be offset by other productive activities, and we do not observe people getting better jobs over the 3-year duration of the program.”

The study concluded, “While decreased labor market participation is generally characterized negatively, policymakers should take into account the fact that recipients have demonstrated–by their own choices–that time away from work is something they prize highly.”

Universal basic income is a hot topic in Silicon Valley. That’s because the tech world is actively developing AI that could make some jobs obsolete.

“There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better,” Elon Musk said in 2017. “What to do about mass unemployment? This is gonna be a massive social challenge. And I think, ultimately, we will have to have some kind of universal basic income. I don’t think we’re gonna have a choice.”

“These are not things I wish would happen,” Musk continued. “These are simply things that probably will happen.”

Altman, who was behind this study, said that while UBI is not a full solution, it’s a component that should be pursued in the face of AI advancement.

“As a cushion through a dramatic [employment] transition,” he said of UBI. “And the world should eliminate poverty if able to do so. I think it’s a great thing to do as a small part of the bucket of solutions.”

The idea of paying people with no conditions is incredibly expensive – the Tax Foundation said Andrew Yang’s $1,000-per-month proposal would cost $2.8 trillion per year. And many believe it’s an affront to capitalism.

“This is straight out of the Karl Marx playbook. This is not out of the Adam Smith playbook,” radio host Dave Ramsey said during his show last year. “Karl Marx, Father of Communism. Adam Smith wrote the Tome that we were all required to read on capitalism if we took economics. My friend Art Laffer, one of the leading economists in the world, says, ‘If you pay people not to work, please expect them to not work.'”

Again, the people from this study did still work – try living off $12,000 a year – but they did take off a little more than an hour per week.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Years ago, the founder of ChatGPT set out to discover what would happen if you give people cash every month, no strings attached.

The results are in from the largest Universal Basic Income study in the U.S., though how it went depends on how one interprets the findings.

Right-leaning Reason writes: Bad News for Universal Basic Income: Researchers found that giving people $1,000 every month for three years resulted in decreased productivity and earnings, and more leisure time.

While center-rated The Register writes: Sam Altman’s basic income experiment finds that money can indeed buy happiness: But not necessarily health.

Keeping in tune with Straight Arrow News’ mission of unbiased, straight facts, let’s look at the facts from the research paper itself.

First, the ground rules. Researchers randomly selected 1,000 low-income people to receive $1,000 a month, no conditions, for three years. A separate control group of 2,000 people received $50 a month to participate in the research.

The people in this study had an average household income of $29,900 in 2019, so $1,000 a month translated to a 40% increase in household income.

In 2016, Sam Altman wrote about launching the Basic Income Project and his desire to answer some theoretical questions about it.

“Do people sit around and play video games, or do they create new things? Are people happy and fulfilled? Do people, without the fear of not being able to eat, accomplish far more and benefit society far more? And do recipients, on the whole, create more economic value than they receive?”

So now that you know the rules and the lens of focused intention, here are the results.

Excluding the free money received, individual income fell by about $1,500 a year, or 5%.

It led to a 2 percentage point decrease in labor market participation.

And people worked roughly 80 fewer minutes per week.

So what did they do with that extra time? Researchers saw the largest increase in leisure time, followed by smaller increases in transportation – people are driving around doing more – and time spent on finances.

They found no impact on quality of employment. They did see hints that people were thinking about entrepreneurial endeavors, and there were some signs younger participants were investing more in education.

Researcher Eva Vivalt wrote: Overall, the negative effects on labor supply do not appear to be offset by other productive activities, and we do not observe people getting better jobs over the 3-year duration of the program.

But the study concludes: While decreased labor market participation is generally characterized negatively, policymakers should take into account the fact that recipients have demonstrated–by their own choices–that time away from work is something they prize highly.

Universal Basic Income, or UBI, is a hot topic in Silicon Valley. That’s because the tech world is actively developing AI that could make people’s jobs obsolete.

“There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. What to do about massive unemployment. This is gonna be a massive social challenge. And I think, ultimately, we will have to have some kind of universal basic income. I don’t think we’re gonna have a choice.”
“These are not things I wish would happen. These are simply things that probably will happen.”

OpenAI’s Sam Altman, who was behind this study, said that while UBI is not a full solution, it’s a component that should be pursued in the face of AI advancement.

“As cushion through a dramatic transition and just as like the world should eliminate poverty if able to do so. I think it’s a great thing to do as a small part of the bucket of solutions.”

Of course, the idea of paying people with no conditions is incredibly expensive – the Tax Foundation said Andrew Yang’s $1,000 per month proposal would cost $2.8 trillion per year. And many believe its an affront to capitalism.

“This is straight out of the Karl Marx playbook. This is not out of the Adam Smith playbook. Let me help you with that. Karl Marx, Father of Communism. Adam Smith wrote the Tome that we were all required to read on capitalism if we took Economics. So, my friend Art Laffer, one of the leading economists in the world says, ‘if you pay people not to work, please expect them to not work.”

Again, the people from this study did still work – try living off $12k a year – but they did take off a little more than an hour per week.

For unbiased straight facts, download the straight arrow news app for stories like this.

Business

NBA wants to play on Team Amazon. Will TNT take fight to the court?

Share

The battle over the National Basketball Association’s broadcast rights looks like it is headed to court. On Wednesday, July 24, the league rejected TNT’s bid to match Amazon Prime Video’s $1.8 billion offer.

Media Landscape

See who else is reporting on this story and which side of the political spectrum they lean. To read other sources, click on the plus signs below.

Learn more about this data

Left 36%

Center 55%

Right 9%

Bias Distribution Powered by Ground News

It’s been quite a bit of back and forth over the last 10 days. On Tuesday, July 16, the NBA’s Board of Governors approved a massive 11-year, $76 billion deal for its media rights with Disney, Amazon and NBC.

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

The following day, the league provided the details of the deal to its longtime partner TNT Sports and its parent company Warner Bros. Discovery. According to the previous broadcast deal, Warner had five days to match one of the offers.

On Monday, the network did just that and challenged Amazon’s bid, which offered hope for fans who love TNT’s NBA coverage and its studio show “Inside the NBA.” But the league rejected the offer on Wednesday.

“Warner Bros. Discovery’s most recent proposal did not match the terms of Amazon Prime Video’s offer and, therefore, we have entered into a long-term arrangement with Amazon,” the NBA said in a statement.

It appears the sticking point is the league’s move into streaming.

“Throughout these negotiations, our primary objective has been to maximize the reach and accessibility of our games for our fans,” NBA’s statement said. “Our new arrangement with Amazon supports this goal by complementing the broadcast, cable and streaming packages that are already part of our new Disney and NBCUniversal arrangements. All three partners have also committed substantial resources to promote the league and enhance the fan experience.”

Back in June, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver was adamant that streaming would be an important part of the next deal. While details of the Warner match weren’t made public, it’s been speculated that it included games streamed on Max. TNT Sports and Warner believe they have met the requirements.

“We have matched the Amazon offer, as we have a contractual right to do, and do not believe the NBA can reject it,” TNT Sports said in a press release Wednesday. “We think they have grossly misinterpreted our contractual rights with respect to the 2025-2026 season and beyond, and we will take appropriate action.”

“The NBA was obviously advised by their high-powered lawyers that TNT did not match, perhaps due to a cable company having no ability to match a streaming service,” Andrew Brandt, a former professional sports executive and executive director of the Jeffery S. Moorad Center for the Study of Sports Law, told Straight Arrow News in an email. “As with everything, it comes down to the contract: did it address that TNT would have no ability to match a streaming service? Or did it not? In this case, it is not about the lawyers in the dispute; it is about the lawyers who drafted the ‘match.'”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simone Del Rosario:

Oh what a 10-day span it’s been for the NBA and its broadcast partners.

Last Tuesday the league’s board of governors approved an 11-year, $76 billion deal for media rights with Disney, Amazon and NBC.

The following day, the league provided its longtime partner TNT Sports and Warner Bros Discovery the details of the deal.

Just as it seemed TNT would be riding the bench starting with the 2025-2026 season, they threw up a prayer on Monday.

Or as the network said, they had executed their contractual option and “reviewed the offers and matched one of them.”

The “One of them” in question was Amazon’s $1.8 billion per year bid.

“Not so fast my friend.”

I know. I’m mixing my sports here.

Warner Bros. thought their offer was nothing but net. But the NBA blocked the shot. In a statement released Wednesday, they said “Warner Bros. Discovery’s most recent proposal did not match the terms of Amazon Prime Video’s offer and, therefore, we have entered into a long-term arrangement with Amazon.”

Time out.

According to the NBA, the deals they negotiated “maximize the reach and accessibility of our games for our fans. Our new arrangement with Amazon supports this goal by complementing the broadcast, cable and streaming packages that are already part of our new Disney and NBCUniversal arrangements.”

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver had been adamant streaming had to be a big part of the deal. And while it was speculated some of the Warner Bros. match included games streamed on MAX, apparently the league didn’t think it did enough to meet the promise of a full time streamer in Amazon Prime Video.

For their part, TNT Sports says they matched the Amazon offer, as was their right, and now they’re calling foul on the NBA.

Andrew Brandt, a former Professional Sports Executive told Straight Arrow News in an email:

“The NBA was obviously advised by their high-powered lawyers that TNT did not match, perhaps due to a cable company having no ability to match a streaming service. As with everything, it comes down to the contract: did it address that TNT would have no ability to match a streaming service? Or did it not? In this case, it is not about the lawyers in the dispute; it is about the lawyers who drafted the ‘match.’”

You can bet on this heading to court – the legal one, that is – as TNT Sports says its contractual rights have been “grossly misinterpreted” and they will take “appropriate action.”

The NBA’s decision continues to throw TNT’s famed studio show “Inside the NBA” in limbo, and, for now, Charles Barkley won’t have to think too hard about going back on his promise of retiring from TV after the next season.

Charles Barkley:

“No matter what happens, next year is going to be my last year on television.

International

Salt Lake’s second chance: Awarded 2034 Olympic Games after stained 2002

Share

The Winter Olympics will return to Salt Lake City in 2034 more than 30 years after a bribery scandal plagued the 2002 Games that graced the mountain city. Despite the clean nature of the current bid process, the International Olympic Committee has its stipulations. 

Media Landscape

See who else is reporting on this story and which side of the political spectrum they lean. To read other sources, click on the plus signs below.

Learn more about this data

Left 28%

Center 62%

Right 10%

Bias Distribution Powered by Ground News

The announcement from IOC President Thomas Bach on Wednesday, July 24, just days before the opening of the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris, confirmed what has been speculated for months. The French Alps will host the 2030 Winter Olympics and Salt Lake will host in 2034. 

But for Salt Lake City, the IOC put a clause in the contract that pressures officials, including Republican Gov. Spencer Cox, to lobby against a federal investigation into Chinese swimmers at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, which took place in 2021 after being delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

Some Chinese athletes had tested positive for Trimetazidine, a banned heart medication, at a meet months before the Olympics. The World Anti-Doping Agency allowed the swimmers to compete after China’s Anti-Doping Agency blamed the “extremely low” concentration of the drug on contaminated food. The Chinese swimming team took home three gold medals in Tokyo. Many of the same swimmers under scrutiny will be competing in Paris. 

While the U.S. has opened its own investigation, Bach contends WADA should be the only body to investigate Olympic doping cases. Officials in Utah said they will do their part to honor that clause. 

“We’ll work very closely with the Department of Justice,” Cox said.  “We’ll work with the Senate. We’ll work with the Biden administration and whatever the next administration is so that we can get a comfort level in what we’re going to do to work together because the United States cannot clean up sport by itself. That’s impossible. And conversely, WADA can’t clean up sport by itself without countries that are willing to participate and work together.”

Despite the strings, citizens of Salt Lake City gathered in the early morning hours to await the announcement and celebrate the decision. 

A second chance for Salt Lake City

The bribery scandal tied to the 2002 Winter Games forced the IOC to change the way it picks host cities. Bribing IOC members at the time was a poorly kept secret for Olympic insiders, but there wasn’t a ton of proof before Salt Lake City’s corrupt bid. 

“There was an IOC member from Togo; Togo doesn’t compete in the Winter Olympics,” Olympic Historian David Wallechinsky told Straight Arrow News. “That didn’t matter, because the guy still voted. So they kept flying him out to Salt Lake City. Well, that wasn’t good enough, so they had to include a stopover in Paris so his wife could go shopping on the bid committee’s pocketbook. The whole thing was so ridiculous. But they got the games and that was all they cared about.”

The scandal threatened the legacy of the games and the sanctity of the Olympics. Several members of the IOC were fired and Salt Lake City organizing committee leaders faced charges. In its wake, the IOC changed the drawn-out bidding process that lent itself to corruption.

Now, two panels are permanently open to talks with any cities open to hosting. And these panels can also approach cities they deem fit to host the games.

Similar to the way Salt Lake City and the French Alps were announced at the same time, when the IOC got two compelling bids for this year’s Summer Games from Paris and Los Angeles, it awarded Paris 2024 and LA the 2028 Games.

You can get more information on the history of corruption in the Olympic process here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

David Wallechinsky:

“Salt Lake City is going to get the Winter Olympics again. But in a more honest way.”

Simone Del Rosario:

Call it a second chance.

Thomas Bach:
“The International Olympic Committee has the honor to announce that the 27th Winter Olympic Games 2034 are awarded to Salt Lake City Utah.” (hold sound for a bit of applause/crowd shot, can carry over into track)

Simone Del Rosario:

Two days before the Opening Ceremony for the Paris Olympic Games, the IOC confirmed what has been speculated for months.

The Winter Olympics will return to Salt Lake City 32 years after it last hosted, when a bribery scandal rocked the Olympic world.

Bribing IOC members to win Olympic bids was a poorly-kept secret for Olympic insiders. But there wasn’t a lot of public proof until Salt Lake City’s 2002 Winter Games bid.

David Wallechinsky:

“The Salt Lake City people realize that you you had to keep a file on each IOC voting member. And then, you know, do whatever you could to get their vote. And so there was one case in particular, caught my attention, where there was an IOC member from Togo. Well, Togo doesn’t compete in the Winter Olympics. That didn’t matter, because the guy still voted. So they kept flying him out to Salt Lake City. Well, that wasn’t good enough. So they had to include the stopover in Paris so his wife could go shopping on the bid committee’s pocketbook. It’s just the whole thing was so ridiculous. But they got the games, and that was all they cared about.”

Simone Del Rosario:

The scandal threatened the Games and the sanctity of the Olympics. Several IOC members were fired and Salt Lake City host committee leaders faced charges. Decades later, the city and the IOC have toiled their way into good graces.

After decades of bid-rigging scandals, the IOC changed the drawn-out bidding process that historically lent itself to corruption.

Now, two IOC panels are permanently open to talks with any cities open to hosting. And these panels can also make the first move and approach cities they think might be the right fit.

When the IOC got two compelling bids for this year’s Games from Paris and Los Angeles, they awarded Paris and said, LA, you can get the next Summer Games.

Same thing happened with the Winter Games. The IOC liked both the French Alps and Salt Lake City and awarded them for 2030 and 2034.

The SLC got the Games cleanly this time around but it still comes with strings.

The IOC put a clause in the contract pressuring Utah officials, including Gov. Spencer Cox, to lobby against a federal investigation into doping by Chinese swimmers at the Tokyo Games.

Some Chinese athletes had tested positive for a banned heart drug called TMZ at a meet months before the Tokyo Games. The World Anti-Doping Agency allowed the swimmers to compete after China’s Anti-Doping Agency blamed the “extremely low” concentration of the drug on contaminated food. China’s swimming team won three gold medals that year. By the way, the same swimmers in question will be competing in Paris.

While the U.S. has opened its own investigation, IOC President Thomas Bach contends the World Anti-Doping Agency should be the only body to investigate Olympic doping cases. Here’s Utah Governor Cox addressing his part in all of this now that Salt Lake City has the Games.

Gov. Spencer Cox:

“We’ll work very closely with the Department of Justice, we’ll work with the Senate, we’ll work with the Biden administration and whatever the next administration is so that we can get a comfort level in what we’re going to do to work together. Because the United States cannot clean up sport by itself. That’s impossible. And conversely, WADA can’t clean up sport by itself without countries that are willing to participate and work together.”

Simone Del Rosario:

Strings aside, the citizens of Salt Lake City are ecstatic for the games returning to Utah, gathering in the wee hours of the morning to hear the announcement.

Person 1:

“The world gets to see Salt Lake on the global stage, again, I mean, this place really is the best community in the United States and the whole world will get to experience it. And I’m stoked for that”.

Simone Del Rosario:

If you’re hungry for Olympic content, you’ll love this piece we did on the history of

{if we can do one of those things where we show the story in app stuff. }

Olympic corruption and what goes into a successful Olympic bid. Search for it on the Straight Arrow News app.

Tech

Podcasting Popularity: How the format is growing in revenue, viewership, nostalgia 

Share

The podcasting format has been around for decades but it’s seen significant growth in the past few years growing ad revenue and new shows popping up from all over the world, including at Straight Arrow News. SAN’s Ryan Robertson has held many positions in his broadcast career, including reporter, producer, and news director, and now he’s taken on a new role as a podcaster.

“What a time to be alive when we can live in this opportunity that this technology that allows us to reach so many people in so many places with relative ease to me is just kind of mind-boggling,” Robertson told Straight Arrow News.

Each week, Robertson speaks on the latest developments in the military world in his podcast “Weapons and Warfare.” He said the medium is giving him the freedom to talk about these topics as they are meant to be discussed with an audience on a wide range of platforms. 

“We’re given a certain amount of time to tell our stories that we gather from around the country and really explore the space on how we do that, we’re not pigeonholed into a certain formula or certain format,” Robertson said. “We’re able to say this is the best way this story needs to be told, so that’s how we’re going to tell this story.”

Podcasting by the numbers

Robertson is part of the ever-growing population of podcasters behind the resurgence of the audio industry. Not since radio was king have people flocked to audio as their go-to source for entertainment. According to data from Loopex Digital, there are over 414 million podcasts out in the world, each trying to get listeners to like and subscribe.

Straight Arrow News spoke with iHeartPodcasts president Will Pearson as he was on his way to discuss a potential podcasting project. Home to more than 750 original podcasts, iHeart is the No. 1 podcast publisher in the world.

“What’s been so incredibly exciting over the past four years is seeing podcasting develop into the newest mass reach medium,” Pearson said. “If you look back five, six years ago, you’d call it a niche medium, just this really exciting, interesting space, just not reaching the masses. Today, podcasting is reaching 135 million people every single month in the U.S. alone, almost half a billion people when you look beyond that.”

Though the word podcast was first coined in 2004, the medium truly popped onto the scene most notably a decade ago when “Serial” grabbed listeners by their ears. The series has been downloaded more than 300 million times.

“Serial” became the first podcast to receive a Peabody Award and launched the true-crime genre, inspiring not only podcast creators but influencing television productions as seen in Hulu’s “Only Murders in the Building.”

In 2006, 22% of the adult population in the U.S. was aware of podcasting. In 2022, that number rose to 80%, according to Statista.  

Edison Research’s Infinite Dial 2024 survey found 47% of Americans 12 years and older have listened to a podcast in the past week, up 10% over last year. 

In addition, 192 million people, 67% of the U.S. population, said they have listened to a podcast in their lifetime.

The Interactive Advertising Bureau’s Matt Shapo said there is pretty much a podcast for everyone these days.

“There’s this incredible opportunity for people that want to learn or know or dive into any topic of interest to them across so many different genres and verticals,” Shapo said. “That’s the beauty of podcasting.”

“There’s so much wonderful content out there that podcast creators are producing every day and there’s this wide canvas of content that people who love to learn about things get a chance to interact with,” Shapo continued.

Let’s Make A Deal: Podcast Edition

The podcast business is booming with the biggest podcast of all, “The Joe Rogan Experience,” with over 14.5 million followers on the Spotify platform alone. Spotify struck a multi-year deal with the host earlier this year reportedly worth around $250 million dollars.

That news came just days after SiriusXM’s reported $100 million three-year deal for exclusive rights to SmartLess, the podcast hosted by actors Jason Batemen, Sean Hayes and Will Arnett.

This does not mean these podcasts are only available on these specific platforms; it just means these audio outlets are able to give their subscribers perks like early access and the companies themselves gain ad sale revenue.

And, boy, are there ad sales!  

“A lot of people are describing this current era as a golden age of audio and podcasting is obviously right smack dab in the center in this renaissance of audio,” Shapo said. “You’re starting to see more large-scale brand advertisers coming to podcasting, understanding that they can find the audience they want to find, they can tell the stories they want to tell, and they can find the reach and the scale they need.”

According to the IAB, advertising revenue is projected to increase 12 percent this year to $2 billion and reach nearly $2.6 billion by 2026. 

“There really is something very special about the deep-dive conversations that podcasters tend to have — really long-form content that you don’t get almost anywhere else, really bespoke content produced by really passionate people who form these incredibly close, parasocial bonds with their listeners, really become meaningful relationships,” Shapo said. “Those meaningful relationships between the people creating the content and the people consuming the content is really what’s driven all this spectacular growth.”

Not only is the growth of the first-time advertisers something to talk about, Pearson noted that the change in the type of advertisers is a testament to the strength of the podcasting industry.

“So if you look back five or six years ago, the majority of your advertisers in this space would have been what we call direct response advertisers, you think your mattress companies, your box meal companies, you know those that give you a discount code to say, ‘The next time you visit the website, be sure to use the code for our podcast and you’ll get a discount on this,’” Pearson said.

“Those direct response advertisers are the ones that proved the effectiveness of host read ads and podcast advertising. And then big brands started waking up to that and realizing, ‘Oh, wow, this is an opportunity to engage people in a very intimate and new and direct way.’”

And podcast listeners are paying attention to all these ads. Dentsu’s Attention Economy Podcast Study showed podcast ads hold consumers’ attention longer than social media, digital video and TV ads.  

The IAB said the comedy and sports genres are at the top of the list when it comes to both listeners and advertisers. Shapo said this shows people are not just heading to podcasts to be informed and find community, but also to kick back and be entertained.

Rewatch podcasts bring on the nostalgia

There is another podcast genre doing the same, while also making nostalgia hip: the rewatch podcast. Examples include “Where Everybody Knows Your Name,” “That Was Us,” The Ringer’s “The Rewatchables,” and “How Rude Tanneritos: A Full House Rewatch Podcast.”

Pearson said these trips down memory lane make up one of the most popular genres for iHeartMedia. 

“I guess that was another thing when you think about what people are looking for in podcasting — that bit of escape or that entertainment from all that is stress relieving, looking back to times that we’re less stressful,” Pearson said. “You know, thinking about the nostalgia play in podcasting is a huge one.”

“And so you know, being able to say you know what, I want to look back to 10 years ago when I was in love with the show ‘One Tree Hill,’ and to have Sophia Bush and the cast from ‘One Tree Hill’ being able to revisit that show with something like ‘Drama Queens,’ and so we’ve probably got, you know, 10 different shows in the sort of broader rewatch/companion show category.”

Shapo said advertisers are also looking for ways to be part of the podcast.

Take Hyundai for example and the rewatch podcast “Pod Meets World” with the cast of the 90s ABC TGIF sitcom “Boy Meets World.” Hyundai recently sponsored episodes of the show where the cast stayed in the house depicted on the sitcom and is named in talent reads each week.

Shapo said new technologies in analyzing podcast content and viewership are helping to quell advertisers’ fears that the podcasting world is the Wild Wild West.

“As we continue to see advances in the way artificial intelligence is used to analyze podcast episode transcripts and not just understand it in sort of a blunt, keyword-based way, where there is safety to be found and where there is alignment to be found for brand advertisers,” Shapo said, adding, “but also to really get into the sentiment and the true understanding of a podcast episode, it opens up all sorts of contextually opportunities and chances for brands to do brand storytelling in these incredibly aligned ways.”

All about the audience

In the end, what these experts agree on is that it’s not the relationship between the advertiser and the show that draws the public in, but the connection between the host and the listener.  

“You have this extraordinary relationship between people who are producing podcast content and the people who are coming to consume it,” Shapo said. “That is the core bedrock reason that underlies all growth stories. That is the fundamental reason you will continue to see growth in this medium.”

That’s Ryan Robertson’s goal — to continue to develop that connection with his “Weapons and Warfare” viewers as his podcast community grows.

“One of the exciting things about being new is that we’re building that relationship with the audience,” Robertson said. “We get the opportunity to build it new and build it fresh for a new product. There are other people talking about war and military-type topics, but not in the way we’re doing it where we’re really trying to meet the masses.”

And he is not shy about joining in with that ubiquitous but useful podcaster phrase.

“I encourage everyone to like, subscribe and help us grow this thing,” Robertson said.

Tags: , , , ,

[BROCK KOLLER]

RYAN ROBERTSON HAS HELD MANY POSITIONS IN HIS BROADCAST CAREER. REPORTER…PRODUCER…NEWS DIRECTOR. .

RECENTLY HE TOOK ON A NEW ROLE HERE AT STRAIGHT ARROW NEWS – PODCASTER.

[RYAN ROBERTSON]

“What a time to be alive when we can live in this opportunity that this technology that allows us to reach so many people in so many places with relative ease to me is just kind of mind boggling.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

EACH WEEK RYAN SPEAKS ON THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MILITARY WORLD IN HIS PODCAST “WEAPONS AND WARFARE.”

HE SAYS THE MEDIUM IS GIVING HIM THE FREEDOM TO TALK ABOUT THESE TOPICS AS THEY ARE MEANT TO BE DISCUSSED TO AN AUDIENCE ON A WIDE RANGE OF PLATFORMS.

[RYAN ROBERTSON]

“We’re given a certain amount of time to tell our stories that we gather from around the country and really explore the space on how we do that, we’re not pigeonholed into a certain formula or certain format, we’re able to say this is the best way this story needs to be told, so that’s how we’re going to tell this story.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

RYAN IS PART OF THE EVER-GROWING POPULATION OF PODCASTERS BEHIND THE RESURGENCE OF THE AUDIO INDUSTRY.

NOT SINCE RADIO WAS KING HAVE PEOPLE FLOCKED TO AUDIO AS THEIR GO-TO SOURCE FOR ENTERTAINMENT. BUT WHO KNOWS THE REASON?

“The Shadow Knows….hahah”

WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THERE ARE OVER 414 MILLION PODCASTS OUT IN THE WORLD – EACH TRYING TO GET YOU TO LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE.

[WILL PEARSON]

“What’s been so incredibly exciting over the past four years is seeing podcasting develop into the newest mass reach medium.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

WILL PEARSON IS THE PRESIDENT OF IHEARTPODCASTS – — THE NUMBER ONE PODCAST PUBLISHER IN THE WORLD – WITH MORE THAN 750 ORIGINALS TO ITS NAME.

[WILL PEARSON]

“If you look back five, six years ago, you’d call it a niche medium, just this really exciting, interesting space, just not reaching the masses. Today, podcasting is reaching 135 million people every single month in the U.S. alone, almost half a billion people when you look beyond that.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

THOUGH THE WORD PODCAST WAS FIRST COINED IN 2004 – THE MEDIUM TRULY POPPED ONTO THE SCENE MOST NOTABLY A DECADE AGO WHEN SERIAL GRABBED LISTENERS BY THEIR EARS.

[SARAH KOENING]

“FROM THIS AMERICAN LIFE AND WBEZ CHICAGO, IT’S SERIAL – ONE STORY TOLD WEEK BY WEEK. I’M SARAH KOENING.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

DOWNLOADED MORE THAN 300 MILLION TIMES, SERIAL BECAME THE FIRST PODCAST TO RECEIVE A PEABODY AWARD AND LAUNCHED THE TRUE-CRIME GENRE OF PODCASTING

THE SERIES INSPIRING NOT ONLY PODCAST CREATORS – BUT INFLUENCING TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS.

[ONLY MURDERS IN THE BUILDING TEASER]

[BROCK KOLLER]

IN 2006 – 22 PERCENT OF THE ADULT POPULATION IN THE US WAS AWARE OF PODCASTING – IN 2022 – THAT NUMBER ROSE TO 80 PERCENT.

IN EDISON RESEARCH’S INFINITE DIAL 2024 SURVEY – IT FOUND 47% OF AMERICANS 12 YEARS AND OLDER HAVE LISTENED TO A PODCAST IN THE PAST WEEK – UP 10 PERCENT OVER LAST YEAR.

192 MILLION PEOPLE – 67% OF THE US POPULATION – SAY THEY HAVE LISTENED TO A PODCAST IN THEIR LIFETIME.

THE INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING BUREAU’S MATT SHAPO SAYS THERE’S PRETTY MUCH A PODCAST FOR EVERYONE THESE DAYS.

[MATT SHAPO]

“There’s this incredible opportunity for people that want to learn or know or dive into any topic of interest to them across so many different genres and verticals. That’s the beauty of podcasting. /  There’s so much wonderful content out there that podcast creators are producing every day and there’s this wide canvas of content that people who love to learn about things get a chance to interact with.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

THE PODCAST BUSINESS IS BOOMING!

“BOOM!”

THE BIGGEST PODCAST OF ALL – THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE – WITH OVER 14 POINT FIVE MILLION FOLLOWERS ON THE SPOTIFY PLATFORM ALONE.

SPOTIFY STRIKING A MULTI-YEAR DEAL WITH THE HOST EARLIER THIS YEAR REPORTEDLY WORTH AROUND 250 MILLION DOLLARS.

THAT NEWS CAME JUST DAYS AFTER SIRIUSXM’S ANNOUNCEMENT –

[SMARTLESS OPEN]

“SMART-LESS”

[BROCK KOLLER]

A REPORTED 100 MILLION DOLLARS FOR A THREE-YEAR DEAL FOR EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO SMARTLESS – THE PODCAST HOSTED BY ACTORS JASON BATEMEN, SEAN HAYES AND WILL ARNETT.

NOW THIS DOESN’T MEAN THESE PODCASTS ARE ONLY AVAILABLE ON THESE SPECIFIC PLATFORMS – IT JUST MEANS THESE AUDIO OUTLETS ARE ABLE TO GIVE THEIR SUBSCRIBERS PERKS LIKE EARLY ACCESS AND THE COMPANIES THEMSELVES GAIN AD SALE REVENUE.

AND, BOY, ARE THERE AD SALES!

[MATT SHAPO]

A lot of people are describing this current era as a golden age of audio and podcasting is obviously right smack dab in the center in this renaissance of audio.

“You’re starting to see more large-scale brand advertisers coming to podcasting, understanding that they can find the audience they want to find, they can tell the stories they want to tell, and they can find the reach and the scale they need.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

ACCORDING TO THE IAB – ADVERTISING REVENUE IS PROJECTED TO INCREASE 12 PERCENT THIS YEAR TO 2 BILLION DOLLARS — AND REACH NEARLY 2 POINT 6 BILLION BY 2026.

[MATT SHAPO]

“There really is something very special about the deep dive conversations that podcasters tend to have. Really longform content that you don’t get almost anywhere else. Really bespoke content produced by really passionate people who form these incredibly close, parasocial bonds  with their listeners, really become meaningful relationships. That, those meaningful relationships between the people creating the content and the people consuming the content is really what’s driven all this spectacular growth.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

NOT ONLY IS THE GROWTH OF THE FIRST-TIME PODCASTER ADVERTISER SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT – IHEARTMEDIA’S WILL PEARSON POINTS OUT THAT THE CHANGE IN THE TYPE OF ADVERTISERS IS A TESTAMENT TO THE STRENGTH OF THE PODCASTING INDUSTRY.

[WILL PEARSON]

“So if you look back five or six years ago, the majority of your advertisers in this space would have been what we call direct response advertisers, you think your mattress companies, your box meal companies, you know those that give you a discount code to say you know, the next time you visit the website, be sure to use the code for our podcast and you’ll get a discount on this…

“…those direct response advertisers are the ones that proved the effectiveness of host read ads and podcast advertising. And then big brands started waking up to that and realizing, Oh, wow, this is an opportunity to engage people in a very intimate and new and direct way.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

AND PODCAST LISTENERS ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO ALL THESE ADS. IN FACT — DENTSU’S ATTENTION ECONOMY PODCAST STUDY SHOWS PODCAST ADS HOLD CONSUMERS ATTENTION LONGER THAN SOCIAL MEDIA, DIGITAL VIDEO AND TV ADS.

IAB SAYS THE COMEDY AND SPORTS GENRES ARE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST WHEN IT COMES TO BOTH LISTENERS AND ADVERTISERS.

SHAPO SAYS THIS SHOWS PEOPLE AREN’T JUST HEADING TO PODCASTS TO BE INFORMED AND FIND COMMUNITY – BUT ALSO TO KICK BACK AND BE ENTERTAINED.

ONE OTHER PODCAST GENRE DOING THAT –

WHILE ALSO MAKING NOSTALGIA HIP – THE REWATCH PODCAST.

[WHERE EVERYBODY KNOWS YOUR NAME]

“WHERE EVERYBODY KNOWS YOUR NAME WITH ME TED DANSON AND WOODY HARRELSON (SOMETIMES)…we could hang out together”

“That was Us”

“We big three decided that we will be taking Tuesdays back. That’s right we are your hosts of that was us a rewatch podcast starting May 14th and continuing week after week you will be able to listen to our episodes wherever you get your podcasts and you’ll be able to watch our podcasts on the That was Us YouTube channel.”

[Full House rewatch]

“Andrea we are bringing back the milkman, the paperboy and evening TV.” “We’re excited to introduce How Rude Tanneritos: A Full House Rewatch Podcast.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

FULL HOUSE CAST MEMBERS ACTUALLY HAVE TWO REWATCH PODCASTS!

AND THEN THERE’S THE RINGER’S BILL SIMMONS WHO HOSTS A REWATCH PODCAST CALLED “THE REWATCHABLES.”

PEARSON SAYS THESE TRIPS DOWN MEMORY LANE MAKE UP ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR GENRES FOR IHEART.

[WILL PEARSON]

“I guess that was another thing when you think about what people are looking for in podcasting. You know, that that bit of escape or that entertainment from all that is stress relieving, looking back to times that we’re less stressful. You know, thinking about the nostalgia play in podcasting is a huge one.”

And so you know, being able to say you know what, I want to look back to 10 years ago when I was in love with the show One Tree Hill and to have Sophia Bush and the cast from One Tree Hill being able to revisit that show with something like Drama Queens, and so we’ve probably got, you know, 10 different shows in the sort of broader rewatch slash companion show category.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

SHAPO SAYS ADVERTISERS ARE ALSO LOOKING FOR WAYS TO BE PART OF THE PODCAST.

TAKE HYUNDAI IN THE REWATCH PODCAST “POD MEETS WORLD” WITH THE CAST OF THE 90S TGIF SITCOM BOY MEETS WORLD.

[Pod Meets World Ad]

“When it comes to Pod Meets World we’re synonymous with two things: watching our younger selves on a TV show from 30 years ago and loving Hyundai.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

HYUNDAI ALSO SPONSORING EPISODES OF THE SHOW WHERE THE CAST STAYED IN THE HOUSE DEPICTED ON THE SITCOM.

SHAPO SAYS NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN ANALYZING PODCAST CONTENT AND VIEWERSHIP ARE HELPING TO QUELL ADVERTISERS’ FEARS THAT THE PODCASTING WORLD IS THE WILD WILD WEST.

[MATT SHAPO]

“One of the terrific advancements we’ve seen over the last year or two is this incredible uptick in the usage of brand suitability and brand safety filtering in podcasting.

[Ted Danson]

“If you’re anything like me.”

[MATT SHAPO]

“As we continue to see advances in the way artificial intelligence is used to analyze podcast episode transcripts and not just understand in sort of a blunt keyword based way where there is safety to be found and where there is alignment to be fond for brand advertisers but also to really get into the sentiment and the true understanding of a podcast episode it opens up all sorts of contextually opportunities and chances for brands to do brand storytelling in these incredibly aligned ways.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

IN THE END – IT’S NOT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ADVERTISER AND THE SHOW THAT DRAWS THE PUBLIC IN  – BUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE HOST AND THE LISTENER.

[MATT SHAPO]

“You have this extraordinary relationship between people who are producing podcast content and the people who are coming to consume it. That is the core bedrock reason that underlies all growth stories. That is the fundamental reason you will continue to see growth in this medium.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

THAT’S THE GOAL FOR RYAN ROBERTSON – TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THAT CONNECTION WITH HIS “WEAPONS AND WARFARE” VIEWERS AS HIS PODCAST COMMUNITY GROWS.

[RYAN ROBERTSON]

“One of the exciting things about being new is that we’re building that, we’re building that relationship with the audience…”

“We get the opportunity to build it new and build it fresh for a new product – there’s other people talking about war and military-type topics, but not in the way we’re doing it where we’re really trying to meet the masses.”

[BROCK KOLLER]

AND RYAN’S NOT SHY ABOUT JOINING IN WITH THAT UBIQUITOUS BUT USEFUL PODCASTER EXPRESSION

[RYAN ROBERTSON]

“I encourage everyone to like, subscribe and help us grow this thing.”

Business

46% of Americans are still paying off last summer’s credit card debt

Share

July is the most happening travel month of the year. Americans jet off to beaches, national parks or theme parks, but nearly half are carrying more baggage than what is in their luggage.

According to WalletHub’s 2024 Credit Card Debt Survey, 46% of Americans are still paying down last summer’s credit card balance.

“And almost 25% of them reported being very stressed out about it, about their credit card debt in general,” WalletHub Editor Christie Matherne told Straight Arrow News. “And that’s probably because of this next stat, which is nearly half of people said that they carry debt on cards from everyday purchases, which can get really expensive.”

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

With the average credit card interest rate of around 23%, people are quickly falling behind on payments. Credit card delinquencies are up across the country, though some cities are increasingly struggling more than others.

WalletHub said in Chula Vista, California, delinquencies are up 85% in the last year. The city that is best off is Des Moines, Iowa, where delinquencies are still up, though by a much smaller 19%.

“That’s bad news,” Matherne said. “That’s not great. That means people are late on their credit card bills, they can’t afford to pay minimum payments, and that lands you in further debt with further problems.”

Nearly 1 in 3 people told WalletHub they will have more credit card debt by the end of the year. 2024 already started with record-high credit card debt.

Although 80% of people told WalletHub that paying their credit card debt is a top priority, summer vacations can put a snag in those plans. Of the Americans traveling this summer, 36% told Bankrate they are willing to go into debt to pay for it.

“I do see the disconnect between that and charging your vacation on a credit card when you’re still paying off last summer’s debt,” Matherne said. “And it also might be worth saying that people need vacations.”

As much as people need a break, nearly 1 in 3 Americans told Bankrate they are skipping summer vacation this year because they cannot afford it.

Credit card debt is not just about personal finances. As more Americans carry higher credit card balances, that financial strain stretches beyond the home.

“A whole bunch of money is ending up in credit card companies’ hands and less of it is ending up in our communities,” Matherne explained.

That slows consumer spending, the most critical component of the U.S. economy. It drives two-thirds of the country’s economic growth. That is why credit card debt and delinquencies can be a harbinger of a downturn if things do not turn around. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simone Del Rosario: It’s the most happening travel month of the year. Americans are jetting off to beaches, national parks or theme parks, but nearly half are carrying more baggage than what’s in their luggage. 

According to WalletHub’s 2024 Credit Card Debt Survey, 46% of Americans are still paying down last summer’s credit card balance. 

Christie Matherne: And almost 25% of them reported being very stressed out about it, about their credit card debt in general. And that’s probably because of this next stat, which is nearly half of people said that they carry debt on cards from everyday purchases, which can get really expensive.

Simone Del Rosario: With the average credit card interest rate of nearly 23%, people are quickly falling behind. 

Credit card delinquencies are up across the country, though some cities are increasingly struggling more than others. 

WalletHub says in Chula Vista, California, that’s just outside San Diego, delinquencies are up 85% just in the last year. The city that’s best off is Des Moines, Iowa, where delinquencies are still up, though by a much smaller 19%. 

Christie Matherne: That’s bad news. That’s not great. That means people are late on their credit card bills, they can’t afford to pay minimum payments, and that lands you in further debt with further problems.

Simone Del Rosario: Nearly 1 in 3 people tell WalletHub they’ll have more credit card debt by the end of the year, a year that already started with record-high credit card debt. 

And though 80% of people told WalletHub that paying their credit card debt is a top priority, summer vacations can put a snag in those plans.

Of the Americans traveling this summer, 36% told Bankrate they’re willing to go into debt to pay for it. 

Christie Matherne: I do see the disconnect between that and charging your vacation on a credit card when you’re still paying off last summer’s debt. And it also might be worth saying that people need vacations.

Simone Del Rosario: As much as people need a break, nearly 1 in 3 Americans told Bankrate they’re skipping summer vacation this year because they can’t afford it. 

Credit card debt is not just about personal finances. As more and more Americans carry higher and higher credit card balances, that financial strain stretches beyond the home. 

Christie Matherne: A whole bunch of money is ending up in credit card companies’ hands and less of it is ending up in our communities.

Simone Del Rosario: That slows consumer spending, the most critical component of the U.S. economy. It drives two-thirds of the country’s economic growth. 

Which is why credit card debt and delinquencies can be a harbinger of a downturn if things don’t turn around. 

I’m Simone Del Rosario for SAN. 

International

Paris 2024: Behind the Olympic spectacle lies a history of corruption

Share

Every four years, billions of people across the globe tune into the Summer Olympics. The 2024 Games are set to be a spectacle, descending on Paris for the first time in 100 years.

But sometimes, scoring the biggest sporting event on the planet is rife with corruption. And the scandals don’t stop after the winning bid is announced. 

Olympic pride and bragging rights

In the United States, polls show the number of people who are extremely proud to be an American is at record lows. But through the Olympics, that sentiment changes. During the Tokyo Games in 2021, 63% of Americans said they had a “very positive” reaction to seeing the American flag.

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

The reach goes beyond the traditional sports fan. Yes, the Olympics features the world championships in 300 different events, but moments are what make the games memorable.

The legends of athletes like Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps and Simone Biles are born during those two weeks and those legends will live on.

The Olympics also puts the spotlight on the host city and country. The world’s media focuses its cameras on the culture and history of nations that viewers may never have the opportunity to visit.

It’s the host city’s time to shine on a global stage. Paris is seizing that chance with a tradition-breaking opening ceremony. Instead of the pomp and circumstance in a world-class arena, Paris is opting for a parade of nations along the city’s famed Seine River. 

The Olympics is a biennial wonder that attracts millions of in-person spectators and many more through broadcast. But behind the scenes, this event can be rife with bribes and other shady deals.

Controversy and scandal have been part of the Olympics since the ancient Olympic Games in 776 B.C.

History of Olympic corruption

To understand Olympic corruption, you have to go back to its inception. Despite the tradition of swearing an oath to Zeus to play fair, the competition was founded on cheating.

As Greek mythology goes, Pelops won his bride’s hand by sabotaging the chariot of her father King Oenomaus before a race. The king died in the race and Pelops founded the Games to commemorate his victory.

The remnants of the ancient Games’ history with cheating are still visible today in Olympia, Greece. Pedestals that once supported bronze statues of Zeus can be found on the pathway to the entrance of the ancient stadium.

The Zanes, as they were called, were paid for by fines imposed on cheating Olympic athletes. The pedestals had the names of the cheaters inscribed, shaming them and warning other athletes to play fair. But though centuries have passed, some still need to be warned. 

Athletes cheating with performance-enhancing drugs, also known as doping, is a very real issue in the Olympics. But that specific type of controversy deserves its own deep dive. 

Bid rigging

Olympic corruption can start decades before the cauldron is lit at the opening ceremony. It’s called bid rigging and the Olympic version was a poorly kept secret before Salt Lake City’s scandal busted it wide open.

Salt Lake City tried and failed to secure the Olympics four times before winning the 2002 Winter Games. After the city’s fourth loss, to Nagano, Japan, for the 1998 Winter Games, the Salt Lake organizing committee changed its strategy. Tired of losing, officials took a page from Nagano’s book after learning Japanese officials spent as much as $14 million, or $32 million in today’s dollars, to land the Games. 

Nagano, at the time a little-known Japanese city, reportedly gave International Olympic Committee (IOC) officials the five-star treatment during the bidding process. Nagano’s bid committee hosted members in fancy hotels in Tokyo, Nagano and Kyoto. They also entertained them with geishas and helicopter rides. To cover up any corruption, they burned 10 large boxes of documents to incinerate the paper trail.  

When there’s money, there’s corruption.

Charlie Battle, Olympic bid consultant

“The Salt Lake City people realize that you had to keep a file on each IOC voting member,” Olympic historian David Wallechinsky told Straight Arrow News. “And then, you do whatever you could to get their vote.”

Wallechinsky fell in love with the Olympics as a kid when his father took him to the 1960 Rome Games. He became so intrigued with the event that he wrote “The Complete Book of the Olympics” and is one of the founding members of the International Society of Olympic Historians.

Wallechinsky said the way Salt Lake City secured the Games was some of the most overt bid rigging in history.

“There was an IOC member from Togo,” he said. “Togo doesn’t compete in the Winter Olympics. That didn’t matter, because the guy still voted. So they kept flying him out to Salt Lake City. Well, that wasn’t good enough, so they had to include a stopover in Paris so his wife could go shopping on the bid committee’s pocketbook. The whole thing was so ridiculous. But they got the Games and that was all they cared about.”

After investigators found out about the Salt Lake City scheme, the IOC expelled 10 members. The U.S. Department of Justice also brought bribery and fraud charges against the president and vice president of the Salt Lake City bid committee. Both officials resigned years before the games came to town. Those charges were dropped after the successful 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

The crackdown didn’t end allegations of bid rigging. In 2021, years after the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Games, Brazilian Olympic Committee President Carlos Arthur Nuzman was sentenced to 30 years in jail for crimes connected to buying votes to secure the Olympics. However, Nuzman is still free after a Brazilian federal court ruled the original judge didn’t have the legal competence to rule in the case. 

How to get the Olympics

While the honor of hosting an Olympics has driven some to risk jail time, scoring the global event isn’t always a corrupt process.

“Growing up as a child, I loved to watch the Olympics,” said Charlie Battle, an instrumental member of the team that brought the Olympics to Atlanta in 1996. “I believed in it. I bought into the whole [idea of] bringing the world together through sport.” 

Before Battle got involved with Atlanta’s Olympic bid, he was a municipal finance attorney in the city. He said when they started the bidding process, Atlanta was a very different city than it is today. 

“We were just in the ’80s, beginning to get international plane service,” he recalled. “But we call ourselves the world’s next great city.”

“Truth be known, when we started this, people wondered if we were going to have blackjack because they got us confused with Atlantic City, New Jersey,” he added.

Before U.S. city organizers can pitch to the IOC, they need to win over the national committee. After Atlanta beat out San Francisco, Nashville and Minneapolis for the U.S. bid, the committee needed to raise money to challenge other nations for the right to host. 

“The government doesn’t support the Olympics in this country,” Battle said. “There are a lot of constitutional provisions that prevent cities and counties from pledging money.”

“We couldn’t start building our stadium until we had a TV contract in hand,” Battle continued. “That was a bankable contract. And then when we won the U.S. designation, we were able to get some corporate support.”

Atlanta-based beverage behemoth Coca-Cola put up, at least, tens of millions of dollars to bring the games to their home turf, though they’d been a major Olympic sponsor for years. For the most part, the Atlanta Games was a privately-funded affair

But selling sponsorships was just a part of the process. Battle said they also had to sell the IOC on Atlanta’s event-hosting prowess. 

“There were 88 international members,” he explained. “We had to meet them, try to get them to come to Atlanta, go to see them. And basically, I ended up just on the road for the next couple of years.”

There wasn’t any bribery involved in bringing the Olympics to Atlanta. As far as Battle was concerned, all they needed was southern charm.

“That’s why I went on the road so much to go visit people, visit them in their homes, get to know their families, try to get them to come to Atlanta, show them that we’ve got the people they can trust,” he said. “It’s a marketing deal in the end, but from our perspective, making friends was the key.”

In 1990, the IOC officially awarded the games to Atlanta. At the time, the Atlantic Journal wrote, “Battle’s personal skills at lobbying IOC members were a key to Atlanta’s win.”

Six years later, Atlanta was celebrating a successful start of the games when a bomb detonated at Atlanta’s Centennial Olympic Park, killing one woman and injuring more than 100 others.

Security guard Richard Jewell was initially hailed as a hero for discovering the suspicious backpack and moving Olympic fans out of harm’s way, limiting the bomb’s destruction.

Within days, Jewell was wrongfully targeted as the prime suspect. It took years to catch the real bomber, Eric Rudolph, whom police arrested in 2003. Clint Eastwood directed a film focused on Jewell’s part of the story in the 2019 film, “Richard Jewell.”

Outside the tragedy and some problems with heat and traffic, the ’96 Olympics were mostly seen as a success. Despite that success, in 2013, when the U.S. Olympic Committee asked cities to put names in the ring for the 2024 Games, former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young, who co-led the ’96 bid, said they shouldn’t make another push. 

“I don’t feel like going through it again, and I don’t imagine anyone from 1996 will,” Young told Atlanta Magazine at the time. “It’s a 10-year commitment.”

Still, Young said hosting the Olympics is good for any city, and Battle agreed that Atlanta benefited greatly from the Games. 

“There are always people who say, ‘Well, we shouldn’t spend this money, we ought to spend it on something else,’ and there’s no doubt about that,” Young said. “We should, but that isn’t the way the world works. We wouldn’t have had this money. They weren’t going to raise to revitalize [the city or] something else or help build housing, or this, that and the other.”

The winning bid had a lasting effect on the city, specifically on Atlanta’s downtown. 

“We built a downtown park in Atlanta called Centennial Olympic Park, which was on nobody’s radar at the time we started, but ended up being, really, the best legacy of our games,” Battle said.

In the three decades that followed the Atlanta Games, the city’s population doubled. Hosting the Olympics helped solidify Atlanta as a premier sporting event destination. Since 1996, it has hosted two Super Bowls, multiple NCAA Final Fours and the College Football National Championship.

The pitfalls of hosting

Not every Olympic host city secures a symbolic gold medal. One of the biggest pitfalls is the budget, which tends to be more aspirational than pegged in reality.

From 1960 to 2016, the Summer Games went over budget by an average of 213%, according to an analysis from the University of Oxford. The 2008 Beijing Olympics only went over budget by 2%, but the city had a significantly higher budget than the average host city. Meanwhile, the 1976 Montreal Games exceeded its budget by 720%.

For the Winter Olympics, the average cost overrun is 142%. The 1980 Lake Placid games went 324% over budget. 

Overages can wreck a hosting legacy. There’s no place more “Olympic” than Greece, but the country was in poor shape to handle its most recent hosting duties.

“The only reason Greece was able to put on the Games was the EU, but they borrowed too much money and went into financial [trouble] because they built all kinds of monuments that they didn’t need,” said Battle, who continued consulting on bids following the success of the Atlanta Games.

While some cities like Atlanta reap the benefits of hosting the Olympics, abandoned state-of-the-art venues often become an eyesore in others. 

“They build way too much stuff and they build stuff they don’t need and they waste a lot of money,” Battle said.

Atlanta transformed its Olympic track-and-field stadium into Turner Field shortly after the Olympics. The facility became the home of the MLB’s Atlanta Braves for two decades. 

Because issues like budget and abandoned facilities continue to come up with each event, the IOC is taking steps to stop it from being a regular part of future Olympic stories.

“What the IOC has done is they’ve introduced a system where you have to — in advance, before you’re even allowed to bid — meet a certain criteria of where you’re going to get the money; what are the venues that are going to be built; the environmental aspects; sustainability,” Wallechinsky told SAN. 

Post-bid corruption

For controversy-laden Olympics, the opportunity for bribery doesn’t stop after a city has been named as the host. 

The 2014 Games in Sochi, Russia, cost an estimated $55 billion. With all of that money to spend, contracts to support hosting the Games were highly coveted. 

“When there’s money, there’s corruption,” Battle said.

A major Sochi beneficiary was Arkady Rotenberg, who Bloomberg described as “the boyhood friend and former judo partner of black-belt President Vladimir Putin.” The publication counted at least 21 contracts awarded to Rotenberg worth more than $7 billion, which totals more than some entire Olympic budgets. 

The contracts ranged from a share of the transportation system linking Sochi to ski resorts to a highway along the Black Sea and a $387 million media center. 

After the Sochi Games, Putin also quietly handed out medals to his billionaire friends who invested in the Games. 

There is a lot of money involved in putting on the Olympics. Even as the IOC tries to clean up the process, the last Summer Olympics in Tokyo faced scandal. 

“There were bribes: TV rights bribes, all sorts of bribes, which sponsor would get the rights to this or that,” Wallechinsky said of the Tokyo bribery scandal. 

Advertising giant Dentsu, five other companies and seven individuals are charged with colluding in assigning contracts for the Tokyo Games. Organizers also faced allegations that they may have secured the Games in a less-than-honest fashion. But as the world prepares for the next summer spectacle, the most recent is still playing out in Japanese courts. 

Paris is in the thick of preparing to host the games. But in October of last year, officials raided the office of the Paris Olympic Committee. A source told Reuters at the time that the raid was part of an investigation into alleged favoritism for some awarded contracts. 

IOC’s rule change

While the IOC cleaned house over bid rigging corruption, it has less control over what happens after awarding the games. Paris will be the first Olympics under the IOC’s new anti-corruption clause. 

“What we’ve seen now is a real change,” Wallechinsky said. “The IOC under Thomas Bach, who’s the president of the IOC, realized this is not good. We can’t have another Sochi situation, we can’t have another Rio situation.

“So when they got really good bids for the 2024 Summer Olympics from both Paris and Los Angeles, they went, ‘Wait a minute, let’s not pit these people against each other. Let’s give them each an Olympics.'”

Instead of a long, drawn-out bidding process for the Summer and Winter Olympics, which has historically produced corruption, two IOC panels are permanently open to talks with any city that could host the games. These panels can also approach prospective cities they think might be the right fit to host the Olympics. 

The idea of eliminating the bidding process altogether and using a handful of rotating sites has come up, but it didn’t gain much traction. Still, cities that have hosted successful games could get multiple chances. 

“Salt Lake City is going to get the Winter Olympics again,” Wallechinsky said. “But in a more honest way.”

Salt Lake’s path to 2002 might have been burned by bribery and budget overages, but the city turned it around when Mitt Romney took the reins. The 2002 Winter Games turned a profit when all was said and done and turned Romney into a household name. After snubbing him in 1994, Massachusetts voters elected him to be their governor in 2002 and the rest is history.

Though the Salt Lake City scandal forever tarnished IOC’s history, it’s now the front-runner for the 2034 Winter Games. 

Paris scrutiny

Aside from the ongoing investigation into the Paris Organizing Committee, Wallechinsky — who splits his time between the south of France and the U.S. — said there are other hosting concerns.

“There have been some terrible terrorist attacks in France,” he said. “They’ve come up with this opening ceremony, which is going to be in public with hundreds of thousands of people.”

It’s an Olympic first: An opening ceremony outside of a stadium. The Paris pomp and circumstance will take place along the Seine. While it will make for an amazing spectacle, security is top of mind. 

“The challenge that the French are facing is not just protecting the Olympic venues, but the entire city and to a certain extent the rest of the country as well, all at the same time,” Wallechinsky said.

But still, he said there isn’t a lot a city can do to avoid scrutiny. 

“I always told people from host cities, ‘Everybody’s going to criticize you before the Games,'” Wallechinsky said. “Because as members of the media, if we say, ‘Oh, this is going really well,’ nobody’s going to follow that. They don’t want to read that. It’s not click-friendly.

“And so we’re always looking for something that’s wrong. That’s going to be the story. And then when the competition starts, everybody forgets about that unless it’s really serious.”

While the bombing at Atlanta’s Centennial Park shook the city, Americans still remember the Magnificent Seven taking home gold, or Michael Johnson breaking the 200-meter world record that stood until Usain Bolt burst onto the scene. And that’s why people like Charlie Battle still believe in the Games, despite its flaws.

“I still believe that good athletic competition and good athletic stories can be inspirational to young people,” Battle shared.

The 2024 Paris Summer Olympic Games kicks off with the opening ceremony on July 26 and runs through Aug. 11. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simone Del Rosario:

Every four years billions of people worldwide tune in to the Summer Olympics, and the vast appeal stretches far beyond sports.

While polls show the number of people who are extremely proud to be an American is at record lows, the Olympics have a way of turning that around. During the Tokyo games, 63 percent of Americans said they had a “very positive” reaction when they saw the stars and stripes.

No matter where you live on the planet, the Olympics drum up profound memories. I’ll still tear up to this day thinking about Muhammad Ali fighting through Parkinson’s to light the cauldron at the ’96 Atlanta Olympics…36 years after he won the gold in Rome, only to throw the medal into a river after facing racism when he came home. Even as a child, I knew that was a moment.

But the one that still gives me chills was watching Kerri Strug stick the landing on her vault after hurting her ankle, clinching gold for Team USA, the Magnificent Seven.

Sure, we watch the Olympics to see excellence and world competition in 300 different events. It’s where GOATs are born. Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Katie Ledecky, Simone Biles. Of course, your list of superstars will be different depending on where you live.

But the Olympics also show off some of the world’s greatest cities. For over two weeks we get to learn about the culture and history of faraway nations. The opening ceremony in Rio resurfaced a century-old debate that Brazil’s Alberto Santos-Dumont was the first human to fly, not the Wright Brothers. Watching events like the triathlon bring you right into the city, while the Paris opening ceremony will take place on the city’s famed Seine river.

It’s easy to take for granted a production that miraculously beams into our homes. But well before the starter pistol fires, there is so much that goes into a city scoring the Olympics and then pulling off an event of global proportions that attracts millions of visitors. It might surprise you to hear that both cases can be rife with bribes and other shady deals. Or maybe it won’t.

Controversy has been part of the Olympics since the ancient games in 776 B.C.

The Olympic Games were literally founded on cheating, despite the longstanding tradition of swearing an oath to Zeus to play fair.

As the Greek myth goes, Pelops won his bride’s hand by sabotaging her father King Oenomaus’ chariot before a race. The king died in the race and Pelops founded the Games to commemorate his victory.

Stroll toward the Ancient Games stadium in Olympia, the pathway is littered with what’s left of the Zanes. These pedestals once supported bronze statues of Zeus, paid for by fines imposed on cheating Olympic athletes. The pedestals had the offenses inscribed, to warn other athletes not to cheat. Centuries later, they still need to be warned.

News Coverage:

“New revelations about an elaborate scheme of alleged doping at the 2014 Winter Olympics.”

“Russia received a 4 year ban for doping from the World Anti-Doping Agency.”

Simone Del Rosario:

But it’s not just athletes foiling fair play.

In the modern Olympic era, misconduct can happen years before athletes even qualify for the Games.

News Coverage:

“It’s the Olympic bribery scandal in Salt Lake City. There are allegations the city won the Winter Games for the year 2002 by bribing some members of the International Olympic Committee.”

“Brazilian police have arrested the head of the national Olympic committee, Carlos Arthur Nuzman in a new phase of the so-called unfair play investigation.”

Simone Del Rosario:

Welcome to the world of bid-rigging.

David Wallechinsky:

You started to get real bidding corruption maybe in the ’60s…

Things got worse and worse. When you talk, It finally blew up in the bidding for the 2002 Salt Lake City Games.

Simone Del Rosario:

Olympic Historian David Wallechinsky says this corruption scandal was so ridiculous, it was almost humorous. All told, the bribery scandal surrounding Salt Lake City’s 2002 bid is the stuff of legend.

Olympic corruption was a poorly kept secret, but Salt Lake’s really the first time it all publicly came to light. Since then, the stain on the International Olympic Committee has been hard to scrub out.

Here’s a bit of important context: Salt Lake City tried and failed to get the Olympics four times before this happened. So this whole saga started after they lost out – for the fourth time – on the ’98 Olympics to Nagano, Japan.

Salt Lake’s organizing committee later learned that Japanese officials spent as much as $14 million – $32 mil in today’s dollars – to land the games.

Little-known Nagano had reportedly given IOC officials the first-class treatment. The bid committee hosted them in ritzy digs in Tokyo, Nagano and Kyoto. They entertained IOC members with geishas and helicopter rides. And to cover up any bribery, they burned 10 large boxes of documents, incinerating the paper trail.

Instead of licking their wounds from losing out – again – Salt Lake City took notes.

David Wallechinsky:

The Salt Lake City people realize that you you had to keep a file on each IOC voting member. And then, you know, do whatever you could to get their vote. And so there was one case in particular, caught my attention, where there was an IOC member from Togo. Well, Togo doesn’t compete in the Winter Olympics. That didn’t matter, because the guy still voted. So they kept flying him out to Salt Lake City. Well, that wasn’t good enough. So they had to include the stopover in Paris so his wife could go shopping on the bid committee’s pocketbook. It’s just the whole thing was so ridiculous. But they got the games, and that was all they cared about.

Simone Del Rosario:

Some might say Salt Lake City just played by IOC’s rules. If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying?

But the revelations broke bid-rigging corruption wide open. In response to investigations, the IOC expelled 10 members.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department brought bribery and fraud charges against the president and VP of Salt Lake City’s bid committee, who both resigned years before the games came to town. The charges were dropped a year after SLC’s successful run as host city.

But if you think that was the end of IOC and bid-rigging corruption, let me direct you to the 2016 Rio Games. In 2021, Brazilian Olympic Committee President Carlos Arthur Nuzman was sentenced to 30 years in jail for crimes connected to buying votes.

But he’s still a free man after a federal court ruled the judge didn’t have the legal competence to rule on the case.

Does winning an Olympic bid take a Faustian bargain? It doesn’t have to.

Charlie Battle:

I always loved the Olympics. Growing up as a child, I loved to watch the Olympics, I was fascinated by that. I believed in it.”

Simone Del Rosario:

Meet Charlie Battle.

Charlie Battle:

“I bought into the whole, bringing the world together through sport.”

Simone Del Rosario:

The Atlanta lawyer was in public finance before playing a key role in bringing the Games – and honor – to the ATL.

Charlie Battle:

We were just in the ’80s, beginning to get international plane service. But we call ourselves the world’s next great city.

Simone Del Rosario:

Atlanta’s jockeying for the Olympics came when the mid-size city was just a blip on the global map.

Charlie Battle:

Truth be known. When we started this, people wondered if we were going to have blackjack because they thought maybe they got us confused with Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Simone Del Rosario:

But before organizers could start lobbying IOC members, Atlanta needed to win the USA crown. After beating out San Francisco, Nashville, and Minneapolis came the unenviable task of raising money to challenge international bids.

Charlie Battle:

The government doesn’t support the Olympics in this country. And it’s, you know, there are a lot of constitutional provisions that prevent cities and counties from pledging money.

We couldn’t start building our stadium until we had a TV contract in hand. That was a bankable contract.

And then when we won the US designation, we were able to get some, you know, corporate support, and we kind of kept on keeping on.

Simone Del Rosario:

The plan went down as smooth as ice-cold Coca-Cola in the hot Atlanta summer.

The Atlanta-based beverage behemoth put up tens of millions – at least – to bring the games to their home turf, though they’d long been an Olympic sponsor. Atlanta’s Olympic promise was a privately-funded affair.

But Battle says they didn’t just have to sell sponsorships, they had to sell the IOC on the city.

Charlie Battle:

there were 88 international members, we had to meet them, try to get them to come to Atlanta, go to see them. And basically, I ended up just on the road for the next couple of years.

Simone Del Rosario:

And who needs bribery when you have Charlie Battle in your corner? He says he won the IOC over with good ol’ fashioned Southern hospitality.

Charlie Battle:
that’s why I went on the road so much is to go visit people, visit them in their homes, get to know their families, try to get them to come to Atlanta, show them that we’ve got the people they can trust.

it’s a marketing deal in the end, but from our perspective, making friends was the key.

News Coverage:

“The International Olympic Committee has awarded the 1996 Olympic games to the city of Atlanta.”

Simone Del Rosario:

The city exploded in victory when the Games were announced in 1990.

Battle was quoted on the front page of the Atlantic Journal saying he was stunned, excited, elated, shell shocked.

Six years later, the host city was celebrating a wildly successful start to the games when fear struck. A bomb detonated at Atlanta’s Centennial Olympic Park, killing one woman and injuring more than 100 others.

Security guard Richard Jewell was initially hailed a hero for discovering the suspicious backpack and moving Olympic fans out of harm’s way. The bombing could have been much more destructive. But within days, Jewell was wrongfully targeted as the prime suspect. It took years to catch the real bomber, Eric Rudolph, whom police arrested in 2003.

Clint Eastwood captured Jewell’s part of the story in the 2019 movie, “Richard Jewell.”

Where was I?

Outside of the tragedy – and the traffic – and the heat – the ’96 Games was mostly seen as a success.

But in 2013, when the U.S. Olympic Committee asked cities to put their names in the ring for the 2024 Games, former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young, who co-led Atlanta’s ’96 bid efforts, said the city shouldn’t go for it.

Plain and simple, he said, “I don’t feel like going through it again, and I don’t imagine anyone from 1996 will. It’s a 10-year commitment.”

But he did say hosting the Olympics is good for any city. Battle says Atlanta especially benefited greatly from the Games.

Charlie Battle:

Without question. Absolutely. Yes.

Charlie Battle:

There are always people who say, Well, we shouldn’t spend this money, we ought to spend it on something else. And there’s no doubt about that. We should, but that isn’t the way the world works, you know, just because we wouldn’t have had this money, you know, what we raised, they weren’t going to raise to revitalize, you know, something else, or help build housing or this that and the other.

Simone Del Rosario:

Battle says winning the Olympic bid turned the wheels on downtown development.

Charlie Battle:

We built a downtown park in Atlanta called Centennial Olympic Park, which was on nobody’s radar at the time we started, but ended up being really the best legacy of our games.

Simone Del Rosario:

In the three decades following the games, Atlanta’s population doubled. And the Olympics helped solidify the ATL as a premier sporting event destination. They’ve since hosted two Super Bowls, multiple Final Fours and the College Football National Championship.

Charlie Battle:

We were fortunate to get this and we had a tremendously positive impact.

Simone Del Rosario:

But not every host city scores gold. With the Olympics, budgets seem to be more of a false promise. From 1960-2016, Summer Games went over budget by an average of 213%. The 2008 Beijing Games supposedly went over just 2%, but they also budgeted higher than average and you can insert your own snide comment on government control over economic data. The 1976 Montreal Games had the biggest busted budget, exceeding it by 720%.

For the Winter Olympics, the average overrun is 142% with the 1980 Lake Placid Games going 324% over budget.

And not everyone’s fit to foot the bill.

Charlie Battle:

The only reason Greece was able to put on the games was the EU, but they borrowed too much money and went into financial (trouble) because they built all kinds of monuments that they didn’t need.

Simone Del Rosario:

Abandoned state-of-the-art facilities often become an eyesore on Olympic legacies and city spending.

Charlie Battle:

They build way too much stuff, and they build stuff they don’t need, and they waste a lot of money. And one of the things we always were proud of is that we really didn’t do that.

Simone Del Rosario:

In Atlanta, the track-and-field stadium transformed into Turner Field in less than a year, home of the MLB’s Atlanta Braves for two decades.

Overbudget and overdeveloped are just two reputational hazards the IOC is trying to overhaul.

David Wallechinsky:

Now it’s not as bad as it was. Because what the IOC has done is they’ve introduced a system where you have to, in advance, before you’re even allowed to bid, you have to meet a certain criteria of where you’re going to get the money, what are the venues that are going to be built. The environmental aspects, sustainability…

Simone Del Rosario:

But what about when the corruption comes in after a city wins the bid?

News Coverage:

“While Sochi is better known for its palm trees than snow, there is a blizzard of allegations of unsavory ties to organized crime figures, official corruption…”

“It’s just days until the Winter Olympic games open in Sochi. They’re already the most unlikely, and perhaps controversial games ever, they’re certainly the most expensive ever.”

Simone Del Rosario:

I can always count on Russia to help me make a point.

Enter the 2014 Games in Sochi, a $55 billion affair.

David Wallechinsky:

This was totally corrupt. Vladimir Putin gave 27 contracts to a friend of his.

Simone Del Rosario:

Well isn’t that nice. Bloomberg describes Arkady Rotenberg as “the boyhood friend and former judo partner of black-belt President Vladimir Putin.” Bloomberg counts at least 21 contracts worth more than $7 billion – which by the way – is more than some entire Olympic budgets.

The contracts ranged from a share of the transportation system linking Sochi to ski resorts, a highway along the Black Sea, and a $387 million media center.

I’ve been in quite a few media centers in my day. I can’t say I ever felt like someone spent hundreds of millions of dollars on it. I hope it came with a good spread.

After the fact, Putin also quietly handed out medals to his billionaire friends who invested in the games.

Charlie Battle:

When there’s money, there’s corruption.

Simone Del Rosario:

And let’s be very clear, there is a ton of money involved in the Olympics.

News Coverage:

“There have been a series of scandals and controversies from the moment, actually, that Tokyo won the bid for the summer games.”

“Japan’s Fair Trade Commission has filed criminal complaints against the big advertising company Dentsu and 5 other ad firms over alleged bid rigging for contracts on Tokyo 2020.”

David Wallechinsky:

There were bribes, TV, TV rights, bribes, all sorts of bribes, which sponsor would get the rights to this or that.

Simone Del Rosario:

Advertising giant Dentsu, five other companies and seven individuals are charged with colluding in assigning contracts for the Tokyo Games.

David Wallechinsky:

Afterwards is really corrupt.

Simone Del Rosario:

But Tokyo is what we call a 1-2 punch, because the committee also faced allegations of bribing IOC members to win the games.

While Tokyo’s corruption scandal still plays out in the courts, Paris is pilng on before the games even begin.

Officials raided organizers’ offices back in October. A judicial source told Reuters the raid is part of an investigation into alleged favoritism for several awarded contracts.

While heads rolled over internal bid-rigging corruption, the IOC has less control over what happens after bids are awarded. Paris will be the first Games held under the IOC’s new anti-corruption clause.

David Wallechinsky:

What we’ve seen now is a real change. Because the IOC under Thomas Bach, who’s the president of the IOC, they realize this is not good, we can’t have another Sochi situation, we can’t have another Rio situation.

So when they got really good bids, for the 2024 Summer Olympics from both Paris and Los Angeles, they went, Wait a minute, let’s not pit these people against each other. Let’s give them each an Olympics.

Simone Del Rosario:

Now, instead of a drawn-out bidding process for each Summer and Winter Olympics – one that has historically lent itself to corruption – two IOC panels are permanently open to talks with any cities open to hosting. And these panels can also make the first move and approach cities they think might be the right fit.

They’ve even floated rotating sites, though it’s not a really popular proposal.

But cities that have successfully hosted could get multiple chances.

David Wallechinsky:

Salt Lake City is going to get the Winter Olympics again. But in a more honest way.

Simone Del Rosario:

Salt Lake’s path to 2002 might have been burned by bribery and budget overages, but the city did a 180 when Mitt Romney took the reins. Yes, that Mitt Romney. The 2002 Winter Games turned a profit when all was said and done and turned Romney into the household name you know today. After snubbing him in ’94, Massachusetts voters elected him to be their governor in 2002 and the rest is history.

And though the Salt Lake City scandal forever tarnished IOC’s history, it’s now the frontrunner for the 2034 Games.

But back to this decade.

Aside from ongoing investigations into the Paris Olympic organizers, Wallechinsky, who splits his time between the south of France and the U.S., says there are other things to watch.

David Wallechinsky:

There have been some terrible terrorist attacks in France, they’ve come up with this opening ceremony, which is going to be in public with hundreds of 1000s of people.

Simone Del Rosario:

It’s an Olympic first, an opening ceremony outside of a stadium. The Paris pomp and circumstance will take place along the Seine. And while it will make for an amazing spectacle, security is top of mind.

David Wallechinsky:

The challenge that the French are facing is not just protecting the Olympic venues, but the entire city and to a certain extent the rest of the country as well, all at the same time.

Simone Del Rosario:

It’s a risk the city hopes will pay off with the entire world watching. Then again, anything you do while hosting the Olympics brings that global scrutiny.

David Wallechinsky:

I always told people from host cities, everybody’s going to criticize you before the games, because as members of the media, if we say, Oh, this is going really well, nobody’s going to follow that. They don’t want to read that. It’s not click friendly. And so we’re always looking for something that’s wrong. And you know, that’s going to be the story. And then when the competition starts, everybody forgets about that unless it’s really serious.

Simone Del Rosario:

And that’s generally the case. While the bombing at Atlanta’s Centennial Park shook the city, we still remember the Magnificent Seven taking home the gold, or Michael Johnson breaking the 200 meter world record that stood until Usain Bolt burst onto the scene.

And that’s why people like Charlie Battle still believe in the Games, despite its flaws.

Charlie Battle:

I think it’s important, I think the Olympic movement is important. I think it’s, you know, I still believe in hopefully that good athletic competition and good athletic stories can can, you know, be inspirational to young people.

Simone Del Rosario:

Hey, you’re still here! Thanks for watching. If you liked this story, you’re going to love the SAN app. Download it now for unbiased, straight facts.

Business

Politicians say Americans don’t pay for tariffs. What do economists say?

Share

The closer it gets to November, the more Americans hear about tariffs, which are on the agendas of both presidential candidates vying for their vote. But is tariff just a fancy word for tax? And who ends up paying? The answer may depend on whether you ask an economist or a politician.

Tariffs were a cornerstone of former President Donald Trump’s economic policy. Since taking office, President Joe Biden has not only kept Trump’s import tariffs in place, he’s added on, particularly with targeted tariffs on China.

The right-of-center Tax Foundation recently tallied up that more trade-war tariffs have been collected under Biden than Trump, with the vast majority of revenue coming from Chinese imports.

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

Meanwhile, Trump is pitching expanding his tariffs if elected to a second term. One of those proposals is a “ring around the collar,” universal tariff of 10%.

“When companies come in and they dump their products in the United States, they should pay automatically, let’s say a 10% tax. That money would be used to pay off debt, it’s a massive amount of money,” Trump said on Fox Business.

It is definitely a tax and the fact is that it raises the cost of living for everyone when we have more tariffs.

Chris Towner, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

In a closed-door meeting with Republican lawmakers in June, Trump reportedly proposed replacing the income tax with tariffs. 

According to Investopedia, a tariff is a tax imposed by one country on the goods and services imported from another country. Governments impose tariffs to raise revenue, protect domestic industries, or exert political leverage over another country.

Both Biden and Trump insist tariffs are not a tax on Americans. When the Biden administration introduced new tariffs and a White House reporter asked about concern over tariffs causing increased prices for U.S. consumers, this was the administration’s response.

“I think that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked,” U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said.

Meanwhile, a Republican National Committee spokesperson told Bloomberg, “The notion that tariffs are a tax on U.S. consumers is a lie pushed by outsourcers and the Chinese Communist Party.”

Straight Arrow News interviewed three analysts from three think tanks across the political spectrum. Each of them agreed that tariffs are a tax and Americans pay for the increased cost of imported goods.

“The truth of it is that it is a tax,” said Preston Brashers, a research fellow on tax policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “It is something that gets passed along to consumers, and in some cases, it’s going to be something that’s passed along to producers here in the United States when they’re buying products from overseas.”

“By the most technical basis, it is a tax on imports, right? It is to try to discourage buying imports or to raise the cost of imports,” said Chris Towner, the policy director at the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “It is definitely a tax and the fact is that it raises the cost of living for everyone when we have more tariffs.”

The progressive Center for American Progress (CAP) recently did analysis on Trump’s 10% flat tariff proposal.

“I crunched the numbers and calculated that this would raise taxes for a typical family by about $1,500 a year, so every year, they would pay that tax,” said Brendan Duke, CAP’s senior director on economic policy. “I think a really key thing is that they would pay that tax on imported products that we don’t produce in the United States.”

The centrist Peterson Institute for International Economics placed an even higher price tag on Trump’s 10% tariff proposal, saying it would cost the typical American family $1,700 per year. 

Of course, economic policies don’t happen in a vacuum. Trump is also planning to extend his 2017 tax cuts if reelected. The Peterson Institute combined the income benefits from extending the tax cuts with two of Trump’s tariff proposals, the 10% flat tax and 60% tariffs on China. The equation showed the bottom 80% of households would experience a net loss in income. 


“We have these taxes that are based on people’s incomes,” Duke said. “[Tariffs are] based on people’s spending and we know that low- and middle-income people spend a larger share of their income, while higher-income people actually spend a very small share.”

“There are folks on the left who are really trying to make [tariffs] about a cost of living increase,” Towner said. “It does raise significant revenue. So on the one hand, yes, it raises prices. But really, it’s a flat, across-the-board tax increase.”

“Anytime you’re going to be adding to taxes, as an organization that believes in lower taxes and free trade, it is a question mark as to exactly how we’re going to go about doing that,” Brashers said.

The Tax Foundation said despite higher costs to Americans, both the Trump campaign and Biden administration continue to defend trade war tariffs. They said it’s a gap between the economic reality – tariffs are a tax passed on to American producers and consumers – and political messaging – that tariffs hurt foreign nations and help the U.S. economy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simone Del Rosario: The closer we get to November, the more we hear about tariffs. That’s on the agenda for both presidential candidates vying for your vote.

But is tariff just a fancy word for tax? And who pays that tax? We’re going to get into that. 

First, tariffs were a cornerstone of former President Donald Trump’s economic policy. And since taking office, President Joe Biden has not only kept Trump’s import tariffs in place, he’s been adding on, particularly with targeted tariffs on China.

The right-of-center Tax Foundation recently tallied up that more trade-war tariffs have been collected under Biden than Trump, with the vast majority of revenue coming from Chinese imports.

Meanwhile, if elected to a second term, Trump has some interesting thoughts on expanding his tariffs. We’ve got a flat tariff on all imports:

Donald Trump: When companies come in and they dump their products in the United States, they should pay automatically, let’s say a 10% tax. That money would be used to pay off debt, it’s a massive amount of money.

Simone Del Rosario: And behind closed doors this month, Trump proposed replacing the income tax with tariffs. 

According to Investopedia, a tariff is a tax imposed by one country on the goods and services imported from another country. Governments impose tariffs to raise revenue, protect domestic industries, or exert political leverage over another country.

Both Biden and Trump insist tariffs are not a tax on Americans. Here’s the Biden administration after introducing new tariffs:

White House Reporter: When Trump hiked tariffs on Chinese goods, it led to some increased prices for U.S. customers.  How can you be sure the same thing won’t happen again?

Katherine Tai, U.S. Trade RepresentativeFirst of all, I think that that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked.”

Simone Del Rosario: While a Republican National Committee spokesperson told Bloomberg: “The notion that tariffs are a tax on U.S. consumers is a lie pushed by outsourcers and the Chinese Communist Party.”

Hmmm…debunked and doing the CCP’s bidding.

We interviewed three analysts from three think tanks across the political spectrum.

We’ve got Brendan Duke from the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. Chris Towner from the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, we’ll put them down the middle. And Preston Brashers from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Let’s start with Brashers on the right.

Preston Brashers: The truth of it is that it is a tax. It is something that gets passed along to consumers, and in some cases, it’s going to be something that’s passed along to producers here in the United States when they’re buying products from from from overseas.

Simone Del Rosario: Towner in the middle. 

Chris Towner: By the most technical basis, it is a tax on imports, right? It is to try to discourage import buying imports, or to raise the cost of imports. It is definitely a tax. And the fact is that it raises the cost of living for everyone when we have more tariffs.

Simone Del Rosario: And Duke on the left, who recently did analysis on Trump’s 10% flat tariff proposal. 

Brendan Duke: I crunched the numbers and calculated that this would raise taxes for a typical family by about $1,500 a year annually, so every year, they would pay that tax. And I think a really key thing is that they would pay that tax on imported products that we don’t produce in the United States.

Simone Del Rosario: Before dismissing Duke’s analysis as being partisan, the centrist Peterson Institute for International Economics placed a higher price tag on Trump’s 10% tariff proposal, saying it would cost the typical American family $1,700 per year. 

Combine the income benefits from extending Trump’s tax cuts with two of his tariff proposals, the 10% flat tax and 60% tariffs on China. The Peterson Institute says the bottom 80% of households would experience a net loss in income. 

Brendan Duke: We have these taxes that are based on people’s incomes. This is based on people’s spending, and we know that low and middle income people spend a larger share of their income, while higher income people actually spend a very small share.

Chris Towner: There are folks on the left who are really trying to make this about a, you know, like, this is a cost of living increase, you know, it does raise significant revenue. So on the one hand, yes, it raises prices. But really, it’s an, it’s a flat, across the board tax increase.

Preston Brashers: Anytime you’re going to be adding to taxes, you know, as an organization that believes in lower taxes and free trade, it is a question mark as to exactly how we’re gonna go about doing that.

Simone Del Rosario: The Tax Foundation says despite higher costs to Americans, both the Trump campaign and Biden administration continue to defend trade war tariffs. They say it’s a gap between the economic reality – tariffs are a tax passed on to American producers and consumers – and political messaging – that tariffs hurt foreign nations and help the U.S. economy.

Stay informed on election economics this year by downloading the Straight Arrow News app and enabling push notifications. 

U.S.

Caitlin Clark’s Olympic ‘snub’ reminds us the best athletes used to be banned

Share

One of the most covered stories about the upcoming Olympics is who’s not competing in Paris. WNBA rookie Caitlin Clark has been left off the Team USA roster in favor of more veteran talent, like A’ja Wilson, Breanna Stewart and Diana Taurasi.

But a generation ago, none of these women would have been allowed to compete at the Olympics. Neither would Stephen Curry, LeBron James, Jayson Tatum and the rest of the men’s team. Nor would golfers Scottie Scheffler or Rory McIlroy.

These athletes are paid professionals and it wasn’t long ago the Olympics barred pro athletes from participating. 

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

The age of amateurism

When the International Olympic Committee (IOC) formed in 1894 to bring back the Olympic Games, it built the modern foundation on amateurism, a word derived from the Latin word for “lover.” The argument was that amateur athletes competed for the love of the sport, not money. 

Former IOC President Avery Brundage claimed the “amateur code” prevented the Olympics from being “used by individuals, organizations or nations for ulterior motives.” Leaders of the Olympic movement would point back to the tradition of the ancient Games but the concept of amateurism was somewhat of a misnomer. 

“They weren’t amateurs, they were supported in their training,” Olympic historian David Wallechinsky said. “If they won, even in the ancient Games, they’d never have to pay for a drink again for the rest of their lives.”

For Wallechinsky, Olympic fandom was in his blood. His father, author Irving Wallace, brought him to the 1960 Rome Olympics when Wallechinsky was 12 years old.

“I got to see the opening ceremony, a couple of events, and so I became hooked,” Wallechinsky said. “I wanted to read a book that had all the results and all the best stories and it didn’t exist. So I spent 2.5 years creating it.”

In 1984, Wallechinsky published the first edition of “The Complete Book of the Olympics,” which has served as a favorite reference book on the subject ever since.

Jim Thorpe’s amateurism controversy

Jim Thorpe, considered one of the greatest athletes of the 20th century, is a prime example of the problem with amateurism. Thorpe swept gold in the 1912 Stockholm Olympics in the decathlon and pentathlon, becoming the first Native American to win an Olympic gold medal.

Then in 1913, the IOC took away his medals for having previously played two summers of semi-pro baseball. Many other Olympic athletes had also played semi-pro baseball but weren’t penalized because they played under fake names. Thorpe’s crime was using his real name. 

The athletes and host countries awarded gold in Thorpe’s place never accepted the results, insisting that Thorpe was the sole winner of these events.

The IOC eventually righted this wrong, reinstating Thorpe’s gold medals 70 years later and listing him as a co-winner. But he never lived to see that day as it happened decades after his death. It wasn’t until 110 years after the Olympics in question that he was reinstated as the sole winner of the decathlon and pentathlon.

Cheating the amateur code

Thorpe’s situation did not compel the IOC to ditch amateurism. The case to eventually allow professional athletes into the Olympics stretched for decades and involved nations continuing to skirt the rules.

The Soviet Union was one of the main offenders. Its athletes were state-sponsored and trained full time, despite claiming to be amateurs. Meanwhile, countries that followed the rules could only present students or true amateur athletes to compete against de facto professional athletes. The Soviet screen came to a head in the hockey rink, where they dominated against Canada and everyone else.

“Canada got really angry,” Wallechinsky said. “‘We’re the best country in the world at ice hockey, we’re sending amateurs and the Soviet Union is sending professionals.'”

The Canadian hockey team even boycotted the ’72 and ’76 Olympics over it. Then in 1980, the U.S. had its miracle on ice, beating those Soviet professionals with an amateur team.   

“Finally, the IOC, sport by sport, went, ‘Okay, you can make money at the Olympics and still be in the Olympics,'” Wallechinsky said.

The Dream Team

The Dream Team marked the true death of amateurism in the Olympics. The 1992 Barcelona Games marked the first time NBA players could play in the Olympics and they did it with arguably the greatest sports team — of any sport — ever assembled. 

The team included basketball greats Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Charles Barkley. They won all eight games by an average of 44 points and coach Chuck Daly never called a single timeout.

The Dream Team helped grow the NBA’s popularity on a global stage. Three decades later, the WNBA is getting its moment. 

With or without Caitlin Clark, in Paris, Team USA will strive for its eighth straight win, which would break the record for the most consecutive Olympic team victories in all Olympic sports. The women haven’t lost an Olympic game since 1992.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simone Del Rosario: One of the most covered stories about the upcoming Olympics is who’s not competing in Paris.

WNBA rookie Caitlin Clark has been left off Team USA in favor of more veteran talent. Like A’ja Wilson. Breanna Stewart. Diana Taurasi, to name a few.

But a generation ago, none of these women would have been allowed to compete at the Olympics.

Neither would Steph Curry, LeBron James, Jayson Tatum and the rest of the men’s team.

Nor golfers Scottie Scheffler or Rory McIlroy. I could go on but I’ll get to my point. 

All of these athletes are paid professionals and it wasn’t that long ago the Olympics barred pro athletes from participating. 

When the International Olympic Committee brought back the Olympic Games in 1894, they built the modern foundation on amateurism, a word literally derived from “lover.” The argument was that amateur athletes competed for the love of the sport, not money. 

Former IOC president Avery Brundage claimed the “Amateur Code” prevented the Olympics from being “used by individuals, organizations or nations for ulterior motives.

Leaders of the Olympic movement would point back to the tradition of the Ancient Games…but the concept of amateurism was somewhat of a misnomer. 

David Wallechinsky: They weren’t amateurs, they were supported in their training. If they, you know, won, even in the ancient games, they never have to pay for a drink again for the rest of their lives.

Simone Del Rosario: Olympic Historian David Wallechinsky has been a fan of the games since he was a child. 

David Wallechinsky: So my father was a big Olympics fan. And he brought me to the Olympics in Rome when I was 12 years old, I got to see the opening ceremony, a couple of events. And so I became hooked. I wanted to read a book that had all the results and all the best stories and it didn’t exist. So I spent two and a half years creating it. 

Simone Del Rosario: One of those Olympic stories is that of Jim Thorpe, with whom Wallechinsky has an interesting family tie. His father ghost-wrote for Thorpe back in the day. 

David Wallechinsky: Jim Thorpe was the greatest athlete in the 20th century. And he had won gold medals at the 1912 Olympics and had them taken away because he had played semi-pro baseball. 

Simone Del Rosario: Jim Thorpe is a prime example of the problem with amateurism. The year after he swept gold in Stockholm in the decathlon and pentathlon, the IOC took away his medals for having previously played two summers of semi-pro baseball. 

And here’s what’s ridiculous about that. Besides the fact that it’s not even the same sport.

Many other Olympic athletes played semi-pro baseball, but they weren’t penalized because they played under fake names. Thorpe’s crime was using his real one. 

The IOC eventually righted that wrong, reinstating Thorpe’s gold medals. But he never lived to see it. It happened decades after his death. 

Thorpe wasn’t the reason the Olympics finally relented and stopped ringing the amateurism bell. No, the move to allow pro athletes into the Olympics stretched decades and a lot of skirting the rules. 

David Wallechinsky: You got the communist countries come in with in 1948, and then, you know, the Soviet Union 52. And they said, We don’t have professional athletes. (whistles for effect) They, they, you know, they’re all members of the army. Because all they did was compete in sports.

Simone Del Rosario: The Soviet screen came to a head on the hockey rink. Canada was furious! Well, as furious as Canadians get. 

David Wallechinsky: Canada got really angry. We’re the best country in the world at ice hockey, we’re sending amateurs and the Soviet Union is sending professionals.

Simone Del Rosario: The Canadian hockey team even boycotted the ’72 and ’76 Olympics over it. Then in 1980, the U.S. had its miracle on ice, beating those Soviet professionals with an amateur team.   

David Wallechinsky: Finally, the IOC sport by sport went okay, you can make money at the Olympics, and still be in the Olympics.

Simone Del Rosario: The Dream Team marked the true death of amateurism in the Olympics.

You have to know this one. It’s 1992 in Barcelona, the first time NBA players could play in the Olympics and they did it with arguably the greatest sports team – of any sport – ever assembled. 

The team included little-known players Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Charles Barkley, and a whole roster of the best players in the world. 

They won all eight games by an average of 44 points and coach Chuck Daly never called a single timeout.

The Dream Team helped grow the NBA’s popularity on a global stage. And three decades later, the WNBA is getting its moment. 

With or without Caitlin Clark, in Paris, Team USA will strive for its eighth straight win, which would break the record for the most consecutive Olympic team victories in all Olympic sports.

The women haven’t lost an Olympic game since 1992.

U.S. Elections

Biden has only weeks to safeguard policies from potential Trump victory

Share

President Joe Biden has eight months remaining on his presidential first term. However, he has only weeks to safeguard his key policies and regulations from a potential Donald Trump victory in November.

“The Biden administration is right now trying to rush out in final form all of the regulations that he’s been working on for a couple of years to make sure that they are final before the Congressional Review Act cutoff date,” Columbia Law Professor Michael Gerrard said.

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

The 1996 law allows an incoming president to unravel the previous administration’s recent rules and regulations with support from a simple majority in the House and Senate. 

“It was adopted during the time when Bill Clinton was president and Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. There were a lot of conflicts and Congress — the majority in Congress — felt that it should have more ability to control what the administrative state does,” Gerrard said.

The rules are obscure, but essentially, once a federal agency reports a new rule to Congress, Congress has 60 working days to introduce a joint resolution disapproving of the rule. The review also includes a “lookback” provision that allows the next session of Congress to review rules if passed with fewer than 60 chamber work days left in the session.

It had been considered to be an extraordinary step.

Michael Gerrard, Columbia Law Professor

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) essentially gives Congress the opportunity to get on the record, but it rarely makes it to the president’s desk. That’s largely because no sitting president is likely to overturn a rule he or she made. This is why the act has only ever succeeded when a new president comes in.

“It had been considered to be an extraordinary step,” Gerrard said.

“Before this administration, only one time in our history had a president signed a bill that used the CRA to cancel a federal regulation,” then-President Trump said in 2017. “So we’re doing a lot of them.”

That one time in history was at the beginning of former President George W. Bush’s term. But then Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress used the CRA to overturn 16 Obama-era rules.

“I will keep working with Congress, with every agency, and most important with the American people, until we eliminate every unnecessary, harmful and job-killing regulation that we can find,” Trump said.

The impacts of a successful CRA are long-lasting. When a president signs a CRA that overturns a rule, it prevents federal agencies from ever issuing a “substantially similar” rule unless specifically authorized by Congress. After Trump successfully used the CRA 16 times, Biden’s first months in office included three of his own.

“The fact that we have the Congressional Review Act means that we can undo that damage and undo it quickly,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in 2021.

Now, with Trump back on the ballot, George Washington University research shows the Biden administration is finalizing rules this spring at a pace that far exceeds any other time in his term to get ahead of the 60-working-day window.

“There’s every reason to believe that [Trump] would want to revoke as many of the Biden-era regulations as he could, just as in the first term he revoked a lot of the Obama-era regulations,” Gerrard said.

Trump’s campaign confirmed as much.

“When re-elected, President Trump will immediately cut Joe Biden’s burdensome regulations, unleash our domestic energy industry and implement a pro-worker agenda that will uplift all Americans,” Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said.

Gerrard said it’s only in the past couple of decades that federal policy has shifted so radically from one party to the next, and that political environment has made the business environment more chaotic.

“It’s completely disruptive,” he said. “Because for one thing, industry needs to know what investments to make. They need to know how clean their power plants need to be, what kind of automobiles to make. All across industries, companies rely on predictability for what regulatory schemes will apply.”

Of course, CRAs just scrape the surface of what’s possible to undo presidential legacies. Executive orders, court challenges, new legislation and agency rules are other ways to attack previous policies and implement new ones.

Any rule that can be adopted with the stroke of a pen can be revoked with a stroke of a pen.

Michael Gerrard, Columbia Law Professor

“On the day that Donald Trump was first inaugurated as president, we launched our climate deregulation tracker because we knew what was coming,” said Gerrard, who is the founder and director of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “And on the day that Joe Biden was inaugurated, we rebranded it the Climate Reregulation Tracker.”

The Sabin Center tracked 176 deregulation actions during Trump’s administration and 214 reregulation actions during Biden’s. Gerrard said since it’s so difficult to get new legislation through Congress, presidents are increasingly resorting to executive moves.

“On the day that Joe Biden was inaugurated, he walked into the White House for the first time as president and had on his desk in the Oval Office a stack of executive orders that he signed within hours of taking the oath of office,” Gerrard said. “He was signing those in order to revoke a lot of the Trump policies that had been issued just as executive orders and to start instituting new policies.”

Executive action can be swift, which means it can also be fleeting. 

“Any rule that can be adopted with the stroke of a pen can be revoked with a stroke of a pen,” Gerrard said. “And that makes it far more difficult for industries to predict what’s going on and to act accordingly.”

Gerrard said the energy industry in particular — from renewables to fossil fuels — is downshifting ahead of the election, hesitant to make large investments without knowing what November will bring.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simone Del Rosario: Joe Biden is president for – at the very least – another eight-plus months.

But he has only weeks left to safeguard his key policies and regulations from a potential Donald Trump victory.

Columbia Law Professor Michael Gerrard: The Biden administration is right now trying to rush out in final form all of the regulations that he’s been working on for a couple of years to make sure that they are final before the Congressional Review Act cutoff date.

Simone Del Rosario: The 1996 law allows an incoming president to unravel the previous administration’s recent rules and regulations with support from a simple majority in the House and Senate. 

Michael Gerrard: It was adopted during the time when Bill Clinton was president and Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House. There were a lot of conflicts, and Congress, the majority in Congress, felt that it should have more ability to control what the administrative state does.

Simone Del Rosario: The rules are obscure, but basically, once a federal agency reports a new rule to Congress, Congress has 60 working days to introduce a joint resolution disapproving of the rule. 

The Congressional Review Act essentially gives Congress the opportunity to get on the record, but it rarely makes it to the president’s desk. That’s largely because no sitting president is likely to overturn a rule he or she made. 

Which is why the CRA has only ever succeeded when a new president comes in.

Michael Gerrard: It had been considered to be an extraordinary step.

Donald Trump: Before this administration, only one time in our history had a president signed a bill that used the CRA to cancel a federal regulation. So we’re doing a lot of them. 

Simone Del Rosario: In 2017, then-President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress used the CRA to overturn 16 Obama-era rules. 

Donald Trump: I will keep working with Congress, with every agency and most important with the American people, until we eliminate every unnecessary, harmful and job killing regulation that we can find. We have a lot more coming (applause)

Simone Del Rosario: And when a president signs a CRA that overturns a rule, it prevents federal agencies from ever issuing a “substantially similar” rule unless specifically authorized by Congress. 

After Trump successfully used the CRA 16 times, Biden’s first months in office included three of his own.

Sen. Chuck Schumer: The fact that we have the Congressional Review Act means that we can undo that damage and undo it quickly. 

Simone Del Rosario: And now, with Trump back on the ballot, George Washington University research shows the Biden admin is finalizing rules this spring at a pace that far exceeds any other time in his term, to get ahead of that 60-working-day window.

Michael Gerrard: There’s every reason to believe that he would want to revoke as many of the Biden-era regulations as he could, just as in the first term he revoked a lot of the Obama-era regulations.

Simone Del Rosario: Trump’s campaign confirmed as much. Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said, “When re-elected, President Trump will immediately cut Joe Biden’s burdensome regulations, unleash our domestic energy industry, and implement a pro-worker agenda that will uplift all Americans.”

Michael Gerrard: It’s only in the last couple of decades that we’ve tended to have such radical shifts in federal policy as we go from one party to another.

Simone Del Rosario: And Gerrard says that environment has made the business environment more chaotic. 

Michael Gerrard: It’s completely disruptive. Because for one thing, industry needs to know what investments to atmake. They need to know how clean their power plants need to be, what kind of automobiles to make. All across industries, companies rely on predictability for what regulatory schemes will apply. 

Simone Del Rosario: Of course, CRAs just scrape the surface of what’s possible to undo presidential legacies. 

Michael Gerrard: On the day that Donald Trump was first inaugurated as President, we launched our climate deregulation tracker because we knew what was coming. And on the day that Joe Biden was inaugurated, we rebranded it the climate reregulation tracker.

Simone Del Rosario: Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law tracked 176 deregulation actions during Trump’s administration, and 214 reregulation actions during Biden’s.

Gerrard says since it’s so difficult to get new legislation through Congress, presidents are increasingly resorting to executive moves.

Michael Gerrard: On the day that Joe Biden was inaugurated, he walked into the White House for the first time as president and had on his desk in the Oval Office a stack of executive orders that he signed within hours of taking the oath of office. He was signing those in order to revoke a lot of the Trump policies that had been issued just as executive orders and to start instituting new policies.

Simone Del Rosario: Executive action can be swift, which means it can also be fleeting. 

Michael Gerrard: Any rule that can be adopted with the stroke of a pen can be revoked with a stroke of a pen. And that makes it far more difficult for industries to predict what’s going on and to act accordingly.

Simone Del Rosario: Gerrard says the energy industry is downshifting ahead of the election, hesitant to make large investments without knowing what November will bring.

I’m Simone Del Rosario for Straight Arrow News.

Business

Streaming looking more like cable with price hikes, bundling

Share

Streaming services were once seen as the modern alternative to cable. The services were cheaper, ad-free and tailored to specific interests for viewers looking to cut the cord.

But with rising prices and streamers putting their attention to ad-supported tiers, it is getting more difficult to tell the difference between streaming and cable. Some even began calling the streaming industry “Cable 2.0.”

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

According to research from the online platform Bango, the average American has 4.5 total subscriptions, including audio, fitness and news apps, as well as these streaming services.

Subscriptions to these streaming platforms cost the average customer in the U.S. $1,000 per year. Meanwhile, the Financial Times reported the average cable plan costs around $83 per month, or $996 a year.

Price hikes for streaming seem to be just part of the process nowadays. NBC Universal recently announced a price hike for its Peacock service will go into effect just before this summer’s Paris Olympics.

Analysts at UBS Securities said Netflix users should prepare for another price hike this year following one last October.

Bloomberg reported Warner Bros. Discovery is planning to hike the price of its Max platform soon, as well.

As more media companies look to make a profit on their streaming services — and battle the reigning king of streaming, Netflix — they are turning to each other for help.

Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery announced their Disney+, Hulu and Max streaming services will soon be offered in one bundle.

All the three streamers’ offerings — including content from HBO, HGTV, ABC, CNN and more — will be packaged together. 

Sounds like a cable TV package, doesn’t it?

The bundle will be available in the U.S. starting in the summer, though the streamers have not shared a price yet. There will be versions with ads and without.

The move comes after the announcement of Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Fox’s joint venture sports streaming service that will launch in the fall.

Another way these streaming platforms are looking to gain subscribers and revenue is by cracking down on password sharing. 

Netflix implemented the practice, which led, in part, to 30 million additional subscribers in 2023. Disney+ is looking to do the same starting in June.

So until cable starts cracking down on passwords like streaming, there is at least one way to tell the two apart. 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

[JACK AYLMER]

STREAMING SERVICES WERE ONCE SEEN AS THE MODERN ALTERNATIVE TO CABLE –

CHEAPER, AD-FREE AND TAILORED TO SPECIFIC INTERESTS FOR VIEWERS LOOKING TO CUT THE CORD.

FORGET PAYING FOR 200 PLUS CHANNELS YOU DON’T WANT.

YOU LIKE FOOD SHOWS? YOU GOT DISCOVERY PLUS.

YOU LIKE LIVE SPORTS? ESPN PLUS.

YOU LIKE BRITISH FARE? THERE’S BRITBOX.

BUT WITH RISING PRICES – AND STREAMERS PUTTING THEIR ATTENTION TO AD-SUPPORTED TIERS – IT’S GETTING MORE DIFFICULT THESE DAYS TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STREAMING AND CABLE. – WITH SOME CALLING THE STREAMING INDUSTRY – CABLE 2 POINT 0.

ACCORDING TO RESEARCH FROM THE ONLINE PLATFORM BANGO –  THE AVERAGE AMERICAN HAS 4 POINT 5 TOTAL SUBSCRIPTIONS – INCLUDING ENTERTAINMENT STREAMING SERVICES.

AND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THESE STREAMING PLATFORMS COST THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER IN THE U.S. ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR.

WHILE — AS THE FINANCIAL TIMES REPORTS – THE AVERAGE CABLE PLAN – COSTS AROUND 83 DOLLARS PER MONTH – OR 996 DOLLARS A YEAR.

NBC UNIVERSAL ANNOUNCED A PRICE HIKE FOR ITS PEACOCK SERVICE WILL GO INTO EFFECT JUST BEFORE THIS SUMMER’S PARIS OLYMPICS.

ANALYSTS AT UBS SECURITIES SAY NETFLIX USERS SHOULD PREPARE FOR ANOTHER PRICE HIKE THIS YEAR FOLLOWING ONE LAST OCTOBER.

AND BLOOMBERG REPORTS WARNER BROTHERS DISCOVERY IS PLANNING TO HIKE THE PRICE OF ITS DISCOVERY PLUS PLATFORM IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

NOW THE LATEST TERM DISRUPTING THE STREAMING REVOLUTION – BUNDLING.  

AS MORE MEDIA COMPANIES LOOK TO MAKE A PROFIT ON THEIR STREAMING SERVICES – AND BATTLE THE REIGNING KING OF STREAMING – NETFLIX  — THEY ARE TURNING TO EACH OTHER FOR HELP.

DISNEY AND WARNER BROTHERS DISCOVERY ANNOUNCING THEIR DISNEY PLUS, HULU AND MAX STREAMING SERVICES WILL SOON BE OFFERED IN ONE BUNDLE.

ALL THE 3 STREAMERS’ OFFERINGS – INCLUDING CONTENT FROM HBO, HGTV, ABC, CNN, AND MORE – WILL BE PACKAGED TOGETHER. 

SOUNDS LIKE A CABLE TV PACKAGE, DOESN’T IT?

THE BUNDLE WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE US STARTING IN THE SUMMER – THOUGH NO PRICE HAS BEEN GIVEN.  AND THERE WILL BE BOTH A VERSION WITH ADS AND WITHOUT.

THIS COMES ON THE HEELS OF DISNEY AND WARNER BROTHERS DISCOVERY’S OTHER JOINT VENTURE – WITH FOX. A SPORTS STREAMING SERVICE THAT WILL LAUNCH IN THE FALL.

IN YET ANOTHER WAY THESE STREAMING PLATFORMS ARE LOOKING TO GAIN SUBSCRIBERS AND REVENUE – CRACKING DOWN ON PASSWORD SHARING. 

NETFLIX HAS DONE IT – LEADING IN PART TO 30 MILLION ADDITIONAL SUBSCRIBERS LAST YEAR. AND DISNEY PLUS IS LOOKING TO DO THE SAME STARTING IN JUNE.

SO UNTIL CABLE STARTS CRACKING DOWN ON PASSWORD SHARING LIKE STREAMING – THERE’S AT LEAST ONE WAY TO TELL THE TWO APART.