the bbc finds evidence of major success in clamping down on opium growing in afghanistan. live from our studio in singapore, this is bbc news. it s newsday. thank you for being with us. we start in ukraine, and the attack on a crucial dam in the south of the country. thousands of people have been forced to evacuate, because of rising flood waters. the dam sits between russian held territory to the south and ukrainian territory to the north. kyiv says that moscow is to blame, and so do nato and the eu, which has called the destruction a war crime . at a un meeting, russia has accused ukraine of sabotage. the uk prime minister, rishi sunak has said to kherson now, and this report from our ukraine correspondent, james waterhouse. i think it is still if you go by what us officials are saying just today it is still in its early phases. it has started nevertheless where ukrainian forces, small new units are probing different parts of this vast front line. they re trying to fin
in general, but the media companies have their own issues, which is part of why the strike is proving so intractable. again, i m trying to figure out, steve, as far as these numbers go, you re saying streaming is just terrible for the media companies, as far as their long-term revenue streams and their long-term viability? so far, streaming has been a huge money loser. a fair amount of revenue, as i showed you, but a lot of profit losses because there s so many of them, they re so competitive, and they ve spent so much money on product. over time, that should rationalize as some of them drop out, merge and consolidate, but it is not going to be like the good, old days where you had a few television networks that were functioning as an oligopoly. these streaming services look like they ll be losing money for a good while to come. what that means, steve,
benefit the sport. i mean, is this all about money? i think it is all about this all about money? i think it is all about money - it is all about money unfortunately. i think the pga tour, i don t know but i think the strategy was, and we are going to put a line in the sand, takea going to put a line in the sand, take a hard line stance against this, and if people don t watch their tournaments, and if we keep most of the best players in the world, then it will be a money loser. it won t make money in and the saudis will get bored or turn their attention elsewhere. that was a miscalculation. the saudis have money on a different tour different scale, theyjust played paid a soccer player $600 million to come and play in saudi arabia, so they were willing to keep spending, even if it was losing money, which would force the pga tour to do the same to keep its players but the pga tour doesn t have a $650 billion fund to draw from, so they had to go into responses, sponsors, their res
greater impact on this game than we can working apart. and i give him great credit for coming to the table, coming to discussions with an open heart and an open mind. we did the same. the game of golf is better for what we ve done here today. joining us now to discuss this, we have dan rapoport, and also david sanger, white house and national security correspondent for the new york times. dan, to you first. what changed? how did this come together? yeah. you don t want to oversimplify it but it is safe to say that money always wins. i think the pga tour a really hard-line stance on this. they said you have to choose one or the other. the saudis are so bad. they thought they could stamp them out. cut this problem at the root. if they turn the saudi entity, if they turn it into a money