With NHL national rights up in 2026, could Amazon be the big winner after MLSE deal?

Lawyers representing the producers of “Russians at War” say they may pursue legal action against Ontario’s public broadcaster for pulling support for the controversial documentary amid outcry from the Ukrainian community and some Canadian politicians.

A letter addressed to TVO’s board and management demands that the network immediately reinstate its commitment to air “Russians at War,” or allow the filmmakers to license the film to another broadcaster or streaming platform.

The letter says that if the matter can’t be resolved, the film’s producers will be left with “no choice but to pursue all legal remedies,” including claims for breach of contract, defamation, and damages associated with any loss of funding for the project.

“We trust that the board will recognize the gravity of this situation and act swiftly to rectify it,” lawyer Danny Webber of Hall Webber LLP wrote in the letter sent Thursday, adding that the law firm expects a response from TVO within 10 business days.

TVO board chair Chris Day told The Canadian Press that the broadcaster won’t publicly comment on legal matters.

The film by Russian-Canadian director Anastasia Trofimova — which captures the experiences of Russian soldiers on the front lines of the war in Ukraine — has sparked considerable backlash from Ukrainian officials and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, who called it “Russian propaganda.”

The documentary was produced in partnership with TVO and financed in part by the broadcaster’s allocation of Canada Media Fund resources. Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland has denounced the use of public funds to help produce and screen “Russians at War,” saying she shares the Ukrainian community’s “grave concerns” about the film.

Last week, TVO’s board of directors cancelled plans to air the documentary in the coming months, citing feedback it had received. That announcement came just days after the network defended the film as “antiwar” at its core

The letter from the film producers’ legal team called the decision “a clear violation of the filmmakers’ rights,” noting that TVO’s programming department approved every stage of the documentary’s production, “reviewing each cut of the film.”

The board’s decision also has “potentially catastrophic financial implications,” the letter says, because money secured from the Canada Media Fund is contingent on the documentary having a broadcast licence.

“By cancelling the broadcast commitment, TVO has placed the entire project’s financing in jeopardy, exposing the filmmakers to potential financial ruin,” it claims.

“Russians at War” was set to have its North American premiere during the Toronto International Film Festival, but screenings had to be postponed to Tuesday due to threats of violence against TIFF staff and operations, organizers said.

The film’s director, producers and TIFF organizers have all rejected claims that the documentary promotes Russian propaganda, saying it was filmed without the knowledge of the Russian government and without any kind of financing from Russia.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

LONDON (AP) — Scientists searching for the origins of COVID-19 have zeroed in on a short list of animals that possibly helped spread it to people, an effort they hope could allow them to trace the outbreak back to its source.

Researchers analyzed genetic material gathered from the Chinese market where the first outbreak was detected and found that the most likely animals were racoon dogs, civet cats and bamboo rats. The scientists suspect infected animals were first brought to the Wuhan market in late November 2019, which then triggered the pandemic.

Michael Worobey, one of the new study’s authors, said they found which sub-populations of animals might have transmitted the coronavirus to humans. That may help researchers pinpoint where the virus commonly circulates in animals, known as its natural reservoir.

“For example, with the racoon dogs, we can show that the racoon dogs that were (at the market) … were from a sub-species that circulates more in southern parts of China,” said Worobey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona. Knowing that might help researchers understand where those animals came from and where they were sold. Scientists might then start sampling bats in the area, which are known to be the natural reservoirs of related coronaviruses like SARS.

While the research bolsters the case that COVID-19 emerged from animals, it does not resolve the polarized and political debate over whether the virus instead emerged from a research lab in China.

Mark Woolhouse, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Edinburgh, said the new genetic analysis suggested that the pandemic “had its evolutionary roots in the market” and that it was very unlikely COVID-19 was infecting people before it was identified at the Huanan market.

“It’s a significant finding and this does shift the dial more in favor of an animal origin,” Woolhouse, who was not connected to the research, said. “But it is not conclusive.”

An expert group led by the World Health Organization concluded in 2021 that the virus probably spread to humans from animals and that a lab leak was “extremely unlikely.” WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus later said it was “premature” to rule out a lab leak.

An AP investigation in April found the search for the COVID origins in China has gone dark after political infighting and missed opportunities by local and global health officials to narrow the possibilities.

Scientists say they may never know for sure where exactly the virus came from.

In the new study, published Thursday in the journal Cell, scientists from Europe, the U.S. and Australia analyzed data previously released by experts at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. It included 800 samples of genetic material Chinese workers collected on Jan. 1, 2020 from the Huanan seafood market, the day after Wuhan municipal authorities first raised the alarm about an unknown respiratory virus.

Chinese scientists published the genetic sequences they found last year, but did not identify any of the animals possibly infected with the coronavirus. In the new analysis, researchers used a technique that can identify specific organisms from any mixture of genetic material collected in the environment.

Worobey said the information provides “a snapshot of what was (at the market) before the pandemic began” and that genetic analyses like theirs “helps to fill in the blanks of how the virus might have first started spreading.”

Woolhouse said the new study, while significant, left some critical issues unanswered.

“There is no question COVID was circulating at that market, which was full of animals,” he said. “The question that still remains is how it got there in the first place.”

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

NEW YORK (AP) — Amid the curated electronic music, models’ cold stares and magazine editors lining the runway at New York Fashion Week this season, several designers felt a particular sense of urgency.

In a little over a month, they will learn whether they have won of one of the most coveted competitions for emerging designers: The Council of Fashion Designers of America/Vogue Fashion Fund.

The fund, which has catapulted past participants including Proenza Schouler and Thom Browne into the upper echelons of fashion, marks its 20th anniversary this year. It provides 10 finalists with access to industry leaders, with mentorship on everything from growing their brands to showing at New York Fashion Week. This year’s judges include Browne, Vogue Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour, Saks fashion director Roopal Patel and CFDA CEO Steven Kolb.

There’s also a financial prize: Winners are awarded $300,000, while two runner-ups receive $100,000 each. To be eligible, designers must be U.S.-based, employ fewer than 30 people and bring in less than $10 million in revenue.

The magnitude of the fund weighs on current finalist Grace Ling, originally from Singapore. Ling, who was honored with the CFDA’s first Asian American and Pacific Islander Genesis grant totaling $100,000 in February, was able to scale up her business from a one-woman show to hiring an additional employee to help with production.

“For the last three years, I have basically been a one-man show,” she said. Winning this fund would allow her to level up immediately.

At Ling’s show, “Neanderthal,” a diverse group of models glided past a jutting rock formation in 3D-printed aluminum looks, carrying her playful purses — including her signature butt bag, shaped like a sculpted derriere. Backstage, Ling described the collection as a modern, sensual interpretation of what she calls primitive chic.

Kolb said the fund separates new designers from the mass of new brands vying for attention.

“The fashion fund is also beyond the tangible mentorship or grant, it’s a visibility play,” the CEO said.

It took Sebastien and Marianne Amisial four tries before they were accepted to the 2024 fund for their brand Sebastien Ami. They began operating the brand during the height of the pandemic and debuted their latest collection, incorporating menswear and unisex looks of olive-flocked denim and pops of bright color into their first New York Fashion Week runway show.

“We did this on a shoestring,” Marianne Amisial said. “It’s just the ability to do something with nothing. And that’s what we’ve done for the last four years.”

Louisiana designer Christopher John Rogers, who grew his brand out of a Bushwick apartment and has since dressed Michelle Obama and Tracee Ellis Ross, won the fund in 2019. Rogers told The Associated Press that the victory gave him the resources to hire a team, produce his second collection and move into a design studio in Soho.

“For me it really meant actually having a shot at running a business and starting a business,” he said.

Shawn Grain Carter, a fashion business management professor at the Fashion Institute of Technology, said designers have to be strategic about their growth strategy, control expenses and do what’s best for their brands.

“Sometimes people think to go to scale means you have to be like Michael Kors,” she said of the big-name brand. “And that’s not the case. I tell emerging designers, you have to be profitable with gross margin profits, whether you are a $5 million company or a $500,000 company or a $5 billion company.”

Jackson Wiederhoeft, known for his theatrical runway shows and corsets, is participating in the fund for a second time after he a transformative experience in 2022.

“The first fashion fund was the reason we started doing runway shows,” he said. “That was very much at the suggestion of Vogue and CFDA.”

He has gone on to produce five more fashion shows — his latest three-part act opened with a choreographed dance performance and closed with 26 size-inclusive veiled models wearing his trademark white wasp satin corsets.

While prepping for his fashion week show, Wiederhoeft was also submitting his final look for the fashion fund’s design challenge, which CFDA and Vogue brought back this year after a pandemic-induced pause. As part of the exercise, overseen by Tommy Hilfiger, designers created a look based on the theme “Stars and Stripes.”

The CFDA and Vogue continue to support its finalists past the fund. Rogers and past finalist House of Aama will be taking their designs to the CFDA/Vogue Americans in Paris Initiative during Paris Fashion Week. Rebecca Henry of House of Aama said the showcase comes at a pivotal time as the brand looks to expand.

“We are just looking at how to expand into other markets and especially the international markets,” she said.

Straight after her runway show, Ling was preparing for market appointments, where buyers can come view her collection at her midtown Manhattan showroom. Regardless of whether she wins, she’s already thinking about what’s next.

“I’m thinking five years down the road,” she said. “I’m thinking 10 years. I’m thinking about tomorrow.”