Barry Diller taps Ben Sherwood and Joanna Coles to lead The Daily Beast, The NYT ends its leak probe without a "definitive conclusion," NPR continues to fight off right-wing criticism, Dr. Drew goes full Infowars, Elon Musk announces new X users will have to pay to post, A24 finds box office success with "Civil War," CBS says it will rebroadcast Billy Joel's 100th MSG concert after Sunday's snafu, and much more. But first, the A1.

Truth at the Trump Trial

CNN Photo Illustration/Christine Cornell

Did Donald Trump fall asleep in court?

As the first criminal trial of a former American president commenced Monday, The New York Times' Maggie Haberman delivered a stunning report from the Manhattan courtroom. Trump, she reported, "appeared to nod off a few times," with his mouth "going slack and his head drooping onto his chest."

Haberman, it goes without saying, is in a class of her own when it comes to reporting on Trump. When Haberman reports news about the Republican frontrunner, readers can take it to the bank. And her observation about Trump's apparent low-energy demeanor was corroborated by other reporters who confirmed that the defendant's eyes were shut for lengthy periods of time.

"He looked like he was nodding off and at one point in a pretty true tell that he was falling asleep, his head nodded down and then he sort of jolted back up at one point," The NYT's Susanne Craig also said on MSNBC.

But the Trump campaign later denied the former president had fallen asleep during the hearing — an obvious problem for a candidate who has made the "Sleepy Joe" moniker a key attack line — claiming that the mid-trial snooze never happened.

"This is 100% Fake News coming from 'journalists' who weren’t even in the court room," a Trump campaign spokesperson later insisted.

The public was not permitted to see the hearing with its own eyes, as cameras have been barred from the courtroom, in keeping with longstanding rules by the federal judiciary. Instead, Americans, unable to watch the historic proceedings play out, will have no choice but to place its trust in Haberman and a small group of reporters selected to sit inside the courtroom to observe the high-stakes trial.

On this particular matter, the stakes are not very consequential. Nevertheless, the episode underscores the information vacuum that has been birthed by the lack of transparency into the case. The Trump campaign forcefully denying Haberman and other reporters' accounts quickly created two versions of events for people at home to choose to believe: Trump or Haberman. And it's a safe bet that much of the country would (wrongly) place its trust in Trump, despite his propensity to lie.

While photographers are only briefly allowed in the courtroom at the start of the day, there will be no undeniable proof one way or the other to surface. The only visuals from inside the courtroom will be provided by a sketch artist tasked with depicting the range of expressions and emotions during the unprecedented trial. 

The lack of cameras in the Manhattan courtroom is not new. Federal courts have long barred the filming of proceedings, much to the chagrin of news organizations and advocacy groups that have pushed for the judiciary to increase transparency. One of the concerns has been that by welcoming the public into the courtroom, cases will transform into public spectacles, similar to the O.J. Simpson trial in the mid-1990s. But there are a lot of holes in that argument. And, given the historic nature of the Trump trials, with a former president staring down dozens of criminal charges, news organizations have requested that exemptions be made. But thus far it has been to no avail. 

As a consequence, a select few reporters will need to be the eyes and ears of the country, providing accurate representations of what transpired behind closed doors. While a handful of journalists are granted access inside the actual courtroom, most others are actually stationed in an overflow room, where they can watch a video stream of the proceedings and file dispatches.

The setup effectively ensures that there will be no shared reality of the unprecedented case as members of the public will have news from the trial filtered through the lens of whichever media they choose to consume. That fragmented media environment is where Trump also thrives, given that he has a powerful propaganda machine at his disposal, with outlets like Fox News willing to do his bidding, no matter how dishonest it is.

CNN Photo Illustration/Getty Images

Bolstering the Beast: Barry Diller is counting on Ben Sherwood and Joanna Coles to transform The Daily Beast into a profitable engine in his digital media portfolio. Diller's IAC announced Monday that the two veteran media hands will take senior leadership roles at the publication, with Sherwood taking the role of chief executive and publisher, while Coles will serve as chief creative and content officer. Both will own signifiant equity in the company, which Diller had previously explored selling, as part of the deal. Sherwood floated to The NYT's Benjamin Mullin that under the duo's direction, a profit might be turned through a mix of events, subscriptions, and more — a model that is working well for other outlets. "The first and most important piece is to get in there, to assess, to observe and then to begin to influence how we make great stuff and how we make people feel that The Daily Beast is a guilty necessity every single day," Sherwood told Mullin. Mullin has more.

► Sherwood and Coles are, as one would expect, quickly getting to work. I'm told the two met with Editor-In-Chief Tracy Connor for breakfast and then lunched with senior staffers. In the afternoon, Sherwood and Coles then held a town hall with staffers — many of whom are naturally anxious about all the change — and answered questions for more than an hour. 

CNN Photo Illustration/Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The Gray Lady Gives Up: It's over! Joe Kahn, the top editor at The NYT, announced Monday that the newspaper had put an end to its leak probe without reaching a "definitive conclusion" over how a "significant breach occurred" after a questionable story about Hamas' terror attack on Israel. The leak hunt, which Kahn defended last week in an interview with The WSJ's Alexandra Bruell, was anything but a good look for the paper, with Bruell reporting that the probe was so intense that management had "summoned close to 20 employees for interviews." Not only is it a terrible look for news organizations (whose own reporters rely on confidential sources to do their jobs) to initiate leak investigations, the hunt to find the culprit(s) often does more harm than the actual leaks in destroying institutional trust. Plus, as any journalist knows, it's very difficult to actually identify a leaker! Anyway, I digress. Bruell has more here.

► As a reminder that The NYT failed to ID the leaker(s) responsible, The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Grim published a fresh story Monday about leaked guidance telling the newspaper's journalists to avoid using the terms "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" when covering the war. 

CNN Photo Illustration/Ask Dr. Drew

Dr. Drew's Far-Right Dance: What on Earth happened to Dr. Drew Pinsky? The American medical personality, who amassed a loyal following over the years via radio shows such as "Loveline" and television programs like "Celebrity Rehab," has totally jumped the shark and is now swimming in far-right waters. The latest example came Monday when Pinsky boasted on X about having interviewed right-wing conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec for his "Ask Dr. Drew" web show. A quick look at Pinsky's website, however, shows it wasn't a one-off. In fact, it is far from it. Years after peddling Covid-19 misinformation, Pinsky has effectively ripped off Alex Jones' Infowars, copying the style of the right-wing media outlet and obsessing over cancel culture, globalism, and other issues that animate the right. It's a sad fall down the rabbit hole for Pinsky, who was once considered a credible voice.

CNN Photo Illustration/Xavier Collin/Image Press Agency/Sipa/AP

Pay to Post: New X users will have to fork over money to Elon Musk in order to post. The erratic billionaire confirmed Monday in replies to various users that a fee will be implemented to fight the "relentless onslaught of bots" on the platform. It's unclear how much Musk will charge users, describing it only as a "tiny fee." The move represents the very real struggle Musk continues to find himself in as he attempts to scrub X of fake users plaguing the platform. But as users of the beleaguered site are well aware, the bot scourge has only grown more severe under Musk's ownership, despite his repeated pledges to rid the platform of spam. TechCrunch's Ivan Mehta has more here.

CNN Photo Illustration/A24

'Civil War' Conquers: Hollywood's hottest new studio keeps getting hotter. A24 not only topped the domestic box office over the weekend with "Civil War," the $25.7 million opening represented the biggest opening ever for the studio. That record is likely due, in part, to the buzz surrounding the film. While "Civil War" did an excellent job showcasing the risks that journalists take to report from war zones, director Alex Garland stayed clear of wading far into political waters — which has ignited debate. Critic Darren Franich argued in a piece for The Ankler that a movie called "Civil War" shouldn't "avoid politics this much." And CNN's Brian Lowry called it a "missed opportunity." After seeing the film myself, I couldn't agree more with Franich, Lowry, and other critics who have made such arguments. By choosing not to address the underlying cause of the civil war at the center of the plot, the film felt incomplete, failing to scratch the surface of the very topic the film was rooted in. The movie's most engrossing moment was the scene in which Jesse Plemons' character questioned the journalists, asking "What kind of American are you?" And that is because, as Franich wrote, "It’s the one time a character vividly represents a specific belief system. The man is — in no uncertain terms — a nationalist and a racist."

► To be fair, there are critics who praised "Civil War" for choosing not to dive into politics. Richard Newby contended in a piece for THR that it was "an abrasive and uncomfortable film, not because it fully subscribes to any particular ideology, but because it doesn’t — and we hate not having clearly defined sides to root for or against or media that doesn’t perfectly align with our worldview so we can walk out of the theater confidently knowing we’re a good person." Of course, I'd just point out: It didn't have to be an either/or scenario. It is possible to confront the current political moment head-on in a nuanced manner. Instead, choosing to look the other way came across as a cop-out. Yes, "Civil War" was still a great film, but it will leave many viewers wanting more.