You would have been justified in calling me out for somehow completely missing the announcement of Golden Globes nominees that as per usual of late took place in the wee small hours of the morning in early December. If you’ve been a regulat reader. or at least someone with nominal Google skills, you’d note I usually tend to pay attention to it and the event itself with outsized regularity. I devoted musings to them at least four previous times because I’m old school enough to remember when they actually had an equally outsized audience and influence on the awards season that they kick off. I also was fortunate enough to have attended them on several occasions when I had a vested interest in the winners and losers and was naive enough to believe they really mattered as much to the employers as they did to their employees.
But given what else has been going down of late in the corporate echelons of the network that covers them, we’ve been given a more than sobering reminder that that ain’t necessarily true. Nowhere in David Ellison’s manifesto did he reference anything of the sort–which is kind of a shame considering he’s declared that a company that actually is up for a few of them is worth to him and a few stray Saudis no less than twelve figures.
No less than FIVE Washington Post reporters–three with bylines (Shelly Tan, Ethan Beck, Amber Ferguson) plus two more contributors (Chiqui Esteban and Arfa Momin) were recruited to share this breaking news yesterday:
The Oscar season came into focus Monday morning with the announcement of the 2026 Golden Globe nominations. As expected, films like “One Battle After Another,” “Sentimental Value” and “Sinners” racked up multiple nominations, while “White Lotus,” “Adolescence” and “Only Murders in the Building” led television categories. The nominations were announced by Marlon Wayans and Skye P. Marshall. Comedian Nikki Glaser will be back again as host for the winners ceremony Jan. 11 on CBS
The Globes are often described as Hollywood’s biggest party, the tipsy, table-hopping kickoff to Oscars season where television and film share the same stage. Beyond the top prizes, Helen Mirren will receive this year’s Cecil B. DeMille Award for her contributions to film, while Sarah Jessica Parker would take the Carol Burnett Award in a nod to her television performances. Both will be celebrated during the Golden Eve primetime special on Jan. 8. Organizers also announced the addition of a Podcast of the Year award.
Who said quality journalism no longer exists at WaPo?
NBC NEWS needed only two such paid employees–Daniel Arkin and Saba Hamedy-to provide a tad more detail:
Twenty-seven performers became first-time nominees, including Rhea Seehorn (“Pluribus”), Paul Mescal (“Hamnet”), Dwayne Johnson (“The Smashing Machine”) and Michael B. Jordan (“Sinners”). Amanda Seyfried, Jacob Elordi and Jeremy Allen White were all double nominees, scoring nods for their acting in both film and television categories.
- Warner Bros.’ horror film “Weapons” snagged two nods, including one for Amy Madigan, who played breakout star Aunt Gladys (the inspiration for many Halloween costumes this year).
- Glen Powell received an acting nod for the Hulu show “Chad Powers.” While the actor has become a Hollywood favorite in recent years, his new show has received mixed reviews since it debuted in September.
- Both of Richard Linklater’s 2025 releases, “Blue Moon” and “Nouvelle Vague,” received nominations in the best picture (musical/comedy) category.
With all of those rookies and upstarts, a lot of more well-known people and projects got left at the curb. Surprisingly, it only took one USA TODAY reporter–Patrick Ryan–to tell that side of the story:
Wicked: For Good: In perhaps the most shocking snub of this year’s lineup, the “Wicked” sequel was omitted from the Globes’ best musical or comedy category.
Sydney Sweeney: The polarizing young star earned a standing ovation and ecstatic reviews out of Toronto Film Festival for her transformation in “Christy,” a sports biopic about real-life boxer Christy Martin. But the film’s glowing reception was overshadowed by poor box office and headlines around Sweeney’s controversial American Eagle jeans campaign, and ultimately has been a nonstarter this awards season.
Liam Neeson: If you need further proof that the awards engine is broken, look no further than Neeson’s inspired work in “The Naked Gun” reboot. The laugh-a-minute spoof showed up nowhere in this season’s nominations, while more dramatic turns from Jesse Plemons (“Bugonia”) and George Clooney (“Jay Kelly”) sneaked into the comedy category.
And once again, this revealed an uncomfortable truth about the Globes that an entity like CBS, certainly under the stewardship of Ellison et al, is likely not all that thrilled about. The Hollywood Foreign Press, even reconstituted after intense pressure and scrutiny, reflects an elitist, detached and yes, as some would incorrectly say, “woke” ‘tude. And even when it chose to take a decidedly bold step into the future by dipping their gilded toes into a burgeoning medium they didn’t quite get that right either. ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY’s Joey Nolfi brought that to light:
After previously introducing a controversial roster of potential nominees in its Best New Podcast category, the 2026 Golden Globes voting body opted not to include any divisive political commentators among its fresh competitive bracket.
In October, the Globes announced that podcasts hosted by Megyn Kelly, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Joe Rogan were among the 25 podcasts in contention for a nomination. The shortlist was primarily generated by the “Globes data partner, Luminate, the entertainment industry’s leading authority on audio analytics and insights,” per a press release.
The Best Podcast nominees are Armchair Expert With Dax Shepard, Alex Cooper’s Call Her Daddy, Good Hang With Amy Poehler, The Mel Robbins Podcast, SmartLess (cohosted by Jason Bateman, Sean Hayes, and Will Arnett), and NPR’s Up First.
The ASSOCIATED PRESS’ Mark Kennedy provided a megaphone for those who found this to be latest example of selective retention:
Ben Bogardus, a professor and chair of the journalism department at Quinnipiac University, said it seemed that the Globes’ voting body — after years of scandal for the beleaguered awards show — wanted to avoid any controversy, like inviting a podcast host who might show up and say something contentious.
“They’re trying to bill themselves as an award show that is for the masses and non-controversial, celebrating the best in entertainment. Having this political sideshow, I think they just wanted to avoid that,” he said.
The irony, of course, is that the sort of disruptions that have plagued recent Oscar and Emmy telecasts tend to come from those who have little business offering any opinions at all, and those that do clearly fall into the camp that is not occupied by those “divisive” commentators. And if you’re actually taking the commendable step of using objective third party data to give you a roadmap to this world you’ve previously not delved into, for the voters and producers to choose to draw their own conclusions of what their audience can tolerate is especially eyebrow-raising, if not galling.
I’m of the mindset that those who actually make a living offering nonstop opinions would likely know how to stay in their lane when they’re invited into otherwise alien territory. Unlike the pent-up frustrations of talent without such a pulpit, they’ve gotten what they have to say out of their systems, and are savvy enough to know not to waste it in an environment that they cannot directly monetize themselves. I sure would have loved to at least have been able to see what one of them would have done under the circumstances.
I also know that there’s an awful lot of CBS viewers that follow and support the non-nominees across the board, and a savvy researcher can use that Luminate data as well as other objective sources to prove it. At bare minimum the Globes’ voters should be atttuned to such realities and at least have included choices that would ensure a wider swath of demographics and ideologies to at least have a shot at the prize. By being self-limiting at the outset, it’s reigniting the same issues that helped the Globes lose more than two-thirds of its peak audience this century, not to mention the far more showcased position it used to have with NBC.
So again, apologies for the delayed response this time around, and I do vow to do my best to rectify that when the actual ceremony takes place. Provided, of course, that the world at large doesn’t again spoil the party. You’ll then have to find a podcast somewhere that will pick up the slack. Who knows what or where one might exist at that point? Hmmmm….
Until next time…