Connect with us

Business

Commentary: The quality that defines the squalor of our business and government leadership — absence of Character

Published

on

Commentary: The quality that defines the squalor of our business and government leadership — absence of Character

The best lesson I learned during my formative years in journalism came from the editor at my first daily newspaper job, Doug Turner of the late Buffalo Courier-Express.

I had told him that the councilmen at the suburban town I was covering were trying to bully me out of writing a critical story. Turner, who had spent a career covering local- and state-level politicians, replied, “Bully them back. They’ll fold. These guys have no character.”

That moment came back to me a couple of weeks ago, thanks to an online post by Josh Marshall, founder and proprietor of the estimable blog talkingpointsmemo.com. Writing a few days after massive layoffs at the Washington Post, Marshall observed of the paper’s publisher, Will Lewis, and its owner, Jeff Bezos, that their failure “to even show up, literally or figuratively, on a day of devastating cuts epitomizes the profound lack of character and accountability that is so commonplace today within the American elite.”

Our efforts at diversity, equity and inclusion remind and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all.

— Costco pushes back against attacks on DEI

Advertisement

There was that word again: “Character.”

Marshall put his finger on the flaw that exists among our business and government leaders. It’s the absence of character.

The quality can be hard to define precisely, but we know it when we see it, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s personal, subjective test for obscenity in a famous 1964 case. We can also know it by its absence.

Philosophers, ministers, judges, novelists and historians have all taken a crack at defining “character.” Often they search for it in some variety of moral truth (another quality that can be hard to define).

Advertisement

It can encompass steadfastness in the face of adversity, selflessness, self-sacrifice, honesty and integrity in one’s dealings with others. It doesn’t demand to be displayed in public. On the contrary, sometimes it unfolds out of the public eye; self-abnegation can be a reliable marker of character.

Literary masters have grappled with defining character. Tolstoy’s great novels, “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina,” are all about the journeys of his major figures from self-doubt and selfishness to a higher moral plane, not always successfully — he himself was so doubtful about whether he had accurately traced their trajectories that toward the end of his life he disavowed those great works as inadequate.

Faulkner found it in the patient, steadfast Dilsey of “The Sound and the Fury,” and in his greatest novel, “Absalom, Absalom!” he showed how its absence led inexorably to the ruin of Thomas Sutpen.

Character emerges in adversity. A most recent example comes from Ilia Malinin, the American figure skater whose hopes for an individual gold medal in the Olympics, which had been regarded as a preordained inevitability evaporated in a mistake-laden routine. Coming off the ice, Malinin forthrightly congratulated the winner, Mikhail Shaidorov of Kazakhstan, as if to communicate that Shaidorov won the prize from his own efforts, not from Malinin’s failure. The encounter signaled that Malinin will remain a major figure in the sport for years to come.

For us today, the term “character” allows us to avoid unprofitable debate over how to define the current administration. Is it “racist”? “Corrupt”? “Mendacious?” Applying those judgments invites partisan quibbling, because accusations of racism, corruption and lying can be colored by the eye of the beholder. But to say the administration can be defined as a lack of character—the term subsumes all those other judgments, and is much harder to question.

Advertisement

As Josh Marshall observed, abundant examples of the singular lack of character in our national leaders is vividly on display. Let’s take a look.

What’s a better way to describe Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi’s appearance before a House committee last week, during which she tried to evade questions about her failure to release documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings by finger-pointing at her questioners, keeping her back turned to the Epstein victims in the room behind her and citing the Dow Jones industrial average’s spike above 50,000 as a counterargument to her own inadequacies, as a singular lack of character?

When the preening Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth launched a campaign to demote the retired Navy captain and current Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, a combat veteran and former astronaut, because of Kelly’s reminder to active servicemen that they need not follow illegal orders (a statement Hegseth himself has made) he was displaying singular lack of character — and underscoring Kelly’s own abundance of character.

The people of Minneapolis have displayed remarkable communal character in their relentless and peaceful battle against the government’s incursion into their private life. Who has displayed a lack of character? Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, her henchman Greg Bovino, and other defenders of this openly counterfeit campaign against illegal immigrants in their city.

Congress is a hive of low-character performance, full of individuals who have supplanted their responsibilities to the Constitution and the public interest with flagrant careerism.

Advertisement

Among those at the top of the list is Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a physician who cast the deciding vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of Health and Human Services, despite Kennedy’s history of anti-vaccination activity. Cassidy has never adequately responded to my question about his support for Kennedy.

Facing a tough primary challenge, Cassidy showed recently that his lack of character extends beyond matters of healthcare regulation when he praised President Trump for taking down an overtly racist social media post attacking the Obamas, writing on X, bizarrely, that Trump has “made significant inroads with his outreach in the African American community…. His post sent the wrong message despite how it may have been originally intended.”

In business, who has shown a lack of character? There’s Apple CEO Tim Cook, who gifted Trump with a crystal plaque on a gold base as part of his effort to secure an exemption for Apple from Trump’s tariffs.

Count the corporate executives who have shown their lack of character by bowing to right-wing pressure to abandon their commitments to diversity, equality and inclusion — you know, “DEI.” A notable exception: Costco, which has maintained its diversity programs in the face of partisan backlash, and improved its bottom line as a result. That’s a reminder that one can do well while doing good, a lesson in the virtues of character.

“Our efforts at diversity, equity and inclusion remind and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all,” Costco said in its 2024 proxy statement, pushing back against a proposed shareholder resolution insinuating that Costco’s DEI program “holds litigation, reputational and financial risks to the Company, and therefore financial risks to shareholders.” (The resolution failed at Costco’s annual meeting last year.)

Advertisement

Then there are the directors and executives of pharmaceutical companies who price their products for maximal profits without caring much about the impact of unaffordability on the patients whose lives depend on those products. Back in the 2010s, for instance, executives at Gilead Sciences pondered how much to charge for Sovaldi, its miracle cure for hepatitis C.

As I reported at the time, they concluded Gilead could make a profit by charging $55,000 per 12-week treatment. But they decided to charge $84,000, which would deliver higher profits from fewer patients.

They refused to offer anything but minimal discounts to big insurers and Medicaid programs, even though they acknowledged that thousands of patients might have to go without the treatments. “Let’s not fold to advocacy pressure … whatever the headlines,” one top executive counseled his colleagues.

As a historical counterweight, consider Jonas Salk, the inventor of the polio vaccine, who refused to patent it. Asked by Edward R. Murrow in 1955 who owned the rights to the polio vaccine, he replied, “The people, I would say. … There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”

Recent history provides us with numerous cases of individuals who have shown their character at the cost of their physical and financial well-being. Among the heroes of the civil rights movement in the 1960s were many who lost their lives in the effort, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Medgar Evers, or suffered severe physical injury, such as the late John Lewis.

Advertisement

I always admired former California Gov. Jerry Brown for his devotion to public service, a true avatar of character. In 2010, when he was running for his third gubernatorial term, his Republican challenger, the business magnate Meg Whitman, placed the firing of thousands of public employees to cut wasteful spending at the forefront of her platform.

Brown could have joined the chorus of critics of government “waste, fraud and abuse” — a perennially popular take for politicians — but he chose the opposite path. These people had devoted their lives to public service, Brown pointed out during a debate with Whitman. They had committed to teaching our children, cleaning up our air and water, holding dishonest businesses to account. That was an expression of character.

Brown, indeed, displayed character throughout his long political career: Fifteen years after serving two terms as governor, in 1998, he ran for mayor of Oakland, surely one of the most challenging and thankless jobs in California politics — and won. He never, ever apologized for being a “politician,” but saw politics as a noble calling.

The search for character among our politicians and business leaders could easily turn into a parlor game — draw a line down a piece of paper, with “Has Character” on one side and “No character” on the other, and compile two antipodean lists. But there’s more at stake than entertaining ourselves.

It was not always so. The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence knew their expression of character placed them at mortal risk. That’s why the document ends with their mutual pledge of “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” If we are to preserve our republic and our economy, restoring men and women of character to our leadership is an indispensable goal.

Advertisement

Business

After Warner Bros. merger, changes are coming to the historic Paramount lot. Here’s what to expect

Published

on

After Warner Bros. merger, changes are coming to the historic Paramount lot. Here’s what to expect

With Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of Warner Bros. expected to saddle the combined company with $79 billion in debt, Paramount executives are looking to do away with redundant assets including real estate — and there is a lot of that.

Chief in the public’s imagination are their historic studios in Burbank and Hollywood, where legendary films and television show have been made for generations and continue to operate year-round.

“Both of these studios are in the core [30-mile zone,] the inner circle of where Hollywood talent wants to be,” entertainment property broker Nicole Mihalka of CBRE said. “It’s very prime real estate.”

When Sony and Apollo were bidding for Paramount in early 2024, their plan was to sell the Paramount property, but there is no indication that Paramount would part with its namesake lot.

For now, Paramount’s plan is to keep both studios operating with each studio releasing about 15 films a year, but the goal is to eventually consolidate most of the studio operations around the Warner Bros. lot in Burbank in order to to eliminate redundancies with the Paramount lot on Melrose Avenue, people close to Chief Executive David Ellison said.

Advertisement

A view of the Warner Bros. Studios water tower Feb. 23, 2026, in Burbank.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Paramount would not look to raze its celebrated studio lot — the oldest operating film studio in Los Angeles — because of various restrictions on historic buildings there. Paramount also has a relatively new post-production facility on site and will likely need to the studio space.

Instead, the plan would be to lease out space for film productions, including those from combined Paramount-HBO streaming operations. Ellison also is considering plans to develop other parts of the 65-acre site for possible retail use, as well as renting space for commercial offices.

Advertisement

The studios’ combined property holdings are vast, and real estate data provider CoStar estimates they have about 12 million square feet of overlapping uses, including their studio campuses, offices and long-term leases in such film centers as Burbank, Hollywood and New York.

Century-old Paramount Pictures Studios is awash in Hollywood history — think Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond desperately trying to enter its famous gate in “Sunset Boulevard,” and other classics such as “The Godfather,” “Titanic” and “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.”

The lot, however, is a congested warren of stages, offices, trailers and support facilities such as woodworking mills that date to the early 20th century. The layout is byzantine in part because Paramount bought the former rival RKO studio lot from Desilu Productions to create the lot known today.

Warner Bros. occupies 11 million square feet and owns 14 properties totaling 9.5 million square feet, largely in the United States and United Kingdom, CoStar said. About 3 million square feet of that commercial property is in the Los Angeles area.

The firm’s portfolio also includes the sprawling Warner Bros. Studios Leavesden complex in the U.K. and Turner Broadcasting System headquarters in Atlanta.

Advertisement

Paramount Skydance occupies 8 million square feet and owns 14 properties totaling 2.1 million square feet, according to CoStar. In addition to its Hollywood campus, Paramount’s holdings include prominent buildings in New York such as the Ed Sullivan Theater and CBS Broadcast Center.

Warner Bros. operates a 3-million-square-foot lot in Burbank with more than 30 soundstages — along with space for building sets and backlot areas — where famous movies including “Casablanca” and television shows such as “Friends” were filmed. Paramount’s 1.2-million-square-foot Melrose campus anchors a broader network of owned and leased production space, CoStar said.

Paramount’s lot is already cleared for more development. More than a decade ago, Paramount secured city approval to add 1.4 million square feet to its headquarters and some adjacent properties owned by the company.

The redevelopment plan, valued at $700 million in 2016, underwent years of environmental review and public outreach with neighbors and local business owners.

The plan would allow for construction of up to 1.9 million square feet of new stage, production office, support, office, and retail uses, and the removal of up to 537,600 square feet of existing stage, production office, support, office, and retail uses, for a net increase of nearly 1.4 million square feet.

Advertisement

The proposal preserves elements of the past by focusing future development on specific portions of the lot along Melrose and limited areas in the production core, architecture firm Rios said.

The Warner Bros. and Paramount lots “are two of the most prime pieces of real estate in the country,” Mihalka said. “These are legacy assets with a lot of potential to be [tourist] attractions in addition to working studios.”

Hollywood is still reeling from previous mergers, in addition to a sharp pullback in film and television production locally as filmmakers chase tax credits offered overseas and in other states, including New York and New Jersey.

Last year, lawmakers boosted the annual amount allocated to the state’s film and TV tax credit program and expanded the criteria for eligible projects in an attempt to lure production back to California. So far, more than 100 film and TV projects have been awarded tax credits under the revamped program.

The benefits have been slow to materialize, but Mihalka predicts that the tax credits and desirability of working close to home will lead to more studio use in the Los Angeles area, including at Warner Bros. and Paramount.

Advertisement

“These are such prime locations that we’ll see show runners and talent push back on having shows located out of state and insist on being here,” she said. “I think you’re going to see more positive movement here.”

Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Business

How our AI bots are ignoring their programming and giving hackers superpowers

Published

on

How our AI bots are ignoring their programming and giving hackers superpowers

Welcome to the age of AI hacking, in which the right prompts make amateurs into master hackers.

A group of cybercriminals recently used off-the-shelf artificial intelligence chatbots to steal data on nearly 200 million taxpayers. The bots provided the code and ready-to-execute plans to bypass firewalls.

Although they were explicitly programmed to refuse to help hackers, the bots were duped into abetting the cybercrime.

According to a recent report from Israeli cybersecurity firm Gambit Security, hackers last month used Claude, the chatbot from Anthropic, to steal 150 gigabytes of data from Mexican government agencies.

Claude initially refused to cooperate with the hacking attempts and even denied requests to cover the hackers’ digital tracks, the experts who discovered the breach said. The group pummelled the bot with more than 1,000 prompts to bypass the safeguards and convince Claude they were allowed to test the system for vulnerabilities.

Advertisement

AI companies have been trying to create unbreakable chains on their AI models to restrain them from helping do things such as generating child sexual content or aiding in sourcing and creating weapons. They hire entire teams to try to break their own chatbots before someone else does.

But in this case, hackers continuously prompted Claude in creative ways and were able to “jailbreak” the chatbot to assist them. When they encountered problems with Claude, the hackers used OpenAI’s ChatGPT for data analysis and to learn which credentials were required to move through the system undetected.

The group used AI to find and exploit vulnerabilities, bypass defences, create backdoors and analyze data along the way to gain control of the systems before they stole 195 million identities from nine Mexican government systems, including tax records, vehicle registration as well as birth and property details.

AI “doesn’t sleep,” Curtis Simpson, chief executive of Gambit Security, said in a blog post. “It collapses the cost of sophistication to near zero.”

“No amount of prevention investment would have made this attack impossible,” he said.

Advertisement

Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment. It told Bloomberg that it had banned the accounts involved and disrupted their activity after an investigation.

OpenAI said it is aware of the attack campaign carried out using Anthropic’s models against the Mexican government agencies.

“We also identified other attempts by the adversary to use our models for activities that violate our usage policies; our models refused to comply with these attempts,” an OpenAI spokesperson said in a statement. “We have banned the accounts used by this adversary and value the outreach from Gambit Security.”

Instances of generative AI-assisted hacking are on the rise, and the threat of cyberattacks from bots acting on their own is no longer science fiction. With AI doing their bidding, novices can cause damage in moments, while experienced hackers can launch many more sophisticated attacks with much less effort.

Earlier this year, Amazon discovered that a low-skilled hacker used commercially available AI to breach 600 firewalls. Another took control of thousands of DJI robot vacuums with help from Claude, and was able to access live video feed, audio and floor plans of strangers.

Advertisement

“The kinds of things we’re seeing today are only the early signs of the kinds of things that AIs will be able to do in a few years,” said Nikola Jurkovic, an expert working on reducing risks from advanced AI. “So we need to urgently prepare.”

Late last year, Anthropic warned that society has reached an “inflection point” in AI use in cybersecurity after disrupting what the company said was a Chinese state-sponsored espionage campaign that used Claude to infiltrate 30 global targets, including financial institutions and government agencies.

Generative AI also has been used to extort companies, create realistic online profiles by North Korean operatives to secure jobs in U.S. Fortune 500 companies, run romance scams and operate a network of Russian propaganda accounts.

Over the last few years, AI models have gone from being able to manage tasks lasting only a few seconds to today’s AI agents working autonomously for many hours. AI’s capability to complete long tasks is doubling every seven months.

“We just don’t actually know what is the upper limit of AI’s capability, because no one’s made benchmarks that are difficult enough so the AI can’t do them,” said Jurkovic, who works at METR, a nonprofit that measures AI system capabilities to cause catastrophic harm to society.

Advertisement

So far, the most common use of AI for hacking has been social engineering. Large language models are used to write convincing emails to dupe people out of their money, causing an eight-fold increase in complaints from older Americans as they lost $4.9 billion in online fraud in 2025.

“The messages used to elicit a click from the target can now be generated on a per-user basis more efficiently and with fewer tell-tale signs of phishing,” such as grammatical and spelling errors, said Cliff Neuman, an associate professor of computer science at USC.

AI companies have been responding using AI to detect attacks, audit code and patch vulnerabilities.

“Ultimately, the big imbalance stems from the need of the good-actors to be secure all the time, and of the bad-actors to be right only once,” Neuman said.

The stakes around AI are rising as it infiltrates every aspect of the economy. Many are concerned that there is insufficient understanding of how to ensure it cannot be misused by bad actors or nudged to go rogue.

Advertisement

Even those at the top of the industry have warned users about the potential misuse of AI.

Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, has long advocated that the AI systems being built are unpredictable and difficult to control. These AIs have shown behaviors as varied as deception and blackmail, to scheming and cheating by hacking software.

Still, major AI companies — OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, and Google — signed contracts with the U.S. government to use their AIs in military operations.

This last week, the Pentagon directed federal agencies to phase out Claude after the company refused to back down on its demand that it wouldn’t allow its AI to be used for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons.

“The AI systems of today are nowhere near reliable enough to make fully autonomous weapons,” Amodei told CBS News.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

iPic movie theater chain files for bankruptcy

Published

on

iPic movie theater chain files for bankruptcy

The iPic dine-in movie theater chain has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and intends to pursue a sale of its assets, citing the difficult post-pandemic theatrical market.

The Boca Raton, Fla.-based company has 13 locations across the U.S., including in Pasadena and Westwood, according to a Feb. 25 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach division.

As part of the bankruptcy process, the Pasadena and Westwood theaters will be permanently closed, according to WARN Act notices filed with the state of California’s Employment Development Department.

The company came to its conclusion after “exploring a range of possible alternatives,” iPic Chief Executive Patrick Quinn said in a statement.

“We are committed to continuing our business operations with minimal impact throughout the process and will endeavor to serve our customers with the high standard of care they have come to expect from us,” he said.

Advertisement

The company will keep its current management to maintain day-to-day operations while it goes through the bankruptcy process, iPic said in the statement. The last day of employment for workers in its Pasadena and Westwood locations is April 28, according to a state WARN Act notice. The chain has 1,300 full- and part-time employees, with 193 workers in California.

The theatrical business, including the exhibition industry, still has not recovered from the pandemic’s effect on consumer behavior. Last year, overall box office revenue in the U.S. and Canada totaled about $8.8 billion, up just 1.6% compared with 2024. Even more troubling is that industry revenue in 2025 was down 22.1% compared with pre-pandemic 2019’s totals.

IPic noted those trends in its bankruptcy filing, describing the changes in consumer behavior as “lasting” and blaming the rise of streaming for “fundamentally” altering the movie theater business.

“These industry shifts have directly reduced box office revenues and related ancillary revenues, including food and beverage sales,” the company stated in its bankruptcy filing.

IPic also attributed its decision to rising rents and labor costs.

Advertisement

The company estimated it owed about $141,000 in taxes and about $2.7 million in total unsecured claims. The company’s assets were valued at about $155.3 million, the majority of which coming from theater equipment and furniture. Its liabilities totaled $113.9 million.

The chain had previously filed for bankruptcy protection in 2019.

Continue Reading

Trending