Chelsea manager Xabi Alonso says everything about his side’s performance in their loss at Brentford was “disappointing”, stressing that they need to improve in every aspect of their game.
MATCH REPORT: Premier League – Brentford 3-0 Chelsea
Available to UK users only.
WASHINGTON — Gov. Gavin Newsom said he would not run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028 if Kamala Harris does so, appearing to offer deference to the former vice president ahead of a race that could draw a historically crowded field of candidates.
“I wouldn’t run if she ran,” Newsom told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview posted Monday. “Why would I? I wouldn’t do that to her. … I wouldn’t do it to you, I wouldn’t waste everyone’s time.”
Newsom appeared to acknowledge a desire to avoid the possibly messy fight for California backers that could ensue if both were to run, saying there would be “pure crossover” between Harris’ supporters and his.
The governor’s effective yield to Harris diminishes the possibility of a showdown between two of California’s most powerful political figures in an election whose stakes are viewed by the Democratic Party as existential. The possibility of Harris making a second attempt at the presidency after her loss to President Trump in 2024 has hung as the biggest question over the potential Democratic field.
Both Newsom and Harris have acknowledged they are considering presidential bids in 2028, but Harris has closely held her intentions. She said last week that she had not decided whether to run, telling former soccer player Megan Rapinoe in a podcast interview that she was focused on working full time to help Democrats win the midterms.
A spokesperson for Harris declined to comment. Representatives for Newsom did not immediately respond to a request Monday afternoon.
Harris has appeared as the party front-runner in multiple polls about 2028, including one in July that showed her beating Newsom by double digits. But questions have continually circulated within the party about whether voters who are scarred from the party’s 2024 loss would be enthusiastic about a Harris run.
Several California donors told The Times in May that they did not plan to support Harris or did not want to discuss a possible bid by her; in a few corners, more enthusiasm came through for Newsom.
The dynamics around the 2028 Democratic primary continue to evolve as party hopefuls jockey for the spotlight, and they shifted notably with the selection of South Carolina as the party’s first primary state. That choice could give Harris a boost if South Carolina’s Black voters move in her favor.
Harris and Newsom came up in politics in the same era and have never before run in an election against each other, operating their political careers largely in parallel rather than in competition. In February, Newsom said on CNN that he had “never gotten in the way of her ambition” and he didn’t “imagine I would in the future,” saying “fate” would determine whether they ran against each other.
Newsom swung through South Carolina this month, the type of move generally interpreted as laying the groundwork for a presidential bid. In the CNN interview, Newsom noted that he did not know whether Harris would run and agreed it was a “pretty good case” to make when Tapper raised the argument that Harris had had her chance at the presidency and Newsom had not yet.
The governor suggested that a fight between him and Harris would split their supporters’ vote in a way that would be “a gift from God for everybody else” in the race, saying “it services no greater good” for both of them to run. He also nodded to their overlapping political circles.
“I know her base of supporters, I know her friends. The [Venn] diagram on that is just pure crossover,” Newsom said. “I wouldn’t do that.”
The interview was filmed in Montana, where Newsom’s in-laws own a ranch, as Newsom and Tapper fly-fished together. The full segment was set to air Tuesday.
Newsom said that in order to decide to run, a candidate needs to be able to “meet the moment.”
“You gotta be honest with yourself,” he said. “Do you represent the zeitgeist of the moment or are you wasting everybody’s time?”
The video is titled “Jimmy Kimmel’s Interview With James Talarico That the FCC Doesn’t Want You to See.”
It was posted Thursday night on the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!’s” YouTube page. By 10 a.m. Friday, the video had gained more than 2.7 million views — and the interview hadn’t aired on the show’s network, ABC.
“… We are being targeted by the FCC for the crime of interviewing political candidates,” Kimmel says in the YouTube clip. “Even though for years we, and every other late-night talk show, have welcomed numerous candidates, including Donald Trump when he was running. He was on this show two times. [Trump’s] FCC has threatened me, threatened our show, threatened our network, ABC, our affiliates, our local stations, because they want to make our editorial decisions for us, which of course, we cannot accept.”
The host continued: “Tonight we are bypassing the public airwaves and hosting this interview on YouTube, even though our government would clearly prefer we not do it at all.”
The late-night host moved his interview with the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas online to sidestep new Federal Communications Commission policy regulations.
Kimmel said earlier in the week that the FCC had “threatened” his show.
“For the whole 20-plus years of our show, in fact, I’ve been interviewing Americans who are running for office with no problem,” Kimmel said during Wednesday’s ABC broadcast. “Something has changed,” he said.
The change Kimmel was referring to involves the Communications Act’s “equal opportunities” requirement. It states that if a broadcast station features a qualified political candidate, it must provide equal airtime to an opposing candidate. Daytime and late-night talk shows have long operated under a “bona fide news program” exemption that shielded them from the equal time rule.
But under new guidance from the FCC Media Bureau, which is overseen by Donald Trump appointee Brendan Carr, talk shows may no longer qualify for the news exemption if their candidate interviews are determined to be motivated by partisan purposes.
In short, political bias is in the eye of the FCC beholder, and it has been focused on shows like “Kimmel Live!” and “The View,” which voice criticism of the president. The FCC has ordered early license reviews for several Disney-owned ABC stations. ABC has accused the Trump administration of trying to chill free speech.
FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, who is the commission’s only Democrat, said Thursday in a statement that Kimmel’s choice to move Talarico’s interview to YouTube “shows just how far this Administration’s campaign of censorship and control has gone.”
The YouTube summary of the Kimmel/Talarico interview reads as follows: “Jimmy’s interview with Democratic Senate candidate from Texas James Talarico was not televised because of threats from the FCC so we’re hosting their discussion here on YouTube. James talks about Republicans being scared of him winning, Jesus being co-opted by MAGA, the RNC Convention being held in Texas, not taking money from corporate PACs, Trump calling him a ‘freaky guy’ and having second thoughts about endorsing his opponent Ken Paxton, and the GOP making it harder for people to vote.”
Assistant White House Press Secretary Davis Ingle accused Kimmel of “play acting” and “creating a false narrative about this administration’s policies,” in a statement Thursday. “Chairman Carr has not threatened him regarding interviewing James Talarico, or any other candidate,” Ingle said. “Any media outlet blindly amplifying Kimmel’s egocentric delusion should insist on proof. Of which they will find none.”
Unless they spend 10 seconds on Google, where there’s ample proof.
During a February taping of “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” Colbert told his studio audience that CBS lawyers had prohibited him from broadcasting an interview with Talarico, or even mentioning the cancellation on television, following threats from the FCC.
“[Talarico] was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” Colbert said.
CBS denied they stopped “The Late Show” from airing the interview, which was instead posted on the show’s YouTube page.
Within months, “The Late Show” was canceled after 33 years on the air. Its final broadcast was May 21.
During Kimmel’s interview with Talarico, the host pointed out that it wasn’t the first time an interview with Talarico had been “demoted” from network television to YouTube. He asked his guest, “Why are they so scared of you?”
“They’re worried that we’re going to win this race in Texas,” Talarico said about running against Republican Ken Paxton.
The race will be decided in November.
“We’re not just going up against the most corrupt politician in Texas,” Talarico said. “We’re going up against this entire corrupt system.”
The biggest news to come out of two film festivals this week stemmed from documentaries about tech moguls gone bad.
When Alex Gibney’s film production “Musk” premiered at the Venice Film Festival on Tuesday, it received a five-minute standing ovation, shouts of “thank you” from the audience and endless play across social media. The nearly four-hour production chronicles the rise of the world’s first trillionaire out of the dot-com boom, and lays bare the dangers that the Tesla and SpaceX chief executive now presents as a plutocrat with questionable judgment and unchecked power.
Closer to home, at the Telluride Film Festival, it was comedian Nathan Fielder (“The Rehearsal”) and Lance Oppenheim’s “You Can See Everything” that made breaking news. Their film features unfettered access to former Theranos Chief Executive Elizabeth Holmes in the weeks before she reported to federal prison to serve a sentence of 10 years and three months. She rode the early 2000s wave of venture-capitalism consumer-tech hype, defrauding investors and the public with a bogus new way to test blood. By 2014, she was the world’s youngest self-made female billionaire.
A couple of decades ago, films about Musk and Holmes probably would have framed the pair as forward-thinking entrepreneurs and architects of a new era. Today, the pitchforks are out, and who else better represents the hubris and greed of late-stage capitalism?
There’s plenty of buzz around both films ahead of their October releases, yet the richest man in the world is helping promote the “Musk” doc by incessantly posting about Gibney and his “hit” piece.
Musk’s X posts have referred to the filmmaker as a “horrible human” and a “bitter old man” and declared, “Dogs— is worth more respect.” Always looking for a conspiracy to explain away the perfectly explainable, he wrote that the film was a “psy op.” He included in the post an image of Gibney as a puppet of the Democratic Party and George Soros. Musk also offered Trumpian prose: “Gutless Gibney’s fatal flaw of fabricating a false film.”
“Musk” is due for a theatrical release in the U.S. on Oct. 16 followed by a streaming launch on HBO Max.
Musk’s attorney Alex Spiro is threatening a lawsuit. He sent a letter to the Gibney-led Jigsaw Productions accusing the filmmaker of misrepresenting facts about the mogul. Spiro says the filmmaker suggested that Musk used his Starlink satellites to bend the 2024 election in favor of his friend and ally Donald Trump.
“You are … on notice, before release, that the insinuation is false, that the material refuting it is public, and that you chose not to be told the rest,” Spiro wrote. Spiro claimed he contacted the production “multiple times” and “requested an opportunity to present the facts in the normal fact-checking process that is the hallmark of ethical journalism. You have refused to engage.”
Gibney says Musk declined to be interviewed for the film. In his absence, the documentarian created a digital avatar of the Tesla CEO and used statements pulled from decades worth of the entrepreneur’s interviews and public appearances. The film chronicles his childhood in South Africa and his time in Silicon Valley, and suggests that Musk’s genius is not as an inventor but as an investor. His talent, the film contends, is stock-pumping.
“Musk” also reportedly explores how the trillionaire had access to sensitive techno-surveillance data when he ran the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under President Trump in 2025. Geoffrey Hinton , often referred to as the Godfather of AI, is interviewed in the film and explains why Musk’s potential access to the data is such a problem: “It’s fairly clear to me that Trump is hell-bent on corrupting the midterm elections,” Hinton says. “If you wanted to corrupt those midterm elections and you wanted to use AI, all you needed to do was get detailed information on U.S. citizens. And what DOGE did looked like just what you would do.”
Gibney in interviews about the film has warned that Musk’s widespread, unchecked power is “extremely dangerous to world democracy.”
“What I discovered was that the story of Musk was not [a] new tech story,” Gibney said in a news conference at the Venice Film Fest. “[It’s] really the story of an old wine in a new bottle. His story turns out to be the story of the confidence man, the stock pumper, his wealth and power comes from inflated stock, and so I had told that story before with Enron and with Elizabeth Holmes, and so it was a story that was oddly familiar to me.”
Gibney is renowned for taking on big money, corruption and anything else that reeks of injustice. He’s tackled Wall Street, big pharma, Scientology, Guantanamo, and even Theranos founder Holmes.
The new film about Holmes, “You Can See Everything,” offers a quirkier, up-close take on Holmes. Produced by A24 and set for an Oct. 16 theater release, it follows the disgraced CEO post-conviction, and she appears more than comfortable in front of the filmmakers and their cameras. Audiences at Telluride were surprised by the access she gave to the filmmakers, and that Holmes spoke openly about her plans to launch a biotech comeback and revive Theranos from her cell in a Texas prison camp.
Forget the celebrity glitz of high-profile film festivals. In these eat-the-rich times, it’s the dark side of wealth, fame and alleged genius that satiate audience appetites. Enter two new documentaries that feed the beast.
ABC comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico won’t air on broadcast television amid the network’s high-stakes skirmish with the Federal Communications Commission.
Kimmel, during his Wednesday night monologue, said his talk with the 37-year-old Texas Democrat would instead stream on his show’s YouTube channel — depriving ABC viewers and TV stations of a potentially newsworthy interview with Talarico, who has been surging in the polls.
The Texas race is shaping up as a key contest in what could help decide control of the U.S. Senate in the mid-term elections.
Talarico is running against Texas Republican Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, who has been endorsed by President Trump.
Kimmel alluded to the Walt Disney Co. network’s ongoing dispute with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr as the reason for the switch. This spring, Carr’s Media Bureau ordered ABC to submit to an early review of its TV station licenses for Disney’s eight owned stations. The FCC launched the review a day after President Trump demanded Kimmel be fired after First Lady Melania Trump became upset over a joke the comedian told on his program, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”
ABC has since sued the FCC, alleging Trump’s disdain for Kimmel and other ABC programs has fueled the FCC’s heavy-handed approach to the network, in violation of its 1st Amendment rights.
Kimmel pointed to the “unusual circumstances” in his monologue.
“For the whole 20-plus years of our show, in fact, I’ve been interviewing Americans who are running for office with no problem at all, just like [David] Letterman did, [Jay] Leno did, Arsenio [Hall], etc. etc.,” Kimmel said. “I’ve interviewed a lot of political candidates — from Hilary Clinton to Ted Cruz to Donald Trump.”
But, Kimmel said that in the current climate, airing the Talarico interview on the public airwaves carried too much risk.
“Out of consideration for our local stations, especially our ABC affiliates in Texas who would have to deal with this nonsense,” the ABC interview, which was scheduled for Thursday, would instead play on YouTube, he said.
ABC declined to comment. An FCC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The issue surfaced nearly one year after a major dust-up when ABC temporarily benched Kimmel after comments he made on his show over the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. During that episode, Carr seemed to threaten Disney by saying that Kimmel should be punished.
“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways … to take action … on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC.”
Two station groups removed Kimmel’s show, but ABC eventually stood by the comedian returning him to his perch the following week.
The Disney-owned station licenses were not set to expire for several years when the FCC demanded that Disney defend its stewardship of the outlets. The license for Disney’s KABC-TV Channel 7 in Los Angeles extends to 2030 but it is now being challenged.
The Burbank giant has asked a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order and injunction to halt the FCC’s early station review.
ABC also is defending against an FCC probe into whether its daytime talk show, “The View,” should be entitled to an exemption from the so-called equal-time rule for political candidates who appear as guests.
Carr has challenged the status of “The View,” arguing that the topical chat show is not a bona fide news program and, thus, should not be entitled to the exemption.
The same issue tripped up former CBS late night comedian Stephen Colbert who interviewed Talarico in February — before his program, “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, was canceled.
At the time, Colbert told viewers CBS lawyers forbid him from airing a Talarico interview on his program due to the FCC’s increased scrutiny of exemptions to the equal-time rule, an allegation that CBS disputed.
But Colbert’s interview played on the program’s YouTube channel — not the CBS network.
The FCC has said it was investigating ABC stations over whether the company’s diversity and inclusion policies are in violation of the Communications Act of 1934 and the agency’s rules, including its “prohibition on unlawful discrimination.”
Last week, the FCC asked a federal judge in Washington to dismiss ABC’s 1st Amendment lawsuit, calling Disney’s challenge to the early review “meritless” because the commission hasn’t made a decision on whether to escalate the matter or rescind Disney’s station licenses.
Kimmel ended his monologue, saying he was grateful for the YouTube channel “because in the America we live in right now, that is the best that we can do until November.”
At the top of Gloria Steinem’s “Famous Last Words” interview on Netflix, Brad Falchuk describes the writer and activist as “the face of the feminist movement” for the last 50-plus years — and Steinem says she hopes that isn’t true.
“I hope I wasn’t the face of the feminist movement,” Steinem says during the intimate conversation released Thursday on the streamer after her death at age 92. “Because it’s not right. … It’s a diverse movement, and, actually, on the issues, in public opinion polls, women of color are more likely to support the issues than white women.”
According to a Netflix news release, Steinem sat down with Falchuk in February 2025 for the interview she knew would not be released until after her death. In “Famous Last Words: Gloria Steinem,” the celebrated feminist reflects on her life and legacy in terms of her political activism, as well as her family and upbringing, relationships with other feminist figures and her hopes for the future.
Steinem maintained her hopes, even in a post-Roe vs. Wade world. When the landmark decision was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, it meant states could again outlaw abortion.
“I get angry or disappointed and so on [thinking about it], but I don’t lose all hope in the future,” Steinem said, before sharing observations about previously living near an abortion clinic.
Women are “still struggling,” she said. “There’s still religious restrictions that many people feel. There’s, I’m sorry to say, race and class restrictions.
“We have, right as we speak, Trump in the White House. So we have no shortage of things we need to do in order to be compassionate toward each other.”
One of the most recognizable feminist figures of our times, Steinem was known for her role in launching Ms. magazine as well as organizations such as the National Women’s Political Caucus and the Women’s Action Alliance. When asked by Falchuk to reflect on her “feminist awakening,” she mentions that her time in India studying Gandhi was when she “realized that patriarchy was made up. Racism was made up.”
But the interview has its lighter moments. For instance, Steinem reveals she finds joy in reality TV, including “Dance Moms.”
“It’s shows in which you see real people being who they are and disclosing their own stories,” Steinem said. “Those are more fun.”
And although she seems hesitant about contemplating her own “nonexistence,” she does share how she wants to be remembered: As “this person who tried to make the world a little more equal, compassionate, joyful, funny than it was when I showed up.”
“I just hope that I have, however accidentally, left behind some words or actions or stories or something that is useful to the people — and pleasurable, hopefully — to the people who are going to continue long after you and me,” she said.
Falchuk, also an executive producer of the “Famous Last Words” series, described Steinem in a news release as “the steady heartbeat of a revolution, but in this room, she was a woman reflecting on the simple, profound beauty of human connection.”
“She spoke about the intersection of race, gender, and peace with a wisdom that only comes from a lifetime on the front lines. Even in her final moments, she was organizing us, challenging us to keep moving forward. It is an extraordinary privilege to share her final thoughts with the world.”
After her conversation with Falchuk, Steinem was given the opportunity to share her final words alone, directly addressing the audience through the camera. Read her full message below.
“Hello, all you unique individuals out there. I’m so glad to be meeting you through the magic of the media. I wish I could meet each one of you in person. But in a way, this is what allows us now to see each other’s lives, to influence each other’s lives, to respect each other, and to, therefore, perpetuate what we hope is a global democracy.
“Please feel free to respond in any way you can. And please tell your own story. This is the most important thing we can do for each other — to know each other through stories. And I hope so much that whoever you are, listening right now, you are able to do what you love [and] to be … the unique person you are.”
For more than three decades, Liz Phair and Sleater-Kinney existed in parallel without ever quite meeting. They admired one another from afar, brushed shoulders only in passing, and, in some ways, represented opposing ways of challenging the limits placed on women in indie rock. Phair, who found novel and peerlessly smart ways to write about heterosexual skirmishes, used her ambitions to edge closer to the mainstream; Sleater-Kinney, one of the great duos of American rock, have succeeded in becoming the last band standing from the underground scene in which they emerged.
Both acts are about to share the stage for the first time, co-headlining a tour they’ve cheekily and earnestly named the Flannel and the Fury, with stops across the country, from El Cajon, Calif., to Ocean City, Md., and a night at Los Angeles’ Greek Theatre on Tuesday.
Yet, despite having spent more than 30 years orbiting the same world, they have had surprisingly little time together. This interview is one of a few substantial conversations they’ve ever had. It is, at first, slightly stilted. Carrie Brownstein and Corin Tucker (Sleater-Kinney) are in sync as always; Phair is clearly excited, but seemingly unsure of where to place herself in the dynamic. Now all in their 50s, the women have been asking similar questions of the same culture, and are only now getting the chance to compare answers.
“Sorry, I know you’re like, ‘Why aren’t you better friends?’ For me, that’s the point. I’m trying to be better friends,” says Brownstein. “Yeah, talk to us again when tour’s over,” Tucker adds.
Brownstein is sitting in a parking lot in Los Angeles, wearing a cardigan and glasses, people walking past her window, unaware of who’s inside. Tucker calls from her home, a blurred background behind her, wearing a white blouse and lipstick. Phair is at home too, makeup on and hair straightened, various musical instruments on the wall behind her. It’s a few weeks before their co-headlining tour, and Tucker has already loaded up all the equipment. She’s packed her suitcase too, full of socks she’ll throw away by the end of tour, and a wardrobe almost entirely of black.
“This is news to me,” says Brownstein. “I was thinking more of a chocolate brown. I will be all brown town.”
Phair is going for wine-like jewel tones. “A Cab Sav,” to be specific.
Phair, who’s had an on-and-off relationship with touring, is noticeably more nervous than Brownstein and Tucker. “It takes me two or three shows to get into it. At first I’m like, why are you all staring at me?”
Phair had been sitting on the idea of a co-headlining tour with Sleater-Kinney for a few years. She sheepishly says that she didn’t reach out herself, but got her manager to do it while she was working on the second half of her memoir. She’s been keen to share a bill with Sleater-Kinney ever since she heard their 1996 album “Call the Doctor.”
“By then, I’d started to pull back from indie rock,” says Phair. “I had gotten married, and I didn’t know I was pregnant at the time, but I was starting to drift out of this scene, and then they put out this kick-ass record, and I just remember thinking, I kind of want to be back in the game. It inspired me. It stuck with me.”
Phair felt she was atomized from the female coalitions of the ’90s, and that this co-bill might be a way to rectify that. “I’d love to be able to go back and sew it together again,” she says. “Here’s a band I was a fan of that meant something to me and now I can play with them.”
For Sleater-Kinney, Phair has long been more than a neighboring act. Tucker and Brownstein describe her as one of their “biggest inspirations.” Both have the same Phair favorite song: “Divorce Song.” “It’s a perfect song,” says Tucker. “I think I’ve put it on every mixtape I’ve ever made,” Brownstein adds.
By the time Phair released her debut album, “Exile in Guyville,” in 1993, she was the one of the two acts edging toward the mainstream. Within a year, she was on the cover of Rolling Stone.
“I still have a copy of the magazine,” says Brownstein. “We were all so excited. Like, an actual artist made the cover.”
Nirvana had made this small corporate alliance permissible a couple of years earlier, finding a loophole as Cobain wore a T-shirt that read “Corporate Magazines Still Suck” on their Rolling Stone cover. It was a time when an antiauthoritarian stance was the only artistically credible one. Before we started calling one another “performative,” Tucker, Brownstein and Phair came from a time when “poser” was the worst insult and sin. They came from a scene of ideological puritanism.
“You know when people die their life flashes before their eyes, sometimes, it’s like that when I do a deep dive, and I’m like, God, there were a lot of rules. There was a lot of fear. And I don’t think anyone who wasn’t there would be able to picture it,” says Brownstein. “It took us a long time to get over it.”
“OK, can I ask the question? Can I get right in here? Because I want to know,” Phair chimes. “Do you think that’s because there weren’t enough women? You think women would have brought the inclusivity to inclusivity?”
“Unfortunately, no,” replies Tucker.
“We had these all-female festivals in Olympia, and we had our own publicist, and they were like, how dare we?” says Brownstein. “You know, it was just gatekeeping, that now seems sort of repugnant. But it was also a way to establish yourself in opposition to what felt like the only way to be.”
It’s part of why Sleater-Kinney declined an invite to play Lilith Fair, the mainstream precedent for so-called female solidarity in music. One of history’s most famous traveling all-female festivals, Lilith Fair was considered by many in the Riot Grrrl movement to be an early symbol of the commodification of “girl power,” female solidarity aligned with corporate ideals.
Sleater Kinney
(Robin Laananen)
“It seems like they haven’t really given credit to women in an independent milieu who have organized a lot of female-only shows for years,” Brownstein told the Dallas Observer in 1998.
“I think at the time we thought we were too cool to play Lilith,” Tucker reflects.
“I’ll just leave your answer,” says Brownstein.
Then she changes her mind four seconds later.
“I saw the Lilith Fair documentary last year and got FOMO, I kind of regretted not playing” she says. “But at the same time we had a handicap from a small indie punk community that was kind of didactic, there was a real rigidity to what you were and weren’t allowed to do. Even us signing with Matador in the U.K. was considered too big.”
Selling out, they all conclude, is no longer a concern for anyone. Phair’s son, who is Gen Z, often says the phrase “it’s time to get the bag.”
“You know, every artist has the right to get their bag,” says Phair. “I always felt that way and I was especially vilified for it.”
That vilification reached its apex when she released her mainstream-aspiring self-titled album in 2003, an album Sleater-Kinney said they hated in an interview with Rolling Stone that year, and which Pitchfork gave a rare 0.0 score in one of its most notorious reviews.
“I’d be on tour doing 10 interviews a day back-to-back, and I almost had to give these interviewers therapy, because they were so sad about my turn from indie rock,” says Phair.
Phair is adamant she made her mark on “every one of those songs, except maybe ‘Favorite,’” she says, referencing the chintzy, awkwardly phrased track where she sings about her underwear. Maybe it’s a metaphor, but more likely, it is just a song about her underwear. Safe to say it won’t be on the show’s setlist: “I will never play it live.”
The old argument about selling out now sits inside a very different touring economy. Sleater-Kinney and Phair’s co-headlining tour happens to follow a flood of co-headlining tours this year, from indie acts like Waxahatchee and MJ Lenderman to big marquee names like Usher and Chris Brown. With higher ticket prices and more competition — not only with other touring bands but with the allures of home comforts — audiences need a bigger draw. Artists want an opportunity to play to big audiences, as well as a better chance of “getting the bag.”
All three artists insist they won’t necessarily bring home the bag, nor is that why they’re doing this.
“All our budget’s gone on to the lighting designer,” jokes Brownstein.
“When I do these interviews with you guys, I get kind of excited and nervous because I feel challenged in the best way,” says Phair. “I think co-headlining bills, it does let you go into bigger venues than you could by yourself. But it also, for me, gives me creative food, like nutrition. It makes me grow.”
Rob and Michele Reiner’s son Jake Reiner has reportedly tied the knot with fiancée Maria Gilfillan.
The couple got married in a small ceremony in early August, TMZ reported Monday.
The duo has kept the relationship largely out of the spotlight. Jake shared images on Oct. 7, 2025, on Instagram of him and Gilfillan attending a wedding in Las Vegas. They went to the L.A. premiere of Rob’s film “Spinal Tap II: The End Continues” with his entire family in September.
In an interview with ABC7’s Marc Cota-Robles, released Aug. 27, Jake appeared to be wearing a wedding band.
Jake’s representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Jake’s sit-down interview with ABC7 marked the first time the former reporter spoke to the press after his parents were fatally stabbed in their Brentwood home on Dec. 14, 2025. His 27-year-old sister, Romy Reiner, discovered the bodies and his younger brother, 32-year-old Nick Reiner, was arrested in connection to the crime.
“Every moment that I wake up, I’m reminded of my reality, and you’re living through that every single day,” Jake, 35, told ABC7.
In July, a grand jury indicted Nick on murder charges with special allegations of committing multiple murders and lying in wait, making him eligible for life without parole or the death penalty if convicted. Nick has pleaded not guilty. A pretrial hearing is slated for Sept. 15.
“I don’t care how it’s explained to me. I don’t care what facts come out. I will never understand why this happened,” Jake shared with ABC7, adding that he has not spoken to his brother since his parents’ deaths.
In an essay written by Jake on his Substack in April, he expressed being robbed of many milestone moments following his parents’ deaths. “My parents won’t be at my wedding, they won’t get to hold their future grandchild, and they won’t get to see me have the successful career I’m still seeking,” Jake wrote. “It simultaneously breaks my heart and enrages me.”
Jake wrote that his dad helped him overcome personal obstacles: “No subject was ever off-limits.”
“Whenever I was in a difficult relationship, he would challenge me and say, ‘You need to really think about what draws you to a person like this, and once you figure that out and break that pattern, you’ll find the person who is truly right for you,’” Jake wrote in the April essay. “I’m proud to say I have found that person in Maria, and I couldn’t be more grateful she had the chance to know and love my parents.”
Times staff writer Richard Winton contributed to this report.
A new three-part documentary series on Netflix will explore the life and struggles of Matthew Perry and feature an interview with his sister Mia Perry Bowick, along with unreleased photos and videos from the private archive of the Perry family.
“The One About Matthew Perry” will premiere on the streaming platform Oct. 27, according to an announcement by Netflix on Tuesday. The docuseries, directed and executive produced by award-winning director Mary Robertson (“Quiet on Set”), will tell the story of Perry and his journey from rising comedic star to the man behind the Emmy-nominated role of Chandler Bing on “Friends.”
“Through his many films, TV and stage performances, and his unforgettable portrayal of Chandler Bing, he made millions of us laugh, connect, and feel a little less alone,” Robertson said in a statement. “He also gave us so much more by bravely speaking about addiction. Yet the public only knew part of his story. That’s why we set out to make this series: to let the people who knew and loved Matthew reveal the person behind the public figure.”
The documentary will explore new details about Perry’s private struggles with prescription painkillers and alcohol through firsthand memories from his family and collaborators. The actor died in 2023 from acute effects of ketamine, according to the Los Angeles County medical examiner. Five people were sentenced to prison for supplying Perry with the drug, including his assistant, two doctors, a former drug counselor and a drug dealer known as the “Ketamine queen.”
Perry Bowick hopes the series gives everyone who loved him an appreciation of who he truly was and the legacy he leaves behind.
“It’s taken time for me to feel ready to share these memories and what it was like to love Matthew through all the complexity of his life — to see him as a whole person, not just as Chandler, and not just as someone who struggled with addiction,” she said in a statement.
“The One About Matthew Perry” is the latest documentary about the late actor; “Matthew Perry: An American Tragedy” was released on Peacock last year. The Netflix docuseries is produced by Maxine Productions, a part of Sony Pictures Television. Lisa Kalikow, Eli Holzman and Aaron Saidman are executive producers along with Robertson, Lora Moftah is co-executive producer and Jessica Call is producer.
Naya Rivera and Ryan Dorsey’s son is making his film acting debut.
The “Glee” star’s 10-year-old son, Josey Hollis Dorsey, booked an on-screen role in “The Burning Valley” alongside his dad, Ryan. The two will play the role of father and son in the debut feature film from writer-director Evan Coury that started shooting this month northeast of Pittsburgh.
In an interview with the Tribune-Review, the filmmaker said the movie is about a steelworker who loses his job when the mill announces a shutdown. “It sets him on a journey as he wanders through his Rust Belt town,” Coury said. “My hope is to encapsulate the history of our region through one guy’s personal experience.”
The news of Josey’s big-screen debut comes six years after the tragic death of Rivera in 2020, when she accidentally drowned after renting a boat to take Josey, then 4 years old, fishing in Ventura County’s Lake Piru.
Josey’s foray into acting seems only natural considering his pro parents. Rivera is best known for her portrayal of the Afro-Latino queer cheerleader Santana Lopez in “Glee,” and Dorsey has acted in TV shows including “Justified” and “Palm Royale.” In a 2021 interview with “Entertainment Tonight,” Rivera’s mother, Yolanda Previtire, and sister, Nickayla Rivera, described Josey as the spitting image of his mother. “His tenacity, his drive, his zeal, his adventure for life. He’s just Naya in boy form,” Previtire said.
“He loves entertaining,” Nickayla added. “He loves singing at the top of his lungs.”
And last year, Dorsey told People that Josey, or “Jojo,” had already acted in a couple of plays. “He hasn’t had the the lead part or anything, but he’s so good,” he said, adding that Josey wasn’t “begging” to be an actor just yet.
“I’m just trying to expose him to all the things,” he continued. “He’s playing violin, he’s playing piano, he’s in the chess club, he’s pretty good at baseball. He’s not very good at basketball. He’s played soccer, but I want to continue to expose him to things. I think it could be an outlet for him as he gets older; he can have a good life being creative. It’s definitely in his blood.”
Leeds United manager Daniel Farke reacts to his side’s 1-0 win against Nottingham Forest, sealed by Anton Stach’s free‑kick in the opening game of their 2026-27 Premier League season.
MATCH REPORT: Nottingham Forest 0-1 Leeds United
Available to UK users only.