This year’s Golden Globes boasts new faces, new voters, new categories, and a new network. Is it enough?
When the 81st Golden Globes arrive on Sunday, January 7, it may look a lot like the award show you remember: informal, mildly erratic, with caustic self-roasts and some nominees that cause a few spit takes.
But beneath its tipsy exterior, a lot has changed for the show. It has a new owner, a new network (CBS), a new host in comedian Jo Koy, new voting requirements, and crucially, more than triple the number of voting members.
Most importantly, after barely surviving a watershed scandal that nearly brought an end to our favorite quirky awards night, the Golden Globes have a lot to prove about what kind of awards show they want to become in the future.
What does that mean for the show? Mainly that, despite a return to relative normalcy — Barbenheimer and Succession lead this year’s nominations — no one is entirely sure what the new Golden Globes will be.
A year of firsts
This year’s Golden Globes are poised to be a fresh start on multiple fronts. Among the year’s nods are nearly 30 first-time nominees, including industry veterans like Chris Rock and Trevor Noah and newcomers like Finnish actress Alma Pöysti, nominated for Best Actress for her turn in the rom-dramedy Fallen Leaves.
The traditional — and sometimes confusing — split between genres has also gotten a shake-up, with the addition of two new categories for TV standup comedy performance and cinematic and box office achievement. (Though you might think the latter category is a strictly Billboard-style award based on metrics, it’s not entirely objective; the profitable but much-maligned conservative rallying point Sound of Freedom wasn’t on the list.)
Koy will likely also bring a different tone to the role of host. The Globes historically indulge in self-mockery, with hosts often taking aim at their guests and the entire Hollywood apparatus. In its past life, the production rarely feared courting controversy and daring to offend. This time, however, producers have vowed to keep things relentlessly positive and to keep the party vibes going above all else. Koy has declared the evening “a celebration,” not just for the Globes but for an industry that’s battled its way back, first from a global pandemic and then the most intense industry strikes in recent memory.
Whether they can pull the party off, though, especially given the pressure the event is under, will be easier said than done.
What happened to the old Golden Globes again?
Among the pantheon of Hollywood awards shows, the Golden Globes have always felt a bit like the boozy cousin living in the basement of the Oscars. Careening from controversy to controversy, the Globes are usually saved, certainly not by their taste, but by their quirks, attendees’ irreverence, and the high likelihood of at least one drunken acceptance speech thanks to the ceremony’s open bar.
In recent years, however, not even soused Emma Thompson has been able to save them. The 2021 Globes seemed to sink under the weight of their increasing irrelevance. Just how irrelevant became clear in a major months-long scandal over longstanding corruption and entrenched racism in the Globes’ organizing body, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA).
Last year, the HFPA finally came to an end — and with it, presumably, the decades of scandal that tainted the awards. In its place, the Globes’ longstanding producer, Dick Clark Productions, took over the show with the goal of turning things around for the beleaguered awards.
The HFPA was historically a small, select, and non-public body of around 90 people, all of whom were supposed to be entertainment journalists. For decades, the industry had chafed over the sentiment that this tiny, secretive club used its unearned privilege — unearned because who the heck even were these people? — to garner access to Hollywood’s elite. In exchange, the HFPA grew notorious for nominating, not based on artistic merit, but based on whichever marketing campaign wooed voters the hardest.
And thanks to the perception that the Globes can influence the Oscars, woo they did. Since the Academy has over 10,000 voting members, the logic held, it was easier to directly influence 90 people to give your movie attention for the Globes and then hope that momentum carried through to Oscar night. At various points in the past, the Oscars have attempted to circumvent this trap by cutting off voting before the Globes ceremony occurs. Meanwhile, the Globes have sometimes changed their schedule to be closer to the Oscars, presumably to keep the tag-team impression (and thus their relevance) alive.
All that changed in 2021 when, under increasing scrutiny from the industry, an investigation by the Los Angeles Times found that, in addition to its long and well-documented history of alleged corruption, the organization was allegedly rife with sexism and systemic racism: None of its 87 members was Black. Not only that, but the HFPA hadn’t had a Black member in at least 20 years.
After so many years of resentment against the HFPA, the industry backlash after this revelation was so fierce that the HFPA collapsed. First, the awards show fell apart, with celebrities refusing to attend or present awards and longtime network NBC refusing to air the ceremony. After the organization promised to expand and change, for a brief moment things looked up. The Globes were acquired by Eldridge Industries, a business management firm co-founded and run by billionaire sports investor Todd Boehly, with the initial goal of creating a new private firm to control the HFPA and run the Globes. But even though the 2023 Globes were a relative success, viewership was abysmal at an average of just 6.3 million, NBC declined to renew its longstanding partnership with the awards, and despite its promise to change, the HFPA continued to flounder.
The final death knell for the HFPA came in June 2023. Instead of creating an independent company to oversee the awards, Eldridge sold the Globes to a subsidiary, the Globes’ longtime production partner, Dick Clark Productions (DCP). The sale went through with the provision that DCP would completely dissolve the 80-year-old press association and turn the Globes into a for-profit enterprise.
Will all that change impact the awards? Yes and no!
Dick Clark Productions is perhaps best known for producing the annual New Year’s Eve live celebration in Times Square, but it’s also been producing the Golden Globes since the ’80s. Named after the late popular event host, DCP has a long resume of awards shows under its belt, as well as reality shows like So You Think You Can Dance.
Because of DCP’s longstanding production of the Globes, its acquisition of the show shouldn’t make much of a difference in the overall aesthetic and format of this year’s ceremony. The voting membership, however, has undergone a much-needed overhaul. Eligibility requirements have expanded and membership has tripled to 300 members. The basic premise of membership — you have to be a journalist writing for a media outlet outside of the US — remains the same.
Already, the nominations feel less out of step with the culture than they have in years past — less inconsistent with fewer head-turning and baffling nominees. While there are some snubs in the lineup, most of the choices make sense. The frontrunners, including Barbie, Oppenheimer, and Succession, are all mainstream critical favorites, and so far, predictions for who will take home the acting prizes seem to align squarely with the rest of the critical establishment.
Still, if there’s one thing the Globes have taught us, it’s that there’s always room for the unexpected. After all, it’s not quite clear that the strange, co-dependent relationship that once existed between the voters and the industry has entirely ended. Add to that the fresh possibilities afforded by this year’s blank slate and the odds are good that at least one or two shocking upsets could well be on the menu.
But then, those record-scratch moments are why we love the Globes: Even when they’re serving us a quizzical trainwreck, we just can’t look away.
Detroit may put the land-value tax to the test
Over the last six months, an obscure housing policy idea has emerged as one of the most talked about proposals to revive Detroit, Michigan — an idea that could potentially spur development on the city’s vast amount of vacant property as well as lower the city’s punishingly high taxes on homeowners. Economists are buzzing with interest, and the city’s mayor, Mike Duggan, is all in.
Meet the land-value tax, a form of taxation rarely tried in the United States despite being popularized globally by an American political economist in the 19th century. Versions of the tax have been implemented in countries all over the world, including Mexico, Denmark, Singapore, Russia, and Taiwan.
For nearly all of US history, American property taxes have taken a pretty standard form. Individuals pay a tax based on the assessed value of their land, buildings, and any other improvements to their property combined. If you renovate your house and make it nicer, for example, your overall property tax could go up. The proposed land-value tax in Detroit, by contrast, would effectively tax land at a higher rate than any buildings or amenities on the property.
Mayor Duggan, who is spearheading the effort, hopes this land-value tax idea will incentivize development on blighted property as well as offer some tax relief to homeowners, who bear some of the highest rates in the country. The Duggan administration estimates that under his proposal 97 percent of Detroit homeowners will see an average decrease of 17 percent in property tax. The proposal is not about lowering taxes generally, but about increasing taxes on those who own vacant land (a big problem in the city) and decreasing future taxes on people who develop their land.
“I think it is an important idea for any place where people are holding onto valuable land that could be used for more productive purposes,” James Hohman, the director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan, told Vox.
Duggan had hoped to put the idea before Detroit voters in February, during Michigan’s presidential primary, but proponents say their best hope at this point is the November ballot, after constituents have had more time to learn about what exactly they’re voting on. First, the Michigan legislature must pass a law permitting Detroit to levy a “split-rate” property tax at all. While a Detroit state representative introduced a bill to do just that in September, other Democratic lawmakers felt the whole thing was moving too fast. “I believe in proper process. I believe in democracy, and quite frankly, not enough of us are voting on primaries,” said Detroit City Council Member Gabriela Santiago-Romero, in October.
The Duggan administration still hopes to implement the land-value tax in 2025. “Ultimately it will be the voters who decide for themselves,” John Roach, a mayoral spokesperson, told Vox.
If it passes, Detroit would become the largest American city to enact a land-value tax, a fact that could spur other communities in the US to follow suit. A land-value tax could help address the nation’s housing crisis by encouraging more housing development — like building new accessory dwelling units in backyards or brand-new multistory apartment buildings on vacant property. A land-value tax could also help other communities reverse their declining fortunes through more equitable growth. It’s a lot of ifs, but policymakers, researchers, and housing activists say the chance to test the theory has never been closer in reach.
Why now?
Property taxes have long been a critical source of local public funding in the US, making up 48 percent of local government self-sourced revenue across the country in 2021. While many communities factor the value of land into their overall property tax rate, only a handful have had taxes on land specifically.
“Property taxes are [some of] the oldest taxes levied by state and local governments and there’s a lot of protections for property tax in state constitutions,” said Hohman. “Because it’s been a reliable source of local revenue most governments haven’t felt the need to experiment.”
But a number of factors in Detroit, in addition to the city’s steep property tax rate on homeowners, have helped make the city a more ripe candidate for a land-value tax. Detroit has had a declining population for decades — peaking in the 1950s at 1.85 million — and has been grappling with large amounts of vacant land under private, public, and nonprofit ownership. (About 17 percent of Detroit’s 138 square miles is vacant.) Advocates say a land-value tax could also offer something of a fiscal buffer to Detroit, which continues to see the strength of its once more powerful auto and manufacturing industries decline.
Though the land-value tax idea is not new, it reemerged back in 2019 when a Detroit development group and a local philanthropy commissioned a study by the Cambridge-based Lincoln Institute of Land Policy to see how the idea might work in their city. The report was issued in April 2022. (The research was discussed at a conference the Lincoln Institute hosted in November for 30 housing journalists, which I attended.)
The mayor threw his backing behind the concept this past May, and though the specific details have changed somewhat in recent months, the basic idea of taxing land at a higher rate than buildings remains intact. According to the Detroit Free Press, those who would be hit the hardest under the proposal are land speculators who own vacant lots, owners of empty and decrepit buildings, owners of scrap yards and auto salvage yards, and parking lot owners. Owners of urban farms, community gardens, and side lots would be protected. Some supporters of the land-value tax idea think the Duggan administration’s proposal doesn’t even go far enough.
Economists are in support of the idea. In November, the University of Chicago’s Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets published a poll of 41 leading economists around the world, including four Nobel laureates, and 83 percent agreed or strongly agreed that the land-value tax would boost Detroit’s local growth over the next decade. Fifty-three percent agreed or strongly agreed that Detroit’s proposal would enhance incentives for owners to develop land.
One reason Detroit may be able to take a more radical-seeming step on land taxation is that Detroit’s status quo is not working very well for the city government. The study conducted by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy found that in 1959, Detroit’s property tax raised over $1 billion, when adjusted for inflation. Sixty years later, that number was just $119 million. “If this was 80% of our revenues, we’d be a lot more nervous,” Jay Rising, Detroit’s chief financial officer, told the Economist.
Despite raising less overall from property taxes compared to the past, the city’s high rate has been brutal on low-income homeowners, who also often suffer from inaccurate assessments of their property’s value. One study published in 2019 found that 1 in 4 city properties went into tax foreclosure between 2011 and 2015 due to owners falling behind on their bills. The land-value tax would in theory offer relief to homeowners, and reduce the amount of foreclosures in the city.
Advocates point to the experience in Pittsburgh as the strongest evidence in the US that this is worth trying. Pennsylvania broadly has the longest history of implementing split-rate land-value taxes with more than a dozen Pennsylvania cities and school districts having adopted it. Pittsburgh, however, which had a split-rate tax from 1913 until 2001, is the most prominent example. One study from 1997 found the land-value tax played a significant role in boosting investment in downtown Pittsburgh, and helped the city avoid tax increases overall. Other research found that split-rate taxes in Pennsylvania encouraged denser housing development and influenced business formation decisions.
Pittsburgh abandoned its split-rate tax in 2001 following a countywide reassessment that dramatically increased land values, prompting a voter backlash. Pittsburgh had failed to keep up with accurate and routine tax assessments for decades, so then when they finally did one, homeowners were not pleased to see a massive spike in their property tax liabilities.
“The policy was seen as unfair because it went up all of a sudden, and policymakers abandoned it and used the split-rate tax as a scapegoat for bad execution,” said Andrew Justus, a housing policy analyst at the Niskanen Center. “Pittsburgh’s experience shows the importance of administrative competence in implementing good ideas.”
Some Democratic lawmakers in Michigan say they’re concerned about taking a policy gamble on a majority-Black city. Other Detroit constituents have expressed general distrust of the city’s mayor and ideas he’s enthusiastic about, arguing there are other reforms needed to stave off eviction and foreclosure.
Roach, Duggan’s spokesperson, said Michigan’s Democratic House Speaker Joe Tate indicated he will bring up the Detroit land-value tax idea for a vote in January. The next step after that would be for the Detroit City Council to approve language for the proposal to be on the November 2024 ballot.
Detroit has more problems than just one tax can solve
Given the experience in Pittsburgh and other Pennsylvania municipalities, few think a land-value tax will be some sort of silver bullet for Detroit. Yet most experts believe it will still be ultimately a smart move for the city, and make Detroit more enticing to business, investors, and new residents.
Alex Alsup, the vice president of research and development at Regrid, a land parcel data company, said it’s possible that speculators absorb the higher taxes and continue to leave their land vacant — an outcome that would be relatively disappointing. A better outcome would be for the owner to either invest in their land or sell the lot to someone else who wants to. It’s also possible, Alsup said, that the speculator gives up on paying their higher tax and the lot ends up in foreclosure.
“Tax foreclosure may not be the worst thing for speculator-owned vacant homes and land, so long as the city is prepared to exercise its right to take control of these properties before they actually reach the annual tax foreclosure auction,” Alsup wrote recently in the Detroit Free Press. “The next job would be a more thoughtful approach to getting properties into the hands of people who will put them into productive use.”
Some Detroit activists argue that a land-value tax will fail if not paired with fixing the city’s notoriously broken property assessment process, which often undervalues expensive homes and over-values less valuable ones. “Like a lot of American cities Detroit has historically struggled with accurate and frequent assessments and particularly at the low-end of the value spectrum,” said Justus, of the Niskanen Center. “I think critics have a legitimate concern that the city will need to keep up with accurate and fair assessments, but it’s not insurmountable.”
Though a land-value tax might prove to be a political winner in Detroit, advocates acknowledge the political calculus might not be so optimistic everywhere. In some cases, it could seem very unfair to people who budgeted and invested under certain assumptions, and not every city will be able to tout a solid tax break to more than 95 percent of homeowners.
“There are some places where the political cost may be too high, making it not worth it to incite backlash,” said Hohman, of the Mackinac Center. Still land-value tax proponents have their eyes on more than just Detroit, and the Motor City might just be the proof point they need.
What the tranche of recently unsealed court documents contain.
On Wednesday, a judge unsealed a new set of filings from a court case tied to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a tranche that’s been colloquially — and misleadingly — referred to as “the list.”
Even before their release, the documents reignited long-gestating conspiracy theories about prominent figures who were once in Epstein’s orbit, including former President Bill Clinton and GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, while providing both Democrats and Republicans with a new opportunity to attempt to link their opponents with Epstein’s crimes.
Because the documents were misrepresented on social media as a “list” of potential Epstein clients or co-conspirators, there was a major focus on who and what they would expose and whether prominent Epstein associates would be explicitly tied to his trafficking of minors. In reality, many people referenced in these documents are not accused of wrongdoing, and the filings are not a “client list” as some surmised.
Instead, the “list” is actually dozens of documents from a 2015 court case filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre against his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, who has been convicted of child sex trafficking. These documents reference roughly 150 of Epstein’s associates, including Clinton and Trump, but don’t provide significant new information so much as they offer a more in-depth look at the people in Epstein’s circles.
Despite the lack of revelations thus far, political actors, particularly those on the right, remain eager to utilize the information in these filings to continue amplifying the conspiracy theories they’ve long promoted.
What is the “Epstein list”?
Following a request from the Miami Herald, the judge in the Maxwell case, Loretta Preska, ruled in favor of unsealing the documents from a defamation case against Maxwell, arguing that much of the information was already public.
Epstein, a millionaire businessman charged with sex trafficking, and Maxwell, a former socialite and longtime confidant of Epstein, have faced numerous allegations they contributed to the sexual abuse and assault of minors and helped other powerful individuals do the same. Epstein’s death, which was ruled a suicide by federal authorities, occurred in prison while he was awaiting trial.
The unsealed documents (which retain some redactions) come from a variety of court filings and depositions with figures key to the case, including former employees and victims of Epstein and Maxwell.
The depositions in particular contain accusations of sexual misconduct by figures in Epstein and Maxwell’s circles, narratives on how Maxwell recruited girls and young women to work at Epstein’s properties, and details of sex acts at least some of those recruited were coerced into, often under the guise of giving massages.
Who’s mentioned and what did we learn about them?
There are a number of famous politicians and celebrities who are mentioned. In addition to Clinton and Trump, the UK’s Prince Andrew, former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, and former Sen. George Mitchell, among others, make appearances. Clinton and Trump have also fielded allegations of sexual misconduct unrelated to Epstein, though not everyone mentioned has.
- Bill Clinton, who is known to have taken several plane trips with Epstein, is mentioned, though the references do not detail wrongdoing. Epstein accuser Johanna Sjoberg testified as part of the case and said that Epstein told her that “Clinton likes them young,” but that she wasn’t aware of Clinton engaging in any sexual contact with minors at Epstein’s invitation.
A Clinton spokesperson has said that the former president had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and that he had not contacted Epstein in more than a decade.
- Donald Trump is mentioned. Sjoberg testified that Epstein once discussed going to a casino in Atlantic City with him, though the references do not detail wrongdoing. In 2002, Trump previously said that he had known Epstein for “15 years” and that he was a “terrific guy” who “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” In 2019, he later distanced himself from Epstein after allegations of sex trafficking came out, saying he was “not a fan.”
- Prince Andrew appears in Sjoberg’s deposition; she accused him of groping her breast, allegations that Buckingham Palace has previously denied. Sjoberg added that someone took a photograph of the groping and that she was ushered out of the room after it happened, while Giuffre remained with Andrew.
Prince Andrew has also separately settled a case with Giuffre, who has accused him of sexual abuse which he denied.
- Attorney and former Trump impeachment counsel Alan Dershowitz is mentioned and accused of having sexual relations with a minor referred to as Jane Doe #3 in the documents and witnessing the abuse of additional girls. Dershowitz has posted a video denying these allegations.
Previously, Giuffre had also accused Dershowitz of sexual misconduct toward her, though she later changed her statement and stated that she “may have made a mistake” identifying Dershowitz. Dershowitz has also pointed to this development in response to the allegations.
- Other famous names mentioned include magician David Copperfield, who allegedly spoke with Sjoberg about Epstein and is not accused of any wrongdoing. Jean-Luc Brunel, a deceased modeling scout, is another individual Giuffre said she was forced to have sexual relations with and is cited as someone who helped Epstein acquire girls for trafficking. Richardson and Mitchell are also listed as people who Giuffre says she was forced to have sexual relations with; both have denied these allegations.
What is the significance of the “list” and does it matter?
The documents refocus the spotlight on Epstein as well as the powerful men associated with him, raising fresh questions about their involvement with his crimes. That other documents remain sealed and Epstein isn’t available to offer his firsthand account only add to the uncertainty inherent in these questions and offer new fuel to conspiracy theories.
On the right, Epstein’s death by suicide has been a central source of conspiracy fodder, including in bolstering unfounded claims that Epstein is an example of the Clintons having their political enemies killed. Additionally, the far right has tried to use Epstein’s ties to various Democrats to push unsubstantiated claims about the party promoting a pedophilia ring, a conspiracy theory known as QAnon, which has been used to boost support for Trump.
As Vox’s Anna North has explained, those on the left have linked Epstein’s death to unfounded claims of Trump orchestrating the deaths of his political foes as well. Additionally, there have been efforts to use Trump’s history of sexual assault and rape allegations to suggest he was a direct participant in Epstein’s crimes.
The conspiracies have even ensnared those with nothing to do with the Epstein case. In a Tuesday appearance on ESPN, football player Aaron Rodgers suggested Jimmy Kimmel could be named in the documents. Rodgers’s Kimmel reference followed a joke the late-night host had previously made calling Rodgers a “tin-foil hatter” for fueling speculation about the Epstein list.
Kimmel was quick to claim Rodgers’s comments had serious fallout. “Your reckless words put my family in danger,” Kimmel said in a social media statement.
As the Pizzagate situation in 2016 highlighted, these conspiracy theories can have real-world consequences and implications. That year, internet trolls on the right also promoted a false conspiracy theory that prominent Democrats had formed a sex-trafficking ring targeting children and that they used pizza establishments like Comet Ping Pong in Washington, DC, to do so. Because of this, the restaurant suffered significant harassment and saw a gunman visit its premises and fire inside.
Thus far, the Epstein conspiracies have yet to result in comparable consequences, though there are concerns they could fuel misinformation and similarly charged scenarios amid the highly polarized political environment of the 2024 election.