<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/26/business/paramount-warner-bros-deal-pause.html">Paramount announced</a> it was delaying its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, pausing a deal expected to bring big changes to Hollywood.
Why? Democrats did everything they could to stop the merger, including <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-files-lawsuit-block-110-billion-warner-brosparamount">filing a lawsuit</a> to block it.
The merger is still expected to proceed once the litigation is resolved in court. But it’s just another example of how Democrats are getting back to their anti-market, anti-business roots.
No one is allowed to merge. No one is allowed to achieve greater scale. Profit is a dirty word.
The Trump administration takes a different approach. It’s not afraid to use antitrust law to protect consumers while also letting free enterprise thrive.
Earlier this year, before Paramount came knocking, Warner Bros. was planning to merge with Netflix. Then Trump <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-says-netflix-warner-bros-deal-problem-will-involved-approval-rcna247923">expressed skepticism</a>, and with good reason. The deal would have concentrated an enormous amount of market power inside Netflix — already the world’s number one streaming service and no slouch in content production either — with a history of dramatically raising costs on the American people.
There were genuine antitrust concerns about the effects of a Netflix-WBD behemoth. This led Netflix to ultimately withdraw and WBD to announce it would merge with Paramount instead.
Yet Democrats are still crying foul, accusing Trump of being an agent of big business for approving this deal. At the same time, the Trump administration has been willing to take direct stakes in companies such as Intel in order to counter mercantilist policies pursued by China.
Are we witnessing a political realignment in business regulation? One where traditional Left/Right arguments as to the proper role of government are being altered? The jury is still out on that question, but at least on the Democratic side, that old anti-business itch remains irresistible.
As the Biden administration’s litigation-happy antitrust strategy under then-FTC chair Lina Khan showed, Democrats never really abandoned their belief that government should always question private-sector actions — even if the proposed actions don’t raise consumer costs.
For example, Democrats recently hit the warpath over budget airlines — even though these carriers are often Americans’ best chance to afford a vacation. Under Khan, the Biden administration <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-statements-jetblue-terminating-acquisition-spirit-airlines">successfully blocked</a> Spirit Airlines from merging with JetBlue, which would have provided it with additional capital and prevented it from <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/02/spirit-airlines-shuts-down-white-house-00903807">shutting its doors</a>. Democratic attorneys general also worked to block that merger despite the lower fares benefiting consumers.
The result? Spirit had no choice but to cease operations entirely in May amid rising fuel prices. Airline prices <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/why-the-collapse-of-spirit-airlines-means-higher-fares-for-everyone-0e4990aa">rose</a> dramatically overnight. Consumers now have fewer airline choices.
Or consider when tech company Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) announced it would acquire Juniper Networks. The Trump administration waived the merger through, drawing instant blowback from Democrats. <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/07/30/merger-hpe-juniper-networks-national-security">Intelligence agencies had insisted</a> the combined HPE-Juniper company would provide needed competition for Huawei, the Chinese giant considered a national security threat that <a href="https://www.sdxcentral.com/news/huawei-cisco-ciena-find-growth-in-declining-telecom-market/">controls</a> over 30% of the world’s telecom market.
Naturally, Democrats are still trying to block this business deal through the courts.
This is before we even get to the Left’s bread-and-butter anti-business crusades. Energy companies are <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/23/k-street-girds-for-democrats-oil-oversight-onslaught-01006936">bracing for an onslaught of lawfare</a> if Democrats win the midterm elections. Firearms manufacturers are being <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/08/29/gun-companies-move-south/">driven out of blue states</a> and into red ones.
Some Democrats have even pledged to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-vow-political-reckoning-if-they-win-midterms-campaign-season-heats-up">unwind mergers approved by Trump</a> if they take back control of Congress. Imagine the unpredictability that will create for American businesses.
Why are Democrats reclaiming their anti-business roots? One reason is the Democratic Party agenda is being driven by so-called “democratic socialists,” who despise free enterprise and excoriate successful job creators. Democratic socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has personally attacked business leaders while promoting ever higher taxes and dramatically increased spending.
It was no surprise when Mamdani hired Lina Khan into his administration. Mamdani hates anyone who makes a profit, thinks the government should own grocery stores, and intends to drive private landlords out of New York so the government can own more housing. If Khan’s record is any indication, she wholeheartedly agrees.
While popular with some now, Mamdani’s socialist experiment is doomed to failure. As Margaret Thatcher once quipped, “the only trouble with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Yet the rise of democratic socialism and the failure of more centrist Democrats to prevail in primaries means even more attacks against the private-sector economy are on the way.
To be sure, not every business combination is in the public interest. Some — like the Netflix-WBD merger — risk shoring up monopolies. But others — like Paramount-WBD — can create competition for market leaders like Netflix and bring down prices.
It’s complicated, and this seems to be where conservatives have landed: assess mergers and corporate behavior on the merits. The Democrats, meanwhile, fundamentally oppose free enterprise capitalism and seek to stoke jealousy and class resentment as a means to achieve political power.
It remains to be seen which side will prevail. Let’s make sure it isn’t the socialists.
***
John Faso is an attorney and former Republican congressman representing New York&#8217;s 19th congressional district.

Preparations Underway In Atlanta For First Presidential Debate

Democrats Fighting The Warner Bros. Merger Are Making Americans’ Lives Harder And More Expensive

Antitrust

DW Opinion

JetBlue Airlines

Lina Khan

Mergers

Netflix

Paramount

Spirit Airlines

Warner Bros

Zohran Mamdani

Social media users are losing their minds after discovering how Netflix chose to describe one of the most iconic films of all time. 
The streamer’s short <a href="https://www.netflix.com/title/70020694">description</a> for the historical drama “Gone with the Wind” reads: “A 1939 American Civil War epic known for its racism. To learn more about Black lives in America, search ‘Black Lives Matter.’”
The title does not appear to be available to stream in the United States currently.
Screenshots of the description went viral on social media, with commenters saying the whole thing was no surprise from a woke company like Netflix. Elon Musk also <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2077362080286412981">reacted</a>, saying simply, “Needs to change.”
This is not the first time “Gone with the Wind” has come under attack by would-be censors. In 2020, HBO Max <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/backfire-gone-with-the-wind-sales-explode-after-leftists-target-movie-sales-of-other-classics-also-skyrocketing">pulled the title</a> from circulation amid the public outcry over George Floyd’s death. The move ended up having the opposite effect, with sales of the film exploding.
It was later <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gone-with-the-wind-returning-to-hbo-max-will-feature-a-disclaimer">restored to HBO Max</a> and included an introduction from Turner Classic Movies host Jacqueline Stewart. She argued in an op-ed, also published in 2020, that the film deserved to be circulated so everyone could learn more about the evils of the past. 
“‘Gone with the Wind’ is a prime text for examining expressions of white supremacy in popular culture,” Stewart insisted, arguing that the film “taps into long standing myths about the gentility of the antebellum South.”
“As the title indicates, ‘Gone with the Wind’ looks back nostalgically at idyllic days that are no more (because they never were),” she continued. “By harkening back to the great old days, plantation dramas invite white viewers to imagine appealing but false pedigrees. When working class and poor white viewers identify with a noble white lineage, for example, they might be less likely to form what could be beneficial alliances with their black working class and poor counterparts.”
“Gone with the Wind” is a historical romance film based on the 1936 novel of the same name by Margaret Mitchell. It’s an enduring classic that most people believe to be representative of its time, but it has still become the subject of controversy at different points in time, especially in the last decade.
In 2023, the book’s publisher defended <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gone-with-the-wind-publisher-calls-the-book-harmful">adding an introductory warning</a> without changing any of the book’s text.
“‘Gone with the Wind’ is a novel which includes problematic elements including the romanticization of a shocking era in our history and the horrors of slavery,” the publishers wrote at the time. “The novel includes the representation of unacceptable practices, racist and stereotypical depictions and troubling themes, characterization, language and imagery.”
“The text of this book remains true to the original in every way and is reflective of the language and period in which it was originally written,” the disclaimer went on. “We want to alert readers that there may be hurtful or indeed harmful phrases and terminology that were prevalent at the time this novel was written and which are true to the context of the historical setting of this novel. Pan Macmillan believes changing the text to reflect today’s world would undermine the authenticity of the original, so has chosen to leave the text in its entirety.”
“This does not, however, constitute an endorsement of the characterization, content or language used,” it said in conclusion.
“Gone with the Wind” is one of the best-known classic movies of all time, earning 10 Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director, following its release in 1939. Hattie McDaniel, who portrayed Mammy in that film, was also the first black person ever to win an Academy Award.

Gone with the Wind

Netflix Slaps Bizarre Disclaimer On ‘Gone With The Wind,’ Plugs Black Lives Matter

Entertainment

Movies

Racism

Fans of &#8220;Little House on the Prairie&#8221; can rest easy. I&#8217;ve been studying Laura Ingalls Wilder for decades, and I love the new Netflix rendition of her story.
While binge-watching it over the past several days, I hung on every scene, taking in the scenery, the characterization, the story lines, the innovations. I was hooked from the opening scene of the first episode until the closing credits of the eighth and final episode. The cinematography, the writing, the acting, the themes, and the action all swept me away and brought me to tears more than once.
As a kid, I read Laura Ingalls Wilder’s &#8220;Little House&#8221; novels over and over. I dressed as Laura for Halloween. I faithfully watched the original television series. As a mother, I read the books to my children and showed them the various television miniseries as well as the television series produced and directed by Michael Landon, who played Charles Ingalls. These television adaptations run the gamut of staying close to the novels to straying very far from them.
But no matter how big the departures from the &#8220;Little House&#8221; books, all of these renditions, especially the new Netflix one, embrace the family-centered wholesomeness of Wilder’s novels. Far from presenting a woke version of the beloved story, Netflix’s new series celebrates life and human dignity as it explores the very same questions raised when the novel was published by Laura Ingalls Wilder in 1935.
The autobiographical novel follows the Ingalls family as they depart from the Big Woods of Wisconsin to settle as farmers on the Osage Diminished Reserve in southeastern Kansas. Charles Ingalls (Pa) acted on news that the Osage lands would be open to settlement as soon as the tribe signed the treaty. The plan was to arrive just as the Osage removal had taken place, in time to select a choice parcel of land. But the Osage had not decided whether to sign the treaty, and their presence creates the central tension of the book.
When &#8220;Little House on the Prairie&#8221; was published in 1935, no other author asked the questions Wilder put to her readers. Why did the Ingalls and other settlers choose to settle in Indian Territory if they didn’t like Indians? Why were potential settlers told the Osage Diminished Reserve was available for settlement before the Osages had decided whether to sign the treaty? Why did the government make the tribe leave a place that had been designated Indian Territory? Netflix’s new cinematic version places these questions from the novel firmly at the center of its riveting rendition, creating new characters and story lines that bring those tensions into the everyday realities faced by the Ingalls family.
The release of the cast list made clear that a host of newly invented characters would join the Ingalls family in southeastern Kansas. Teasers showed the Ingalls family taking an active part in the town life of Independence, Kansas, which is a new angle to the story. (The novel has the family living some 40 miles from the town, a distance that made trips there something of an annual occasion; in reality, the Ingalls’ homesite was 13 miles from Independence.) But the relationships and story lines that keep plots moving forward for an entire season’s worth of episodes need a town. I’m willing to allow for that suspension of disbelief.
Showrunner Rebecca Sonnenshine and her crew of writers and producers have crafted a beautiful series that is simultaneously true to the themes and story arc of Wilder’s novels, cognizant of the timeline and history of the “real” Ingalls family, and creative in spinning new characters and story lines that build the themes and give texture to the story arc. Other minor characters from the novel appear in greatly expanded roles, such as Dr. George Tann, the black doctor who nurses the malaria-ridden Ingalls family back to health. The endearing Mr. Edwards gains a first name (John), a backstory, and a love interest. Mr. Scott is transformed into a young single man from a wealthy Boston family. There is no Mrs. Scott, but much of her character is transferred to Jemma James, the town’s leading socialite and bigot.
The essential parts of Wilder’s novel are all there: a dangerous river crossing that results in the disappearance of Jack the dog, the necessity of finding help to build the cabin after Caroline is injured, tensions with the Osages who help themselves to the Ingalls’ food supplies, the entire family suffering from malaria, Christmas with Mr. Edwards supplying greetings and gifts from Santa, a devastating prairie fire, an encounter with wolves, tense Osage councils, and the threat of armed government officials pushing the Ingalls and their neighbors off the land.
These quintessential aspects of Wilder’s novel appear in different ways and combinations in the new series, which underscores the intertwined themes of danger and the need for community. Very early in the first episode, Dr. Tann tells Charles that independence on the prairie is an impossible dream. Throughout the eight episodes, community building plays a central role in plot development. The Ingalls’ survival depends on good neighbors who are willing to help each other.
Departures from Wilder’s novel most noticeably center on the ages of Laura and Mary and the relationships they develop. Laura seems to be around seven years old, while Mary seems to be around twelve, and baby sister Carrie was born at Christmas. In the novel, they are much younger, ages four and six, with Carrie born in Wisconsin.
In the show, Laura befriends an Osage girl, Good Eagle, and Mary has a beau, Caleb, who was abandoned by his father and taken in by the Exoduster brother and sister team who own the town mercantile. These relationships develop across the entire season. Laura’s friendship with Good Eagle brings the tensions between the settlers and the Osages into tight focus. Mary’s budding romance is just one part of her adolescent growth pangs. She is constantly annoyed by Laura and even jealous that everyone likes her best. She is tired of having to be a good role model and share all she has with her sister.
Laura’s character traits are more exaggerated than in the novel. She is a tomboy who wears a boys’ hat and expertly wields a slingshot to hunt rabbits. She loves the prairie and does not want to spend time studying. In an interesting twist, she, rather than Charles, is the family storyteller. She is often called upon to tell a story, in which moments she relates something from &#8220;Little House in the Big Woods.&#8221;
Charles’ and Caroline’s characters have also evolved in the new Netflix series. Charles is still a talented carpenter and musician and a loving father and husband. But his big heart causes trouble for his family. Caroline grows from the reluctant pioneer who dislikes Indians into a feisty champion of her Osage and Exoduster friends. By episode eight, Caroline displays the same level of sensitivity toward the Osages as Charles and Laura. Such understanding is a big departure from the Caroline of Wilder’s novels, who never changes her poor opinion of American Indians. 
When there seems to be no way to remain on their homesite, she tells Charles they must move on. They came to Kansas in search of a place to become the best version of themselves. They have done this and can replicate it somewhere else. With that, the Ingalls bid farewell to their new friends and departed, with Mr. Edwards leading the way to a town in Minnesota where his deceased wife’s cousin has a store, Oleson’s Mercantile. Here’s a teaser for season two, a continuation of the &#8220;Little House&#8221; story as the Ingalls move to the banks of Plum Creek.
The new story lines and characters featured in the Netflix rendition of &#8220;Little House on the Prairie&#8221; are details to be enjoyed and celebrated, not a cause for castigation or hand-wringing about wokeness. These new twists on the beloved novel reveal that the &#8220;Little House&#8221; story arc is such a fundamental and universal aspect of American cultural literacy that the kinds of liberties taken with Wilder’s novels add to the power of the story.
The &#8220;Little House&#8221; story and its television adaptations are vehicles for discussing and encapsulating core American historical understandings and timeless values. Familial love is a constant theme in the Netflix rendition, as is respect for life and an understanding of the inherent dignity of each human person. Moreover, Netflix’s release of this beautiful new television series just days after the Fourth of July in the midst of the country’s semiquincentennial underscores the power of Wilder’s autobiographical fiction, and it further cements its place as a wholesome standard-bearer of American culture. 
***
Dedra McDonald Birzer is director and editor-in-chief at the South Dakota Historical Society Press and a lecturer in history at Hillsdale College. She serves on the executive boards of the Laura Ingalls Wilder Pageant Society and the Middle West Review. She is currently writing an intellectual biography of Rose Wilder Lane.
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

LHOTP_108_Unit_01166RC

The Verdict Is In On The ‘Little House On The Prairie’ Reboot

Upstream

Do not pass go, but maybe collect $2 million? 
Netflix just announced a new game show idea based on one of the most iconic board games of all time. The streaming giant said it will begin casting for a reality competition show inspired by the Hasbro sensation Monopoly.
Per <a href="https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/netflix-monopoly-competition-series-casting-1236809961/">Variety</a>, contestants will use strategy and build alliances as they navigate a life-sized Monopoly Town Square, all in pursuit of the $2 million grand prize. That means buying up properties and collecting cash to avoid going bankrupt. The players who lose all their money will get sent home.
Monopoly is scheduled to air on Netflix beginning in fall 2027 and is being made in partnership with Hasbro Entertainment and Studio Lambert, which is also responsible for popular game shows including “Squid Game: The Challenge” and “The Circle.”
It’s not Netflix&#8217;s only big adaptation in the works. &#8220;Wonka’s The Golden Ticket,&#8221; which will be based on the Roald Dahl novel “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” will premiere this September.
Casting is currently open as Netflix searches for 12 players who think they have what it takes, or at least who have the stamina to actually finish the game without getting in a massive brawl and flipping the board before storming off. 
The news was met with mixed reactions online and comes on the heels of rumors that Netflix has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/netfilx-lost-the-plot">lost the plot</a>, with the majority of its new shows <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/netflix-viewers-abandon-shows-in-droves-after-one-season-and-the-audience-has-feedback?author=Amanda+Harding&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Netflix+Viewers+Abandon+Shows+In+Droves+After+One+Season%2C+And+The+Audience+Has+Feedback">never being renewed</a> for a second season. Subscribers have complained about the long wait between seasons, plus the temptation to binge watch a single series and forget about it shortly after. 
The streamer also turned its big hit “Squid Game” with its 265 million views into a game show. The game show based on “Squid Game,” however, failed to put up such impressive numbers as the original show.

Monopoly

Netflix Is Turning America’s Favorite Board Game Into A Reality Show

Reality TV

Television

Netflix has had some hits. The series finale of “Stranger Things,” for example, pulled in 31.3 million views worldwide, and it wasn’t even the streamer’s biggest show. That would be “Squid Game,” season one of which achieved 265.2 million views. Season one of the second-biggest series, “Wednesday,” released in 2022, drew 252.1 million views. Season two of “Wednesday,” released in 2025, dropped to 119.3 million views. Season three is slated for release in 2027 – that’s three seasons in five years.
Since Netflix began offering original programming, though, it’s canceled <a href="https://www.imdb.com/list/ls562757142/">85 series</a>, at least at the time of writing. The problem is that those cancellations are basically Netflix’s specialty. While easy to attribute the gaps between seasons to the dropoff in numbers, and thus the need to cancel, it’s not just that, though the gaps are ridiculous. It’s the business model. It lives to cancel series. And while the service is profitable, it also sucks. Killing programming shouldn’t be the goal of production studios.
Substacker Aakash Gupta has a theory about why Netflix suffers in a way that, say, HBO Max does not. On X, he <a href="https://x.com/aakashgupta/status/2074032098219061359">posited</a> that the gaps punish Netflix twice. That is, since it releases series all at once, it encourages bingeing, but then when people have to wait years for another season, they’ve lost interest. HBO Max, which also has ridiculous gaps between seasons, at least draws them out, forcing people to wait between episodes. That creates a stickier product because viewers invest months in each season rather than a weekend.
This could be accurate – or not. Streaming services don’t like sharing their data because it could be used by competitors. Perhaps it is that Netflix’s internal metrics reveal a <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/netflix-keeps-canceling-shows-prematurely-why-1971080">much less popular</a> show than it would seem to viewers. On the other hand, it could be that the company is simply quick to cancel rather than putting in the effort to develop a show, such as network favorite “The Office,” with <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/netflix-keeps-canceling-shows-prematurely-why-1971080">massive potential</a>.
This happens, or at least used to happen, more than people realized. “Seinfeld” had a <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098904/ratings/?newac=true">weak start</a>, something even we fans have to admit. “Cheers,” which ended up wildly successful, was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheers#:~:text=After%2520premiering%2520in,of%2520117%2520nominations.">almost canceled</a> in its first season. “Futurama” has been canceled twice, with its final season streaming this year.
This isn’t a phenomenon that’s unique to television, either. Many bands and artists that ended up with long, successful careers started off with <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/snlqsg/successful_artists_whose_first_albums_were_flops/">a flop or two</a>. Bruce Springsteen, Hall and Oates, Genesis, Pantera, Tori Amos, David Bowie, Shakira, Black Sabbath, Bob Dylan, and Bon Jovi all would’ve been axed had they been streaming shows. Musicians and bands, though, can bypass the studio gatekeepers much more easily now. For starters, the barriers to entry are much lower than they once were. They don’t need recording studios, just some equipment, an interface, and a laptop. Second, once they have a product, they can simply upload it to Spotify, SoundCloud, Beatport, and YouTube.
Unless, God forbid, AI becomes a popular way to produce video content, it still costs money to make a show. And unlike music, a field which also became more ruthless when sabermetrics came to dominate all, it’s not as easy for those who want to make it to bypass those gatekeepers. Gone are the days of deciders with good instincts willing to take a chance on a product. Now, it’s all analytics. (Unrelated, but please comment and share this article, and subscribe if you don’t already do so.)
And there is nothing inherently wrong with an analytical approach to business. The problem is when the business of art, which is what streaming platforms sell, becomes purely analytically driven. No, something like “Eastbound and Down” isn’t what people would traditionally consider art, but when you really dig into just how <a href="https://medium.com/@joeimbruglia/shakespeares-filthy-sense-of-humor-4ec53a62bed8">juvenile and vulgar Shakespeare was</a>, you gain an appreciation for how sometimes being really old can change people’s perceptions.
Incidentally, “Eastbound and Down,” an HBO show, is a more modern example of beating the system, even though it aired on cable. Part of its brilliance was Danny McBride’s. The show was filmed in North Carolina. Although there were family concerns, a major reason was the lack of direct flights from <a href="https://www.aol.com/articles/danny-mcbride-says-ditching-la-153512621.html">L.A. to Wilmington</a>, which allowed them to create season one without interference from the executives. Season one was successful, and the studio trusted them moving forward.
Now, though, the execs are always watching, keeping up with the numbers, canceling without compunction. And while it makes money, the modern system, particularly as Netflix employs it, doesn’t tend to create the lasting sort of programming that the old ways did. For even though “Stranger Things” closed out with strong numbers, it also closed out with a very anticlimactic ending, after only five seasons over nine and a half years.
As things currently stand, the Netflix formula is unlikely to change unless its profits turn south. Which is a shame, because the future would be better with a return to executives looking to make not just money, but also great programming, even if the numbers don’t initially justify keeping a show on for another season. Step one is to get rid of the ridiculous gaps and the focus on bingeing. Both are overrated, and as the push notification from the Wall Street Journal I received while writing this suggests, they actually aren’t working out so well for <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/media/netflix-is-exploring-live-tv-and-bundles-as-it-struggles-to-keep-viewers-hooked-e1eb28f6?st=x5ms9P&amp;reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink">maintaining overall engagement</a>.
The proposed solution? Adding live television, which is a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-streaming-trap-we-all-fell-for">revolutionary idea</a>. In any case, maybe it’s not that analytics are bad after all, but how the executives <a href="https://youtu.be/kEwFYPQtswo?si=HNJY_f1P4rGhRTbN&amp;t=100">respond to them</a>.
***
Rich Cromwell is a writer living in Northwest Arkansas. He produces the Cookin&#8217; Up a Story podcast, which you can listen to <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cookin-up-a-story/id1624969096">here</a>. You can also follow him on X: @rcromwell4

Netflix Lost The Plot

streaming

TV writer Rebecca Sonnenshine recently defended making her latest project, a reboot of the beloved series “Little House on the Prairie,” a lot more woke.
At this point, it would be more surprising if she had left politics out of it. And to hear her tell it, the word “woke” has lost its meaning anyway. But Sonnenshine did go on record defending the aspect of the new storyline which conservatives are most likely to take issue with, namely, making a local Native American family a key feature of the show despite them not being featured prominently in the best-selling books.
While Laura Ingalls and her family are still main characters, much attention is paid to the mixed-race Osage family, the Mitchells, as Variety noted in an <a href="https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/netflix-little-house-on-the-prairie-woke-comments-tradwife-1236804646/">interview</a> with the showrunner.
“As an adult, everything is different. Especially ‘Little House on the Prairie,’ it’s all about the Osage,” Sonnenshine says. “The Osage are all over that book, but we don’t know them at all. And I thought, well, we have to know them. I have to figure out a way that we can know them, and how do you do that? Trying to create a family that parallels the Ingalls. I had to do a lot of research to figure out how to do that, and I did and we worked with a story consultant named Robert Warrior,” Sonnenshine told the outlet. 
“I’m not even sure what ‘woke’ means to people anymore, to be honest,” she went on. “I know what I think it means, which is the definition of it being aware and alert to social injustice and prejudice, in particular racial prejudice. So, when people say, ‘I hope it’s not woke,’ I think, ‘Really? Oh, that’s interesting.’ But I don’t think people are using it in that manner; I think it’s just become a catch-all word for things that I don’t quite understand. If I had to sum it up, what people are afraid of is that something from their childhood will be portrayed in a way that scares them.”
Sonnenshine reiterated what she’s “been saying from the beginning,” which is, “I feel like people are worried for no reason.”
A Slate reviewer <a href="https://slate.com/culture/2026/07/little-house-on-the-prairie-netflix-series-2026-reboot-laura-ingalls-wilder.html">agreed</a> that the “Little House” reboot has indeed been altered to suit progressive sensibilities. 
“There’s no other way for me to put this: Netflix did indeed woke-ify Little House on the Prairie,” wrote Rebecca Onion. “This new version makes a deep bow to contemporary concerns about the politics of the source material. Some of the Ingalls family’s closest new friends on the show are an Osage couple, a black doctor and black storekeeper, and a French Canadian woman who wears trousers and practices free love.”
She also notes a new antagonist in the form of a stodgy, traditionalist family. 
“Netflix’s Ingalls family are good people, even by 2026 standards, and you can see it in contrast with the Jameses,” she writes. “The Jameses are town-dwelling rich folk who don’t appear in the Little House books but seem to be an adaptation of the Oleson family … The Jameses’ vision for Independence — hierarchy,  respectability, a church, a school — first seduces, then repels, the more gentle-minded Ingallses, Ma and Mary. The James matriarch, Jemma, played by Mary Holland, brings a welcome comedic hateability to this sunny show.” 
Prominent conservatives predicted this long before it happened. Podcast host Megyn Kelly <a href="https://x.com/megynkelly/status/1884765394914681141">posted</a> on X in January, “Netflix, if you woke-ify ‘Little House on the Prairie’ I will make it my singular mission to absolutely ruin your project.” 
This prompted actress Melissa Gilbert, who starred on the original “Little House” series for nine seasons between 1974 and 1982, to reply, “Ummm…watch the original again. TV doesn’t get too much more ‘woke’ than we did. We tackled: racism, addiction, nativism, antisemitism, misogyny, rape, spousal abuse, and every other ‘woke ‘ topic you can think of. Thank you very much.”
Gilbert has been making headlines lately as she defends her husband, Timothy Busfield, amid allegations of child sexual abuse.
The new Little House on the Prairie adaptation debuted all 8 episodes of its first season on Netflix on July 9. The show has been officially renewed for a second season.

Little House on the Prairie

Yes, The ‘Little House On The Prairie’ Reboot Went Woke

Hollywood

Wokeness

Cable television, the source you turn to if you’re looking for a veritable cornucopia of <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/media/trumps-crackdown-on-drug-ads-could-sting-tv-networks-673c322a?st=jaKxKb&amp;reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink">drug commercials</a> with bits of mid-tier shows aired between them, is <a href="https://x.com/RoadMN/status/2062598828889440556/photo/1">not doing great</a>. Of the top 10 programs for the 2025-2026 season, seven were available only on streaming platforms. The other three were available both on streaming and on broadcast television. None were solely on broadcast. 
This is a <a href="https://adwave.com/resources/cable-vs-streaming-viewing-share-q4-2025">generational trend</a>, with those 55 and older being more likely to choose cable and those under that age preferring streaming services. Factor in that 28% of Americans have <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/01/83-of-us-adults-use-streaming-services-far-fewer-subscribe-to-cable-or-satellite-tv/">both cable/satellite and streaming subscriptions</a>, and it’s easy to see which offering is winning the battle. Cable is on the way out, and this represents a huge failing not just for the cable companies and pharmaceutical advertisers, but for America as a whole. 
Because, America, it’s time to admit that while streaming is great and gives us a whole host of options, it’s also terrible. When cable was king, we could turn on the TV, check the guide, and go to the on-demand offerings. It was all right there. It was one bill. There was only one company to have to deal with. Now, subscriptions rule our lives. 
Not only is the cost of cable-cutting a mirage because of all the subscriptions, but we also no longer have one-stop shopping when it’s time to watch. We have to figure out which service has the program we want. We have to remember to cancel that one service we only wanted to watch that one program on. We have to wade through a panoply of garbage just as we did when we had cable. And that doesn’t even get into sports. 
Sports used to be the reason that some of us got cable. Sure, there were add-ons. There were also market limitations. If you were a Tennessee Titans fan but lived closer to the Kansas City Chiefs, guess which AFC game you were getting on Sundays. At least you could watch games, though. 
Now, who knows? While there is a lot on the major networks plus ESPN and its satellite stations, to get everything you’re going to need a bunch of streaming services. Then you’re right back in the same problem the streamers give us when it comes to finding shows. And you still can’t get most out-of-market games without paying for upgraded streaming options. It’s ridiculous.
Don’t get me wrong. I tuned in for “Stranger Things.” “Sean Combs: The Reckoning” was gut-wrenching but also admirable because Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson is the pettiest man on earth and no one makes petty work better than he does. Those are the only programs from the top 10 I’ve watched, but I’m admittedly not the best example. I’m more the person you look to if you want to know what’s going to get prematurely canceled.
Still, when we get below the top 10 and realize that “Matlock” comes in at 13 and see “60 Minutes” at 27, we know where viewers are tuning in, and it ain’t on a streaming platform. It’s easy to hate on boomers. It’s more challenging to admit they were right about things. Television is one of those areas, at least in terms of medium, though maybe Bari Weiss can turn “60 Minutes” into a show that appeals to those whose age doesn’t start with the number six or higher. Getting rid of that insufferable <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scott-pelleys-glasses-were-a-prop-for-a-grown-man-play-acting-as-an-anchor">glasses guy</a> was a good start. (Maybe replace him with <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DYYhJDFx-S_/">Jordan the Stallion</a>?)
Regardless, if we stay on our current trajectory, cable is eventually going to stop slowly failing and collapse all at once. Then, all we’ll be left with is streaming. Will we have a world of choices at our fingertips? Sure. Will we have to spend way more per month than if cable had figured out a way to thwart and integrate the streamers for a slightly higher price than we were paying? Absolutely. 
And we have no one but ourselves to blame. We could have stood athwart our streaming services and yelled “stop,” but instead we embraced them, invited them into our homes, our lives, and our relationships. (Password sharing is a bond that outlives marriages, not because people want to see their ex’s name on the “choose profile” screen, but because they don’t want to add another monthly bill.)
 We said “no” to sticking with one monthly bill and a variety of programming all under one banner. Instead, we allowed ourselves to get greedy for content while satiating the greed of the companies that owned the intellectual property we were too lazy to pirate. Now, we’re barreling towards a future littered with seemingly infinite options, so many that we often fail to choose before it’s too late to finish our offering before we go to sleep. Alternatively, we find there&#8217;s nothing to watch other than the monthly payments leaving our bank accounts. 
***
Rich Cromwell is a writer living in Northwest Arkansas. He produces the Cookin’ Up a Story podcast, which you can listen to <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cookin-up-a-story/id1624969096" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. You can also follow him on X: <a href="https://x.com/rcromwell4">@rcromwell4</a>.
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

Gemini_Generated_Image_k1tnohk1tnohk1tn

We Thought We Beat Cable. We Were Wrong.

Boomers

According to a recent Bloomberg <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2026-07-05/netflix-viewers-are-abandoning-shows-after-one-season">report</a>, Netflix audiences have been abandoning shows after one season and not coming back for more.
The report said that “One Piece,” which was one of Netflix’s most-watched shows in 2023, lost more than 30% of its audience for the second season, which debuted in 2026. “Beef” was another popular show for the streaming giant when it launched in 2023. But Bloomberg reported that season two had a massive reduction in audience — more than 70% — in 2026 as well. 
“The Night Agent” lost half of its audience in season two and saw another 35% decline in season three, the outlet noted.
This report has inspired a lot of feedback on social media from TV viewers who mostly say the biggest issue is the long wait between seasons, which didn’t exist before streaming services took over the entertainment industry.
“A television show has 1) approximately 22 episodes, 2) that are 43 minutes in length, 3) that air weekly, 4) every year … Netflix is confused by all four of these criteria,” one commenter <a href="https://x.com/MadcapMcQ/status/2074608223999377907">wrote</a>.
Another person <a href="https://x.com/RaithwallRover/status/2073907596537299359">added</a>, “1. The gap between seasons is too long. 2. The binge model is bad for building long-term emotional investment. You watch all of a season in a week and then forget about it. This is obvious. It’s amazing that after all these years and all their data, they still don’t [realize] it.”
A third commenter said the same, writing, “Too few episodes and seasons too far apart. A series should come out annually. Especially when it’s as short as 6-8 episodes. Taking 2-4 years between seasons. People stop caring. This isn’t a complicated problem.”
Many also called out television&#8217;s shift toward woke messaging and the way leftist elements are often introduced in follow-up seasons. 
“Because: Season 2 (any show) kick off meeting — ‘Ok, good 1st season! In Season 2 we&#8217;re going to bring the special sauce!  Thomas is going to come out as a trans, and his wife will have a lesbian affair with a trans black woman who is [in] a relationship with an underage trans man. &#8230;  This sh*t is gold!!’ And that&#8217;s why Netflix viewers go elsewhere,” one person observed.

Netflix Viewers Abandon Shows In Droves After One Season, And The Audience Has Feedback

Dan Lin, the chairman of Netflix&#8217;s film division, said in a newly published interview that he is not interested in working with movie directors targeting theatrical releases. 
&#8220;There is a group of filmmakers who still want theatrical. Those are filmmakers that we’ve accepted we just won’t work with,&#8221; Lin <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/business/media/dan-lin-netflix-hollywood.html">told</a> The New York Times. 
He also emphasized that Greta Gerwig’s upcoming adaptation of “The Chronicles of Narnia” is an exception to this rule and not indicative of a new standard. His blunt comments come on the heels of Netflix’s major merger deal with Warner Bros. falling apart as Paramount Studios swooped in and made an offer it couldn’t refuse.
Some of the chief concerns critics had about the proposed Netflix/Warner Bros. merger centered around the future of theaters and theatrical releases if Netflix cornered such a large piece of the entertainment market.
The company heads promised that Netflix would have taken good care of the Warner Bros. IP (intellectual property) and “strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs in the U.S.,” as they said when the deal fell apart earlier this year.
“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the execs <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/netflix-backs-down-in-fight-for-warner-bros-leaving-paramount-inches-from-victory">concluded</a>.
Though neither company (Paramount or Netflix) were favored by those in the industry, Netflix was viewed with a particularly skeptical eye as some questioned the streaming giant’s commitment to the theatrical experience. Others view Paramount CEO David Ellison’s apparently close relationship with the Trump administration as a reason to worry.
When the deal was still on the table, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos dispelled rumors that he would shorten theatrical release times if the company acquired Warner Bros.
“When this deal closes, we will own a theatrical distribution engine that is phenomenal and produces billions of dollars of theatrical revenue that we don’t want to put at risk. We will run that business largely like it is today, with 45-day windows,” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/16/business/media/ted-sarandos-netflix.html">Sarandos told</a> The New York Times in January.
“I’m giving you a hard number. If we’re going to be in the theatrical business, and we are, we’re competitive people — we want to win. I want to win opening weekend. I want to win box office,” he said at the time.
Now that Warner Bros. won’t be part of Netflix’s portfolio, it appears the streaming giant is abandoning theatrical efforts almost entirely.

Movie theater

Netflix Exec Admits Certain Directors Need Not Apply

Netflix Exec Admits The Company Won't Work With Directors Who Want Theaters

Movie Theaters

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
I&#8217;m not a tough movie critic, and it’s not that I don’t have taste. But just because I can appreciate “Marty Supreme” doesn’t mean I won’t laugh at the latest formulaic romcom that rolled off the streaming conveyor belt. Just as a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/american-travesty-a-chinese-company-just-bought-nathans-famous-hot-dogs">hot dog</a> is better at a ballgame than a plate of steak tartare, you wouldn’t want to watch “Schindler’s List” on an airplane.
I say all this so that you really believe me when I say that “Ladies First” is the worst movie ever made.
Netflix’s latest feature film stars Sacha Baron Cohen as Damien Sachs, an unbelievably misogynistic ad executive who finds himself in a gender-bent world where Alex Fox (Rosamund Pike), the long-suffering single mother who quit rather than suffer under Damien’s chauvinism, is his boss. In fact, in this alternate universe, women hold all the power, and men are the second sex!
Get it? It’s funny because of sexism.
Except, here’s the thing: The movie isn’t funny at all. Nor is it an effective or incisive commentary on the state of gender equality. And I’m not saying that because I disagree with the arguments the movie is trying to make. I’m saying that because it’s a poorly written, overacted lump of tropes that feels bloated at only 93 minutes.
In “Ladies First,” every man is either a villainous lothario or a beer-swilling, ball-scratching manchild who sits around lazily while their wives and mothers do all the work. The women, meanwhile, are all smiling through the stress as they cook, clean, work, parent, and try to have it all.
This may read like the upshot of any movie made in the last 30 years starring Vince Vaughn, but it’s so much worse. Consider the explosive scene that precedes Damien’s universe jump, wherein Alex — recently promoted to junior creative director to placate a client who demanded more diversity — sits through a pitch meeting on how to get more women to drink Guinness. Here’s some of the dialogue:
“You know St. Pauli Girl, right?”
“Heil Titler!”
“Right, so we create our own: Guinness Girl. But she’s so much hotter. And they make out!”
“And then she and the St. Pauli girl have a pub fight, and there’s Guinness, and there’s foam —”
“And they’re ripping each other’s clothes off!”
I mean, come on.
It’s not just that the writing is too ham-fisted to be either funny or biting, though it is. The real problem is that this is so unbelievable that it’s guaranteed to kill any interest in the ultimate plot twist. There are undoubtedly sexist ad execs in the world, but not even Don Draper would think to pitch women on a product with a campaign that amounts to “hurr durr boobies lol.” The idea that an ad executive in 2026 would have such a dumb idea strains credulity about as much as a multiverse designed to punish chauvinism.
Things only get worse as we enter the women-run world, where instead of being confronted with boss babes and gender equality, we get a literal swap: here, women are crass and vulgar, and men are sensitive and effeminate. Without context, the limp-wristed affectation of all the men in this film would certainly be seen as a gay joke, and the women belching with their hands down their pants just comes across as odd.
In case you missed the gender swap, they’ll remind you every scene in throwaway gags as subtle as dynamite. The books in Damien’s apartment are “Harriet Potter” and “The Lady of the Rings”; Victoria’s Secret sells testicle bras; there’s even a throwaway bit about a man’s “time of the week,” which is left mostly unexplained.
These moments, which could otherwise be the source of the movie’s biggest punchlines, fall entirely flat because they don’t make any sense. This is especially clear when it comes to the alternate universe women, who behave just as horribly as men in the real world.
This is where the already tenuous movie falls completely apart. Rather than become an advocate for gender equality in the alternate universe, Damien accepts the matriarchy and becomes a himbo: he dresses provocatively, undergoes cosmetic procedures, and sleeps with his boss, who goads him into bed with the promise of a promotion. What sets Damien free from his strange new reality is not accepting women as equals, but undergoing a humiliation ritual in which he is feminized and belittled.
The most bizarre scene in the alternate world comes when Damien repeats the aforementioned board meeting. This time, it’s Alex who makes penis jokes and pitches the world’s worst campaign to get men interested in Guinness while his cries fall on deaf ears. But while Alex cried sexism and quit, Damien started trying to crawl his way back to power. That is an unintentionally hilarious take on the differences between men and women.
This is the film’s ultimate failure: It has no sexual politics, or, to the extent that it does, they are so muddled that they make no sense. Of course, movies don’t always have to make grand points, but a movie like “Ladies First” clearly has one in mind. Failing to stick the landing on something as simple as “gender equality good” is just plain embarrassing.
In fact, if you really start thinking about “Ladies First,” you may find yourself coming up the other end of the horseshoe. The movie’s logic holds that there are certain traits and behaviors inherent to each sex, and that there are only two sexes. One of those sexes is naturally dominant, and its dominance seems tied to the fact that it is less emotional and more prone to action.
We’re obviously supposed to watch “Ladies First” and think “wow, gender roles are really messed up!” But it&#8217;s hard not to walk away from the film thinking, “Well, sure, in that world it makes sense that women are in charge!” By creating a society more patriarchal than reality and then immediately inverting it, “Ladies First” makes strict gender roles seem more, not less, reasonable.
But it’s important to note, ultimately, that none of this matters. By even drawing out these contradictions, I have spent more time thinking about “Ladies First” than it deserves. If you want an actually funny take on the film’s central trope, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KG08opmyzw">watch this one episode</a> of “The Mindy Project” and use the other 71 minutes to do something productive.
But if you want to spend 93 minutes bored out of your mind, regretting your decisions, and occasionally throwing up your hands in disbelief — just go to the DMV.

Ladies_First_RY_24-12-03_02727_R

‘Ladies First’ Accidentally Makes The Conservative Case On Gender Roles

The latest Netflix documentary that has viewers glued to their TVs is &#8220;The Crash,&#8221; which tells the story of convicted murderer Mackenzie Shirilla and the deadly 2022 car crash that put her behind bars for 15 years to life.
The 90-minute documentary features in-depth interviews with Shirilla’s parents, Natalie and Steve, and the families of the two young men killed in the crash: Dominic Russo and Davion Flanagan.
Prosecutors successfully argued that Shirilla, who was 17 at the time, intentionally crashed the vehicle at roughly 100 mph into a commercial building in Strongsville, Ohio, a suburb outside Cleveland, in the early morning hours of July 31, 2022.
<div style="max-width: 728px; margin: 0 auto;">  <iframe style="aspect-ratio: 9/16; max-width: 220px; display: flex; justify-content: center; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/00xhUymE02rq00a7QmktZsz2YiPmkr64hYM?metadata-video-content-type=short&amp;metadata-video-id=0dd47d40-9d24-421a-af7d-4cba5a8fae51&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=The%20disturbing%20details%20Netflix%20didn%E2%80%99t%20include%20in%20%E2%80%98The%20Crash%E2%80%99&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fshorts%2Ffc4d3574-b170-4484-9386-74b90c18d527.jpg&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
&nbsp;
According to family and friends interviewed in the documentary, Russo had been involved in a &#8220;toxic&#8221; relationship with Shirilla, while Flanagan was a friend who joined the two in the car that fateful morning.
While the Netflix show focuses heavily on the emotional fallout surrounding the case, key details found in reports from Strongsville Police show a more complete picture of Shirilla&#8217;s behavior and state of mind leading up to the crash.
A central question in both the trial and documentary was whether the teenager really meant to crash a car at a high rate of speed into a brick building. While her parents said no, local authorities suggested the parents were aware their daughter was capable of doing harm.
A detective said he was told by a police sergeant that Shirilla’s father, Steve, said she &#8220;intentionally&#8221; drove her vehicle into the building in an attempt to take her own life. Steve also told the sergeant his daughter was suicidal and asked that she remain in the hospital, according to the detective.
At this time, Shirilla had just turned 18 while recovering in the hospital, meaning she was now an adult and could legally check herself out despite her father’s wishes.
Another bombshell in the detective&#8217;s report claims Shirilla voluntarily engaged in sexual acts with other people &#8220;likely in exchange for monetary value.&#8221; Dozens of Snapchat messages and text messages indicate Shirilla requested money in exchange for pictures or meetups.
The documentary includes interviews with several of Shirilla&#8217;s friends who defended her character and insisted she would never hurt anyone. But other witnesses interviewed by police described her driving as reckless and dangerous. One person said she &#8220;sucked at driving.&#8221;
Police records also cite Snapchat videos allegedly recorded by Shirilla in April 2022 showing a vehicle speedometer reaching 93 mph in traffic.
Rosie Graham, one of Shirilla&#8217;s strongest defenders in the documentary, was also cited in police records as telling friends not to get in the car with her.
Shirilla&#8217;s efforts to overturn her conviction on appeal have so far failed. She is up for parole in 2037.

Credit: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

The Disturbing Details Netflix Didn’t Include In ‘The Crash’

Crime

News

Ohio

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
The Rousey vs. Carano <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gina-carano-vs-ronda-rousey-netflix-announces-first-ever-live-mma-event">fight</a> proved that women are capable of being tough beasts and beauties. Despite some being upset that Ronda Rousey masterfully took down Gina Carano in the brief span of 17 seconds, I enjoyed the entire event. The lead-up fights were entertaining, and the headliners, two women, showed the best parts of womanhood.
The Krauss house hosted a small fight night watch party on Saturday night. We often do this, and even our girls like to watch, which was why it was pretty cool to show them that two ladies were the main card for Netflix’s MMA event. We are just a short drive to Intuit Dome, where over 14,000 fans paid top dollar for tickets to watch two female fighting legends face off.
It had been a while since the contenders had entered the Octagon. <a href="https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/ronda-rousey-destroys-gina-carano-042520436.html">Yahoo Sports</a> and other critics said the Netflix fights only pull people out of retirement. Maybe that’s true considering the champion of the night, Ronda Rousey, hadn’t fought since 2016. And conservative darling actress Gina Carano had not been in the Octagon since 2009.
Yet the lead-up to the fight was full of hype, probably due to the marketing genius of internet anti-hero Jake Paul’s production company, MVP. In all sports, especially fighting, the promotional lead-up is often full of smack talk and name-calling. But after the bell rings and the winner’s fist is raised, there are handshakes and hugs.
The display of raw emotion and admiration these women demonstrated on Saturday night was really inspiring. I’ve never witnessed a fight night end with open encouragement and support for the opponent. The competitors showed mutual respect that included laughing, hugging, and chatting after the winner was declared — mere seconds after an impressive armbar maneuver that could have broken the bones of the defeated fighter.
&nbsp;
<div id="attachment_1097127" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1097127" class="wp-image-1097127 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/GettyImages-2276641015.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/GettyImages-2276641015.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/GettyImages-2276641015-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/GettyImages-2276641015-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/GettyImages-2276641015-768x512.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Photo by Sarah Stier/Getty Images for Netflix</div>
In no other fight have we witnessed a loser <a href="https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/story/sports/mma/2026/05/17/gina-carano-ronda-rousey-loss-victory-life-netflix/90134256007/">crediting</a> the victor for her personal and professional change and growth.
&#8220;I have so much love and respect for her,&#8221; Carano said in a post-fight interview. &#8220;This was a victory in my life. She changed it. I woke up every morning at 3 a.m. thinking about her. I took 100 pounds off of my body, which is going to give me a longer life. I fell back in love with mixed martial arts. There&#8217;s so many good things to think about here.&#8221;
And never has a man said after a win that he is going to have more babies while embracing his spouse.
Rousey instantly hugged and kissed her husband, heavyweight fighter <a href="https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/ronda-rousey-kisses-husband-travis-180040054.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALw1r4ymPDZffWUd4KjEkUOE9rmEn2hsedvxHcjjDE8umyFb55y4RSExsX3CImfHSjikMBmkFydXqmkuHapd0d4o3DV8Fjq1gZnWOFbjpG4bk2n5UmVnjaXDcSiE0of7LDUASjqhTEOW46MjdW83-cZ8tmGHk26Qy_kEVBjyGaDP">Travis Browne,</a> and said, “There&#8217;s no way I could&#8217;ve ended it better than this. I wanna have some more babies.”
The night also stood out for other reasons. The multiple male fighters preceding the main event showcased the need to protect women’s sports. Nate Diaz or Francis Ngannou would have destroyed the talented Rousey. But, in a woman-to-woman matchup, the fight was fair.
Women in all sports should be lauded and protected because these women prove that they are unique — and fun.
It takes emotional strength to succeed as a woman, wife, and mom. Our ability to nurture is a type of strength. The patience and repetitive challenge of marriage and motherhood take strength. Some mothers fight in the Octagon; others do so in politics, business, ministry, or education. We fight for our kids, for our communities, and for our country.
We can be competitive and kind. We can be loving and tough. We can be smart and sweet. We can be savvy and honest.
Women shouldn’t have to retreat or minimize who we are. We can display our femininity and differences from men, support those differences, and encourage them in ourselves and in the other women in our lives.
All women, even outside of the Octagon, are fighters.
***
Elisha Krauss is a conservative commentator, writer, and speaker who resides in Los Angeles, California, with her husband and their four children. She is an advocate for women’s rights, school choice, and smaller government.

Netflix’s Ronda Rousey vs. Gina Carano – Press Conference

The Biggest Moment Of The Rousey-Carano Fight Wasn’t The Winning Move

Gina Carano

Menu