Longtime WaPo journalist David Maraniss calls out Jeff Bezos, pay TV suffers horrific Q1, Donald Trump whines about Fox News, WIRED catches Perplexity's A.I. bot scraping Condé Nast sites, "Inside Out 2" continues to break records and breathe life into the summer box office, Justin Timberlake's attorneys respond to DWI charge, Taylor Swift nears several Billboard records, and so much more. But first, the A1.

Musk's Advertiser Metamorphosis

CNN Photo Illustration/Richard Bord/WireImage/Getty Images

Elon Musk told advertisers last year to "go fuck yourself." This year, he is showcasing a much different attitude.

The erratic billionaire, realizing that he very much needs major advertisers to power X, was in the South of France on Wednesday, attending Cannes Lions, the world's largest advertising festival. Sitting for an interview with Mark Read, the chief executive of marketing giant WPP, Musk was immediately — and directly — confronted with his past rhetoric toward the advertising community.

"Back in November you had a message to us. You told us to go fuck ourselves, so maybe we start there," Read said, not mincing any words. "Why did you say that and what did you mean?"

Musk, striking a starkly different tone from when he fumed at the advertising community during his infamous interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin, asserted that he hadn't actually directed his profane remarks toward "advertisers as a whole." This time, in what amounted to a tepid walk-back of his previous attitude, Musk agreed that advertisers do indeed "have a right to appear next to content that they find compatible with their brands."

"That's totally fine," Musk said, as if that had been his position all along. Setting up a straw man, he then added, "What is not cool is insisting that there can be no content they disagree with on the platform."

Of course, major advertisers have never insisted that X — or any social media company — ensure that their platforms are entirely free of "content they disagree with." What advertisers have voiced displeasure with is when their paid marketing is placed directly next to hate speech or other forms of toxic content, which X has repeatedly done.

But perhaps more discouraging to the advertising community had been Musk's own unhinged behavior. The SpaceX and Tesla boss has gleefully promoted conspiracy theories, used his perch as the most-followed X account to launch ugly attacks on critics, smeared the news media, worked to stifle free speech that inconveniences him, and elevated political extremists on the platform, among other offensive actions. Last year, in the wake of the October 7 terrorist attack in Israel, Musk casually endorsed an antisemitic conspiracy theory, only apologizing days later after coming under immense pressure.

Put together, it's is no mystery why major brands have taken their advertising dollars elsewhere.

Not only has X proven to be an unsafe advertising environment for their brands, but the leader of the company himself has engaged in the very toxic behavior they don't want their companies associated with. Which is why brands fled X in droves last year, dealing a devastating blow to the company's business, which had been largely fueled by advertising. Musk even said at the time that the damage to X's bottom line was so great, it could eventually kill the company.

Musk likely does not want to see the platform go the way of the woolly mammoth, which is why he is now trying to woo advertisers back. The trouble for the mercurial mogul is that, despite his ability to sometimes say the correct words at events such as Cannes Lions, the real Musk is not brand safe — and neither is his platform. 

In just the last month, Musk has blasted the Associated Press as a supposed "far left propaganda machine," claimed "the left has become an extinctionist movement," advanced a version of the Great Replacement Theory by arguing that President Joe Biden's administration is engaged in "voter importation" from Mexico, assailed The Washington Post as a "far left propaganda publication," promoted the notion that the Democratic Party is engaged in "lawfare" against Republicans, contended that the conviction of Donald Trump was "abuse of the law for political purposes," and endorsed the notion that diversity and equity programs are making science dangerous, among other things.

That is not the type of rhetoric blue chip companies want their carefully curated brands anywhere near. And until Musk's actions on X start to match the calculated show he puts on for advertisers when trying to win over their business, it is hard to see major brands returning en masse to his platform. 

CNN Photo Illustration/Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

Backlash for Bezos: The well-respected, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Maraniss, who has worked at The WaPo since 1977, called for a leadership change at the Jeff Bezos-owned newspaper Wednesday night. Maraniss, who retains the title of associate editor at The WaPo, wrote in a candid Facebook post, "I don't know a single person at the Post who thinks the current situation with the publisher and supposed new editor can stand. There might be a few, but very very few." Maraniss went on to say that Bezos "owns the Post but he is not of and for the Post or he would understand." Reflecting what other Posties have told me, Maraniss added, "The issue is one of integrity not resistance to change." Spokespersons for The WaPo and Bezos did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

But the post from Maraniss is yet another sign that The WaPo body is rejecting the Will Lewis organ transplant, if you will. And it's difficult — if not impossible — to lead an organization, especially a newsroom, if there is no one following. Making matters worse for Bezos, stories about Lewis are continuing to trickle out. The WaPo and The NYT investigative teams will not suddenly cease chasing the story. And the Prince Harry lawsuit drawing attention to the Rupert Murdoch U.K. hacking scandal is still six months away from trial. Which means plenty more ink will be devoted to Lewis in the days, weeks, and months ahead. And its hard to believe it will be for flattering new stories.

On Wednesday, The Guardian published the latest damaging headline. Anna Isaac and Stephanie Kirchgaessner reported that, as an informal adviser to Boris Johnson, Lewis advised the then-embattled U.K. prime minister and his senior staff to "clean up" their phones amid the Covid-era "Partygate" scandal. "Sources said they understood they were being advised to remove photos and messages from their phones that could be damaging in any investigations," Isaac and Kirchgaessner reported. Spokespeople for Lewis and Johnson told The Guardian that the story was "untrue." Regardless, it's stories like these that Bezos and Lewis will have to endure should nothing change.

And can Lewis really lead effectively if he is the subject of unrelenting bad press? Can The WaPo newsroom effectively function ahead of one of the nation's most high-stakes elections when their leader is ensnared in such drama? Surely, Bezos is weighing these considerations as he decides how he will actually tackle the mounting problem at his newspaper. 

CNN Photo Illustration/Brendan McDermid/Reuters

Trump's Fox Tantrum: He's at it again! Donald Trump turned to his Truth Social platform Wednesday to rage at Fox News, claiming "nobody can ever trust" the network. "And I am one of them," he added. Of course, Trump's rhetoric flies in the face of his very own actions. Not only did the anti-Fox post come hours after he shared a clip from the channel on Truth Social, but it also came a day after we reported that Trump shares content from the Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch-controlled network more than any other outlet. A Fox News spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment. 

🔎 Zooming in: Much of Trump's beef with the network stems from the fact that "lightweight" Paul Ryan, a semi-vocal critic of his, sits on the board of parent company Fox Corporation. Trump urged the Murdochs — again — on Wednesday to "get that dog off" their board. They've, of course, resisted doing so for years as Trump throw his temper tantrums. 

CNN Photo Illustration/Dado Ruvic/Reuters

Perplexity's Problems: A.I. startup Perplexity has a lot of answering to do. An investigation conducted by WIRED's Dhruv Mehrotra and Tim Marchman, in collaboration with developer Robb Knight, found that the A.I. bot's scraper had hit Condé Nast's portfolio of websites at least 822 times — despite all of them having inserted code that restricts bots from doing just that. Making matters worse, WIRED and Knight found that the Jeff Bezos and Nvidia-funded company has an alarming tendency to hallucinate when asked questions. While Perplexity boasts that it provides "instant, reliable answers," it is "prone to bullshitting," Mehrotra and Marchman reported. Read the full report here.

► When asked for comment, a spokesperson for Perplexity said, "The questions from WIRED reflect a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of how Perplexity and the Internet work." Accusing WIRED — of all publications — of not understanding how the internet works is quite a move!

CNN Photo Illustration/Disney

Inside Out-Performing: Movie theater owners are rejoicing. "Inside Out 2" continues to perform phenomenally at the box office, eying $30 million on Wednesday — a record for Juneteenth, Deadline's Anthony D'Alessandro reported. And the Pixar film shows no signs of slowing down, invigorating the otherwise sleepy start to the summer movie season. Over at Box Office Theory, analyst Shawn Robbins forecast the animated movie will rake in $76 to 87 million in its second weekend. "No competition for the family audience, a retention of premium screens, excellent buzz from box office headlines, the quality of the film itself, and the heart of summer season vacations are factors that should combine to propel one of the top five second frames ever for animation," he wrote. More from Robbins here.

► Related read: THR's Pamela McClintock reports on how "Inside Out 2" broke the "box office curse."