But beyond its most recent Wall Street dip, small indicators keep emerging that suggests Roku is going to have a problem with Google as it tries to transition its U.S. interface dominance to the global marketplace. 

The most recent example: The New York Times' "Wirecutter" tech column just named Chromecast with Google TV its "best media streaming device" of 2021, unseating Roku, which had been top dog dating all the way back to 2012. 

Also read: Wolk - Whoever Controls the Interface Controls the TV Biz

Beyond advanced silicon that supports features including 4K, HDR, Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos, the Times' Chris Heinonen is most high on Google TV's search and recommendation features. 

"Instead of presenting a home screen with a bunch of separate streaming services (such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, and the like), Google TV groups all your recently watched shows and movies together along with your watchlist of preferred content—making it easier and faster for you to find what you want to watch," Heinoen wrote. 

Notably, the author ranked the Roku Streaming Stick+ second. But the device Heinoen reviewed, which lacks features like Dolby Vision support, doesn't appear to be the updated 4K streaming stick Roku unveiled earlier this week.

The notable thing here, however, isn't necessarily the advanced tech features found in these two $50 streaming sticks. It's the fact that the superior search and recommendation features being developed for the Google TV interface is getting noticed by key influencers.

As it begins to deploy Roku-enabled smart TVs in Europe with its most important OEM partner, China's TCL, Roku is increasingly concerned with Google's own OS plans. The fact that TCL has begun to also ship its high-end QLED TVs with the Google TV interface is certainly exacerbating that anxiety.

As TV[REV] analyst Alan Wolk noted in a Next TV column earlier this week, as much as 42% of the global streaming device market is still "up for grabs."

“How did the founders of Juul lose their way and end up accused of addicting a whole new generation?” asks the producers. 

John Pappas directs. The film features interviews with Juul insiders and the F.D.A.’s response to the e-cigarette issue. 

Previous New York Times/FX films include Framing Britney Spears, The Killing of Breonna Taylor, The Teenager Who Hacked Twitter and Hurricane of Fire. The paper and cable network also team up on docuseries The Weekly.

The New York Times Presents is produced by The New York Times and Left/Right, a Red Arrow Studios company. Executive producers are Ken Druckerman, Banks Tarver, Mary Robertson, Jason Stallman, Sam Dolnick and Stephanie Preiss.

FX Chairman John Landgraf described the network’s documentary brand as “a work in progress” during its TCA press session last month. 

The four-part limited docuseries, executive produced by J.J. Abrams, Glen Zipper, Mark Monroe and Sean Stuart, examines the history of UFOs through cultural and political touchpoints, including testimony from eyewitnesses across the country. Ignited by the 2017 New York Times story revealing the Pentagon had been secretly tracking UFOs for years, UFO looks to find the truth behind the phenomenon, according to Showtime.

I recently spoke to Zipper about the series, the appeal of UFO-themed content as well as his own thoughts and beliefs about the phenomenon in a wide-ranging interview, an edited version of which appears below.

Picture This: What influenced you to develop the series? 

Glen Zipper: I’ve always had an interest in UFOs but I'm a very pragmatic and practical thinker. I think I fell into that ‘I want to believe’ category, but not necessarily the ‘I believe’ category. When I surveyed all the content that was out there about UFO's and unexplained phenomena, the majority of it seemed to be sensationalistic and trended toward what you would come to expect of the National Inquirer. But then when the New York Times and the Washington Post started to cover the UFO phenomenon, I thought the time was right for us to take a closer look at the topic in film and television. But we wanted to look at it through the same lens that the New York Times and Washington Post were viewing it and to give a really credible, wholesale look at UFO phenomena, from the beginning of our fascination with it up to the present day. 

PT: What is it about UFOs that continues to fascinate the American public?

GZ: Well, there's the entertainment factor -- we've been conditioned to enjoy science fiction and horror content, and every time you go see a scripted film or watch a scripted television show about aliens, they are usually here to kill us. I think that in some measure has stoked the flames of our interest in the UFO phenomenon. But I think on a more thoughtful level UFOs represent the unknown. If UFOs exist, that means that there's a lot more out there than we understand. If there's more out there than we understand, there's also the potential for more hope that if something bigger than ourselves arise, perhaps that could help us with the issues that we're suffering through here on earth. That could include cures for diseases, or maybe the fractures between us as a society and as a world start to heal once we see that, relative to an alien species, we’re all brothers and sisters. So when you combine those two things there’s an irresistible pull toward UFOs. 

PT: You mentioned the New York Times and Washington Post stories on UFOs. Did those stories aid in getting this series developed and picked up by Showtime?  

GZ: The inception of the project was a meeting between myself and (Showtime Networks EVP, Nonfiction Programming) Vinnie Malhotra. We were trying to find something to collaborate on and we both were interested in UFO's. Once we started to do the actual work the New York Times story became very much the spine of the entire series. We have Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal who were two of the reporters involved in that [New York Times] story participating in our series. They are really credible, persuasive and thoughtful voices in the space.

PT: What, what are you hoping to accomplish with the series?

GZ: I don't think we're going to convince anyone that UFOs exist or don't exist. That was never the mission of the series. I think it was about presenting UFOs and unexplained phenomena through a different lens. What you'll see in this series is that civilians who have claimed to see these phenomena for decades are often subjected to ridicule. I think what we want to do is slide the conversation to a place where it is no longer living in that context. We want to be able to have thoughtful conversations about the UFO phenomenon and be open-minded about it, and allow people to express their views without fear of ridicule. When you watch this series there are dissenting opinions as well and they're treated with equal respect. So I think it's about leveling up the conversation to a different place that allows for a better and more thoughtful dialogue. 

PT: Do you foresee the opportunity to maybe extend this series beyond the episodes that you currently have if the government continues to release more information about UFOs? 

GZ: That’s an interesting question. I think when we started this series, myself, [J.J. Abrams’ production company] Bad Robot and Showtime viewed it as a one off limited series. Once we started to turn over some rocks and to see how many stories there are to tell -- not just as it pertains to the UFO phenomenon but what you also might consider about paranormal activity, whether or not there are multi-verses, and life after death, it really gets interesting. In researching UFOs, these other threads started to reveal themselves internally. I’m not  speaking for Showtime, but we were very curious about maybe continuing on and exploring some of these other themes and storylines, and having something that was much more akin to a documentary X-Files series.

PT: You started out by saying you weren’t necessarily a believer in UFOs. Once you completed the show did that change at all?

GZ: I think that I feel more comfortable believing. But I'm one of those people -- and I think there's probably a lot of people that are like me -- who aren't really going to believe until [extraterrestrials] show up and shake our hands, literally or figuratively. It’s just one of those things where I'd be far less surprised now if that happened then I would have been before I produced the series.

Also Read: Growing UFO Interest Spawns Cable, Streaming Shows

The policy, effective immediately, was announced in a memo to department staff leadership by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Garland has asked a deputy attorney general to look into codifying the policy into department regulations to ensure the “durability” of the change, and added that he supports legislation that would protect the news media.

The Justice Department had already announced that it would not be issuing subpoenas for reporters' records in leak investigations.

The changes in policy followed a report in The New York Times that not only was the Biden White House continuing the pursuit of records from Times reporters, a holdover from a Trump-era investigation, but that it had issued a gag order preventing the publisher’s executives from talking about the matter, even to its own staff.

CNN also reported that the Trump administration had obtained phone records and email messages from the network’s correspondents as part of leak investigations.

“The terms of Apple’s unique marketplace greatly impact the ability to continue to invest in high-quality, trusted news and entertainment particularly in competition with other larger firms,” wrote Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, in a letter sent Thursday to Apple CEO Tim Cook.

Digital Content Next is a trade organization representing the New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and other news publishers. (The Wall Street Journal originally reported on the letter.)

Also read: Apple Escalates Epic Games Tiff, Threatens to Pull Developer Access

Kint’s letter comes a week after Epic Games, publisher of the popular online video game Fortnite, sued both Apple and Google over an industry-wide practice in which the app stores of the tech giants collect 30% of first-year subscription fees when apps for paid services are downloaded through their digital stores. (The rev share rate drops to 15% after year one.)

For Digital Content Next, one of the major points of consternation is that not everyone pays 30%. 

In his letter to Cook, Kint cited an email sent from Apple services chief Eddie Cue to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, outlining a 15% revenue split for Amazon Prime Video subscribers when they download the Prime Video app through Apple’s App Store. (Bezos also owns the Washington Post.)

“I ask that you clearly define the conditions that Amazon satisfied for its arrangement so that DCN’s member companies meeting those conditions can be offered the same agreement,” Kint wrote.

Apple hasn’t publicly responded to DCN’s letter. Apple did respond last week, when it pulled Epic Games’ app from its digital following the game maker’s bold, strategic move to direct its users to its own site to purchase in-store game currency, instead of buying it through Apple. That was the move that kicked off this whole app-store revolt.

“Epic enabled a feature in its app which was not reviewed or approved by Apple, and they did so with the express intent of violating the App Store guidelines regarding in-app payments that apply to every developer who sells digital goods or services,” Apple said in an August 14 statement. 

Whether this pushback continues to grow, or is quashed by Apple and Google, has significant implications for the video streaming industry, most of which is subject to the same 30% revenue share dogma that dates back to the early days of video gaming, when Japanese console manufacturers charged game makers for the rights to have game cartridges supported by their platforms. 

Epic Games, which generates a reported $1 billion in annual revenue from selling in-game extras, has called the app store fees a “tax.”

Notably, Netflix already started pushing back several years ago, when it disabled new users from signing up for its SVOD services through apps it downloaded from Apple’s App Store, instead directing them to its own website. 

“For many Americans, The 1619 Project was a great awakening and a true history that you probably never learned in school,” said Lionsgate CEO Jon Feltheimer.  “For others, the project was a fresh analysis of the historical record by one of the world’s leading media authorities. We’re proud to partner with The New York Times, Nikole Hannah-Jones and Oprah Winfrey, a creative talent with unparalleled stature, to amplify Nikole’s voice and reach across our worldwide platform to marshal all of our top creative relationships to translate her vision into a canon of storytelling for a global audience.”

“From the first moment I read The 1619 Project and immersed myself in Nikole Hannah-Jones’s transformative work, I was moved, deepened and strengthened by her empowering historical analysis,” added Winfrey. “I am honored to be a part of Nikole’s vision to bring this project to a global audience.”

The newspaper had already created a podcast based on the 1619 Project and was looking for a studio to create video content for global audiences.

“We took very seriously our duty to find TV and film partners that would respect and honor the work and mission of The 1619 Project, that understood our vision and deep moral obligation to doing justice to these stories," said Hannah-Jones. "Through every step of the process, Lionsgate and its leadership have shown themselves to be that partner and it is a dream to be able to produce this work with Ms. Oprah Winfrey, a trailblazer and beacon to so many Black journalists. I am excited for this opportunity to extend the breadth and reach of The 1619 Project and to introduce these stories of Black resistance and resilience to even more American households.”

Hannah-Jones will serve as creative leader and producer in developing films, TV series, documentaries and unscripted programming.

Quibi’s iPhone app ranks 125th on a list of the most downloaded apps, according to Sensor Tower. The service, which is features short 10-minute-or-less episodes from name brand producers, and is watchable only on mobile devices, has also failed to resonate with TV critics. The slow uptake has come despite a 90-day free trial offered the first several weeks after its April 6 launch.

“I attribute everything that has gone wrong to coronavirus,” Katzenberg told the Times. “Everything. But we own it.”

Also read: Quibi Legal Foe Eko Gets Backing from Activist Investor Elliott Management

Launching into a shelter-in-place world has rendered Quibi a bit of a square peg—a short form mobile service designed for on-the-go consumers, but suddenly stuck in a world in which everyone had too much time in front of their living room television. Katzenberg was asked by the Times if he regrets not delaying Quibi’s launch.

“If we knew on March 1, which is when we had to make the call, what we know today, you would say that is not a good idea,” he said. “The answer is, it’s regrettable. But we are making enough gold out of hay here that I don’t regret it.

“My hope, my belief was that there would still be many in-between moments while sheltering in place,” Katzenberg added. “There are still those moments, but it’s not the same. It’s out of sync.”

Related:Quibi’s Top Marketing Exec Imbres Leaves Company 

The Times report detailed other Quibi struggles—the departure of former Us and Hollywood Reporter editor Janice Min, inexplicably hired by Katzenberg and his CEO, Meg Whitman early on, as well as the more recent ankling of marketing executive Megan Imbres.

There’s also the patent suit over Quibi’s core technology, Turnstyle—a Quibi lawyer last week conceded it would be majorly damaging if plaintiff Eko were to succeed in winning an injunction. 

When the New York Times asked him to compare Quibi to TikTok, the highly successful streaming service built on user-generated content, Katzenberg broke out an analogy he already used in a interview with Next TV in March:

“That’s like comparing apples to submarines,” he said. “I don’t know what people are expecting from us. What did Netflix look like 30 days after it launched? To tell me about a company that has a billion users and is doing great in the past six weeks, I’m happy for them, but what the hell does it have to do with me?”

Consumer groups including Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and the Center for Digital Democracy are telling the The New York Times that it's time to drop the ads in its New York Times for Kids, calling them deceptive and blurring the line between and paid content. The Times disputes the characterization.

That complaint came in a letter to Times chair Arthur Sulzberger Jr. responding to a Nov. 19 supplement for young readers in which almost a third of the pages (5 of 16) were ads for the Google Home Mini, an internet-connected device they say could "endanger"kids' privacy and welfare.

The groups said the ads were "disguised" as puzzles and so violate the Better Business Bureau's Children's Advertising Review Unit's (CARU) voluntary guidelines, which mandate a "clear distinction" between advertising and content; the groups sent copies of the letter to CARU  and Google.

David Monahan, campaign manager for Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, told Multichannel News that he had contacted CARU Wednesday morning and asked it to investigate.

The groups  noted in the letter that the NYT plans to make the supplement a monthly feature starting in the new year.

The letter's tone was cordial. The groups applauded the idea of a children's supplement, but not as a "Trojan Horse" for Google ads.

"The ads were brightly colorful cartoon drawings, with interwoven questions in bubbles meant to engage children – a visual style quite similar to much of the editorial content of the supplement," the letter noted. "Each ad was disguised as a puzzle for kids, with this question at the bottom referring to Google characters embedded in the ads: 'Can you find the donut, G and Android in each drawing?'"

ATimes spokesperson said: "Advertising helps support our ability to create special sections like this one. In fact, our first special kids section, which published in May 2017, also contained ads. The ads in question met our advertising acceptability standards, and we do not believe there is any confusion that these pages are, in fact, ads."

The groups believe that all marketing directed to children is inherently unfair and that the Google Home product is inherently harmful to children given that Google can share children's infrmation with third parties for the purposes of marketing to kids.

“The Times Company must stop trying to monetize children in order to build new revenues for its brand,” said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. “It diminishes its reputation by engaging in unprofessional practices towards kids in order to generate sales of ads from Google. The Times is also placing children’s privacy at risk by promoting Google’s vast commercial surveillance apparatus.”

As to the Times' defense.

"It’s disingenuous for the Times to say there’s no confusion about the Google ads which ran in The Times For Kids," said Monahan. "Young kids don’t even understand the persuasive intent of marketing—they are certainly misled when it’s hidden in a cartoon puzzle. Children’s Advertising Review Unit standards ban advertising in a manner that 'blurs the distinction between advertising and program/editorial content in ways that would be misleading to children.'  These Google Home cartoons obliterated that distinction."

Other groups signing on to the letter were Consumer Action, the Consumer Federation of America and Consumer Watchdog.

President Donald Trump has downgraded Washington from a swamp, and placed the news media squarely in the center.

In a tweet early Monday (July 24), the President said:

Drain the Swamp should be changed to Drain the Sewer - it's actually much worse than anyone ever thought, and it begins with the Fake News!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 24, 2017

The reference harkened to the days when Washington Post cartoonist Herblock (the pen name for Herbert Block) used to depict then-Republican Senator and VP candidate Richard Nixon coming out of a manhole to suggest the level of his political dealings and character.

That Trump downgrade followed a tweet Sunday about the "failing New York Times," POTUS' favorite description of the newspaper to which he recently granted an interview, and "Amazon Washington Post," a reference to its ownership by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, saying it was hard to read because all the stories that should be positive are "bad."

Those comments came amid tweets about "crooked" Hillary Clinton and calling Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, "sleazy" for appearing on TV -- he is a frequent face on CNN, for example, another news outlets the president regularly attacks, talking about concerns with possible Trump administration ties to Russia.

Drones are increasingly becoming a tool for TV and film production and covering events from new and unique angles.

While the FAA works on a system for registering UAS--it has just gotten recommendations from a task force created for that purpose--the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, on a separate track, is holding multistakeholder meetings on drone privacy (one in a series of such meetings on voluntary privacy guidelines. At NTIA's

fourth multistakeholder meeting two weeks ago, those stakeholders agreed to try and reconcile draft proposals before reconvening, notably one from privacy advocacy group Center for Democracy and Technology and one from First Amendment advocacy group NMC.

NMC warned in a letter to NTIA outlining its proposals that the approaches of other stakeholders "risk upsetting the careful existing balance our laws and practices recognize between individual privacy interests and the right to gather news without interference by the government."

They suggested that a federal privacy bureaucracy or technological mandates don't fit with First Amendment protections for journalists.

A principal difference between the NMC and other proposals, they say, is that those other proposals would make it incumbent on journalists to prove that the best practice guidelines are not reasonable rather than requiring a compelling interest in "narrowly tailoring" journalists' drone use. The presumption should be that journalists' drone use is a constitutional right to get, and the public's right to receive, the news, NMC argues.

The journalists also point out that there are already "robust" state privacy laws that apply to UAS photography as well as other newsgathering and that no new UAS-specific state or federal laws are necessary.

Another argument they make is that images and sound depicting activity in public places are not private, and that "the personal nature or even offensiveness of the image or footage captured does not minimize the protection afforded to the images and footage." NMC said it was particularly concerned about a privacy framework that restricted a journalist's access to a public place. NMC cites the CDT draft definition of "personal data" as a face or voice recording linked to an identifiable person.

Editorial decisions need to be made by journalists, said the group, indicating that is what separates the U.S. from much of the rest of the world. "While many foreign governments control news reporting, in the United States, journalistic independence is a core value all American learn from childhood.

NMC says that even with, as some in the meetings have proposed, an "extraordinary circumstances" exemption for retaining images with sensitive personal information, the government should not be telling journalists, via its endorsed best practices, what content should be retained and for how long.

"A set of privacy best practices cannot treat the collection, use and retention of Pulitzer Prize-winning photography as if it were 'data' that should be purged at regular intervals," they said.

NMC members include NBCU, ABC, the New York Times, Scripps, Sinclair, TEGNA, Cox, and Belo.