A helicopter crash off Interstate 77 in North Carolina killed the WBTV weatherman and pilot. Photo courtesy of the North Carolina Department of Transportation

November 23 (UPI) — A helicopter crash near a North Carolina highway on Tuesday killed the meteorologist and pilot for a Charlotte television station.

WBTV has confirmed the loss of its meteorologist Jason Myers and pilot Chip Tayag after the station’s helicopter crashed off Interstate 77 around noon. No vehicle was involved in the accident.

“The WBTV family is mourning a terrible loss. Our Sky3 news helicopter crashed at midday on Tuesday with two of our colleagues on board,” WBTV said in a press release. “We are working to comfort their families during this difficult time. We appreciate the outpouring of support for our staff and your continued prayers for their families.”

The authorities have no information on the causes of the accident. The National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration are investigating.

Tayag had 20 years of experience as a pilot and had flown the WBTV helicopter for more than 2,000 hours during his five years with the station, with a cumulative total of 3,700 flight hours.

“We’ve always said that if we could replicate Chip and his driving skills, organizational skills and attention to detail, our business would be better off. He always cared about the job he did and made every effort to make all of its passengers comfortable while covering the news in Charlotte,” the station said.

Myers, the meteorologist, had worked for WBTV since 2019 and leaves behind his wife and four children.

After the crash, Charlotte police held a press conference at which the police chief said the helicopter pilot may have turned away at the last minute to avoid hitting traffic .

“If that is truly the case, then this driver is a hero in my eyes for ensuring that the safety and security of those driving on the road are not in danger,” the Charlotte Police Chief said. Mecklenburg, Johnny Jennings.

“Tragically, there are two people who won’t be going home and spending the holidays with their loved ones,” Jennings said. “I ask that we pray for the families.”

A witness to the crash told WCNC he could tell the pilot knew he was in trouble.

“He circled around looking for a place to put it down. And in the second circle, I don’t think he had a choice, he was coming down, and he got it right next to the highway and the ‘avoided,’ the unidentified witness said. . “It could have hurt a lot of people. It’s a tragic thing, but in that sense he did a wonderful job.”

Have you ever wondered what motivates a killer? Or what exactly happened behind the yellow warning tape? It’s natural; the unthinkable fascinates us. Hollywood knows this, because true crime has become one of the best-selling genres. Whether it’s documentaries or theatrical performances, true crime is meant to be educational. From educating victims to providing insight into a killer’s mind, the real crime seems to be relatively harmless. However, when these docudramas gain as much visibility as they do, what happens when the unthinkable becomes thinkable for a certain viewer? Can true crime deal sensitively with real tragedies?

There has been a curious phenomenon of serial killer biopics in recent years. They raised red flags for many reasons, including glorification of the killer, exploitation of victims’ deaths, leniency in violence, lack of precision, and lack of respect for victims’ families. There are many risks in the face of horrific real-life tragedies, challenging the ethics of creating this type of media. Moreover, producers cannot control the impact of media on audiences, especially on impressionable audiences.

Many of these harmful effects stem from the fact that Hollywood idols are the killers in question. This begs the question: is it really necessary? It can blur the line between appreciating the actor’s performance and simply glorifying the killer. More importantly, it overstates the viewer’s ability to differentiate their support for the actor or character.

This is more than just a theory; scientific studies show that it is a common psychological phenomenon. In Nurit Tal-Or and Yael Papirman’s article, “The fundamental attribution error in attributing characteristics of fictional characters to actors”, they found this struggle prevalent in media viewing. The fundamental attribution error describes the tendency to think that people’s behavior is influenced by their disposition, not by the situation in which they find themselves. This means that an actor is likable because his character is, not because he acts.

A similar phenomenon is the halo effect, which allows positive or negative traits to spread from one area of ​​life to another. A common prejudice derived from this trend is the idea that “beautiful is also good”. These are all well-documented psychological tendencies that most certainly influence the way we consume media and the world around us. It’s relatively harmless when bias deals with characters in light-hearted shows or movies, but what happens when the media deals with much heavier topics? How does the halo effect come into play when you’re dealing with an attractive actor playing a horrible person? If these are ingrained cognitive biases, how can we hope to overcome them when dealing with sensitive topics?

This issue makes a return with the new “Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story” (2022–) on Netflix. It’s the second Dahmer biopic to be released in the past five years, setting records as Netflix’s most-watched new series in its first week. The story follows Dahmer from his pursuit and murder of his 17 victims to his arrest and eventual prosecution. The show’s purpose, as professed by creator Ryan Murphy, was to shed light on the lives and stories of individual victims. Whether it succeeded is up for debate, as the show seemed to raise as much controversy as it did views.

Murphy praises the series for its educational goals, but its approach does not reflect a commitment to accuracy and respect for those involved in the tragedy. Many family members of Dahmer’s victims have spoken out against the series, calling out its inaccuracies. Shirley Hughes, mother of victim Tony Hughes, told the Guardian that ‘it didn’t happen that way’. She adds, “I don’t see how they can use our names and post stuff like that over there.” Rita Isbell, the sister of victim Errol Lindsey, told Insider that she was never contacted about making the show: “They didn’t ask me. They just did. For a show that claims to honor and praise the victims, the victims and their families clearly don’t feel very honored or praised.

Lindsey’s cousin Eric Perry shared similar sentiments and criticized the show for its lack of sensitivity in a Sept. 22 tweet. “It’s traumatic over and over again,” Perry tweeted, “and why? How many movies/shows/documentaries do we need?” Perry says it very well: for what? does anyone really need to know about this subject? The continued graphic depiction of these deaths at the expense of the victims’ families just beats a dead horse. Murphy would say it raises awareness of the victims’ stories, but only 2% of viewers have researched the victims after watching the series.

This calls into question the role of the public in the consumption of this medium. As discussed earlier, cognitive biases such as fundamental attribution error and the halo effect play an important role in how viewers interpret media. These biases are especially powerful in younger, more impressionable age groups. When Murphy was reviving this story for his series, one wonders if he was thinking about what kind of effect it would have on young viewers. Snippets of the show are being regurgitated on platforms like TikTok, glorifying the series in ways that deviate from its educational intent.

TikTok is a popular chatting platform among younger generations. It is therefore important to consider the type of conversations that will take place regarding real-life tragedies. Unsurprisingly, the series’ “educational” focus didn’t translate to the app. There have been countless videos on TikTok downplaying the seriousness of the murders, as creators joke about having a drink with Dahmer or dressing up as a serial killer in an effort to look attractive. Despite Murphy’s intention to shine a light on the victims’ stories, the reactions seem to sidestep this and remain impressed with the lead.

Casting sympathetic and attractive actors in murderous roles opens the door to this kind of reaction. This effect is seen in the other biopics that have been released in recent years, including “My Friend Dahmer” (2017) and “Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile” (2019). The first follows Dahmer’s origin story, and the second follows Ted Bundy and his murders. Ross Lynch and Zac Efron play the killers respectively. Both of these choices were interesting because they are two notable Disney icons. The two boys who characterized many people’s childhoods are now seen killing animals and brutally murdering women. More than tarnishing the look of the actors, it softens the look of the killers. Viewers have already connoted Efron and Lynch with the good memories, so they can’t fully connect with the evil depicted on screen.

Of course, attractive casts could be for historically accurate purposes. Ted Bundy, for example, has used his charm and seeks to lure women to death. Controversial artistic choices aren’t inherently bad, but they have to be made for a very good reason. Efron’s casting is nasty even if it’s accurate. Seeing likable actors play roles like these does more harm than good, especially since you’re dealing with real stories and individuals. Efron, Lynch, and Peters already have a fan base, and subsequently they bring in those roles, subconsciously training audiences to sympathize with the killers over their reputations.

Not to mention that most viewers haven’t experienced real-time killers. Studies reveal that the majority of people who watch true crime are under 34 years old. While the audience is mostly young people, most wouldn’t have been around when these killers were active. They missed the real-world impact and presence of these people. These killers end up becoming something of a legend, their stories distant myths. As the distance between the actual event and the dramatized representation grows, the role played by the actor will no longer have as much tragic weight as before. Thus, it becomes easier for the role to be glorified.

True crime is an undeniable guilty pleasure for many, and perpetually in demand. At best, it educates the general public and increases the visibility of the victims involved. At worst, and most common, it repackages and sensationalizes tragedy for exactly what it is: entertainment. As long as these tragedies are increasingly commodified, people will inevitably see them as such. Glorification not only fuels the serial killer’s desire for fame and recognition, but retraumatizes the victims and their families. If docudramas are to be made — and it looks like they will, given how profitable true crime is — the portrayal needs to be as respectful and grounded as possible.

Gray Television, Inc. (NYSE:GTN – Get Rating) Director D Patrick Laplatney purchased 10,000 shares of Gray Television in a transaction on Thursday, November 10. The shares were acquired at an average price of $9.99 per share, for a total transaction of $99,900.00. Following the completion of the acquisition, the director now owns 462,639 shares of the company, valued at approximately $4,621,763.61. The acquisition was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, accessible via this link.

Gray TV price performance

Shares of NYSE:GTN traded at $0.34 during Monday’s trading, hitting $10.79. 80,796 shares of the company were traded, against an average volume of 764,416. The company has a market capitalization of $1.00 billion, a PE ratio of 3.97, a PEG ratio of 0.19 and a beta of 1.65. The company has a quick ratio of 2.54, a current ratio of 2.09 and a debt ratio of 3.41. Gray Television, Inc. has a 52-week low of $8.61 and a 52-week high of $24.81. The company’s 50-day moving average is $15.29 and its two-hundred-day moving average is $17.55.

Gray Television Dividend Announcement

The company also recently declared a quarterly dividend, which will be paid on Friday, December 30. Shareholders of record on Thursday, December 15 will receive a dividend of $0.08 per share. The ex-date of this dividend is Wednesday, December 14. This represents an annualized dividend of $0.32 and a dividend yield of 2.97%. Gray Television’s dividend payout ratio (DPR) is currently 12.17%.

Analysts set new price targets

GTN has been the subject of several recent analyst reports. Barrington Research cut its price target on Gray Television from $25.00 to $15.00 in a report released Thursday. Wells Fargo & Company downgraded shares of Gray Television from an “overweight” rating to an “underweight” rating and lowered its price target for the stock from $25.00 to $7.00 in a report research on Wednesday, November 9. Stephens cut his price target on Gray Television shares from $18.00 to $12.00 and set an “equal weight” rating on the stock in a Monday, Nov. 7 research report. Finally, StockNews.com upgraded Gray Television from a “sell” rating to a “hold” rating in a Monday, Nov. 7 research report.

Institutional entries and exits

Major investors have recently increased or reduced their stakes in the company. Nisa Investment Advisors LLC acquired a new stake in shares of Gray Television in Q1 worth approximately $26,000. Captrust Financial Advisors increased its equity stake in Gray Television by 219.5% in Q2. Captrust Financial Advisors now owns 1,556 shares of the company worth $26,000 after acquiring 1,069 additional shares in the last quarter. Prospera Financial Services Inc bought a new position in Gray Television in Q1 worth approximately $44,000. First Horizon Advisors Inc. acquired a new position in Gray Television during Q2 worth approximately $39,000. Finally, UMB Bank na increased its stake in Gray Television by 35.9% during the 2nd quarter. UMB Bank na now owns 2,378 shares of the company worth $40,000 after buying an additional 628 shares in the last quarter. Institutional investors hold 80.61% of the company’s shares.

About Gray Television

(Get a rating)

Gray Television, Inc, a television broadcasting company, owns and/or operates television stations and digital assets in the United States. It also carries secondary digital channels affiliated with ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX, as well as various other networks and program services, including CW Plus Network, MY Network, the MeTV Network, Justice, This TV Network, Antenna TV, Telemundo, Cozi, Heroes and Icons, and FILMS! Network; and local news/weather channels in various markets.

Further reading

This instant news alert was powered by MarketBeat’s narrative science technology and financial data to provide readers with the fastest and most accurate reports. This story was reviewed by MarketBeat’s editorial team prior to publication. Please send questions or comments about this story to contact@marketbeat.com.

Before you consider Gray Television, you’ll want to hear this.

MarketBeat tracks daily the highest rated and most successful research analysts on Wall Street and the stocks they recommend to their clients. MarketBeat has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the market spreads…and Gray Television wasn’t on the list.

While Gray Television currently has a “Hold” rating among analysts, top-rated analysts believe these five stocks are better buys.

See the five actions here

This week marks the 50th anniversary of American premium television channel HBO.

When HBO was launched in 1972, television was the inferior art form to cinema. Today, it seems that the vast majority of on-screen prestige comes from our televisions.

Movie stars who would once have seen a series as beneath them are now flocking to tentpole shows for the opportunity to land a run in the kind of big-budget dramatic storylines that aren’t so easy to make anymore. the big screen.

It’s a massive shift in the market, and whenever you inspect one of the attitude-shifting shows, HBO is never far away.

Almost all of the big name TV shows are HBO products. The Sopranos, The Wire, Sex and the City, game of thrones and Succession, are just the tip of the network iceberg.

So how did America’s first subscription network change the game?

A sporting comeback

On November 8, 1972, HBO launched across the United States with just 365 paying subscribers. The first broadcast he did was of a hockey game, the NHL game between the New York Rangers and the Vancouver Canucks which was happening live at Madison Square Gardens.

At the time, there were no shows commissioned by HBO, but alongside sports, the network also aired movies. The hockey game was followed by Paul Newman’s 1971 film “Sometimes a Great Nation”.

Subscription to HBO cost €5.83 ($6) per month at the time, and the channel struggled to attract subscribers.

His fortunes, however, would soon change. As the pioneer of pay-TV, HBO only had to wait a few years before lawsuits and pressure from other companies allowed cable TV to proliferate in the United States.

Cable television users grew from 50,000 in 1974 to 1.5 million in 1978. By 1977, HBO was making a profit and the company’s future seemed set.

In 1975, HBO premiered its first comedy special, “An Evening with Robert Klein.” This, alongside an anthology comedy series “On Location,” laid the groundwork for HBO to become an important stepping stone in a comedian’s career.

HBO continued to grow, and in 1983 the decision was made for the channel to begin programming its own material. Original movies and miniseries made for cable with budgets far exceeding traditional TV shows.

“Not Necessarily the News” debuted in 1983, a satirical news program that is the stylistic grandfather of today’s “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.”

The channel’s first solo-produced film was “The Terry Fox Story”. Released in 1983, it was the very first film produced for cable television.

The stage was set for HBO to become one of the most influential broadcasters in history.

A single diffuser

Thanks to its subscription model, HBO has never had to pander to the needs of advertisers. Instead, it’s still solely focused on bringing quality TV and movies that audiences will connect with.

Seems obvious, doesn’t it? Make viewers envious, and they will come. But HBO’s attitude has always been one step apart.

Decades before streaming platforms showed up to independently produce their shows, HBO worked on the fact that audiences wanted big-budget, prestige shows that were worth watching.

The dramatic, comedic burst that HBO was ready to schedule when other American networks balked at content, came in the late 90s. ‘Oz’, ‘Sex and the City’ and ‘The Sopranos’ were all released for immediate attention.

All three dealt with adult themes in a way that shows on other networks then wouldn’t dare, and often still don’t.

Since then, they have distinguished themselves by the importance they place on quality rather than quantity.

Streamers are now adopting an in-house production method similar to that pioneered by HBO. But the breadth of broadcasts these streamers make means the quality just isn’t up to snuff.

The proof is in the pudding. HBO has dominated the Emmys since the ’90s. But it was at the 2001 Emmys that the network proudly scored more nominations in major categories than any other network.

At the 53rd Primetime Emmy Awards, HBO was nominated for 44 major awards, including 14 for The Sopranos alone. In the end, HBO walked away with eight awards, with The Sopranos winning three.

Since the 90s, the list of incredible shows produced by HBO is almost endless. From the fantasy epic “The House of the Dragon” to the family drama “Succession” and the comedy “The White Lotus”, HBO hasn’t given up on quality.

To this year Emmy Awards, HBO and HBO Max won 38 awards, with 50 nominations in the main categories and 140 nominations overall. It’s an incredible achievement for the network, which began with a hockey game broadcast to less than 400 people.

There’s a reason his catchphrase is “It’s not TV, it’s HBO.”

Note: Before you start ripping through these next episodes, please know that I wasn’t taking notes for these, so a lot of what I’m going to cover is things I remember from episodes 1-4, so this got a little out of order. However, I got my hands on a notebook for the start of episode five.

On that note, let’s dive into Episodes 1-4.

In the show, we discover that the attack on Christian Ozera’s old high school was carried out by his parents in an attempt to find him. Christian’s mother sends him coordinates to meet him, and since Christian is an irrational person, he decides to meet her. In the novels, however, Christian’s parents are dead. They were hunted down and killed by Dhampir guardians after willingly transforming Strigoi. The telltale sign that someone has transformed Strigoi is the presence of a very thin red line around his pupils and his completely faded eye. Also, Strigoi don’t have a soul, so any love Christian’s parents had for him when they were Moroi, had turned into lust when they became Strigoi. The show kept this plot point, while adding a visual aspect to it: Strigoi resemble the psychological monsters they are in the show. In the books, although Christian cared about his parents, he didn’t justify their behavior. Despite the assumption that he would end up like his parents, he became one of the biggest advocates of fighting lessons for the Moroi.

In the show, the royal Moroi state that the Dhampir women must breed with the Moroi to keep the Dhampir population alive. This law was passed after recent Strigoi attacks in the Moroi community caused a lot of unrest. However, in the books, this was approached differently. There was talk of forcing Dhampir and Moroi relations to increase the number of guardians, but there was no separate law on this. The law that was passed stated that dhampirs would graduate to work at the age of sixteen instead of eighteen, as most people would continue to be tutors immediately upon graduation, despite age law. Queen Tatiana attempted to ban extremist groups who lobbied for the law passed by the Royal Moroi on the show.

On the push for more goalies, let’s talk about how Rose gets to where she is. When the Rose of the novel leaves the academy, she is gone for two years and therefore misses two years of training. When she returns, part of her “probation” is that she has to do extra training sessions with Dimitri to catch up with the rest of her class. Dimitri is reluctant at first: he pleads for the school’s Moroi headmistress to allow him to return, but since he pleaded for her, he is required to observe her training. When they start training, Rose is eager to do something beyond the basics, but Dimitri admits she’s not ready. Rose is still eager to compete on the show, but is desperate for more training. However, the whole point of Rose being exceptional is that if she had stayed in school, she would have been way ahead of her classmates. The show keepers seem much stricter in the show; they have more regulations and much more intense Rose pressure than in the books. They recognize that as their numbers dwindle, they need strong, talented goalies like her on the pitch. However, Rose’s record of doing whatever she wants, regardless of what anyone else thinks, often results in the threat of the guardianship mission she craves. In the show, she is much more docile.

This change shows a difference in Rose’s character. In the novels, Rose is strong-willed and extremely reluctant to easily conform to the rules. Often the only way Rose was willing to comply was if Lissa and Dimitri were her voice of reason. The Rose who is portrayed in the series has a bit more emotional vulnerability, whereas in the books she was much more determined to keep everything to herself. The character change affects the whole vibe the show gives off. Rose also had an extremely poor attitude that often got her kicked out of class or in trouble. This development happened when she started taking Lissa’s negative spiritual effects away from him. Although not as recognizable in the first book, he developed further during the third book. However, the show seems to pick and mix different themes and plots from the book, but the show has also gone rogue in more ways than one.

A common thread between the series and the book is the concept that Moroi has too much influence over the Dhampirs. Dhampirs cannot have children with other Dhampirs, nor can they have children with humans. The only way to have a Dhampir is if a Moroi has children with a human or if a Moroi has children with a Dhampir. Queen Tatiana’s vote to lower the age edict was meant to allow the Dhampirs to retain some semblance of choice. The Moroi want to keep the Dhampirs around to protect them from the Strigoi, and the Dhampirs would cease to exist without the Moroi. Although Dhampirs may choose not to be guardians, many of them choose to be guardians.

One important factor that the series neglects to highlight is the other group of Moroi who advocate for the Moroi fight. Part of the reason the Strigoi bond with the Moroi and Dhampirs is that the Moroi depend too much on their guardians. Tasha Ozera, aunt of Christian Ozera, and her group defend Moroi fights. From now on in the show, that idea is glossed over. The Moroi in the series are much more dependent on the Dhampirs than in the books. It also caused a lot of tension between Royals and non-Royals, with the trend being that Royals were ok with pushing the Dhampirs’ limit, while non-Royals were open to the idea of ​​Moroi using the magic to learn how to fight. In both the show and the book, the royal council is divided and unwilling to consider new ideas. This is why their queen looked to André Dragomir to unite the Moroi. Now the Queen looks to Lissa, who no longer has any family to support her place on the Royal Council or to be Queen.

Stay tuned for part 3 of vampire academy…

Introduction
Facts
Decision
Comment

Introduction

On October 17, 2022, Barcelona Commercial Court No. 4 upheld the actions brought by Two-Way Media Ltd (TWM) against Telefónica, SA, Telefónica de España, SAU and DTS, Distribuidora de Televisión Digital, SAU (together, Telefónica et al) for the infringement of its patents:

• European patent (EP) 2278775 (EP 775); and
• EP 2323333 (EP 333).

The two patents related to different aspects of Internet Protocol television technology used in the Movistar+ television platform. The judgment also dismissed the nullity actions filed by the companies of Telefónica et al against the aforementioned patents.

Facts

In July 2017, TWM sued Telefónica et al on the grounds that the Movistar+ television platform proposed, marketed and implemented by Telefónica et al fell within the scope of protection of patents EP 775 and EP 333.

Two of the defendants claimed the nullity of the two patents and the third retorted the nullity of the patents for exception. All of the defendants, however, advanced the same invalidity arguments:

• lack of technical character of inventions;
• the added object (three attacks per patent);
• lack of novelty (one attack against EP 775, three attacks against EP 333); and
• the absence of inventive step (four attacks per patent).

Telefónica et al also argued that TWM’s patents were not infringed because the technical characteristics of the Movistar+ television platform differed from the technology claimed in patents EP 775 and EP 333.

In March 2018, TWM filed its defense against the counterclaim and the nullity exception.

In July 2018, nearly a year after Telefónica et al filed their counterclaim and invalidity exception, Telefónica, SA and Acens Technology, SL (Acens) initiated a second legal proceeding. They brought a direct action for nullity, contesting the validity of patents EP 775 and EP 333 on the grounds of the lack of novelty and inventive step of the patents with regard to the new arguments and the state of the art.

TWM defended the validity of its patents and supported lis pendens between the two legal proceedings.

By order of November 24, 2020, Commercial Court No. 4 of Barcelona confirmed the lis pendens request. However, the Barcelona Court of Appeal upheld the appeal of Telefonica, SA and Acens against the aforementioned order, thus the second nullity proceedings continued.

In September 2021, the Court agreed to consolidate:

• the infringement proceedings initiated by TWM against Telefónica et al; and
• the invalidity proceedings initiated by Telefónica, SA and Acens.

The trial of the joined proceedings took place from May 2 to 5, 2022 and the fifth session took place on June 15, 2022.

Decision

On October 17, 2022, Commercial Court No. 4 in Barcelona rejected all nullity arguments advanced by Telefónica et al and Telefónica, SA and Acens, in both proceedings, confirming all of TWM’s arguments regarding the validity of its patents EP 775 and EP 333.

In addition, the judgment rejected all of the defendants’ non-infringement arguments, stating that the Movistar+ television platform violated patents EP 775 and EP 333. The court imposed on the defendants the legal costs arising from the actions in infringement and nullity actions filed by Telefónica. et al in the first proceeding and Telefónica, SA and Acens in the second proceeding.

Comment

The judgment touches on almost every issue related to intellectual property controversies:

• the scope of protection of the two patents;
• an in-depth analysis of the technical nature of the two patents and an in-depth study of the guidelines of the European Patent Office on the subject;
• topic added;
• inventiveness analysis – almost every step taken by Telefónica et al to perform the inventiveness analysis was controversial. Therefore, the Court analyzed almost all of them – namely:
  • application of the correct methodology;
  • the technical problem to be solved;
  • the a posteriori analysis; and
• various other considerations, including the state of the art as of the priority date.

The statement of patent infringement led the court to order Telefónica et al to pay TWM the damages claimed in the suit. According to Spanish patent law, the calculation of damages will take place within the framework of the enforcement proceedings.

For more information on this, please contact Ana-Laura Morales and Jesús Arribas to Grau & Angulo by phone (+34 93 202 34 56) or email ([email protected] Where [email protected]). The Grau & Angulo website can be accessed at www.ga-ip.com.

FuboTV, the leading live sports television streaming platform, announced its financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2022.

Revenue and subscriber growth for Fubo’s global streaming business was strong in the quarter, with revenue and subscriber growth in North America (NA) above expectations. FuboTV closed the quarter with $219.2 million (€224.1 million) in revenue for NA, a 40% year-over-year increase, while advertising revenue was 22, $5 million, up 21% year over year. NA’s paid subscribers hit an all-time high of 1,231,000, a 31% year-over-year increase.

In the rest of the world (ROW), the company generated $5.8 million in revenue and 358,000 total paid subscribers. ROW includes Molotov, the French live TV streaming service acquired by FuboTV in December 2021.

FuboTV ended the quarter with $307.4 million in cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash and short-term investments, and is confident in its current liquidity position. Additionally, FuboTV achieved sequential improvement in operating cash flow and year-over-year improvement in Adjusted EBITDA (AEBITDA) margin.

“Our third quarter was marked by significant progress against our long-term plan for continued growth with improved profitability along the way,” said David Gandler, co-founder and CEO of FuboTV. “Revenue and subscriber growth in our global streaming business was solid, with North American subscribers hitting a record high of 1,231,000. -form, our differentiated product experience and broad content portfolio keep them engaged – this quarter representing a record level of subscriber churn.We are more optimistic than ever on our model as consumers turn to aggregated streaming platforms that offer popular content presented to them through a personalized and personalized experience.

“We are very pleased with Fubo’s performance in the third quarter, demonstrated by double-digit year-over-year growth in North America on several of our KPIs: subscribers, total revenue and advertising revenue,” added Edgar. Bronfman Jr., executive chairman of FuboTV. . “As consumers continue to be disappointed with the many expensive and content-limited streaming services on the market, and as these streaming services turn to other monetization levers like advertising, we are excited about our positioning. unique in the market.We believe our dual subscription and advertising model delivers shareholder value, while our aggregation of premium sports, news and entertainment content is an affordable option for consumers.

Bodhi Hayward was in the middle of a storyline with Andre Chase when he received his release papers. Tonight, WWE referenced the Chase U alumnus to continue their TV storyline.

During a backstage segment with Andre Chase on NXT this week, Thea Hale looked at the flag from the side and asked, “Who’s going to carry the flag?” It was an obvious reference to the liberated superstar.

Suddenly, Duke Hudson broke through a wall of paper and volunteered to carry the flag. Later, Booker T said, “That other kid got his scholarship taken away” twice. Hudson also showed extreme enthusiasm during Thea Hail’s match with Kiana James.

In the storyline, Duke Hudson has Bodhi Hayward taken over in order to take his place as a prized student at Andre Chase University. Hayward reacted to his exit from NXT in a video message where he spoke about his embarrassment and anger.

For those not in the know, WWE released several NXT stars, including Bodhi Hayward, from their contracts during the day. According to Bryan Alvarez, the company released the performers because they weren’t improving inside the ring.

What is your opinion on this story? Sound off in the comments!