membership

Less than five years ago, the Golden Globes were hanging by a thread.

In the wake of a Times investigation that exposed the group’s self-dealing and ethical lapses and a complete lack of Black representation among its membership, NBC pulled the ceremony off the air as Netflix and Amazon Studios and more than 100 publicity agencies cut ties with the embattled Hollywood Foreign Press Assn.

It got so bad that Tom Cruise sent back his three Golden Globes to the HFPA in protest, an act not quite on the level of Sean Penn’s 2022 threat to smelt his Oscars, though it grabbed headlines all the same.

But the Golden Globes have returned from the brink. The awards show, now run by Penske Media Eldridge, owned by Jay Penske and Todd Boehly, announced its latest slate of film and television nominations Monday. And the coverage, led by trade publications owned by Penske, has contained little to no mention of the show’s troubled past — or the controversies that continue to swirl around the ceremony, which will again air in January on CBS as part of a five-year broadcast deal signed in 2024.

So, yes, for all intents and purposes, the Golden Globes are back. But regarding ethical practices, today’s for-profit Globes may well be worse than ever, crossing the line in ways that are more egregious than the shady maneuverings that put the awards on life support not so long ago.

As part of the show’s rehabilitation, the Globes have expanded their voting pool to 300 people, including Black voters. Fifty of the original HFPA members were grandfathered into the group and offered an annual salary of $75,000. The Globes terminated that policy earlier this year, calling the move “an acknowledgment that continuing to pay members could add to a perception of bias in voting.”

It’s hard not to be skeptical of such principled reasoning in light of more recent events. In May, the Globes announced a new category for podcasts. A shortlist of 25 followed in October, selected by audio analytics company Luminate, which, surprise, is also owned by Penske Media.

The eligible titles ranged from Dax Shepard’s “Armchair Expert” and Amy Poehler’s “Good Hang” to political programs like “Pod Save America.” Conservative commentators Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Megyn Kelly, Ben Shapiro, Theo Von and Candace Owens all made the shortlist. (Surprisingly, “New Heights,” the popular podcast hosted by Jason Kelce and his brother Travis, the all-pro Kansas City Chiefs tight end engaged to singer Taylor Swift, was omitted. If the goal in creating the new award was to find a way to coax Swift into attending the ceremony, somebody forgot to save her a seat.)

But the real motivation behind the podcast category became apparent soon afterward: money. Per the Ankler, Penske-owned trade publication Variety had its sales team pitch nominated podcasts an array of paid marketing partnerships, including a $25,000 buy to become a Podcasting FYC Fest supporting partner and a $75,000 deal for the podcaster to be given the Variety Creative Impact Award in Podcasting.

With those prices, no wonder Luminate seems to have made popularity — and thus financial resources — a core criterion for eligibility. Plus, there was the hope that some of the 25 shortlisted shows would buy FYC ads in Variety and Penske’s other trade publications, the Hollywood Reporter and Deadline, all of which rely on FYC dollars to keep the lights on.

How many bit? Shapiro is one prominent name, buying ads on Deadline and partnering with awards prediction website Gold Derby (yes, another Penske property) in a paid video interview with his podcast team. (The stumping failed to pay off in the end: The final six nominees in the category were “Armchair Expert,” “Call Her Daddy,” “Good Hang With Amy Poehler,” “The Mel Robbins Podcast,” “SmartLess” and “Up First.”)

“It’s just a money grab,” says a veteran awards consultant, who asked not be identified in order to protect industry relationships. “Everybody used to knock the Globes, but they were just goofy. … This is next level.”

You want next level? How about Penske offering three pairs of Golden Globes tickets for $70,000 each via a “concierge gift guide” in its luxury lifestyle magazine Robb Report? After the New York Post reported these shenanigans, the offer disappeared on the publication’s website.

Privately, there has been pushback. Publicly, not so much. We live in a culture at large where we’ve come to accept flagrant corruption as the norm, and Penske’s Globes are just another example, skating through our collective numbness.

The Golden Globes have long been excused for their scandals and idiosyncratic membership and, of course, mocked for their irrelevance. Ricky Gervais dismissed them as “worthless,” calling the award “a bit of metal that some nice old confused journalists wanted to give you in person so they could meet you and have a selfie with you.”

The membership has turned over, but the trophy’s value is still inconsequential.

Yet the ceremony keeps on chugging along, remaining, in the view of filmmakers behind the sort of grown-up movie fare that’s becoming an increasingly endangered species, an essential marketing platform. The January ceremony brought in 9.3 million viewers — not “Sunday Night Football” numbers, but not shabby in this fragmented media landscape.

For one night, the thinking goes, movies like “Marty Supreme,” “Hamnet” and “Sentimental Value” (among this year’s most-rewarded contenders) are celebrated and, perhaps, discovered. Studios still platform their films’ expansion into more theaters on the weekend after the Globes ceremony. If you award it, the thinking goes, people will come.

We all want these movies to continue to be made. No doubt a fair number of moviegoers bought a ticket to see the Brazilian political drama “I’m Still Here” after its lead Fernanda Torres won a Globe earlier this year.

But adding categories for podcast and, two years ago, “cinematic and box office achievement” only squeezes the amount of time that the show can spotlight the nominated films and their actors.

There’s a saying, first coined by Maya Angelou, that’s been repopularized in recent years: “If someone shows you who they are, believe them.” The same could be said of awards shows.

The Golden Globes may be here to stay. But let’s stop pretending they’re any better than they were before the last scandal.

Trans women will no longer be allowed to join the Women’s Institute as members starting in 2026.

According to The Independent, the organisation’s decision stemmed from the UK Supreme Court’s April ruling that defined “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act as referring to biological sex.

In a statement to the news outlet, the chief executive of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, Melisa Green, said they had “no choice” in the decision.

“It is with the utmost regret and sadness that we must announce that from April 2026, we can no longer offer formal membership to transgender women,” she revealed.

“As an organisation that has proudly welcomed transgender women into our membership for more than 40 years, this is not something we would do unless we felt we had no other choice.

“To be able to continue operating as the Women’s Institute, a legally recognised women’s organisation and chairty, we must act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgement and restrict formal membership to biological women only.”

Towards the end of her statement, Green said that the new rule is only being made “in respect to our membership policy and does not change our firm belief that transgender women are women.”

From April 2026, only individuals who are registered female at birth will be allowed to join the Women’s Institute. New or renewing members will be required to provide proof of meeting the requirements.

In addition to confirming the new membership rules, Green told The Guardian that the Women’s Institute would introduce new “sisterhood groups” that same month, giving trans women an opportunity to remain part of the “WI family.”

Lastly, she described the groups as being “open to all” and “a place where we will recognise transgender women as women and explore what it is to be a woman in the 21st century.”

The recent news comes two weeks after leaked EHRC guidance suggested trans people could be banned from single-sex spaces based on appearance.

⁠On 19 November, The Times reported that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) drafted new guidance for ministers nearly three months ago, aimed at “preserv[ing] the dignity and safety of women.” The guidance has not yet been published by Bridget Phillipson, the Minister for Women and Equalities.⁠

⁠A copy obtained by The Times revealed that “places such as hospital wards, gyms and leisure centres” may question trans women over their use of single-sex services based on “how they look, their behaviour or concerns raised by others.”⁠

⁠If there is uncertainty about an individual’s gender identity, they could be prohibited from accessing these services once those in charge have taken into account “relevant factors.”⁠

As of this writing, the UK government has not announced when the new guidance will be published.

However, on 20 November, Phillipson told reporters that she was going through it “thoroughly and carefully.”

“I have responsibilities to make sure that’s done properly, and we’re taking the time to get this right,” she added.

Ukraine’s desire to join NATO was a “key question” discussed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and senior American officials during talks in Moscow, the Kremlin says.

Putin’s top aide, Yury Ushakov, made the comment on Wednesday, the day after an almost five-hour meeting between Putin and Washington officials Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner failed to deliver a breakthrough in Ukraine peace negotiations.

“The American partners have confirmed their readiness to take into account our considerations and our key proposals,” Ushakov told reporters.

While Kyiv argues it must join NATO to protect itself against future Russian aggression, Moscow says Ukraine must never be allowed to join the military alliance.

Another significant area of disagreement is territory, with Ushakov saying shortly after the Witkoff meeting that “no compromise” has been found on regions Russia captured and plans to keep.

Ukraine’s European allies later hit out at Russia at a meeting in Belgium, accusing Putin of having no intention of stopping the full-scale war it launched against its neighbour in February 2022.

“What we see is that Putin has not changed any course. He’s pushing more aggressively on the battlefield,” Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna said. “It’s pretty obvious that he doesn’t want to have any kind of peace.”

‘Positive outcome’

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday it’s “not correct” to say Russia is against the US peace plan.

“We’re deliberately not going to add anything,” he said. “It’s understood that the quieter these negotiations are conducted, the more productive they will be.”

Responding to Tuesday’s US-Russian negotiations, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha confirmed that Witkoff, the US special envoy, spoke to the head of the Ukrainian delegation after he met with Putin in Moscow.

“Representatives of the American delegation reported that, in their opinion, the talks in Moscow had a positive outcome,” he said, adding representatives from Kyiv would be invited to the US again soon. The two sides held talks in Florida on Sunday.

Witkoff and Kushner briefed US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian officials after a “thorough, productive meeting” with Russia’s leader, the White House said.

Speaking in Brussels on Wednesday, NATO chief Mark Rutte said Putin is “wrong” to believe he could “outlast” the alliance.

“We’re not going anywhere,” he promised, adding that two-thirds of member states have committed to sending $4bn in weapons to Ukraine as part of a new initiative.

Hungary, however, said it will not send any weapons or money to Ukraine, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto told a media briefing following the meeting of NATO foreign ministers.

“A brutal war fanaticism has gripped the European members of NATO. This blinds them and makes them incapable of making rational decisions,” Szijjarto said, adding Europe’s mainstream members of NATO are undermining Trump’s peace efforts.

What’s Trump’s next move?

Reporting from Kyiv, Al Jazeera’s Jonah Hull said the Putin-Witkoff meeting appeared not to have progressed Washington’s aim of brokering peace.

“The signals that seem to have come out of it is that the search for a peace agreement acceptable to both sides has, for the time being, stalled,” he noted.

“What really matters here in Ukraine is what Donald Trump’s next move is. Will he come back with another barrage of threats to get Ukraine to capitulate to a bad deal? Or does he, potentially worse, lose interest and walk away?”

In other developments, the EU agreed to phase out Russian gas by late 2027. “By depleting Putin’s war chest, we stand in solidarity with Ukraine,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s parliament passed a budget for 2026 in which more than one-quarter of GDP will be spent on the army, as well as buying and producing weapons.

“This is an important signal of Ukraine’s resilience and securing a stable financial provision for the next year’s needs,” President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.

“The priorities are clear: ensuring our defence, social programmes, and the ability to rebuild our lives after Russia’s attacks.”