This is The Poynter Report, your daily guide to the news about news. Subscribe to get it in your inbox every weekday.

---

Whether it was expected or not, whether it met or exceeded expectations or not, whether it means something for the future or not, one thing is clear: Tuesday was a good day for Democrats.

In a clean sweep, Democrats crushed their Republican counterparts in big gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia; they won key elections in Pennsylvania; they passed a redistricting plan in California that could result in five more Congressional seats that will likely lean blue. And in New York City, more than 2 million voters — the most since 1969 — elected a democratic socialist as mayor.

The New York Times’ Reid J. Epstein wrote, “The results served as a rebuke of Mr. Trump and his Republican Party and a salve for Democrats who have not had many good nights in the last year.”

Media reaction was just what you would expect. Conservative media, led by Fox News and CNN’s resident conservative (some say troll) Scott Jennings, chalked up Tuesday as no surprise. Their take? Democrats won in states where they’ve traditionally done well. To many on the right, Tuesday ultimately went as expected, even though they had hopes that Republican nominee Jack Ciattarelli would upset Democrat Mikie Sherrill for governor of New Jersey, and they, especially, doubted that Zohran Mamdani could actually become mayor of New York City.

From CNN’s “Reliable Sources” newsletter:

Because the key races were all called before Fox’s special coverage started at 10 p.m. last night, we got to watch MAGA devotees Jesse Watters and Sean Hannity cope in real time. Both hosts tried to spin away any suggestion that the losses were a repudiation of Trump.

After calling Abigail Spanberger’s victory in Virginia, Watters declared, “The Democrats are going to spin this: ‘This is a referendum on Trump.’ I mean, these are all blue states.” That particular line continued into Hannity’s hour. Hannity also said his phone was blowing up with texts from friends in New York who were “depressed and scared.” Fox’s shows leaned hard into “socialism” fears all night long.

On Tuesday night, longtime statistician and FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver made an interesting point on X: “The heuristic that Trump overperforms polls when he specifically is on the ballot but otherwise Democrats meet and often exceed their polls has been pretty reliable throughout the Trump Era.”

Fox News’ Brit Hume echoed those thoughts, saying on air, “Well, I don’t think you ever need to look very far in our current politics without wondering what the effect of Donald Trump was and is. … There was a number that was cited earlier from our polling data that showed that something like 70% of the voters on (the side of victorious New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Mikie Sherrill) were acting to resist Donald Trump. So I think we have to keep that in mind as we look at all these results. And the other side of that is that Trump can turn out voters, but they turn out for him. And everything I think we’ve seen tonight suggests that when he’s not on the ballot even if he’s trying to influence the ballots, if he’s not on there himself, his voters are much less interested than they might otherwise be.”

New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie took it a step further in “Make No Mistake: Trump Is an Albatross.” Bouie wrote, “Supporters of the president might pooh-pooh these results as unrepresentative. This isn’t a presidential electorate, they might say; there are different circumstances. But New Jersey and New York City both had high turnout for off-year elections (Virginia had a slight increase). In other words, it really is the case that Trump specifically, in his capacity as president, inspires ferocious energy and opposition against him among a large part of the voting public. The results, then, are a marked contrast to the accommodation, capitulation and outright surrender of prominent individuals and institutions in the face of Trump’s demands. They also serve to remind us of what ought to be a fundamental maxim of democracy: that there is no singular ‘people’ and there are no permanent majorities.”

He added, “But Tuesday was a Democratic victory. And the party didn’t just win — it won by commanding majorities on virtually every field of play. In polls, in focus groups and now at the ballot box, the public is telling us something very clearly: Trump is simply too much. If this is an opportunity for Democrats to win back lost ground — and it is — then it is also a warning to a Republican Party that has tied its entire identity to the man from Mar-a-Lago.”

And in his Times’ piece, Epstein wrote, “Democrats have spent the last year locked out of power in Washington, searching furiously but mostly in vain for ways to stop President Trump from expanding his power. They held protests, spoke all night in the Senate and organized ‘No Kings’ rallies that drew millions across the country. On Tuesday, they finally hit back in a more concrete way.”

Epstein added, “The president was not on the ballot in any of these places, but in each one, Democrats ran against his policies and yoked their opponents to him.”

Finally, The Atlantic’s David A. Graham wrote, “They dislike him — they really dislike him. Off-year elections are never quite the crystal ball for midterms that political junkies want, but one thing that last night’s results seem to convey clearly is that many voters are unhappy with President Donald Trump.”

Brotherly love

There was one reaction particularly notable about Andrew Cuomo’s loss to Mamdani in the New York City mayoral race. It came from NewsNation anchor … Chris Cuomo, who is, of course, Andrew’s brother.

Chris Cuomo said on air, “Of course, I wanted my brother to win. I believe in my brother. I think he’s a tremendous operator within government, but he’s not what Democrats want right now in their party, and Democrats win in New York City. I mean, that’s the one line analysis is the Democrat was going to win in New York City, but the type of Democrat and what they want, I do believe there’s a metaphor here as a reaction to MAGA, and this is what we’ll see in the midterms, but I guess that’s fought by Virginia and New Jersey in terms of who they elected.”

Other notable coverage and analysis from the 2025 elections

New Jersey Governor-elect Mikie Sherrill at a news conference in Trenton, N.J., on Wednesday. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

• From The Associated Press: “Election Night highlights: Democrats notch wins in first major elections since Trump returned to power.”
• The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board wrote, “Democrats Start Their Comeback.” The subhead on the editorial was “A warning for the GOP from New Jersey and Virginia on affordability and Trump’s unpopularity.” The board would write, “The challenge for Republicans is that Democrats outside New York may be learning from their 2024 defeat.”
• The Hollywood Reporter’s Steven Zeitchik, Peter Kiefer and Tony Maglio with “What Zohran Mamdani (and other Democrats’) Wins in Tuesday’s Election Mean for Liberal Hollywood.”
• This isn’t surprising considering the good night for Democrats, but according to Nielsen fast national ratings, MSNBC was the most-watched cable news network Tuesday night. MSNBC averaged 3.04 million total viewers in prime time, while Fox News averaged 2.85 million and CNN averaged 1.78 million.
• The Guardian’s Jeremy Barr with “CNN’s All Access election night ‘watch party’ might not be the network’s future.”
• The Los Angeles Times’ Jessica Garrison and Seema Mehta with “Passage of Prop. 50 brightens Newsom’s national prospects while casting a shadow on Trump.”
• The San Francisco Chronicle’s Alexei Koseff with “California’s Prop 50 was a stunning success. Will it fuel more blue state redistricting pushes?”
• Vanity Fair’s Eric Lutz with “MAGA Melts Down Over Mamdani’s Mayoral Victory: ‘New York City Has Fallen.’”
• The Washington Post’s Scott Nover tweeted, “Today’s New York Post featuring mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani with a hammer and sickle on the cover has sold out on news stands across Manhattan.”

Supreme coverage

CNN and MSNBC both provided excellent coverage of the Supreme Court hearing arguments Wednesday on whether President Donald Trump has legal authority to impose tariffs on goods from nearly all countries.

As you probably know, the Supreme Court doesn’t allow cameras in its courtroom. However, it does allow audio. Both CNN and MSNBC have come up with inventive ways to broadcast big cases such as this one.

Both networks aired the audio, along with photos of the justices arranged in a line corresponding to where they actually sit on the bench. Then, below that, they showed a photo of the person making their argument at that moment. To help viewers, the photo of whoever was talking was lit up on the screen.

You couldn’t see facial expressions or gestures, but at least you could hear the questions and answers in real time. In addition, down the left side of the TV screen, CNN added a text chain of conversation between its journalists. It gave the audience real-time analysis. It’s something that newspapers, such as The New York Times, do on their websites, and it makes for an excellent audience experience.

As far as Wednesday’s proceedings, The Washington Post’s Justin Jouvenal wrote, “The Supreme Court appeared skeptical of arguments Wednesday that President Donald Trump has legal authority to impose tariffs on a vast range of goods from nearly all countries, signaling the justices could strike down or limit the administration’s signature economic policy.”

The New York Times’ Ann E. Marimow wrote, “Several members of the court’s conservative majority, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined the liberal justices in sharply questioning the Trump administration’s assertion that it has the power to unilaterally impose tariffs without congressional approval. Justice Barrett, who is seen as a key vote, questioned the scope of Mr. Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, which she described as ‘across the board.’ ‘Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base?’ she asked a lawyer for the administration. ‘Spain? France? I mean, I could see it with some countries but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy.’”

The New York Times grew its profit 26% to end the quarter in the black

For this item, I turned it over to my Poynter colleague, Angela Fu.

The New York Times announced Wednesday that it had ended its most recent quarter firmly in the black, thanks in part to strong growth in its digital advertising and subscription revenue streams.

The Times reported a $131.4 million adjusted operating profit, up 26.1% from the same period last year. Its total revenue grew 9.5% year-over-year to $700.8 million. Much of that growth was propelled by high audience engagement and increased demand and supply in digital advertising. Digital advertising revenue, for example, increased 20.3% while digital subscription revenue grew 14%. Those increases helped offset losses on the print side — a perennial issue for newspapers across the country.

The Times added roughly 460,000 digital subscribers in the last quarter, and it now has 12.33 million subscribers total. Executives have previously said they aim to hit 15 million subscribers by the end of 2027.

To attract a broad swath of subscribers — and in turn attract advertisers — the Times has focused on growing its lifestyle verticals, especially those related to sports, games and shopping. That strategy has helped it grow and retain subscribers and avoid the losses that plague many other media companies.

“Even in an environment where the moves of big tech companies are leading to less and less traffic for publishers, we see large and persistent demand for what we do,” president and CEO Meredith Kopit Levien said on an earnings call.

The Times, she said, is focused on substantially growing its use of video on its platforms, featuring videos of its journalists on its homepage and turning most of its podcasts into video shows. It has expanded its library of Cooking instructional and entertainment shows. The Times is also using artificial intelligence to better personalize and monetize its products.

For the first time, the Times did not report The Athletic’s earnings separately. In response to an investor question, Kopit Levien said the company continues to be “very pleased” with The Athletic’s performance, which remains “on track.” She highlighted The Athletic’s new usage of NFL footage in its analysis during the quarter.

Times stock was trading at $57.61 a share Wednesday afternoon, down slightly from the previous day’s close but up more than 10% from the start of the year.

The latest in press freedom attacks

And, once again, here’s an item from my Poynter colleague Angela Fu.

One year ago, Americans voted Donald Trump back into the White House. Since then, he and his administration have launched a wide-ranging assault on the press freedoms journalists in the country have enjoyed for decades. Poynter has so far documented 70 federal actions aimed at constraining journalists and their ability to report and hold the government accountable. Here are the latest:

• The Pentagon’s restrictions have largely driven out traditional journalists. Instead of signing a memo that essentially forbade journalists in the Pentagon from conducting basic reporting, nearly the entire Pentagon press corps decided to give up their press passes. Only three major American outlets, all of which offer conservative viewpoints, signed it. Within days, the Pentagon announced that dozens of “new media” outlets and independent journalists had signed the memo and joined the press corps. Many of them were from far-right media organizations, and some had built a career via activism and influencing rather than traditional journalism.
• Journalists continue to be assaulted by federal agents while covering immigration raids and protests. Despite a federal court order aimed at protecting journalists and peaceful protesters from riot control weapons, federal agents in Chicago continued to deploy tear gas without warning. Multiple journalists have said they have been assaulted while out in the field since “Operation Midway Blitz,” the administration’s campaign to detain “criminal illegal aliens,” started in early September. Several Chicago press groups have an ongoing lawsuit against the Trump administration over its use of force against journalists and protesters.
• Trump filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. A month after a federal judge tossed out Trump’s lawsuit complaint against the Times for being “improper and impermissible,” Trump refiled his suit. The new complaint is more concise and drops one of the Times reporters named in the original lawsuit. Trump continues to argue that the Times and Penguin Random House defamed him by publishing false statements about his rise to power over the course of two articles and a book released last fall.
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained a British journalist in the country on a speaking tour. Sami Hamdi, who often provides commentary about the Middle East, was detained at San Francisco International Airport. He had been traveling in the U.S. on a speaking tour when he was detained and had his visa revoked. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Hamdi had “cheered on Hamas” following the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks against Israel. Hamdi’s wife has decried his detention conditions, saying that they are “overcrowded” and that she fears for his health.
• The White House restricted journalists from entering certain press office spaces. In a move that echoed the Pentagon’s own media restrictions, the White House decided to cut off journalists’ access to a set of offices belonging to senior communications staff, including press secretary Karoline Leavitt. The White House argued that the move was necessary to protect “sensitive material.” The White House Correspondents’ Association, however, pushed back, saying that the spaces had “long been open” to journalists and would make it more difficult for them to question officials.

Learn more about these actions and the government’s past attacks on journalists by following Poynter’s Press Freedom Watch.

A broadcasting comeback

Former NFL quarterback Drew Brees, shown here last November. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

When Drew Brees was an NFL quarterback, he had 37 fourth-quarter comebacks, the third-most in league history.

He’s now about to pull off yet another comeback. The Athletic’s Andrew Marchand reports that Brees is set to join Fox Sports as an NFL game analyst. It appears Brees would replace Mark Sanchez, who has been off the air since last month when he was stabbed, then later arrested for a late-night altercation in Indianapolis in which he reportedly attacked a 69-year-old delivery driver.

Normally, getting a Hall of Fame quarterback such as Brees would be a coup for any network. So why would this be considered something of a comeback?

Because he went to NBC Sports after his retirement from football in 2020 and lasted only one season. He and the network parted ways after Brees delivered a playoff performance that was pretty much panned by everyone. Brees has since gone on to do studio work at Fox Sports and ESPN, and is slated to call a Christmas Day game for Netflix.

So is he ready this time around to be a solid game analyst? Fox is banking on it.

Marchand reports Brees is expected to be partnered with play-by-play announcer Adam Amin, who had been working with Sanchez. Brees joins a list of top broadcasters who were also elite NFL quarterbacks, such as Troy Aikman, Tom Brady and Tony Romo.

Marchand wrote, “Brees has a playing career that is comparable to those of those former quarterbacks and seeks to resurrect his analyst career under Fox’s guidance.”

Media tidbits

• Status’ Oliver Darcy has the details on the cuts at McClatchy.
• Mediaite’s Alex Griffing with “Fox’s Trey Gowdy Hammers ‘Apoplectic’ Nancy Mace Over ‘Psychotic Episode’ At Airport.”
• The New York Times’ Benjamin Mullin tweeted, “Axios co-founder Jim VandeHei announces cuts affecting 19 individuals on the product, tech and design teams, per note. ‘This is a difficult, but necessary, move to meet our evolving tech strategy.’”
• The Atlantic’s Damon Beres with “The Age of Anti-Social Media Is Here.”
• Awful Announcing’s Drew Lerner with “Who is to blame for the ongoing Disney-YouTube TV dispute?”
• Be sure to check out the latest episode of “The Poynter Report Podcast” with my guest Kristen Hare, Poynter faculty, director of craft and local news and the author of Local Edition, Poynter’s weekly newsletter for and about local journalists. We dig into the latest issues — the good, the bad and the future — of local news.

More resources for journalists

• Watch both webinars in full to deepen your coverage of women in criminal justice and become eligible to apply for one of five $10,000 reporting grants — Nov. 7 is your last chance to apply. Enroll now.
• Journalists: It’s time to take care of yourself, too. Enroll now in a free session on embodiment practices to rest and regroup.
• Join 650+ women leaders transformed by this leadership program since 2015. Apply today.
• Amp up your editing skills, improve your work life and advance your career with Poynter’s ACES Certificates.
• Gain the skills to spot AI risks like bias, misinformation and hallucinations before they harm your work. Enroll now.
• Stop wasting hours on repetitive tasks — automate them instead. Learn how.
• Interested in learning more about funding local news? Start here.
• Experienced managers: Develop the must-have skills journalists need to lead media organizations of the future. Apply now.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

The Poynter Report is your daily dive into the world of media, packed with the latest news and insights. Get it delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday by signing up here. And don’t forget to tune into our biweekly podcast for even more.