In Medias Res: Bluesky+, Fox News' Future, and Matt Gaetz's New Gig

I got into a snit with some friends on Slack yesterday over Bluesky discourse. A movie critic suggested that film writers who considered putting Wicked in their top ten were not “serious people,” which got under my skin more than it probably should have. But, like, yes: Make fun of the movie — that’s the job. But don’t demean and belittle the people who like it. And then pile on. That’s just textbook bullying, and also Movie Critic 101.

I don’t even care about the movie, which I liked, but dismissing someone over their movie opinion? Come on. And these people with thousands of followers aren’t like, “Oh, that sucks, I alienated someone.” They’re like, “I’ll just snicker and make a blocklist of all the people I alienated” because it’s more important for them to bond with other film writers than to respect their audience. It infuriated me, and it reminded me of old Film Twitter, and not in a good way. I had checked out of most of that scene in 2014-15 — I got baited into arguments way too easily — and I thought that perhaps the rapid changes in the industry and all the layoffs might have humbled film writers. I was wrong.

Am I making a huge deal out of nothing? Yes. No. Probably! But I just don’t understand how that kind of gatekeeping serves anyone. And if you only surround yourselves with people who love, say, The Brutalist, you’re limiting yourselves. Whatever. It’s cool. I unfollowed some people.

I’m still enjoying Bluesky, mostly to follow authors I love (who are not smug), political figures, the writers here, and our readers. Except for that one. You know who you are. Am I going to pay $8 for a Bluesky+ subscription when it arrives? Honestly? Probably. I objected to doing so on Twitter because the money went to Elon Musk and his f**ked algorithm. But I’ll pay for verification and post analytics—just not if Bluesky decides to algorithmically present my feed. TechCrunch got their hands on this “user interface mockup,” which does not necessarily represent the actual features, nor does Bluesky know when they’ll roll them out. But it looks about right, and I’d pay to support the place.

Elsewhere, Rupert Murdoch’s effort to undo the trust he created for his kids failed in court yesterday. This means Lachlan Murdoch—who currently controls Fox News—may not necessarily do so after Rupert’s death. James Murdoch and the two sisters, Elisabeth and Prudence, do not share the same politics, and after Rupert’s death, they may vote together to oust Lachlan and take the network in a more fact-based direction. Or they won’t. Rupert Murdoch plans to appeal. Interestingly, the trust’s existence was inspired by an episode of Succession, which itself was inspired by the Murdochs. The judge even referenced the HBO drama. In any case, the network’s future remains unclear, although nothing is likely to change until the 93-year-old Rupert dies.

Speaking of Fox News, while it’s still being controlled by Lachlan, they’re pursuing acquisitions, according to Semafor, which may include Ben Shapiro’s The Daily Wire or Red Seat Ventures, producers of podcasts for Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson. That makes some sense, but interestingly, Fox News may not be able to afford those acquisitions—especially if Elon Musk decides to grow his conservative media empire and acquire those assets himself.

Finally, Matt Gaetz—who resigned from Congress to pursue a failed bid to be Trump’s AG—has found a new home: He’ll be employed by the far-right media outlet OAN. The Matt Gaetz Show will launch in January.