phone call

“You only need to find one person in this entire world who doesn’t find you completely insufferable.”

That’s the wisdom Taylor Swift dispenses near the end of “Cleveland!,” one of four new songs on a newly expanded edition of “The Life of a Showgirl,” and if that exclamation point doesn’t tell you she’s found that person then I don’t know what would.

Released Thursday night, almost exactly a year after the original album came out, “The Life of a Showgirl: The Encore” tacks four bonus songs onto the blockbuster 2025 LP that set a new record for the biggest opening week of all time even as it drew the harshest reviews of her career. It also follows Swift’s high-profile wedding in July — her husband, the NFL star Travis Kelce, grew up in Cleveland Heights — and comes just as Grammy voters are about to decide on nominations for February’s awards ceremony, where “The Life of a Showgirl” is eligible for Swift’s eighth album of the year nod. (In case you haven’t been keeping track, that would tie her with Frank Sinatra for the most in Recording Academy history.)

In a statement ahead of “The Encore’s” release, Swift said she’d taken a trip to Sweden to celebrate “Showgirl’s” success with Max Martin and Shellback, her two principal collaborators on the album. “Really we just wanted to reflect and take in how grateful we were for the moment we were in,” she wrote, “but there was a studio there and we did what we do when we feel anything at all: We wrote more songs.”

Here are the four “Encore” tracks, ranked from worst to best.

4. ‘Cleveland!’
The exclamation point really is hilarious. (No shots at Cleveland.) I kind of dig the airy jangle-pop production, which reminds me a bit of “Ruin the Friendship,” by far the best song on the original “Showgirl.” But writing about her and Kelce’s romance as a bulwark against all the hate she receives as a rich and powerful pop star feels pretty uninspired, at least as rendered here. “The taste of me is acquired, but it’s his favorite dish”? Alas, no.

3. ‘Patient Zero’
“Encore’s” lead single — with a splashy music video set to premiere during Sunday night’s MTV Video Music Awards — has Swift fielding a phone call from a woman who’s dating one of the singer’s exes and could use a little advice. (“I’ve gotta be honest — I’ve been expecting your call,” Swift tells her.) That’s a rich premise, and I like the way the unexpected fiddle lick scrapes against the glossy synths. Again, though, the lyrics lack the emotional sophistication with which she once would have told a story like this one. And the song’s central image — a guy with a “devil on his shoulder under his halo” — is downright awkward.

2. ‘Pink Clouding’
OK, now we’re getting somewhere. This shimmering electro-pop number takes its title, as I just learned, from a term used among people experiencing addiction to describe the temporary euphoria one might feel in the early stages of recovery. (Recall that Swift wrote “Lavender Haze” a few years ago after hearing the phrase on “Mad Men.”) Here she’s looking back with regret at a relationship that she can see now was clearly a rebound: “You met me at a cursed time / I told you I was fine / And you were so good / That’s why you haunt me like you should.”

1. ‘Babylon’
Look, I’m not crazy about “liberated libertine.” And “Love is ice upon the ladder that you need to climb”? It’s giving Airbnb wall art. But man, oh man, does Swift finally tap into something deep in “Encore’s” closer: a trembling acoustic-guitar ditty about someone who’s realized only too late what they let slip away. Listen for yourself to hear how she sings it — this is a beautifully tender vocal performance — but the verse about the all-but-abandoned young mom sneaking into the bathroom to call her mom is an absolute killer. Taylor Swift: good songwriter!

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pending defamation case against Fox News could go to trial in early 2028, around the same time the governor could be running a 2028 campaign for president.

Newsom sued the news network last year over its coverage of a phone call that took place between the governor and President Trump in June 2025, as unrest simmered over federal immigration raids in downtown Los Angeles. The governor accused the news outlet of intentionally manipulating its coverage to give the appearance that he lied about the call.

Despite an on-air apology from Fox News host Jesse Watters and attempts from the network to have the lawsuit thrown out, a Delaware Superior Court judge late last month set a trial date for March 6, 2028. Newsom filed the lawsuit in Delaware, where Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corp., are incorporated.

Newsom’s final term in office ends in early January and he is considering a run for president. The lawsuit seeks $787 million in damages, the same amount the network paid to settle a defamation suit brought by voting machine company Dominion. The company accused Fox News of airing false claims that voting machines were manipulated to help Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election.

Lawyers for Fox News sought to have the case dismissed and Newsom ordered to pay attorneys’ fees. Judge Sean P. Lugg denied both motions this year, a ruling upheld by the Delaware Supreme Court.

“We will continue to vigorously defend against Governor Newsom’s meritless claims, which directly implicate core First Amendment protections for free speech, political commentary and a free press,” the network said in a statement to The Times.

“No media empire, no matter how rich and powerful, should get to lie to the American people with impunity,” said Michael Teter, the attorney representing Newsom in the case. “Governor Newsom is holding Fox accountable — and looks forward to proving this case in court. The truth matters.”

The case stems from a phone call between Trump and Newsom in early June 2025 as unrest brewed in Los Angeles over federal immigration raids and hours before the president took control of state National Guard troops, ordering them to protect federal buildings and immigration agents.

Newsom’s lawsuit accuses Fox hosts Watters and John Roberts, along with two senior news staffers, of misrepresenting Trump’s statements and asserting that Newsom lied about whether the call had happened.

The governor had previously publicly spoken about a late-night phone call he had with Trump on June 6 in California, which was early June 7 for Trump on the East Coast. He said that the National Guard was never discussed during that call and that the two did not speak about the immigration raids and protests again.

Trump told reporters on June 10 that he had spoken with Newsom “a day ago.”

“Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job, he’s doing a bad job,” Trump said.

Newsom disputed Trump’s timeline, writing on social media, “There was no call. Not even a voicemail.”

Roberts then said on social media and on air that Trump sent him evidence that the call took place. Newsom’s lawsuit accused Roberts of leaving out key details about the time of the call.

Roberts “did not provide the critical fact that on June 10, President Trump had stated that he had spoken to Governor Newsom ‘a day ago.’ Nor did Mr. Roberts note that June 6 — or June 7 at 1:23 am — is not ‘a day ago’ when one is speaking on June 10,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit also accused Watters’ show of playing a clip of Trump’s remarks that was edited to remove the president’s reference to “a day ago.”

“Newsom responded, and he said there wasn’t a phone call,” Watters said after showing the clip. “He said Trump never called him. Not even a voicemail, he said. But John Roberts got Trump’s call logs, and it shows Trump called him late Friday night and they talked for 16 minutes. Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?”

A caption at the bottom of the screen during the report read, “Gavin lied about Trump’s call.”

Weeks later, Watters acknowledged the mistake and apologized, saying Newsom “wasn’t lying. He was just confusing and unclear.”

Newsom declined to drop the suit and in court documents demanded a jury trial.

Getting a trial date doesn’t necessarily mean a trial will take place, Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson said.

Fox’s “motion to dismiss was denied. That means the case is continuing,” she said. “But what’s also happening throughout all of this is the sides are probably talking about some sort of settlement.”

The case now enters the discovery phase, where each side collects evidence to build their case.

Court records show Fox News lawyers last month sent subpoenas to Newsom’s political action committee and several top advisors, including his chief of staff, Nathan Barankin; communications director Bob Salladay; legal affairs secretary David Sapp; and political consultants Ace Smith, Lindsey Cobia, Jason Elliott and Nathan Click.

The subpoenas ordered them to produce documents related to the network’s coverage of Newsom, the phone call with Trump and the governor’s response strategy.

If a trial does happen, Levinson said, the timing could either help or hurt Newsom’s potential presidential campaign.

“He can use it as a talking point and say, ‘I don’t leave any stone unturned. I’m seeking to vindicate my reputation. I believe in the truth, and the other side does not believe in the truth. That’s why I’m bringing this case.’ So, he can use it as a part of his stump,” she said.

But if the trial proceeds and Newsom believes it would take time away from his campaign, he could ask for it to be moved to a different date.

“Trial dates get changed all the time for much less,” Levinson said.