New Zealand has joined 24 other countries in calling for an end to the war in Gaza, and criticising what they call the inhumane killing of Palestinians.
“We condemn the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food.”
They said it was “horrifying” that more than 800 civilians had been killed while seeking aid, the majority at food distribution sites run by a US- and Israeli-backed foundation.
“We call on the Israeli government to immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid and to urgently enable the UN and humanitarian NGOs to do their life saving work safely and effectively,” it said.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters . . . “The tipping point was some time ago . . . it’s gotten to the stage where we’ve just lost our patience.” Image: RN/Mark Papalii
“Proposals to remove the Palestinian population into a ‘humanitarian city’ are completely unacceptable. Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law.”
The statement said the countries were “prepared to take further action” to support an immediate ceasefire.
Reuters reported Israel’s foreign ministry said the statement was “disconnected from reality” and it would send the wrong message to Hamas.
“The statement fails to focus the pressure on Hamas and fails to recognise Hamas’s role and responsibility for the situation,” the Israeli statement said.
Having NZ voice heard Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters told RNZ Morning Report, New Zealand had chosen to be part of the statement as a way to have its voice heard on the “dire” humanitarian situation in Gaza.
“The tipping point was some time ago . . . it’s gotten to the stage where we’ve just lost our patience . . . ”
Peters said he wanted to see what the response to the condemnation was.
“The conflict in the Middle East goes on and on . . . It’s gone from a situation where it was excusable, due to the October 7 conflict, to inexcusable as innocent people are being swept into it,” he said.
“I do think there has to be change. It must happen now.”
The war in Gaza was triggered when Hamas-led militants attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.
Israel’s subsequent air and ground war in Gaza has killed more than 59,000 Palestinians — including at least 17,400 children, according to the enclave’s Health Ministry, while displacing almost the entire population of more than 2 million and spreading a hunger crisis.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Israel has rejected a statement by 25 countries calling for an end to the war on Gaza as a move “disconnected from reality and sends the wrong message to Hamas.”
View of the 2023 Perseid meteor shower from the southernmost part of Sequoia National Forest, US.NASA/Preston Dyches
In recent days, you may have seenarticles claiming the “best meteor shower of the year” is about to start. Unfortunately, the hype is overblown – particularly for observers in Australia and New Zealand.
The shower in question is the Perseids, one of the “big three” – the strongest annual meteor showers. Peaking in the middle of the northern summer, the Perseids are an annual highlight for observers in the northern hemisphere.
As a result, every year social media around the world runs rife with stories about how we can enjoy the show. For an astronomer in Australia, this is endlessly frustrating – the Perseids are impossible to see for the great majority of Australians and Kiwis.
Fortunately, there are a few other meteor showers to fill the void, including a pair that will reach their peak in the next seven days.
What are the Perseids?
Every year, Earth runs into a stream of debris laid down over thousands of years by comet 109P/Swift–Tuttle. The comet swings around the Sun every 133 years or so, shedding dust and debris each time. Over the millenia, that material has spread to create a vast stream.
Animation of comet Swift–Tuttle’s orbit from 1850 to 2150. The blue orbit is Earth, magenta is the comet, with Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus’s orbits in green, red and yellow respectively. Phoenix7777/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA
Earth starts to run into debris from Swift–Tuttle in mid-July, and takes six weeks to pass through the stream. When the dust and debris hit Earth’s atmosphere, the resulting meteors create bright streaks in the sky – a meteor shower.
For most of that time, the dust we encounter is very widely spread, and so few meteors are seen. Around August 12, Earth reaches the densest part of the Perseid stream and the shower reaches its peak.
The Perseids aren’t even the ‘best’ meteor shower
Comet Swift–Tuttle last passed through the inner Solar System in 1992. With the comet nearby, Earth encountered more dust and debris, making the Perseids the best meteor shower of the year.
In the decades since, the comet has receded to the icy depths of the Solar System, and the peak rates for the Perseids have fallen off.
The “best” (most abundant) meteor shower of the year is now the Geminids. However, for people in the northern hemisphere, the Perseids are still well worth looking out for.
The curse of the spherical Earth
All meteor showers have a “radiant“– the point at which meteors seem to originate in the sky. This is because, for a given shower, all the debris hitting Earth comes from the same direction in space.
The debris from comet Swift–Tuttle crashes towards Earth from above the north pole, and at an angle. As a result, for people at a latitude of 58 degrees north, the Perseid radiant would be directly overhead in the early hours of the morning.
If a meteor shower’s radiant is below the horizon, you won’t see any meteors – Earth is in the way, and all the dust and debris is hitting the other side of the planet. It’s exactly the same reason you can’t see the Sun at nighttime.
Given the location of the Perseid radiant, it will never rise for observers south of 32 degrees. This means anyone below that line will never see any Perseids.
In theory, anyone north of 32 degrees south latitude can see the Perseids – but there are other complications.
The higher a shower’s radiant is in the sky, the more meteors you will see. This is why the Perseids can’t put on a great show for people in Australia. Even in the far north of Australia, the Perseid radiant remains low in the sky at its highest. For most Australians, the Perseids will be a spectacular disappointment.
Look for these meteor showers instead
If you’re keen to see a meteor shower from Australia or New Zealand, it’s best to cross the Perseids off your list. Fortunately, there are other options.
Every May, Earth passes through debris left behind by comet 1P/Halley, creating the Eta Aquariid meteor shower – only visible in the hours before dawn. For Australian observers, that’s the second best shower of the year.
At the end of July each year, two minor meteor showers reach their peaks: the Southern Delta Aquariids and Alpha Capricornids. This year, they peak on 29 and 30 July, with the best views coming in the hours around midnight. It’s a perfect time to head out to a dark sky site and relax under the stars – the centre of the Milky Way is high overhead in the evening sky, and these two showers provide some added fireworks to make the sky extra special.
Then, in December, comes the true “best shower of the year” – the Geminids. Reaching a peak on 14 and 15 December, the Geminids always put on a spectacular show. Unlike the Perseids, it can be seen from all across our island continent and in Aotearoa.
If you really want to see a great meteor shower, skip the Perseids and plan to head somewhere dark this summer, to spend a couple of nights relaxing under the stars.
Jonti Horner does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
As the electrification of transport and heating accelerates, many worry the increased demand could overload national power grids. In Australia, electricity consumption is expected to double by 2050.
If everyone charges their car and heats water using electric systems at the same time, peak demand could rise sharply, forcing costly grid upgrades. But this would only happen if there’s no planning done.
The shift to electric vehicles (EVs) and electric water heating has a huge silver lining. As more Australians make the switch, they’re quietly expanding a vast network of distributed energy storage. In a fully electrified future, each person could have on average about 46 kilowatt hours worth of energy storage – both in EV batteries and hot water systems.
Scaled up, that’s a huge resource. If all cars and water heaters run on electricity, their combined flexible energy storage could reach over 1,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh) across Australia. That’s far beyond the 350 GWh capacity of the Snowy 2.0 hydroelectric project and all existing grid-scale batteries put together.
Authorities can use these devices to help operate the grid more efficiently and slash infrastructure costs. In fact, our new research shows that with the right coordination, cities can transform from energy consumers into flexible energy hubs able to store energy and release it as necessary. This would make it possible to avoid billions of dollars worth of grid upgrades.
Storage built in
Electrification replaces fossil fuel-burning technology with electric-only systems, powered by a grid getting steadily cleaner.
For households, electrification means switching a combustion engine car for an EV and replacing gas hot water with electric systems such as heat pumps. Both slash carbon emissions when run on grids with high levels of renewables.
EVs and electric hot water systems offer more than just mobility or heating. They also have built-in energy storage. EV batteries store huge amounts of electricity – usually several times the size of a house battery. Hot water systems store energy too, in the form of heat.
Both of these resources are very useful to power grid authorities, because they can help optimise how the grid operates.
Power grids are a constant balancing act, where supply and demand have to be carefully matched up. At times of intense demand, such as during a heatwave, demand can outstrip normal supply and send prices skyrocketing.
When EVs are charged and water heated during off-peak periods, the strain on the grid can be significantly lessened.
Workplace EV chargers are convenient for drivers – and very useful for the grid. jixiang liu/Shutterstock
Canberra is pointing the way
Since 2020, Canberra has been 100% powered by renewable electricity. The ACT Government is aiming for net zero by 2045.
In our modelling, we found this goal could get a lot closer if EVs and hot water systems are used cleverly. We found changing the time cars are charged and water heated would shift around 5 kWh of electricity per person per day. That’s about a third of each Canberra resident’s average daily electricity use.
Unmanaged charging and water heating would cause peak load to jump 34%. But if charging and heating was shifted to off-peak hours overnight, it could restrict the rise in peak load to just 16%.
Reducing the rise in peak load would make it possible to avoid billions of dollars in grid upgrades such as expanding substations and building more transmission lines.
Where flexibility matters most
We found Canberra’s new energy storage resources are concentrated in storage hotspots – densely populated areas with many electric hot water systems and where many EVs are parked during the day.
Importantly, these hotspots don’t stay put. During working hours, vehicle batteries tend to concentrate in high-density office areas where EVs are parked. Storage capacity rose up to 31% in some Canberra working districts during the working week.
It would make sense to make the most of these hotspots by installing smart chargers, which optimise the timing of EV charging and creating virtual power plants, which can coordinate the time when household devices and EVs draw power.
Both of these approaches offer a cost-effective way to aggregate small scale household devices into a large coordinated storage resource.
Aligning demand with solar peaks means using renewable energy which might otherwise go to waste during peak times.
This map shows Canberra’s storage hotspots averaged out. EV batteries are in blue and electric hot water storage in orange. Bin Lu, CC BY-NC-ND
Policy needs to catch up
Capturing the huge benefits from these new storage resources won’t happen automatically. It requires smart systems and supportive policies.
Technologies such as smart chargers and virtual power plants already exist. South Australia’s Virtual Power Plant shows what’s possible in practice.
But to date, most Australian households don’t have these kinds of smart systems. In many areas, electricity pricing is relatively inflexible and there’s limited coordination between flexible energy use and the needs of the grid.
To unlock the full potential of this huge new energy storage resource, governments and energy companies should:
encourage uptake of smart chargers and smart water heaters in buildings
expand dynamic pricing schemes which better reflect real-time supply and demand to help shift electricity use to off-peak periods
focus on rolling out workplace EV chargers in high-density areas to boost charging during solar peak periods
develop smart energy systems able to aggregate devices in individual households into a large grid-supporting fleet.
More demand – but more storage
As Australia increasingly goes electric, cities are becoming more than just energy consumers.
Rather, they’re becoming flexible energy hubs able to help balance supply and demand.
Used wisely, humble electric water heaters and EVs can do more than meet household needs — they can help power Australia’s clean energy future.
Bin Lu received research funding from the Icon Water & ActewAGL Endowment Fund.
Marnie Shaw has received funding from federal and state governments.
Spurred on by hashtags and usernames indicating these feats involve steroids, soon Mark is online, ordering his first “steroid cycle”. No script, no warnings, just vials in the mail and the promise of “gains”.
A few weeks later, he’s posting progress shots and getting tagged as #MegaMark. He’s pleased. But what if I told you Mark was unknowingly injecting toxic chemicals?
In our new research we tested products sold in Australia’s underground steroid market and found many were mislabelled or missing the expected steroid entirely.
Even more concerning, several contained heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and cadmium. These substances are known to cause cancer, heart disease and organ failure.
What are anabolic steroids, and who is using them?
Anabolic steroids are synthetic drugs designed to mimic the effects of testosterone. Medical professionals sometimes prescribe them for specific health conditions (for example, hypogonadism, where the body isn’t making enough sex hormones). But they are more commonly taken by people looking to increase muscle size, improve athletic performance, or elevate feelings of wellbeing.
In Australia, it’s illegal to possess steroids without a prescription. This offence can attract large fines and prison terms (up to 25 years in Queensland).
Despite this, they’re widely available online and from your local “gym bro”. So it’s not surprising we’re seeing escalating use, particularly among young men and women.
People usually take steroids as pills and capsules or injectable oil- or water-based products. But while many people assume these products are safe if used correctly, they’re made outside regulated settings, with no official quality checks.
For this new study, we analysed 28 steroid products acquired from people all over Australia which they’d purchased either online or from peers in the gym. These included 16 injectable oils, ten varieties of oral tablets, and two “raw” powders.
An independent forensic lab tested the samples for active ingredients, contaminants and heavy metals. We then compared the results against what people thought they were taking.
More than half of the samples were mislabelled or contained the wrong drug. For example, one product labelled as testosterone enanthate (200mg/mL) contained 159mg/mL of trenbolone (a potent type of steroid) and no detectable testosterone. Oxandrolone (also known as “Anavar”, another type of steroid) tablets were sold claiming a strength of 10mg but actually contained 6.8mg, showing a disparity in purity.
Just four products matched their expected compound and purity within a 5% margin.
But the biggest concern was that all steroids we analysed were contaminated with some level of heavy metals, including lead, arsenic and cadmium.
While all of the concentrations we detected were within daily exposure limits regarded as safe by health authorities, more frequent and heavier use of these drugs would quickly see people who use steroids exceed safe thresholds. And we know this happens.
If consumed above safe limits, research suggests lead can damage the brain and heart. Arsenic is a proven carcinogen, having been linked to the development of skin, liver and lung cancers.
People who use steroids often dose for weeks or months, and sometimes stack multiple drugs, so these metals would build up. This means long‑term steroid use could be quietly fuelling cognitive decline, organ failure, and even cancer.
What needs to happen next?
Heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and cadmium often contaminate anabolic steroid products because raw powders sourced from some manufacturers, particularly those in China, may be produced with poor quality control and impure starting materials. These metals can enter the supply chain during synthesis, handling, or from contaminated equipment and solvents, leading to their presence in the final products.
Steroid use isn’t going away, so we need to address the potential health harms from these contaminants.
While pill testing is now common at festivals for drugs such as ecstasy, testing anabolic steroids requires more complex chemical analysis that cannot be conducted on-site. Current steroid testing relies on advanced laboratory techniques, which limits availability mostly to specialised research programs such as those in Australia and Switzerland.
We need to invest properly in a national steroid surveillance and testing network, which will give us data‑driven insights to inform targeted interventions.
We also need to see peer‑led support through trusted programs to educate people who use steroids around the risks. The programs should be based in real evidence, and developed by people with lived experience of steroid use, in partnership with researchers and clinicians.
Timothy Piatkowski receives funding from Queensland Mental Health Commission. He is affiliated with Queensland Injectors Voice for Advocacy and Action as the Vice President. He is affiliated with The Loop Australia as the research lead (Queensland).
Spurred on by hashtags and usernames indicating these feats involve steroids, soon Mark is online, ordering his first “steroid cycle”. No script, no warnings, just vials in the mail and the promise of “gains”.
A few weeks later, he’s posting progress shots and getting tagged as #MegaMark. He’s pleased. But what if I told you Mark was unknowingly injecting toxic chemicals?
In our new research we tested products sold in Australia’s underground steroid market and found many were mislabelled or missing the expected steroid entirely.
Even more concerning, several contained heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and cadmium. These substances are known to cause cancer, heart disease and organ failure.
What are anabolic steroids, and who is using them?
Anabolic steroids are synthetic drugs designed to mimic the effects of testosterone. Medical professionals sometimes prescribe them for specific health conditions (for example, hypogonadism, where the body isn’t making enough sex hormones). But they are more commonly taken by people looking to increase muscle size, improve athletic performance, or elevate feelings of wellbeing.
In Australia, it’s illegal to possess steroids without a prescription. This offence can attract large fines and prison terms (up to 25 years in Queensland).
Despite this, they’re widely available online and from your local “gym bro”. So it’s not surprising we’re seeing escalating use, particularly among young men and women.
People usually take steroids as pills and capsules or injectable oil- or water-based products. But while many people assume these products are safe if used correctly, they’re made outside regulated settings, with no official quality checks.
For this new study, we analysed 28 steroid products acquired from people all over Australia which they’d purchased either online or from peers in the gym. These included 16 injectable oils, ten varieties of oral tablets, and two “raw” powders.
An independent forensic lab tested the samples for active ingredients, contaminants and heavy metals. We then compared the results against what people thought they were taking.
More than half of the samples were mislabelled or contained the wrong drug. For example, one product labelled as testosterone enanthate (200mg/mL) contained 159mg/mL of trenbolone (a potent type of steroid) and no detectable testosterone. Oxandrolone (also known as “Anavar”, another type of steroid) tablets were sold claiming a strength of 10mg but actually contained 6.8mg, showing a disparity in purity.
Just four products matched their expected compound and purity within a 5% margin.
But the biggest concern was that all steroids we analysed were contaminated with some level of heavy metals, including lead, arsenic and cadmium.
While all of the concentrations we detected were within daily exposure limits regarded as safe by health authorities, more frequent and heavier use of these drugs would quickly see people who use steroids exceed safe thresholds. And we know this happens.
If consumed above safe limits, research suggests lead can damage the brain and heart. Arsenic is a proven carcinogen, having been linked to the development of skin, liver and lung cancers.
People who use steroids often dose for weeks or months, and sometimes stack multiple drugs, so these metals would build up. This means long‑term steroid use could be quietly fuelling cognitive decline, organ failure, and even cancer.
What needs to happen next?
Heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and cadmium often contaminate anabolic steroid products because raw powders sourced from some manufacturers, particularly those in China, may be produced with poor quality control and impure starting materials. These metals can enter the supply chain during synthesis, handling, or from contaminated equipment and solvents, leading to their presence in the final products.
Steroid use isn’t going away, so we need to address the potential health harms from these contaminants.
While pill testing is now common at festivals for drugs such as ecstasy, testing anabolic steroids requires more complex chemical analysis that cannot be conducted on-site. Current steroid testing relies on advanced laboratory techniques, which limits availability mostly to specialised research programs such as those in Australia and Switzerland.
We need to invest properly in a national steroid surveillance and testing network, which will give us data‑driven insights to inform targeted interventions.
We also need to see peer‑led support through trusted programs to educate people who use steroids around the risks. The programs should be based in real evidence, and developed by people with lived experience of steroid use, in partnership with researchers and clinicians.
Timothy Piatkowski receives funding from Queensland Mental Health Commission. He is affiliated with Queensland Injectors Voice for Advocacy and Action as the Vice President. He is affiliated with The Loop Australia as the research lead (Queensland).
Found in everything from protein bars to energy drinks, erythritol has long been considered a safe alternative to sugar. But new research suggests this widely used sweetener may be quietly undermining one of the body’s most crucial protective barriers – with potentially serious consequences for heart health and stroke risk.
A recent study from the University of Colorado suggests erythritol may damage cells in the blood-brain barrier, the brain’s security system that keeps out harmful substances while letting in nutrients. The findings add troubling new detail to previous observational studies that have linked erythritol consumption to increased rates of heart attack and stroke.
In the new study, researchers exposed blood-brain barrier cells to levels of erythritol typically found after drinking a soft drink sweetened with the compound. They saw a chain reaction of cell damage that could make the brain more vulnerable to blood clots – a leading cause of stroke.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Erythritol triggered what scientists call oxidative stress, flooding cells with harmful, highly reactive molecules known as free radicals, while simultaneously reducing the body’s natural antioxidant defences. This double assault damaged the cells’ ability to function properly, and in some cases killed them outright.
But perhaps more concerning was erythritol’s effect on the blood vessels’ ability to regulate blood flow. Healthy blood vessels act like traffic controllers, widening when organs need more blood – during exercise, for instance – and tightening when less is required. They achieve this delicate balance through two key molecules: nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, and endothelin-1, which constricts them.
The study found that erythritol disrupted this critical system, reducing nitric oxide production while ramping up endothelin-1. The result would be blood vessels that remain dangerously constricted, potentially starving the brain of oxygen and nutrients. This imbalance is a known warning sign of ischaemic stroke – the type caused by blood clots blocking vessels in the brain.
Even more alarming, erythritol appeared to sabotage the body’s natural defence against blood clots. Normally, when clots form in blood vessels, cells release a “clot buster” called tissue plasminogen activator that dissolves the blockage before it can cause a stroke. But the sweetener blocked this protective mechanism, potentially leaving clots free to wreak havoc.
The laboratory findings align with troubling evidence from human studies. Several large-scale observational studies have found that people who regularly consume erythritol face significantly higher risks of cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks and strokes. One major study tracking thousands of participants found that those with the highest blood levels of erythritol were roughly twice as likely to experience a major cardiac event.
However, the research does have limitations. The experiments were conducted on isolated cells in laboratory dishes rather than complete blood vessels, which means the cells may not behave exactly as they would in the human body. Scientists acknowledge that more sophisticated testing – using advanced “blood vessel on a chip” systems that better mimic real physiology – will be needed to confirm these effects.
The findings are particularly significant because erythritol occupies a unique position in the sweetener landscape. Unlike artificial sweeteners such as aspartame or sucralose, erythritol is technically a sugar alcohol – a naturally occurring compound that the body produces in small amounts. This classification helped it avoid inclusion in recent World Health Organization guidelines that discouraged the use of artificial sweeteners for weight control.
Erythritol has also gained popularity among food manufacturers because it behaves more like sugar than other alternatives. While sucralose is 320 times sweeter than sugar, erythritol provides only about 80% of sugar’s sweetness, making it easier to use in recipes without creating an overpowering taste. It’s now found in thousands of products, especially in many “sugar-free” and “keto-friendly” foods.
Erythritol can be found in many keto-friendly products, such a protein bars. Stockah/Shutterstock.com
Trade-off
Regulatory agencies, including the European Food Standards Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration, have approved erythritol as safe for consumption. But the new research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that even “natural” sugar alternatives may carry unexpected health risks.
For consumers, the findings raise difficult questions about the trade-offs involved in sugar substitution. Sweeteners like erythritol can be valuable tools for weight management and diabetes prevention, helping people reduce calories and control blood sugar spikes. But if regular consumption potentially weakens the brain’s protective barriers and increases cardiovascular risk, the benefits may come at a significant cost.
The research underscores a broader challenge in nutritional science: understanding the long-term effects of relatively new food additives that have become ubiquitous in the modern diet. While erythritol may help people avoid the immediate harms of excess sugar consumption, its effect on the blood-brain barrier suggests that frequent use could be quietly compromising brain protection over time.
As scientists continue to investigate these concerning links, consumers may want to reconsider their relationship with this seemingly innocent sweetener – and perhaps question whether any sugar substitute additive is truly without risk.
Havovi Chichger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A US-brokered peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda binds the two African nations to a worrying arrangement: one where a country signs away its mineral resources to a superpower in return for opaque assurances of security.
The peace deal, signed in June 2025, aims to end three decades of conflict between the DRC and Rwanda.
The peace that the June 2025 deal promises, therefore, hinges on chaining mineral supply to the US in exchange for Washington’s powerful – but vaguely formulated – military oversight.
The peace agreement further establishes a joint oversight committee – with representatives from the African Union, Qatar and the US – to receive complaints and resolve disputes between the DRC and Rwanda.
But beyond the joint oversight committee, the peace deal creates no specific security obligations for the US.
This latest peace deal introduces a resources-for-security arrangement. Such deals aren’t new in Africa. They first emerged in the early 2000s as resources-for-infrastructure transactions. Here, a foreign state would agree to build economic and social infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, hospitals) in an African state. In exchange, it would get a major stake in a government-owned mining company. Or gain preferential access to the host country’s minerals.
We have studied mineral law and governance in Africa for more than 20 years. The question that emerges now is whether a US-brokered resources-for-security agreement will help the DRC benefit from its resources.
This is because resources-for-security is the latest version of a resource-bartering approach that China and Russia pioneered in countries such as Angola, the Central African Republic and the DRC.
Resource bartering in Africa has eroded the sovereignty and bargaining power of mineral-rich nations such as the DRC and Angola.
Further, resources-for-security deals are less transparent and more complicated than prior resource bartering agreements.
DRC’s security gaps
The DRC is endowed with major deposits of critical minerals like cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese and tantalum. These are the building blocks for 21st century technologies: artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, wind energy and military security hardware. Rwanda has less mineral wealth than its neighbour, but is the world’s third-largest producer of tantalum, used in electronics, aerospace and medical devices.
The DRC government has failed to extend security over its vast (2.3 million square kilometres) and diverse territory (109 million people, representing 250 ethnic groups). Limited resources, logistical challenges and corruption have weakened its armed forces.
This context makes the United States’ military backing enormously attractive. But our research shows there are traps.
What states risk losing
Resources-for-infrastructure and resources-for-security deals generally offer African nations short-term stability, financing or global goodwill. However, the costs are often long-term because of an erosion of sovereign control.
Here’s how this happens:
certain clauses in such contracts can freeze future regulatory reforms, limiting legislative autonomy
other clauses may lock in low prices for years, leaving resource-selling states unable to benefit when commodity prices surge
Examples of loss or near-loss of sovereignty from these sorts of deals abound in Africa.
For instance, Angola’s US$2 billion oil-backed loan from China Eximbank in 2004. This was repayable in monthly deliveries of oil, with revenues directed to Chinese-controlled accounts. The loan’s design deprived Angolan authorities of decision-making power over that income stream even before the oil was extracted.
These deals also fragment accountability. They often span multiple ministries (such as defence, mining and trade), avoiding robust oversight or accountability. Fragmentation makes resource sectors vulnerable to elite capture. Powerful insiders can manipulate agreements for private gain.
In the DRC, this has created a violent kleptocracy, where resource wealth is systematically diverted away from popular benefit.
Finally, there is the risk of re-entrenching extractive trauma. Communities displaced for mining and environmental degradation in many countries across Africa illustrate the long-standing harm to livelihoods, health and social cohesion.
These are not new problems. But where extraction is tied to security or infrastructure, such damage risks becoming permanent features, not temporary costs.
What needs to change
Critical minerals are “critical” because they’re hard to mine or substitute. Additionally, their supply chains are strategically vulnerable and politically exposed. Whoever controls these minerals controls the future. Africa must make sure it doesn’t trade that future away.
In a world being reshaped by global interests in critical minerals, African states must not underestimate the strategic value of their mineral resources. They hold considerable leverage.
But leverage only works if it is wielded strategically. This means:
investing in institutional strength and legal capacity to negotiate better deals
demanding local value creation and addition
requiring transparency and parliamentary oversight for minerals-related agreements
refusing deals that bypass human rights, environmental or sovereignty standards.
Africa has the resources. It must hold on to the power they wield.
Hanri Mostert receives funding from the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa. She is a member of the Expropriation Expert Group and a steering committee member of the International Bar Association’s (IBA) Academic Advisory Group (AAG) in the Sector for Energy, Environmental, Resources and Infrastructure Law (SEERIL).
Tracy-Lynn Field receives funding from the Claude Leon Foundation. She is a non-executive director of the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University
Congress’ cuts to public broadcasting will diminish the range and volume of the free press and the independent reporting it provides.MicroStockHub-iStock/Getty Images Plus
Champions of the almost entirely party-line vote in the U.S. Senate to erase US$1.1 billion in already approved funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting called their action a refusal to subsidize liberal media.
“Public broadcasting has long been overtaken by partisan activists,” said U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, insisting there is no need for government to fund what he regards as biased media. “If you want to watch the left-wing propaganda, turn on MSNBC,” Cruz said.
Accusing the media of liberal bias has been a consistent conservative complaint since the civil rights era, when white Southerners insisted news outlets were slanting their stories against segregation. During his presidential campaign in 1964, U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona complained that the media was against him, an accusation that has been repeated by every Republican presidential candidate since.
But those charges of bias rarely survive empirical scrutiny.
That independence in the United States – enshrined in the press freedom clause of the First Amendment – gives journalists the ability to hold government accountable, expose abuses of power and thereby support democracy.
GOP Sen. Ted Cruz speaks to reporters as Senate Republicans vote on President Donald Trump’s request to cancel about $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting spending on July 16, 2025. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Trusting independence
Ad Fontes Media, a self-described “public benefit company” whose mission is to rate media for credibility and bias, have placed the reporting of “PBS NewsHour” under 10 points left of the ideological center. They label it as both “reliable” and based in “analysis/fact.” “Fox and Friends,” by contrast, the popular morning show on Fox News, is nearly 20 points to the right. The scale starts at zero and runs 42 points to the left to measure progressive bias and 42 points to the right to measure conservative bias. Ratings are provided by three-person panels comprising left-, right- and center-leaning reviewers.
A similar 2016 study published in Public Opinion Quarterly said that media are more similar than dissimilar and, excepting political scandals, “major
news organizations present topics in a largely nonpartisan manner,
casting neither Democrats nor Republicans in a particularly favorable
or unfavorable light.”
Surveys show public media’s audiences do not see it as biased. A national poll of likely voters released July 14, 2025, found that 53% of respondents trust public media to report news “fully, accurately and fairly,” while only 35% extend that trust to “the media in general.” A majority also opposed eliminating federal support.
Contrast these numbers with attitudes about public broadcasters such as MTVA in Hungary or the TVP in Poland, where the state controls most content. Protests in Budapest October 2024 drew thousands demanding an end to “propaganda.” Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism reports that TVP is the least trusted news outlet in the country.
While critics sometimes conflate American public broadcasting with state-run outlets, the structures are very different.
Safeguards for editorial freedom
In state-run media systems, a government agency hires editors, dictates coverage and provides full funding from the treasury. Public officials determine – or make up – what is newsworthy. Individual media operations survive only so long as the party in power is happy.
Public broadcasting in the U.S. works in almost exactly the opposite way: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private nonprofit with a statutory “firewall” that forbids political interference.
Stations survive by combining this modest federal grant money with listener donations, underwriting and foundation support. That creates a diversified revenue mix that further safeguards their editorial freedom.
As a public-private partnership, individual communities mostly own the public broadcasting system and its affiliate stations. Congress allocates funds, while community nonprofits, university boards, state authorities or other local license holders actually own and run the stations. Individual monthly donors are often called “members” and sometimes have voting rights in station-governance matters. Membership contributions make up the largest share of revenue for most stations, providing another safeguard for editorial independence.
A host and guest in July 2024 sit inside a recording studio at KMXT, the public radio station on Kodiak Island in Alaska. Nathaniel Herz/Northern Journal
A 2021 report from the European Broadcasting Union links public broadcasting with higher voter turnout, better factual knowledge and lower susceptibility to extremist rhetoric.
Experts warn that even small cuts will exacerbate an already pernicious problem with political disinformation in the U.S., as citizens lose access to free information that fosters media literacy and encourages trust across demographics.
In many ways, public media remains the last broadly shared civic commons. It is both commercial-free and independently edited.
Another study, by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School in 2022, affirmed that “countries with independent and well-funded public broadcasting systems also consistently have stronger democracies.”
Such attention to nuance provides a critical counterweight to the fragmented, often hyperpartisan news bubbles that pervade cable news and social media. And this skillful, more balanced treatment helps to ameliorate political polarization and misinformation.
In all, public media’s unique structure and mission make democracy healthier in the U.S. and across the world. Public media prioritizes education and civic enlightenment. It gives citizens important tools for navigating complex issues to make informed decisions – whether those decisions are about whom to vote for or about public policy itself. Maintaining and strengthening public broadcasting preserves media diversity and advances important principles of self-government.
Congress’ cuts to public broadcasting will diminish the range and volume of the free press and the independent reporting it provides. Ronald Reagan once described a free press as vital for the United States to succeed in its “noble experiment in self-government.” From that perspective, more independent reporting – not less – will prove the best remedy for any worry about partisan spin.
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Dodd, Professor of Journalism, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne
If Rupert Murdoch becomes a white knight standing up to a rampantly bullying US president, the world has moved into the upside-down.
This is, after all, the media mogul whose US television network, Fox News, actively supported Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election result and paid out a US$787 million (about A$1.2 billion) lawsuit for doing so.
It is also the network that supplied several members of Trump’s inner circle, including former Fox host, now controversial Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth.
But that is where we are after Trump filed a writ on July 18 after Murdoch’s financial newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, published an article about a hand-drawn card Trump is alleged to have sent to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. The newspaper reported:
A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.
The Journal said it has seen the letter but did not republish it. The letter allegedly concluded:
Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.
The card was apparently Trump’s contribution to a birthday album compiled for Epstein by the latter’s partner Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence after being found guilty of sex trafficking in 2021.
Trump was furious. He told his Truth Social audience he had warned Murdoch the letter was fake. He wrote, “Mr Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but obviously did not have the power to do so,” referring to Murdoch handing leadership of News Corporation to his eldest son Lachlan in 2023.
Trump is being pincered. On one side, The Wall Street Journal is a respected newspaper that speaks to literate, wealthy Americans who remain deeply sceptical about Trump’s radical initiative on tariffs, which it described in an editorial as “the dumbest trade war in history”.
On the other side is the conspiracy theory-thirsty MAGA base who have been told for years that there was a massive conspiracy around Epstein’s apparent suicide in 2019 that included the so-called deep state, Democrat elites and, no doubt, the Clintons.
Trump, who loves pro wrestling as well as adopting its garish theatrics, might characterise his lawsuit against Murdoch as a smackdown to rival Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant in the 1980s.
To adopt wrestling argot, though, it is a rare battle between two heels.
A friendship of powerful convenience
Murdoch and Trump’s relationship is longstanding but convoluted. The key to understanding it is that both men are ruthlessly transactional.
Exposure in Murdoch’s New York Post in the 1980s and ‘90s was crucial to building Trump’s reputation.
Not that Murdoch particularly likes Trump. Yes, Murdoch attended his second inauguration, albeit in a back row behind the newly favoured big tech media moguls. He was also seen sitting in the Oval Office a few days later looking quite at home.
But this was pure power-display politics, not the behaviour of a friend.
Remember Murdoch’s derision on hearing Trump was considering standing for office before the 2016 election, and his promotion of Ron De Santis in the primaries before Trump’s second term. Murdoch’s political hero has always been Ronald Reagan. Trump has laid waste to the Republican Party of Reagan.
Murdoch knows what the rest of sane America knows: Trump is downright weird, if not dangerous. This, of course, only makes Murdoch’s complicity in Trump’s rise to power, and Fox News’ continued boosterism of Trump, all the more appalling.
But, in keeping with Murdoch’s relationship to power throughout his career, what he helps make, he also helps destroy. Perhaps now it’s Trump’s turn to be unmade. As a former Murdoch lieutenant told The Financial Times over the weekend:
he’s testing out: Is Trump losing his base? And where do I need to be to stay in the heart of the base?
And here is Murdoch’s great advantage, and his looming threat.
A double-edged sword
The advantage comes with the scope of Murdoch’s media empire, which operates like a federation of different mastheads, each with their own market and aspirations. While Fox News panders to the MAGA base, and The New York Post juices its New York audience, The Wall Street Journal speaks, and listens, to business. Each audience has different needs, meaning they’re often presented with the same news in very different ways, or sometimes different news entirely.
Like a federation, though, News Corp uses its various operations to drive the type of change that affects all its markets.
It might work like this. The Wall Street Journal breaks a story that’s so shocking it begins to chip away at MAGA’s unquestioning loyalty of Trump. This process is, of course, willingly aided by the rest of the media. The resulting groundswell eventually allows Fox News and the Post to tentatively follow their audiences into questioning, and then perhaps criticising, Trump.
Fox News audiences could slowly begin to question Trump, or abandon the network entirely. NurPhoto/Getty
The threat is that before that groundswell builds, Murdoch is seriously vulnerable to criticism from a still dominant Trump, who can turn conspiracy-prone audiences away from Fox News with just a social media post. Trump has already been busy doing just that, saying he is looking forward to getting Murdoch onto the witness stand for his lawsuit.
If the Fox audience decides it’s the proprietor who’s behind this denigration of Trump, they may decide to boycott their own favoured media channel, even though Fox’s programming hasn’t yet started questioning Trump.
The Murdochs’ fear of audience backlash was a major factor in Fox’s promulgation of the Big Lie after Trump’s defeat in 2020. The fear their audience might defect to Newsmax or some other right-wing media outfit is just as real today.
History littered with fakery
We also need to consider that Trump might be right. What if the letter is a fake?
Murdoch has form when it comes to high-profile exposés that turn out to be fiction. Who can forget the Hitler Diaries in 1983, which we now know Murdoch knew were fake before he published.
Think also of the Pauline Hanson photos, allegedly of her posing in lingerie, all of which were quickly proved to be fake after they were published by Murdoch’s Australian tabloids in 2009.
There was also The Sun’s despicable and wilfully wrong campaign against Elton John in 1987 and the same paper’s continueddenigration of the people of Liverpool following the Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989.
But while Murdoch’s News Corp has a history of confection and fakery, the Wall Street Journal has a reputation for straight reportage, albeit through a conservative lens. Since Murdoch bought it in 2007, it has been engaged in its own internal battle for editorial standards.
Media rolling over
What Trump won’t get from Murdoch is the same acquiescence he’s enjoyed from America’s ABC and CBS networks, which have both handed over tens of millions of dollars in defamation settlements following dubious claims by Trump about the nature of their coverage.
In December 2024, ABC’s owner Disney settled and agreed to pay US$15 million (A$23 million) to Trump’s presidential library. The president sued after a presenter said Trump was found guilty of raping E. Jean Carroll.
Trump had actually been found guilty by a jury in a civil trial of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll and was ordered to pay her US$5 million (A$7.6 million).
CBS’ parent company, Paramount, did similarly after being sued by the president, agreeing in early July to settle and pay US$16 million (A$24.5 million) to Trump’s library. This was despite earlier saying the case was “completely without merit”.
Beware the legal microscope
From Trump’s viewpoint, two prominent media companies have been cowed. But his campaign against critical media doesn’t stop there.
Last week, congress passed a bill cancelling federal funding for the country’s two public-service media outlets, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).
Also last week, CBS announced the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s stridently critical comedy show, although CBS claims this is just a cost-cutting exercise and not about appeasing a bully in the White House.
Presuming the reported birthday letter is real, Murdoch will not bend so easily. And that’s when it will be important to pay attention, because at some point Trump’s lawyers will advise him about the dangers of depositions and discovery: the legal processes that force parties to a dispute to reveal what they have and what they know.
If the Epstein files do implicate Trump, the legal fight won’t last long and the media campaign against him will only intensify.
Right now we have the spectre of Murdoch joining that other disaffected mogul, Elon Musk, in a moral crusade against Trump, the man they both helped make. The implications are head-spinning.
As global bullies, the three of them probably deserve each other. But we, the public, surely deserve better than any of them.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leon Benade, Professor in the School of Education of Edith Cowan University (ECU), Perth, WA, Edith Cowan University
Depending on who you ask, these classrooms were an opportunity to foster collaboration and flexibility or an exercise in organised chaos.
So-called “modern learning environments” – characterised by flexible layouts, fewer walls and sometimes multiple classes and teachers in one space – were vigorously pushed by the National government in 2011.
The stated goal was to promote flexibility in the way students were taught, encourage collaboration and to accommodate new technology in classrooms.
Among the solutions offered by the inquiry was the development of simple but functional schools based on cookie-cutter designs constructed off-site. This recommendation was welcomed by the current National-led government.
Design influenced by ideology
The modern, bespoke designs of the past two decades represented a response to technological developments, such as the introduction of digital devices, that changed how students learned.
Those industrial age schools were themselves products of changes in the second half of the 20th century. Since the first school opened in 1843, school architecture in New Zealand had evolved significantly. Early schools featured cramped six-metre by four-metre classrooms which could accommodate more than 30 students.
By the 1920s, the “Taranaki” and “Canterbury” models included a more generous minimum classroom size of eight metres by seven metres. There was a greater emphasis on light and ventilation. Their larger spaces also recognised changes in teaching styles that encouraged more active and participatory learning.
By the 1950s, classroom size had grown to ten metres by seven metres. The “Nelson” and “S68” blocks of the 1950s and 1960s provided small self-contained blocks of classrooms that reduced student movement and corridor noise.
Changes to New Zealand school buildings also reflected global trends. Open-plan schools emerged in North America after 1960. At the same time, there were signs English schools would replace their traditional Victorian-style buildings with classrooms considered more child-centred.
The goal was to achieve flexible, connected designs to support evolving education philosophies. England’s 1966 Plowden Report on primary education significantly aided this evolution towards progressive styles of teaching and learning, leading to the creation of schools that featured flexibility, connectivity and external-internal flow.
But in 2011, the James Review of Education Capital highlighted a number of issues with the way schools were being built, putting an end to the infrastructure programme.
That report, like the 2024 New Zealand report, suggested replacing government investment in bespoke school infrastructure with a focus on standardised designs.
A swing back
In New Zealand, “modern learning environments” became part of education policy with the Ministry of Education’s School Property Strategy 2011-2021, published in 2011. But the pendulum started to swing back after Labour came to power in 2017.
Departing from the 2011 strategy, the language of “modern learning environments”, “innovative learning environments” and “flexible learning spaces” largely disappeared. It was replaced in policy documents with “quality learning environments”.
This shift emphasised physical characteristics such as heating, lighting and acoustics, rather than innovative approaches to teaching and learning.
Since coming to power, the current National-led coalition has focused on embedding a standardised approach to foundational skills in reading, writing, maths and science.
While not directly scapegoating open-plan designs for educational underachievement, Erica Stanford said the reforms would ensure learning spaces were “designed to improve student outcomes”.
But as New Zealand moves back to standardised designs, it is worth considering why modern learning environments were introduced in the first place – the flexibility for new technology and space for collaboration – and what students may lose by a swing back towards the separate classrooms of the past.
Leon Benade is affiliated with Learning Environments Australasia, Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA) and The Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE).
Chris Bradbeer is affiliated with Learning Environments New Zealand/Aotearoa (LENZ), and Learning Environments Australasia (LEA).
Alastair Wells does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Found in everything from protein bars to energy drinks, erythritol has long been considered a safe alternative to sugar. But new research suggests this widely used sweetener may be quietly undermining one of the body’s most crucial protective barriers – with potentially serious consequences for heart health and stroke risk.
A recent study from the University of Colorado suggests erythritol may damage cells in the blood-brain barrier, the brain’s security system that keeps out harmful substances while letting in nutrients. The findings add troubling new detail to previous observational studies that have linked erythritol consumption to increased rates of heart attack and stroke.
In the new study, researchers exposed blood-brain barrier cells to levels of erythritol typically found after drinking a soft drink sweetened with the compound. They saw a chain reaction of cell damage that could make the brain more vulnerable to blood clots – a leading cause of stroke.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Erythritol triggered what scientists call oxidative stress, flooding cells with harmful, highly reactive molecules known as free radicals, while simultaneously reducing the body’s natural antioxidant defences. This double assault damaged the cells’ ability to function properly, and in some cases killed them outright.
But perhaps more concerning was erythritol’s effect on the blood vessels’ ability to regulate blood flow. Healthy blood vessels act like traffic controllers, widening when organs need more blood – during exercise, for instance – and tightening when less is required. They achieve this delicate balance through two key molecules: nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, and endothelin-1, which constricts them.
The study found that erythritol disrupted this critical system, reducing nitric oxide production while ramping up endothelin-1. The result would be blood vessels that remain dangerously constricted, potentially starving the brain of oxygen and nutrients. This imbalance is a known warning sign of ischaemic stroke – the type caused by blood clots blocking vessels in the brain.
Even more alarming, erythritol appeared to sabotage the body’s natural defence against blood clots. Normally, when clots form in blood vessels, cells release a “clot buster” called tissue plasminogen activator that dissolves the blockage before it can cause a stroke. But the sweetener blocked this protective mechanism, potentially leaving clots free to wreak havoc.
The laboratory findings align with troubling evidence from human studies. Several large-scale observational studies have found that people who regularly consume erythritol face significantly higher risks of cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks and strokes. One major study tracking thousands of participants found that those with the highest blood levels of erythritol were roughly twice as likely to experience a major cardiac event.
However, the research does have limitations. The experiments were conducted on isolated cells in laboratory dishes rather than complete blood vessels, which means the cells may not behave exactly as they would in the human body. Scientists acknowledge that more sophisticated testing – using advanced “blood vessel on a chip” systems that better mimic real physiology – will be needed to confirm these effects.
The findings are particularly significant because erythritol occupies a unique position in the sweetener landscape. Unlike artificial sweeteners such as aspartame or sucralose, erythritol is technically a sugar alcohol – a naturally occurring compound that the body produces in small amounts. This classification helped it avoid inclusion in recent World Health Organization guidelines that discouraged the use of artificial sweeteners for weight control.
Erythritol has also gained popularity among food manufacturers because it behaves more like sugar than other alternatives. While sucralose is 320 times sweeter than sugar, erythritol provides only about 80% of sugar’s sweetness, making it easier to use in recipes without creating an overpowering taste. It’s now found in thousands of products, especially in many “sugar-free” and “keto-friendly” foods.
Erythritol can be found in many keto-friendly products, such a protein bars. Stockah/Shutterstock.com
Trade-off
Regulatory agencies, including the European Food Standards Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration, have approved erythritol as safe for consumption. But the new research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that even “natural” sugar alternatives may carry unexpected health risks.
For consumers, the findings raise difficult questions about the trade-offs involved in sugar substitution. Sweeteners like erythritol can be valuable tools for weight management and diabetes prevention, helping people reduce calories and control blood sugar spikes. But if regular consumption potentially weakens the brain’s protective barriers and increases cardiovascular risk, the benefits may come at a significant cost.
The research underscores a broader challenge in nutritional science: understanding the long-term effects of relatively new food additives that have become ubiquitous in the modern diet. While erythritol may help people avoid the immediate harms of excess sugar consumption, its effect on the blood-brain barrier suggests that frequent use could be quietly compromising brain protection over time.
As scientists continue to investigate these concerning links, consumers may want to reconsider their relationship with this seemingly innocent sweetener – and perhaps question whether any sugar substitute additive is truly without risk.
Havovi Chichger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kimon-Andreas Karatzas, Associate Professor of Food Microbiology, Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Reading
You pile your plate high at the buffet, savouring the freedom to try a little bit of everything. But while your tastebuds might be celebrating, your gut could be at risk.
From shared serving spoons to lukewarm lasagne, buffets can be a breeding ground for bacteria – and a hotbed for food poisoning. In the UK alone, millions of cases go unreported each year. So what makes buffets so risky, and what can be done to stay safe?
Food poisoning is a serious issue in the UK and around the world. While most cases are mild and don’t require treatment, some can lead to hospitalisation or even death. Official figures suggest approximately 2.4 million people in the UK fall ill each year due to food-borne illness – mostly caused by viruses, bacteria or toxins in contaminated food. But because many people recover at home without reporting their symptoms, the real figure is likely much higher.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) estimates that there are closer to 18 million cases of food poisoning in the UK each year. That’s almost one in four people. And buffets – particularly all-you-can-eat venues – are a common setting for outbreaks.
So, what is it about buffets that makes them such a hotspot for illness? Here are the key reasons these self-serve spreads carry higher risks:
1. Cross-Contamination
One of the biggest concerns at buffets is cross-contamination, when harmful bacteria, viruses or allergens are transferred from one food to another. This can happen in any kitchen, but buffets are particularly vulnerable.
Why? Because dozens of dishes are often displayed close together, customers serve themselves (sometimes without washing their hands), utensils are shared between people and dishes and food are exposed to the air for extended periods.
If just one dish becomes contaminated – say, with under-cooked meat juices or bacteria from unwashed hands – they can spread to other foods, affecting many people. Sneezes over platters and untrained customers handling food directly all increase the risk.
Even something as simple as using the same spoon for multiple dishes can be enough to transfer bacteria. With many hands touching the same utensils and food being moved or mixed between containers, even a well-run buffet can become a hazard zone as it is difficult to monitor and control that all customers abide to food safety rules.
2. Allergens
For people with food allergies, buffets can be particularly dangerous. Cross-contamination means that allergen-free foods can become unsafe through even minimal contact with allergenic ingredients.
For example, a spoon used in a nut-containing salad and then placed into a nut-free one can be enough to trigger a reaction. To reduce this risk, check that buffet venues clearly label all dishes with allergen information, use separate serving utensils for different foods, keep allergen-free dishes physically separate from others and train staff on allergen safety and cross-contamination risks.
Despite best intentions, busy buffet settings don’t always allow for these precautions to be enforced perfectly, putting allergic diners at greater risk.
3. Temperature trouble
One of the main food safety challenges at buffets is temperature control. Harmful bacteria multiply rapidly in what experts call the “danger zone”: the temperature range between 8°C and 63°C. If food sits within this range for too long, it becomes an ideal breeding ground for microbes.
Several types of bacteria are commonly responsible for food-borne illness in buffet settings.
Salmonella is often found in under-cooked poultry, eggs, and dairy products. It can cause diarrhoea, fever, and abdominal cramps, and it spreads easily if hot food is not kept at a safe temperature.
E. coli, typically linked to under-cooked beef and raw vegetables, can cause severe gastrointestinal illness and, in some cases, lead to kidney failure.
Listeria monocytogenes can grow in chilled foods like soft cheeses, pâté, and pre-packed sandwiches. It poses serious risks to pregnant women, older adults, and those with weakened immune systems.
Clostridium perfringens thrives in food that has been left warm for too long – especially items like stews, casseroles and roasts. It can cause sudden stomach cramps and diarrhoea.
Norovirus, also called the winter vomiting bug, is a stomach bug that causes vomiting and diarrhoea. Infected customers can pass this virus on the food with direct contact and cause disease to others that will consume it.
Staphylococcus aureus is a bacterium commonly found on the skin of humans and when it grows on food produces toxins that can cause nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps and diarrhoea. This bacterium can easily end up on the food through contact with utensils or customers and grow if the temperature of food is not within the correct range.
Maintaining safe food temperatures is essential to prevent these pathogens from multiplying. According to food safety guidelines, hot food should be kept above 63°C, and cold food below 8°C. However, in many buffet settings, food is left sitting out for extended periods – sometimes in ambient room temperatures, and sometimes without adequate heating or refrigeration equipment. This allows bacteria to flourish.
To minimise risk, hot food should not be left out for more than two hours, and cold food should be consumed within four. After these limits, leftover items should be discarded and not mixed with fresh batches. Reusing food that’s been sitting out not only compromises freshness but also risks spreading bacteria from old to new dishes.
Unfortunately, in busy all-you-can-eat environments, it’s common for staff to top up half-empty trays instead of replacing them. While this may reduce food waste, it increases the likelihood of contamination, especially during high-traffic service times. Without strict hygiene protocols in place, even small lapses in temperature control can lead to widespread illness.
Staying safe
Buffets don’t have to be a recipe for disaster – but safety depends on both the venue’s hygiene practices and diners’ own behaviour. Here’s what to look for:
dishes should be steaming hot or chilled, not lukewarm
clean utensils should be available for each item
clear allergen labels should be visible
staff should be monitoring and maintaining food stations
diners should wash their hands before serving themselves.
If in doubt, it’s safer to skip questionable dishes, especially those that look like they’ve been sitting out too long, are unlabelled, or have been clearly mixed with other items.
Buffets can be a delicious way to explore new flavours and enjoy variety. But without proper precautions, they can also pose serious food safety risks. Whether you’re tucking into a carvery, grazing a hotel breakfast, or piling your plate at an all-you-can-eat spread, it’s worth keeping an eye on hygiene – and knowing when to walk away from the buffet table.
Kimon-Andreas Karatzas receives funding from the EU, BBSRC, EPSRC and private companies (Future Biogas, Natureseal and AB Mauri)
Sotheby’s publicity photograph for the _Ceratosaurus_ fossil. Sotheby’s, CC BY-SA
A juvenile dinosaur fossil, Ceratosaurus nasicornis, has sold at Sotheby’s New York for US$30.5 million (£22.7 million). It is part of a recent resurgence of art-market interest in fossils and natural history – palaeontology and geology especially. Indeed, this latest dinosaur sale was part of an auction specifically dedicated to natural history.
Led by iconic Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils, the prices for such specimens have reached eyewatering levels in recent years. “Stan”, currently the most expensive T-Rex, sold for US$31.8 million at Christie’s New York in 2020. Then a stegosaurus called “Apex” sold for US$44.6 million in New York in 2024.
The US$30.5 million sale of the juvenile Ceratosaurus, a much smaller species, raises the market bar significantly. Even a T-Rex fossil foot at the latest Sotheby’s auction far exceeded its published estimate of US$250,000-US$300,000, selling for US$1.8 million. When you reflect that a full T-Rex fossil by the name of “Sue” sold for US$8.4 million in 1997 – US$17 million in today’s money – it looks cheap by comparison.
Sotheby’s marketing of the Ceratosaurus highlights how the art market builds narratives around these objects of science. Publicity photographs emphasise the dinosaur’s sculptural qualities, along with descriptions like “mounted in an action pose … with jaws open”. This mirrors the presentation in taxidermy mounts, another market that is drawing in more collectors at present.
Photographs in the auction publicity have an almost filmic quality. They tie the fossil to its discovery process, with the image at the top of this article including an SUV in the distance that is kitted out for fossil hunting.
The extensive catalogue description builds on this, appropriating the language of science with a forensic account of how the fossil was discovered and pieced together, supporting the key art market criteria of authenticity.
It highlights the commodity status of the fossil as a spectacle, aimed at new, younger super-rich collectors who are seeking out statement pieces. These allow them to demonstrate what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu termed increasing levels of distinction – in other words, cultural choices as markers of status and power.
Auctions and ethics
Some palaeontologists express concerns about the idea of moving dinosaur remains “into the same realms as fine art”. Much opposition comes from the Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology (SVP), a leading body on fossil research based in Utah, which is influential far beyond the US.
Stuart Sumida, the president of the society, complained after the Ceratosaurus auction that such transactions can mean removing specimens “from the public trust and the scientific community for profit”. As his predecessor David Polly lamented in 2018, it can “create a perception that [fossils] have a commercial value”.
The premise here is that the market is somehow dislocated from palaeontology, but the truth is that scientific research is never conducted in a commercial vacuum. It benefits from private funding and publishes in journals whose access is restricted for commercial gain. Replicas of dinosaur specimens are commercially licensed by museums, while moving fossils or replicas between institutions involves huge costs, covering everything from transport to insurance.
Equally, the relationship between palaeontology and the market is more symbiotic than it might appear. The market for dinosaur fossils traces back to the late 18th century, with early operators including the fossil collector Mary Anning (1799-1847). Her discovery of dinosaur fossils on the English south coast in Dorset led to her establishing a successful shop called Annings Fossil Depot in the mid-1820s.
Now recognised as one of the leading palaeontologists of the 19th century, the market for fossils that she helped to create increased the visibility and public interest in dinosaurs. This in turn acted as a catalyst for increased research activity in this area.
More recently, the appetite for dinosaurs is reflected in multiple consumer spheres, from Jurassic Park to Barney & Friends. Every new product boosts public awareness of dinosaurs and no doubt ignites further research activity.
Do palaeontologists need Barney more than they think? Paul M Walsh
Each dinosaur auction that hits the headlines contributes to this effect. Privately owned fossils are also, in my experience, more likely to be exhibited in venues beyond natural history museums, such as major art fairs and even contemporary art museums. This too increases their visibility, which probably helps expand the range and scope of research interest.
Now, you might argue that public interest is strong enough to drive research without the need for any benefits from auctions. Maybe the benefits are also outweighed by the palaeontologists’ concerns about specimens being lost to science when they fall into private hands.
Then again, the SVP’s ethical guidelines contribute to such marginalisation. These insist that palaeontologists should “only conduct research on fossils held in collections with a permanent commitment to curation and accessibility” – in other words, museums. Loosen this restriction and the objection diminishes.
When bodies like the SVP call for a total separation between art and science, between research and the art market, maybe they’re the ones that are the dinosaura for taking such a simplistic approach. The reality of auctioning these discoveries is a lot more complicated than some would have you believe.
Mark Westgarth receives funding from Arts & Humanities Research Council.
Most of us want to enjoy later life feeling strong, connected, and mentally sharp. But how often do we stop to think about whether the things we’re doing right now are helping us get there?
A new quiz – which we have developed as part of the Take Five to Age Well project, a free, expert-led, month-long challenge from The Open University and Age UK – makes it easier, and more empowering, to ask that question, reflect and take action.
Healthy ageing doesn’t depend on just one thing. Research shows that our long-term wellbeing is shaped by a mix of physical, mental and social factors. That’s why experts, including us, have identified five key areas – known as the Five Pillars for Ageing Well – that form a strong foundation for staying well and thriving in later life:
For people with life-limiting illnesses or conditions such as advanced dementia, where appetite and oral intake may be severely reduced, sugary drinks may be one of the few sources of calories they can tolerate. In these cases, hydration and comfort take priority over strict nutritional guidelines, and personalised care plans should always guide decisions.
3. Are you being physically active?
Are you moving regularly? Enough to raise your heart rate? Are you breaking up long periods of sitting with movement?
Are you keeping in touch with others, spending time in your community and enjoying meaningful connection? Loneliness increases the risk of depression and cognitive decline.
We developed the Take Five to Age Well quiz to help people reflect on how they’re doing across these five areas – and where there might be room to grow. The follow-up resources are based on real-life experiences of ageing from diverse communities and offer small, achievable steps you can start today.
Unlike many online quizzes, this one doesn’t just score you – it supports you. After signing up to the month-long challenge and taking the quiz, the Take Five to Age Well participants receive tips, encouragement and expert-led advice supporting participants’ current habits and needs.
We’ve also partnered with BridgitCare – organisation that works with Councils, the NHS and Carer Charities across the UK, to help identify carers and scale the support provided with the use of technology – to create Age Well, a free, web-based tool offering personalised daily actions. Whether you want to add more greens to your plate, look for expert tips, and easy ways to stay in control of your health, hobbies, and wellbeing or swap ten minutes of scrolling for a short walk, every step counts.
Age Well can also connect you to local groups and services to help turn good intentions into lasting routines.
Healthy ageing isn’t just about avoiding illness – it’s about learning how to age well, maintaining independence, confidence and quality of life. And with an ageing population, learning that supports all taking proactive steps to protect our mental and physical health is more important than ever.
The best part? Many of the most effective actions are small and realistic. You don’t have to run marathons or give up everything you enjoy. Take Five to Age Well meets you where you are – and helps you build a future where you feel stronger, more connected and better supported.
No matter your age, it’s never too early – or too late – to start your journey to ageing well.
Jitka Vseteckova is a Trustee with carers Buckinghamshire & Carers MK.
Lis Boulton Health & Care Policy Manager, in the Charity Influencing Division at Age UK. Lis is also Chair of the National Falls Prevention Coordination Group, and also Chair of Age UK Calderdale & Kirklees, her local Age UK in West Yorkshire.
Japan held elections for its upper house, the House of Councillors, on July 20. The vote proved a challenge for the conservative ruling Liberal Democratic party (LDP), which has been reeling from corruption scandals, rising prices and US tariffs on Japanese exports.
The ruling coalition, composed of the LDP and its junior partner, Kōmeitō, lost its majority in the house. While the centre-left Constitutional Democratic party maintained its position as the largest opposition group, the breakout success of the election was that of Sanseitō, an ultranationalist populist party.
Sanseitō successfully framed immigration as a central issue in the election campaign, with the provocative slogan “Japanese First”. The party won 14 seats in the 248-seat chamber, a substantial jump from the single seat it won in the last election in 2022.
Sanseitō calls itself a party of “ordinary Japanese citizens with the same mindset who came together”. It was formed in 2020 by Sōhei Kamiya, a conservative career politician who served as a city councillor in Suita, a city in Osaka Prefecture, before being elected to the House of Councillors.
Although Sanseitō was initially known for its stance against the COVID-19 vaccine, it has more recently campaigned on an anti-foreigner and anti-immigration platform. The party, which also holds three seats in the powerful lower house, has quickly gained seats in regional and national elections. It most recently won three seats in Tokyo’s prefectural elections in June 2025.
Sanseitō is “anti-globalist”, urging voters to feel proud of their ethnicity and culture. Polls suggest the party is popular among younger men aged between 18 and 30.
Throughout the most recent election campaign, Kamiya repeatedly spread far-right conspiracy theories and misinformation. This included arguing multinational corporations caused the pandemic, as well as that foreigners commit crimes en masse and can avoid paying inheritance tax. Social media has amplified Sanseitō’s xenophobic messaging.
Sanseitō’s electoral success is reminiscent of other right-wing populist parties across Europe and North America, which also place immigration as a core issue.
Kamiya denies being a xenophobe. But he has expressed support for the Republican party in the US, Reform in the UK, Alternativ für Deutschland in Germany and Rassemblement National in France. Echoing other right-wing populist leaders, Kamiya has promised tax cuts, home-grown industries, regulation of foreigners and patriotic education.
However, while Sanseitō rides the global wave of right-wing populism, it also has deeply Japanese roots. Following Japan’s defeat in the second world war, a distinct current of right-wing thought developed, defending “traditional values” and glorifying Japan’s imperial past.
Tensions have flared periodically over issues such as history education and official visits to Yasukuni Shrine, where those who died in service of Japan – including military leaders convicted of war crimes – are commemorated. There have also been disputes around the memorialisation of so-called “comfort women”, who were forced into sex slavery by Japanese forces before and during the war.
Building on these currents, Sanseitō represents a new generation of Japanese conservatism, not just an emulation of foreign populist leaders.
What happens next?
Sanseitō’s rise could have a pivotal influence on Japan’s political landscape. While the prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, has indicated he will not resign, the ruling coalition has now lost control of both houses. Ishiba may need to seek support from other parties and may face leadership challenges.
He also must respond to issues Sanseitō has raised. LDP policymakers are now aware of public anxieties surrounding migration, excessive tourism and cultural integration. Seeking to co-opt some of Sanseitō’s proposals, the government has already banned tourists from driving and set up a new government agency to address concerns about non-Japanese nationals. It has also pledged to reduce illegal immigration to zero.
But the government is facing steep economic and demographic challenges, such as US tariffs, a rapidly ageing and declining population, and a record-low birth rate. So it cannot afford to cut immigration dramatically. Policymakers will have to balance economic needs with hardening public attitudes towards foreigners.
It’s not just immigration that will be at stake. Ishiba will need to navigate wedge issues that could split the LDP’s conservative support base. These include same-sex marriage, the use of separate surnames by married couples, and female succession to the throne.
It’s too early to say whether Sanseitō can sustain its momentum. Numerous populist leaders in Japan before Kamiya have succeeded in turning mistrust of the political class into votes at the ballot box. However, few have been able to translate it into meaningful political change across multiple election cycles.
For instance, Shinji Ishimaru made headlines in 2024 after placing second in the race for Tokyo governor. But his Path to Reform party, which promised educational reform, struggled in the latest election. Reiwa Shinsengumi, the left populist party led by Tarō Yamamoto, also enjoyed success in previous elections but remains small.
Only time will tell if Sanseitō will become a major political party or yet another minority group on the fringes. But it’s clear anti-immigration populism has arrived in Japan. And it looks like it’s here to stay.
Rin Ushiyama does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Misinformation is found in every element of our online lives. It ranges from fake products available to buy, fake lifestyle posts on social media accounts and fake news about health and politics.
Misinformation has an impact not only on our beliefs but also our behaviour: for example, it has affected how people vote in elections and whether people intend to have vaccinations.
And since anyone can create and share online content, without the kind of verification processes or fact checking typical of more traditional media, misinformation has proliferated.
This is particularly important as young people increasingly turn to social media for all kinds of information, using it as a source of news and as a search engine. But despite their frequent use of social media, teenagers struggle to evaluate the accuracy of the content they consume.
A 2022 report from media watchdog Ofcom found that only 11% of 11 to 17 year olds could reliably recognise the signs that indicated a post was genuine.
My research has explored what teenagers understand about misinformation online. I held focus groups with 37 11- to 14-year-olds, asking them their views on misinformation.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
I found that the young people in the study tended to – wrongly – believe that misinformation was only about world events and scams. Because of this, they believed that they personally did not see a lot of misinformation.
“[My Instagram] isn’t really like ‘this is happening in the world’ or whatever, it’s just kind of like life,” one said. This may make them vulnerable to misinformation as they are only alert for it in these domains.
There was also wide variation in how confident they felt about spotting misinformation. Some were confident in their skills. “I’m not daft enough to believe it,” as one put it.
Others admitted to being easily fooled. This was an interesting finding, as previous research has indicated that most people have a high level of confidence in their personal ability to spot misinformation.
Most did not fact-check information by cross-referencing what they read with other news sources. They relied instead on their intuition – “You just see it, you know” – or looked at what others said in comment sections to spot misinformation. But neither of these strategies is likely to be particularly reliable.
Relying on gut instinct typically means using cognitive shortcuts such as “I trust her, so I can trust her post” or “the website looks professional, so it is trustworthy”. This makes it easy for people to create believable false information.
And a study by Ofcom found that only 22% of adults were able to identify signs of a genuine post. This means that relying on other people to help us tell true from false is not likely to be effective.
Interestingly, the teens in this study saw older adults, particularly grandparents, as especially vulnerable to believing false information. On the other hand, they viewed their parents as more skilled at spotting misinformation than they themselves were. “[Parents] see it as fake news, so they don’t believe it and they don’t need to worry about it,” one said.
This was unexpected. We might assume that young people, who are often considered digital natives, would see themselves as more adept than their parents at spotting misinformation.
Taking responsibility
We discussed whose role it was to challenge misinformation online. The teens were reluctant to challenge it themselves. They thought it would not make a difference if they did, or they feared being victimised online or even offline.
Instead, they believed that governments should stop the spread of misinformation “as they know about what wars are happening”. But older participants thought that if the government took a leading role in stopping the spread of misinformation “there would be protests”, as it would be seen as censorship.
They also felt that platforms should take responsibility to stop the spread of misinformation to protect their reputation, so that people don’t panic about fake news.
In light of these findings, my colleagues and I have created a project that works with young people to create resources to help them develop their skills in spotting misinformation and staying safe online. We work closely with young people to understand what their concerns are, and how they want to learn about these topics.
We also partner with organisations such as Police Scotland and Education Scotland to ensure our materials are grounded in real-world challenges and informed by the needs of teachers and other adult professionals as well as young people.
Yvonne Skipper has received funding from the ESRC, Education Scotland and British Academy.
An advisory opinion is a legal interpretation provided by a high-level court or tribunal with a special mandate, in response to a specific question of law. Simply put, an advisory opinion is not legally binding in the way a court judgement between two nations would be.
But it is authoritative. The opinion carries significant legal, moral and political weight: since states often refer to advisory opinions when shaping policies, judges cite them for decisions and they’re used by civil society to hold governments accountable. An advisory opinion can influence shifting governance and principles governing it. I like to think of it as a northern star — it won’t change the reality but can guide potential outcomes and pave the way for future change.
The movement for an advisory opinion to ICJ began in 2019 when a few brave young people from the Pacific Islands stood up for the world. Twenty-seven law students at the Vanuatu campus of the University of South Pacific convinced their nation to champion climate action and accountability to the entire world by bringing climate justice to the world court.
For these students in the Pacific, the climate crisis means losing their identity, their culture and their homes to the rising sea levels and weather catastrophes. To the young people across the globe — including me — the concern about not being heard by world leaders becomes a shared reality, even though it is our future at stake.
Four courts, four continents
It’s not just the ICJ that’s delivering an advisory opinion. The world is at a turning point. For the first time, four world courts or tribunals across four continents are being asked to clarify nations’ legal obligations in the face of the climate crisis. The ICJ’s advisory opinion is the centrepiece: but it sits within a broader push primarily by global youth and developing countries — to clarify what human rights, state responsibility and climate justice mean in law.
In addition to the advisory opinions, there are currently 3,113 climate cases across the globe. These include many youth-led cases that bolster solidarity for climate action, call for futureproofing environmental governance, and evoke soft power around the legal proceedings.
These legal proceedings are the result of bold, persistent advocacy. These cases are not abstract. There’s a moral arc here: they primarily stem from advocacy from global youth movements, developing countries, civil society coalitions and frontline communities demanding legal recognition of climate harms and protection of future generations.
As such, the role of youth in bolstering moral power is massive. Their influence in empowering states across the globe to embody climate leadership is critical to pushing for political action, even amid geopolitical realities.
Tracing climate litigation patterns suggests that youth are changing the environmental governance space: as youth litigators (both young lawyers and youth-led cases), youth negotiators and youth activists. Youth across these three spheres — law, politics and activism — are mutually reinforcing each other in their advocacy, unlike ever before.
Themes of climate justice in litigation, negotiation, and social movements are deeply interconnected, rather than isolated from one another. Youth, who are active across all these spheres, often serve as key advocates, thereby reshaping governance dynamics in the process
The push for justice by youth is palpable, despite growing political concerns across the globe. Youth remains the common face of vulnerability, agency and promise. The call for justice is now.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Susan Ann Samuel receives funding from Prof. Viktoria Spaiser’s UKRI FLF Grant MR/V021141/1 and is supported by the University of Leeds – School of Politics and International Studies.
When we think about the side effects of medicines, we might think of nausea, fatigue or dizziness. But there’s another, lesser-known risk that can have lasting – and sometimes permanent – consequences: hearing loss. A wide range of prescription and over-the-counter drugs are known to be ototoxic, meaning they can damage the inner ear and affect hearing or balance.
Ototoxicity refers to drug or chemical-related damage to the cochlea, which affects hearing, and the vestibular system, which controls balance. Symptoms can include tinnitus (ringing in the ears), hearing loss (often starting with high-frequency sounds), dizziness or balance problems or a sensation of fullness in the ears.
These effects can be temporary or permanent, depending on the drug involved, the dose and duration and a person’s susceptibility.
The inner ear is highly sensitive, and most experts believe ototoxic drugs cause damage by harming the tiny hair cells in the cochlea or disrupting the fluid balance in the inner ear. Once these hair cells are damaged, they don’t regenerate – making hearing loss irreversible in many cases.
Around 200 medicines are known to have ototoxic effects. Here are some of the most commonly used drugs to watch out for:
1. Antibiotics
Aminoglycoside antibiotics like gentamicin, tobramycin and streptomycin are typically prescribed for serious infections such as sepsis, meningitis, or tuberculosis – conditions where prompt, aggressive treatment can be lifesaving. In these cases, the benefits often outweigh the potential risk of hearing loss.
These drugs, usually given intravenously, are among the most well-documented ototoxic medications. They can cause irreversible hearing loss, particularly when used in high doses or over extended periods. Some people may also be genetically more vulnerable to these effects.
These drugs linger in the inner ear for weeks or even months, meaning damage can continue after treatment has ended.
Other antibiotics to be aware of include macrolides (such as erythromycin and azithromycin) and vancomycin, which have also been linked to hearing problems, particularly in older adults or people with kidney issues.
2. Heart medicines
Loop diuretics like furosemide and bumetanide are commonly used to manage heart failure or high blood pressure. When given in high doses or intravenously, they can cause temporary hearing loss by disrupting the fluid and electrolyte balance in the inner ear. Around 3% of users may experience ototoxicity.
These include ACE inhibitors – drugs like ramipril that help relax blood vessels by blocking a hormone called angiotensin, making it easier for the heart to pump blood – and calcium-channel blockers like amlodipine, which reduce blood pressure by preventing calcium from entering the cells of the heart and blood vessel walls. While these associations have been observed, more research is needed to fully understand the extent of their effect on hearing.
3. Chemotherapy
Certain chemotherapy drugs, especially those containing platinum – like cisplatin and carboplatin – are known to be highly ototoxic. Cisplatin, often used to treat testicular, ovarian, breast, head and neck cancers, carries a significant risk of permanent hearing loss. That risk increases when radiation is also directed near the head or neck.
Up to 60% of patients treated with cisplatin experience some degree of hearing loss. Researchers are exploring ways to reduce risk by adjusting dosage or frequency without compromising the drug’s effectiveness.
High doses of common pain relievers, including aspirin, NSAIDs – non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen and naproxen, commonly used to relieve pain, inflammation and fever – and even paracetamol, have been linked to tinnitus and hearing loss.
A large study found that women under 60 who regularly took moderate-dose aspirin (325 mg or more, six to seven times per week) had a 16% higher risk of developing tinnitus. This link was not seen with low-dose aspirin (100 mg or less). Frequent use of NSAIDs as well as paracetamol was also associated with a nearly 20% increased risk of tinnitus, particularly in women who used these medications often.
Another study linked long-term use of these painkillers to a higher risk of hearing loss, especially in men under 60. In most cases, tinnitus and hearing changes resolve once the medication is stopped – but these side effects typically occur after prolonged, high-dose use.
5. Antimalarial drugs
Drugs like chloroquine and quinine – used to treat malaria and leg cramps – can cause reversible hearing loss and tinnitus. One study found that 25–33% of people with hearing loss had previously taken one of these drugs.
Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, has a similar chemical structure and poses a similar risk. While some people recover after stopping the drug, others may experience permanent damage, particularly after long-term or high-dose use.
People with pre-existing hearing loss, kidney disease, or genetic susceptibility face higher risks – as do those taking multiple ototoxic drugs at once. Children and older adults may also be more vulnerable.
If you’re prescribed one of these medications for a serious condition like cancer, sepsis or tuberculosis, the benefits usually outweigh the risks. But it’s still wise to be informed. Ask your doctor or pharmacist if your medicine carries a risk to hearing or balance. If you experience ringing in your ears, dizziness, or muffled hearing, report it promptly.
Dipa Kamdar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ali Shiri, Professor of Information Science & Vice Dean, Faculty of Graduate & Postdoctoral Studies, University of Alberta
Generative AI, especially large language models (LLMs), present exciting and unprecedented opportunities and complex challenges for academic research and scholarship.
As the different versions of LLMs (such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity.ai and Grok) continue to proliferate, academic research is beginning to undergo a significant transformation.
In a time of rapid change, students and academics are advised to look to their institutions, programs and units for discipline-specific policy or guidelines regulating the use of AI.
Help brainstorm, generate and refine research ideas and formulate hypotheses;
Design experiments and conduct and synthesize literature reviews;
Write and debug code;
Analyze and visualize both qualitative and quantitative data;
Develop interdisciplinary theoretical and methodological frameworks;
Suggest relevant sources and citations, summarize complex texts and draft abstracts;
Support the dissemination and presentation of research findings, in popular formats.
However, there are significant concerns and challenges surrounding the appropriate, ethical, responsible and effective use of generative AI tools in the conduct of research, writing and research dissemination. These include:
Misrepresentation of data and authorship;
Difficulty in replication of research results;
Data and algorithmic biases and inaccuracies;
User and data privacy and confidentiality;
Quality of outputs, data and citation fabrication;
And copyright and intellectual property infringement.
1. AI research assistants: The number of AI research assistants that support different aspects and steps of the research process is growing at an exponential rate. These technologies have the potential to enhance and extend traditional research methods in academic work. Examples include AI assistants that support:
Concept mapping (Kumu, GitMind, MindMeister);
Literature and systematic reviews (Elicit, Undermind, NotebookLM, SciSpace);
Literature search (Consensus, ResearchRabbit, Connected Papers, Scite);
Literature analysis and summarization (Scholarcy, Paper Digest, Keenious);
And research topic and trend detection and analysis (Scinapse, tlooto, Dimension AI).
2. ‘Deep research’ AI agents: The field of artificial intelligence is advancing quickly with the rise of “deep research” AI agents. These next-generation agents combine LLMs, retrieval-augmented generation and sophisticated reasoning frameworks to conduct in-depth, multi-step analyses.
Research is currently being conducted to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of deep research tools. New evaluation criteria are being developed to assess their performance and quality.
The purpose of deep research tools is to meticulously extract, analyze and synthesize scholarly information, empirical data and diverse perspectives from a wide array of online and social media sources. The output is a detailed report, complete with citations, offering in-depth insights into complex topics.
In just a short span of four months (December 2024 to February 2025), several companies (like Google Gemini, Perplexity.ai and ChatGPT) introduced their “deep research” platforms.
LLMs are also powerful tools to support interdisciplinary research. Recent emerging research (yet to be peer reviewed) on the effectiveness of LLMs for research suggests they have great potential in areas such as biological sciences, chemical sciences, engineering, environmental as well as social sciences. It also suggests LLMs can help eliminate disciplinary silos by bringing together data and methods from different fields and automating data collection and generation to create interdisciplinary datasets.
Helping to analyze and summarize large volumes of research across various disciplines can aid interdisciplinary collaboration. “Expert finder” AI-powered platforms can analyze researcher profiles and publication networks to map expertise, identify potential collaborators across fields and reveal unexpected interdisciplinary connections.
This emerging knowledge suggests these models will be able to help researchers drive breakthroughs by combining insights from diverse fields — like epidemiology and physics, climate science and economics or social science and climate data — to address complex problems.
Collaborative university work is also happening. For example, as vice dean of the Faculty of Graduate & Postdoctoral Studies at the University of Alberta (and an information science professor), I have worked with deans from the University of Manitoba, the University of Winnipeg and Vancouver Island University to develop guidelines and recommendations around generative AI and graduate and postdoctoral research and supervision.
Considering the growing power and capabilities of large language models, there is an urgent need to develop AI literacy training tailored for academic researchers.
This training should focus on both the potential and the limitations of these tools in the different stages of the research process and writing.
Ali Shiri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Any account of love and dating in the 2020s is incomplete without addressing an uncomfortable topic: are our encounters with technology shaping who we are and how we desire?
Dating apps such as Tinder, Bumble and Feeld allow users to choose from dozens of genders, sexualities, desires and relationship types. Commonplace descriptors such as “straight”, “gay” and “bisexual” are now joined by labels including “polysexual” (an attraction to multiple, but not all, genders), “skoliosexual” (an attraction predominantly to people who don’t conform to traditional gender norms) and “heteroflexible” (an attraction that is mostly heterosexual with some exceptions).
But do these categories provide a more accurate representation of the world beyond the app? Or do they partly construct the world they claim to describe?
As a regular user of gay dating apps throughout the late 2000s and early 2010s, I discovered a menu of categories to describe myself. There was everything from “twinks” (slim build, youthful appearance and little or no body hair) and “otters” (the same but with a bit more body hair and a more masculine appearance) to “bears” (large build and lots of body hair) and “muscle daddies” (older with a muscular physique).
I quickly understood how to maximise my success on the app by hacking the algorithm: the curated buzzwords in my bio, profile pics that struck the right balance between “sexy” and “intelligent”, how often to use the app and when. If the app gave prominence to a certain “category” of gay man in its listings, I was more than willing to present myself as that category.
But, in the process, the line between the category and the thing being categorised (me and my desires) became increasingly impossible to untangle.
This experience inspired research in my new book Rainbow Trap, which investigates the technical aspects of app design and how the provision of more “inclusive categories” for LGBTQ+ communities often does nothing to reconfigure the narrow accounts of desire encoded in the tech.
Dating today can feel like a mix of endless swipes, red flags and shifting expectations. From decoding mixed signals to balancing independence with intimacy, relationships in your 20s and 30s come with unique challenges. Love IRL is the latest series from Quarter Life that explores it all.
These research-backed articles break down the complexities of modern love to help you build meaningful connections, no matter your relationship status.
Writing in the early 2000s, science and technology scholars Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star coined the term “convergence” to describe what happens when “people get put into categories and learn from those categories how to behave”. Philosopher of science Ian Hacking similarly used the term looping effect“ to describe the multi-directional relationship between a category and the “thing” being categorised.
These encounters, however, highlight a fundamental tension between queer communities and classifications: the classifications used to describe us also come to define us. This can determine what doors are opened and closed and who we are allowed to be.
Thinking back to my early forays into dating apps, I would often assign myself to the category of “twink”. Although used by app designers to assist with the algorithmic sorting of users, the identity felt contoured to my life.
The connections suggested by the app, based on my self-categorisation as a “twink”, felt as if they reflected who I was and what I had always wanted. And, for a period, I believed it.
However, in hindsight, I don’t know if I was ever really attracted to men with 26-inch waists and hair frazzled by too much bleach. I had limited myself to what the app told me I should like. But desire isn’t so easily put into a box.
Getting critical about categories
Underpinning the mechanics of all dating apps are categories, and we can learn a lot about love and dating by thinking critically about the categories used.
Between 2021 and 2023, Tinder reported a 30% increase in the use of gender identities other than “male” or “female” on the app, creating more than 145 million new matches. Identification with the label “non-binary” also more than doubled in just one year.
In 2023, the dating app Feeld (which describes itself as designed “for the curious”) reported that more than half its users who identified as “heterosexual” connected with someone on the app who did not identify as “heterosexual”. Feeld also has claimed that over 180,000 people “changed their sexuality” during their first year of using the app and that “the longer Feeld members are on the app, the less heterosexual they get”.
I am not suggesting that our navigation of love and dating through the prism of technology (and its growing menu of categories) is making us more queer – as these technologies could just as equally be making us more straight. But whatever is happening, it is clear that assigning yourself to a particular category opens and closes opportunities for love and desire.
It is app designers who then hold the power to decide what connections are made – for example, whether “twinks” connect with “bears”, whether your category features first or last on the home page. Because the classifications used to describe us are also now defining us, app designers partly shape how you think about yourself and your desires. This power does not stop when you turn off the app, it extends into offline worlds too.
So, for app users, be open to how your encounters with categories shape who and how you desire. Who will the app include and exclude based on your self-categorisation? And is that the experience you necessarily what?
Kevin Guyan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The UK government’s new ten-year-plan to transform the NHS includes a focus on preventing ill health rather than treating illness. But to what extent should people depend on the state to help them make healthy decisions?
Some think any kind of nudge in that direction is symptomatic of a “nanny state” overstepping its boundaries. Others might argue that nanny knows best, or that governments should do whatever works best both economically and to keep people healthy.
Either way, if a country like the UK wants to keep providing free (or at least tax-payer funded) and universal healthcare, rather than charging every patient for their specific needs, its choices are limited.
In 2022, 28.7% of adults in the UK had obesity, compared to 10.9% in France, 14.3% in Denmark and 22% in Belgium. (In the US, it was 42.8%.)
Government analysis claims that if everyone who is overweight reduced their calorie intake by just 216 calories a day – roughly equivalent to a single 500ml bottle of fizzy drink – obesity would be halved, and so would the associated costs. It also estimates that cutting the calorie count of a daily diet by just 50 calories would lift 340,000 children and 2 million adults out of obesity.
But how should it persuade people to cut those calories? Happy to ignore accusations of being a nanny state, the UK government is now working with food retailers and manufacturers to encourage people to make healthier choices.
Under the plan, products will be made with less sugar and fat. And the data that supermarkets own about your shopping habits (through online shopping and loyalty cards) will be used to nudge you towards more fruits and vegetables and fewer bags of crisps. Businesses that fail to induce changes in customer consumption will face financial penalties.
And perhaps this is more effective than personal responsibility. Recent alternative policies which relied on individual action like following diets using the NHS weight loss app have not worked.
So perhaps state intervention is the only policy British people are willing to accept. Understandably, they want the freedom to make their own choices when it comes to exercise, eating and drinking, but they also want to keep the NHS free. Only 7% would support charging people for their use of healthcare.
Fat tax
Another option is to tax the consumption of fat and sugar to pay for the cost it imposes on others. In 2016, the UK was among the first countries to introduce a tax on sugary drinks. Since then, the total amount of sugar in British soft drinks has decreased by 46%, because changing the recipes means the producers pay less tax.
Research shows that the tax also deters younger people from buying too much sugar. However, it does little to reduce consumption among those who have the most sugar-intensive diets, just like alcohol taxes do nothing to convince the most addicted alcoholics to drink less.
There is also a valid argument that taxing sugar and fat is unfair. Unhealthy food is a much larger proportion of the budget of poorer households than it is for wealthier one, making it a regressive tax.
Yet policies nudging people towards healthy choices often have a good track record. A study of food labelling policies which placed warning labels on high sugar and high calorie foods in Chile showed that people bought less of them.
To stay below the threshold, firms then changed their recipes, just like with the tax. In that case, the warnings led to people consuming 11.5% less sugar and 2.8% less fat.
While paternalistic interventions can be annoying or upsetting, pretending obesity is purely an individual choice is misleading. Obesity starts in childhood, and can destroy future choices. Children with obesity are more likely to be bullied, and don’t do as well at school.
The state regularly bans harmful products without controversy. Even if you wanted to, you could not insulate your house with asbestos, and the UK is currently busy banning the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2009.
With NHS waiting lists remaining at record highs, and a struggling economy, risk of the country becoming a nanny state by trying to encourage healthier food might actually be a pretty minor one.
Renaud Foucart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process — this time for foreign investment in New Zealand.
There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments — especially in forestry.
A three-step test Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator — the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ — 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand’s “national interest”.
If they don’t perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved.
Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, would require a “national interest” assessment under stage two.
These would be assessed against a “ministerial letter” that sets out the government’s general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals.
Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act’s new “purpose” to increase economic opportunity through “timely consent” of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether.
If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is “contrary to the national interest”, the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors.
Inadequate regulatory process Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury’s 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions.
Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should “manage a wide range of risks” and “that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets”.
Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses.
The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported “notable limitations” on the bill’s quality assurance process.
A fuller review was “infeasible” because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way.
The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited.
Time constraints meant “users and key stakeholders have not been consulted”, according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations.
Forestry ‘slash’ after Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023 . . . no need to consider foreign investors’ track records. Image: Getty/The Conversation
No ‘benefit to NZ’ test While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting.
Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land.
There would no longer be a need to consider investors’ track records or apply a “benefit to New Zealand” test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash.
The official documents don’t explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First’s support.
Locked in forever? Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand’s free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand’s investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations.
A “ratchet clause” would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back.
However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question.
As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk.
But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications.
While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process — this time for foreign investment in New Zealand.
There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments — especially in forestry.
A three-step test Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator — the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ — 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand’s “national interest”.
If they don’t perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved.
Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, would require a “national interest” assessment under stage two.
These would be assessed against a “ministerial letter” that sets out the government’s general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals.
Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act’s new “purpose” to increase economic opportunity through “timely consent” of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether.
If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is “contrary to the national interest”, the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors.
Inadequate regulatory process Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury’s 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions.
Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should “manage a wide range of risks” and “that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets”.
Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses.
The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported “notable limitations” on the bill’s quality assurance process.
A fuller review was “infeasible” because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way.
The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited.
Time constraints meant “users and key stakeholders have not been consulted”, according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations.
Forestry ‘slash’ after Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023 . . . no need to consider foreign investors’ track records. Image: Getty/The Conversation
No ‘benefit to NZ’ test While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting.
Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land.
There would no longer be a need to consider investors’ track records or apply a “benefit to New Zealand” test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash.
The official documents don’t explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First’s support.
Locked in forever? Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand’s free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand’s investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations.
A “ratchet clause” would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back.
However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question.
As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk.
But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Hayes Mabweazara, Senior Lecturer in Sociological & Cultural Studies (Media, Culture & Society), University of Glasgow
Media capture happens when media outlets lose their independence and fall under the influence of political or financial interests. This often leads to news content that favours power instead of public accountability.
What is media capture and how has it reshaped itself in recent times?
Media capture describes how media outlets are influenced, manipulated or controlled by powerful actors – often governments or large corporations – to serve their interests. It’s an idea that helps us understand how powerful groups in society can have a negative influence on news media. While this idea isn’t new, what has changed is how subtly and pervasively it now operates.
These groups include big technology organisations that own digital media platforms – such as X, owned by xAI (Elon Musk), and Instagram and Facebook, owned by Meta. But it’s also important to consider Google as a large search engine that shapes the news content and audience of many other platforms.
This matters because the media are important for the functioning of democratic societies. Ideally, they provide information, represent different groups and issues in society, and hold powerful actors to account.
For example, one of the key roles of the media is to provide accurate information for citizens to be able to decide how to vote in elections. Or to decide what they think about important issues. One big concern, then, is the effect of inaccurate or biased information on democracy.
Or it might be that accurate information is harder to access because algorithms and platforms make it easier to access inaccurate or biased information. These can be intended and unintended consequences of the technology itself, but algorithms can amplify misinformation and fake news – especially if this content has the potential to go viral.
So, what’s particular about media capture in the global south?
This is a really interesting question that is still being investigated, but we have some ideas.
First of all, it’s useful to know that media capture scholarship from the global north emerged around the time of the 2008 financial crisis. The influence of financial institutions on business journalists was one of the first areas of study. Since then, research in the US has focused on the capture of government-funded media organisations like Voice of America. And on how digital platforms like Google and Facebook can lead to capture.
In the global south, scholars have drawn attention to the importance of large media corporations in understanding media capture. For example, in Latin America, there’s a high level of what’s called “media concentration”. This is when many media outlets are owned by a few companies. These companies often own companies in other sectors, which means that critical reporting on business interests presents a conflict of interest.
But to focus on Africa, scholars have drawn attention to governments as a source of pressure on journalists and editors. This can be through direct pressure or what we might call “covert” pressure. Withholding advertising that helps to fund media outlets is an example, or offering financial incentives to stop investigating certain topics.
Researchers are also concerned about the influence of big tech in Africa. Digital platforms like Google and Facebook can shape the news and information that citizens have access to.
Can you share some of the studies from the book?
Our book includes many interesting studies – from Colombia, Brazil and Mexico in Latin America to Ethiopia and Morocco in Africa. We’ll share a few African cases here to give an overview of the issues.
The book’s contribution on Ghana warns us that although more overt “old” types of media capture may have subsided, transitional democracies can feature messier, more nuanced forms of media control. This can be evident in government pressures and through capture of regulators.
In the Morocco chapter, we see the threat to media freedom presented by digital platforms owned by global tech giants. This is known as “infrastructural capture”. It means news organisations become dependent on tech giants to set the rules of the game for democratic communication.
Another compelling case is Nigeria, where researchers explore ties between media ownership and political patronage. The authors argue that the Nigerian press is failing in its democratic duty because of its reliance on advertising and sponsorship income from the state. Added to this are ineffective regulatory mechanisms and close relationships with some big businesses that own newspapers and printing presses.
How can media capture be resisted in the global south?
The studies in the book show some ways forward and we do think it’s important to be optimistic! Resistance takes many forms. Sometimes it comes through legal and policy reform aimed at increasing transparency and media diversity. In other cases, it’s driven by social movements, investigative journalists and independent media who continue to operate under pressure.
The chapter on Uganda shows that journalist groups working with media advocacy organisations can strategically act to resist government media capture and harmful regulations. For example, to push back against one legislative change, several groups formed a temporary network called Article 29 (named after the article in the Ugandan constitution protecting free speech) and the African Centre for Media Excellence produced a report criticising the proposed changes.
One of the chapters on Ghana also shows how networks such as journalists, media associations, human rights groups and legal organisations can mobilise to push back against government influence. Organisations including the Ghana Journalists Association and Ghana Independent Broadcasters Association have played key roles in, for example, taking the media regulator to court to overturn laws that would have led to censorship. These findings are echoed in Latin America, where research on Mexico and Colombia also found professional journalism to be a strong source of resistance.
The conversation must also include rethinking how we define capture itself. If we frame it only as total control, we risk missing the everyday ways influence operates – and the spaces where it can be resisted. We would also say it’s really important that citizens are aware and alert to the issues when they think about how they access news media and what platforms they use. This is sometimes called “media literacy” and is about people being more knowledgeable about where trustworthy news comes from.
You can listen to a podcast about the book over here.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Mariapaola McGurk, Lecturer in Innovation & Entrepreneurship, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau
Johannesburg is weathering a storm of crises. Nowhere is its complex tangle of challenges more visible than in the inner city, where crime, overcrowding, and infrastructure collapse – such as roads literally exploding – paint a grim picture. Cultural institutions haven’t been spared either, with long-standing landmarks like the Johannesburg Art Gallery caught in cycles of neglect and crisis.
Yet, while many avoid the inner city or speak only of its decline, the creative and cultural practitioners of Johannesburg never left. In fact, artists, architects, fashion designers, animators, musicians and the like have been hard at work. They’re building, dreaming and shaping a new urban reality that could become the beacon of hope this city needs.
As a researcher and visual artist, I recently completed a PhD study that focused on Johannesburg’s cultural and creative industries. My research revealed that a clear understanding of the existing structures and dynamics within this industry is essential for developing effective strategies to strengthen its role in local economic development.
Here I explore one such opportunity: creative hubs. I argue that they represent a low-hanging fruit for the inner city’s growth and revitalisation.
Urban renewal
Numerous articles have explored strategies for the city’s economic development and urban renewal. One group of scholars recently outlined four critical focus areas: coordinated efforts across government levels; an active civil society; a shift in political culture; and restored leadership in a revitalised administration.
These are vital interventions, but they still beg a deeper question. What is the new “gold” of the “City of Gold”, the mining town founded in 1886 and on track to become a megacity by 2030?
What is it that truly sets Johannesburg apart, nationally and globally? What strengths already exist that, if nurtured, could help address the city’s challenges? The answer may not lie in building something entirely new, but in recognising and investing in what already thrives. The city’s people, its culture, and its extraordinary creativity.
In 2004, Unesco launched the Creative Cities Network. Today it comprises 246 cities in 80 member states. South Africa has three cities in the network: Cape Town (design), Durban (literature) and Overstrand (gastronomy). Johannesburg has never applied to belong.
Cities are acknowledging the economic and social value of the cultural and creative industries, particularly in addressing challenges such as youth unemployment, micro-enterprise growth, equity and community development.
Yet cities globally are grappling with how to retain creative professionals. This is the case in cities like Toronto, Sydney, Los Angeles, Cologne or Barcelona. Rising property prices, the redevelopment of industrial areas into commercial or luxury spaces, and short-term rental agreements are displacing these professionals from the urban cores they help energise. Cities are coming up with incentives and programmes to correct this.
A recent World Cities Cultural Forum report offers a solution in the form of Creative Land Trusts. These permanently hold land and assets at affordable rates for creatives. They take property out of speculative real estate markets. They’re designed to support not galleries or theatres, but the studios and workspaces where creative production actually happens.
Unlike cities that are trying to reverse the exodus of creatives, Johannesburg’s inner city has seen a recent surge in creative hub development.
A creative hub is a physical or digital space (in this case physical) designed to bring together cultural and creative professionals for studio space, collaboration, networking and the exchange of ideas.
Across Johannesburg, creative hubs buzz with independent activity, yet share a common commitment to cultivating talent, business support and community impact. They are evidence of innovative partnerships between creatives and property developers.
Inside these spaces, artists and creatives get opportunities through gallerist and investor visits (access to markets). They build practical and entrepreneurial skills through tailored workshops. And they collaborate on projects that place social upliftment at their heart.
Some hubs focus on offering studio spaces, while others extend their reach beyond their walls, blending artistic expression with community development and public engagement.
By actively building community and opportunity, creative hubs are becoming
lighthouses for the new urban economy.
They are small business incubators, urban beautification engines and potential cultural tourism hotspots. An event like Contra Fair opens the doors of art studio hubs once a year. Entrepreneur and social activist Tebogo Moalusi has now taken the lead in the establishment of Creative20. This will become a platform for revitalising Johannesburg’s creative cities campaign.
This is despite Gauteng, the province that houses Johannesburg, being the epicentre of South Africa’s creative economy. It contributes 46.3% of the industry’s gross domestic product and generates the highest employment impact. Johannesburg hosts the majority of creative businesses in the province.
The Gauteng 2030 Strategy highlights three high-growth sectors: agro-processing, cultural and creative industries, and high-tech/knowledge sectors, including digital and gaming. Two of these directly involve the creative economy. Yet there’s been little effort to integrate them into Johannesburg’s urban development agenda.
If Johannesburg is serious about inclusive economic development and sustainable urban growth, it must recognise and invest in the cultural and creative industries which are already thriving within its borders.
Mariapaola McGurk consults to Creative20 Organisation
After all, Amin reasoned, a collapsing economy had made the U.K. unable to maintain its leadership. Moreover the “British empire does not now exist following the complete decolonization of Britain’s former overseas territories.”
It wasn’t Amin’s only attempt to reshape the international order. Around the same time, he called for the United Nations headquarters to be moved to Uganda’s capital, Kampala, touting its location at “the heart of the world between the continents of America, Asia, Australia and the North and South Poles.”
Amin’s diplomacy aimed to place Kampala at the center of a postcolonial world. In my new book, “A Popular History of Idi Amin’s Uganda,” I show that Amin’s government made Uganda – a remote, landlocked nation – look like a frontline state in the global war against racism, apartheid and imperialism.
Doing so was, for the Amin regime, a way of claiming a morally essential role: liberator of Africa’s hitherto oppressed people. It helped inflate his image both at home and abroad, allowing him to maintain his rule for eight calamitous years, from 1971 to 1979.
The phony liberator?
Amin was the creator of a myth that was both manifestly untrue and extraordinarily compelling: that his violent, dysfunctional regime was actually engaged in freeing people from foreign oppressors.
The question of Scottish independence was one of his enduring concerns. The “people of Scotland are tired of being exploited by the English,” wrote Amin in a 1974 telegram to United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim. “Scotland was once an independent country, happy, well governed and administered with peace and prosperity,” but under the British government, “England has thrived on the energies and brains of the Scottish people.”
Even his cruelest policies were framed as if they were liberatory. In August 1972, Amin announced the summary expulsion of Uganda’s Asian community. Some 50,000 people, many of whom had lived in Uganda for generations, were given a bare three months to tie up their affairs and leave the country. Amin named this the “Economic War.”
In the speech that announced the expulsions, Amin argued that “the Ugandan Africans have been enslaved economically since the time of the colonialists.” The Economic War was meant to “emancipate the Uganda Africans of this republic.”
“This is the day of salvation for the Ugandan Africans,” he said. By the end of 1972, some 5,655 farms, ranches and estates had been vacated by the departed Asian community, and Black African proprietors were queuing up to take over Asian-run businesses.
A year later, when Amin attended the Organization of African Unity summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, his “achievements” were reported in a booklet published by the Uganda government. During his speech, Amin was “interrupted by thunderous applauses of acclamation and cheers, almost word for word, by Heads of State and Government and by everybody else who had a chance to hear it,” according to the the report.
It was, wrote the government propagandist, “very clear that Uganda had emerged as the forefront of a True African State. It was clear that African nationalism had been born again. It was clear that the speech had brought new life to the freedom struggle in Africa.”
Life at the front
Amin’s policies were disastrous for all Ugandans, African and Asian alike. Yet his war of economic liberation was, for a time, a source of inspiration for activists around the world. Among the many people gripped by enthusiasm for Amin’s regime was Roy Innis, the Black American leader of the civil rights organization Congress of Racial Equality.
In March 1973, Innis visited Uganda at Amin’s invitation. Innis and his colleagues had been pressing African governments to grant dual citizenship to Black Americans, just as Jewish Americans could earn citizenship from the state of Israel.
Over the course of their 18 days in Uganda, the visiting Americans were shuttled around the country in Amin’s helicopter. Everywhere, Innis spoke with enthusiasm about Amin’s accomplishments. In a poem published in the pro-government Voice of Uganda around the time of his visit, Innis wrote:
“Before, the life of your people was a complete bore,
And they were poor, oppressed, exploited and economically sore.
And you then came and opened new, dynamic economic pages.
And showered progress on your people in realistic stages.
In such expert moves that baffled even the great sages,
your electric personality pronounced the imperialists’ doom.
Your pragmatism has given Ugandans their economic boom.”
In May 1973, Innis was back in Uganda, promising to recruit a contingent of 500 African American professors and technicians to serve in Uganda. Amin offered them free passage to Uganda, free housing and free hospital care for themselves and their families. The American weekly magazine Jet predicted that Uganda was soon to become an “African Israel,” a model nation upheld by the energies and knowledge of Black Americans.
Roy Innis, national director of the Congress of Racial Equality, in 1972. Bettmann/Getty Images
As some have observed, Innis was surely naive. But his enthusiasm was shared by a great many people, not least a great many Ugandans. Inspired by Amin’s promises, their energy and commitment kept institutions functioning in a time of great disruption. They built roads and stadiums, constructed national monuments and underwrote the running costs of government ministries.
Patriotism and demagoguery
Their ambitions were soon foreclosed by a rising tide of political dysfunction. Amin’s regime came to a violent end in 1979, when he was ousted by the invading army of Tanzania and fled Uganda.
But his brand of demagoguery lives on. Today a new generation of demagogues claim to be fighting to liberate aggrieved majorities from outsiders’ control.
In the 1970s, Amin enlisted Black Ugandans to battle against racial minorities who were said to dominate the economy and public life. Today an ascendant right wing encourages aggrieved white Americans to regard themselves as a majority dispossessed of their inheritance by greedy immigrants.
Amin encouraged Ugandans to regard themselves as frontline soldiers, engaged in a globally consequential war against foreigners. In today’s America, some people similarly feel themselves deputized to take matters of state into their own hands. In January 2021, for instance, a right-wing group called “Stop the Steal” organized a rally in Washington. Vowing to “take our country back,” they stormed the Capitol building.
The racialized demagoguery that Idi Amin promoted inspired the imagination of a great many people. It also fed violent campaigns to repossess a stolen inheritance, to reclaim properties that ought, in the view of the aggrieved majority, to belong to native sons and daughters. His regime is for us today a warning about the compelling power of demagoguery to shape people’s sense of purpose.
Derek R. Peterson receives funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Andrew Mellon Foundation.
The picture of Mark Latham on the caucus room gallery of Labor leaders will have an annotation under it saying he was expelled for life and his actions do not accord with Labor values.
The first meeting of the new caucus agreed unanimously to this compromise, after pressure from some in Labor to remove the photo of Latham, who led the party in 2003–05.
Latham’s former partner recently accused him of a “sustained pattern” of domestic abuse, in a civil court application for an apprehended violence order. It will be heard next week.
In other condemned behaviour – the latest of a string of controversial incidents over the years – Latham, now an independent in the NSW upper house, also photographed women members without their consent.
The wording under the picture will read:
In 2017, Mark Latham was expelled from the Australian Labor Party and banned for life. His actions do not accord with Labor values and fail to meet the standards we expect and demand.
Opinion in the party about what to do about the picture has been divided. The matter was discussed by both the right and left factions at their meetings.
The Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, told the ABC, “I think there’s a recognition, on balance, that you can’t erase history”. But acknowledging that Latham was expelled and his actions “don’t align with modern Australian Labor Party values or standards” was important, she said.
“I wasn’t there at the time but I think it was a style of leadership that didn’t sit well with the values of the Australian Labor Party and it’s a type of leadership people wouldn’t want to return to.”
Ahead of the new parliament’s opening on Tuesday, both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Sussan Ley addressed their respective party rooms.
Albanese told his huge caucus, which includes 94 members of the House of Representatives, that if Labor maintained its sense of discipline and purpose there was no reason why they could not all be returned at the next election – and their numbers added to as well.
He said Labor was embarking on “our year of delivery. That is our focus. We’ve just been through an election, we had clear commitments and we want to deliver them.”
Ley told the Coalition party room Albanese was giving interviews “suggesting that we should just get out of the way. Well we won’t be getting out of the way.”
The opposition would cooperate with constructive government policies, as it was doing on child care safety reforms.
But if the government brought forward legislation that was not in the national interest “we will fight them every step of the way”, she said, flagging the Coalition’s opposition to potential tax increases.
The first parliamentary week comes against a background of further depressing news for the Coalition, after its election rout.
The latest Newspoll shows Labor improving its position since the election, to lead 57–43 on a two-party basis. Labor has a primary vote of 36%, while the Coalition is down to 29%, which is the lowest in the history of Newspoll, that goes back to the mid-1980s.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Porirua City Council is set to create a memorial for more than 1800 former patients of the local hospital buried in unmarked graves. But Pacific leaders are asking to be “meaningfully involved” in the process, including incorporating prayer, language, and ceremonial practices.
More than 50 people gathered at Porirua Cemetery last month after the council’s plans became public, many of whom are descendants of those buried without headstones.
Cemeteries Manager Daniel Chrisp said it was encouraging to see families engaging with the project.
Chrisp’s team has placed 99 pegs to mark the graves of families who have come forward so far. One attendee told him that it was deeply moving to photograph the site where two relatives were buried.
“It’s fantastic that we’ve got to this point, having the descendants of those in unmarked graves encouraged to be involved,” he said.
“These plots represent mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children and other relatives, so it’s important to a lot of people.”
The Porirua Lunatic Asylum, which later became Porirua Hospital, operated from 1887 until the 1990s. At its peak in the 1960s, it was one of Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest hospitals, housing more than 2000 patients and staff.
As part of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, the government has established a national fund for headstones for unmarked graves.
Porirua City Council has applied for $200,000 to install a memorial that will list every known name.
Some pegs that mark the resting places of former patients buried in unmarked graves at Porirua Cemetery. Image: Porirua Council/RNZ/LDR
Criticism over lack of Pacific consultation Some Pacific community leaders say they were never consulted, despite Pacific people among the deceased.
Porirua Cook Islands Association chairperson Teurukura Tia Kekena said this was the first she had heard of the project, and she was concerned Pacific communities had not been included in conversations so far.
“If there was any unmarked grave and the Porirua City Council is aware of the names, I would have thought they would have contacted the ethnic groups these people belonged to,” she said.
“From a Cook Islands point of view, we need to acknowledge these people. They need to be fully acknowledged.”
Kekena learned about the project only after being contacted by a reporter, despite the council’s ongoing efforts to identify names and place markers for families who have come forward.
The council’s application for funding is part of its response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry.
A photograph shows Porirua Hospital in the early 1900s. Image: Porirua City Council/LDR
Kekena said it was important how the council managed the memorial, adding that it mattered deeply for Cook Islands families and the wider Pacific community, especially those with relatives buried at the site.
Reflect Pacific values She believed that a proper memorial should reflect Pacific values, particularly the importance of faith, family, and cultural protocol.
“It’s huge. It’s connecting us to these people,” she said. “Just thinking about it is getting me emotional.
“Like I said, the Pākehā way of acknowledging is totally different from our way. When we acknowledge, when we go for an unveiling, it’s about family. It’s about family. It’s about family honouring the person that had passed.
“And we do it in a way that we have a service at the graveside with the orometua [minister] present. Yeah, unveil the stone by the family, by the immediate family, if there were any here at that time.”
She also underscored the connection between remembering the deceased and healing intergenerational trauma, particularly given the site’s history with mental health.
Healing the trauma “It helps a lot. It’s a way of healing the trauma. I don’t know how these people came to be buried in an unmarked grave, but to me, it’s like they were just put there and forgotten about.
“I wouldn’t like to have my family buried in a place and be forgotten.”
Kekena urged the council to work closely with the Cook Islands community moving forward and said she would bring the matter back to her association to raise awareness and check possible connections between local families and the names identified.
Yvonne Underhill‑Sem, a Cook Islands community leader and professor of Pacific Studies at the University of Auckland, said the memorial had emotional significance, noting her personal connection to Whenua Tapu as a Porirua native.
“In terms of our Pacific understandings of ancestry, everybody who passes away is still part of our whānau. The fact that we don’t know who they are is unsettling,” she said.
“It would be a real relief to the families involved and to the generations that follow to have those graves named.”
Council reponse A Porirua City Council spokesperson said they had been actively sharing the list of names with the public and encouraged all communities — including Pacific groups, genealogists, and local iwi — to help spread the word.
So far, 99 families have come forward.
“We would encourage any networks such as Pacific, genealogists and local iwi to share the list around for members of the public to get in touch,” the spokesperson said.
Porirua councillors Izzy Ford and Moze Galo say the memorial must reflect Pacific values. Image: Porirua Council/RNZ/LDR
Porirua councillors Izzy Ford and Moze Galo, two of the three Pacific members on the council, said Pacific families must be central to the memorial process. Ford said burial sites carried deep cultural weight for Pacific communities.
“We know that burial sites are more than just places of rest, they are sacred spaces that hold our stories, our ancestry and dignity — they are our connection to those who came before us.”
She said public notices and websites were not enough.
“If we are serious about finding the families of those buried in unmarked graves here in Porirua, we have to go beyond public notices and websites.”
Funding limited Ford said government funding would be limited, and the council must work with trusted Pacific networks to reach families.
“It means partnering with groups who carry trust in our community . . . Pacific churches, elders, and organisations, communicating in our languages through Pacific radio, social media, community events, churches, and health providers.”
Galo agreed and said the memorial must reflect Pacific values in both design and feeling.
“It should feel warm, colourful, spiritual, and welcoming. Include Pacific designs, carvings, and symbols . . . there should be room for prayer, music, and quiet reflection,” he said.
“Being seen and heard brings healing, honour, and helps restore our connection to our ancestors. It reminds our families that we belong, that our history matters, and that our voice is valued in this space.”
Galo said the work must continue beyond the unveiling.
“Community involvement shouldn’t stop after the memorial is built, we should have a role in how it’s maintained and used in the future.
“These were real people, with families, love, and lives that mattered. Some were buried without names, without ceremony, and that left a deep pain. Honouring them now is a step toward healing, and a way of saying, you were never forgotten.”
Members of the public who recognise a family name on the list are encouraged to get in touch by emailing cemeteries@poriruacity.govt.nz.
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air. Asia Pacific Report is a partner in the project.
Australia’s climate is changing. To avoid catastrophic disruptions from successive supercharged disasters, society must adapt. But change takes time and it’s not always clear how much progress we’re making.
We wanted to find out what Australia’s governments, industries and local groups are doing to adapt to climate change. Our work culminated in the Australian Adaptation Database, which captures more than 700 initiatives so far.
Standout examples from this first national stocktake include Ramblers Reef in Victoria – an artificial reef of rocks and shells 500 metres offshore that has helped reduce coastal erosion. In Adelaide, urban cooling and greening projects are transforming the city and suburbs across 17 councils .
Our project shows climate adaptation is happening in Australia, but there’s plenty of room for improvement. The more society can do now to prepare for change, the better off we’ll be in the long run.
Why track Australia’s progress in climate adaptation? First, it enables progress to be reported efficiently to governments and international bodies such as the United Nations.
The database also helps people share knowledge. Anyone striving to improve their resilience to climate change can look to the database for ideas and inspiration.
The data was mainly gathered from conversations we had with people in state and territory government departments, local government associations, not-for-profit organisations and private companies across Australia.
On Wednesday, we will present the database at the opening of the national Climate Adaptation 2025 conference in Perth.
The project shows the vast range of ways Australians are preparing for a warmer world. Examples include:
planting trees to cool cities such as Adelaide and rural towns such as Birchip in Victoria
Anyone can explore and search the database. It’s not an exhaustive record of all climate adaptation in Australia, but provides more detail than ever before. It’s constantly being updated as new examples are added.
But the database is only as good as the information we feed into it, so we need everyone to contribute. All you need to do is hit the “submit an entry” button on the homepage to get started.
Artificial reefs such as Ramblers Reef help slow erosion (ABC News)
The role of government: local, state and federal
Much work to date in climate adaptation has involved laying the foundations for practical actions.
For example, South Australia’s Climate Ready Coasts program aims to improve planning for coastal hazards. This joint effort between state and local governments make sense, given both have a role to play, and it helps ensure adaptation actions are efficient and coordinated.
At the federal level, the Australian government has focused on funding for national disasters such as the Future Drought Fund. Another example, the Infrastructure Betterment Fund, involves making roads, rail, bridges and other infrastructure more resilient to climate change.
Australia is yet to release its first National Adaptation Plan. This document is expected to clarify the federal role in climate adaptation.
The private sector
The private sector is beginning to adapt to climate change. Examples include:
Change is hard, but Australia is finally making some progress in climate adaptation. Markus Spiske, Unsplash., CC BY
What’s next?
Our research shows the policy and governance mechanisms to drive adaptation are largely in place. The knowledge and networks to support meaningful action are gradually being developed.
But the next “heavy lifting” phase – putting plans into action – is yet to begin in earnest.
There’s a clear need to channel funding to those best placed to deliver frontline projects and programs, especially local governments and community organisations.
The Australian Local Government Association is calling for a A$400 million climate adaptation fund to support Australian councils to deliver place-based adaptation actions.
This research is part of a three-year project exploring how to encourage and promote best practice in adapting to climate change across Australia.
The next step is to measure progress around climate adaptation, which is difficult and rarely done – even though it’s required under the Paris Agreement.
The good news is Australia has made a start, but there is much more to do to ensure the wellbeing of our country through a changing climate.
Tia Brullo receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program Climate Systems Hub Project Number CS2.1
Elissa Waters receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program Climate Systems Hub Project Number CS2.1 and Australian Climate Service.
Jon Barnett receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program Climate Systems Hub Project Number CS2.1
Sarah Boulter receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program Climate Systems Hub.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
With federal parliament to sit for the first time since the election on Tuesday, Newspoll gives Labor a 57–43 lead and Resolve a 56–44 lead. In Tasmania, Labor is a chance to gain a seat despite a 3% slide in their statewide vote.
A national Newspoll gave Labor a 57–43 lead (55.2–44.8 to Labor at the May federal election). Fieldwork dates and the sample size were not reported, but it’s likely to have been taken July 14–18 from a sample of about 1,200.
Primary votes were 36% Labor, 29% Coalition, 12% Greens, 8% One Nation and 15% for all Others. This is the lowest Coalition primary vote in Newspoll history that goes back to 1985, and about three points below the Coalition’s result at the election.
Anthony Albanese’s net approval was net zero, a ten-point improvement for him since the final pre-election Newspoll, with 47% both satisfied and dissatisfied. Liberal leader Sussan Ley’s first rating was -7 net approval, with 42% dissatisfied and 35% satisfied. Albanese led Ley as better PM by 52–32.
Here is the graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll. While net zero is better than his negative ratings before the election, it’s a long way from his peak after winning the 2022 election.
The lack of a massive surge in net approval for Albanese indicates that Labor’s landslide was more about voters’ dislike for alternatives than their liking of Labor. Peter Dutton and Donald Trump were both big factors in the election result. A DemosAU poll I covered on Saturday had voters opposed by 71–19 to a PM like Trump.
Resolve poll
A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted with unknown fieldwork dates from a sample of 2,311, gave Labor a 56–44 lead by respondent preferences, from primary votes of 35% Labor, 29% Coalition, 12% Greens, 8% One Nation, 8% independents and 8% others.
Albanese’s net approval was +3, with 45% giviing him a good rating and 42% a poor rating. In contrast to Newspoll, Sussan Ley’s first rating in Resolve was +9 (38% good, 29% poor). Albanese led Ley as preferred PM by 40–25.
Asked whether the next year will get better or worse, 28% thought it would be personally better and the same share thought it would be worse. Asked this question on the national outlook, by 42–25 respondents expected it to get worse.
By 33–32, respondents opposed the Liberal party having gender quotas, with Coalition voters opposed by 44–27. Men were opposed by 39–34, while women supported quotas by 30–27.
Labor was thought best to handle economic management by 31–30 over the Liberals. On keeping the cost of living low, Labor led by 30–26. The last time Labor led on economic management in Resolve’s monthly polls was July 2023, and the last time they led on cost of living was October 2023.
Tasmanian election updates
Since my election night article, the count has advanced from 63% to 73% of enrolled voters, with all pre-poll votes now counted. These additional votes have not had major impacts on the results.
Postals will be the largest number of outstanding votes still to be counted, but the Tasmanian Electoral Commission won’t begin the postal count until Thursday owing to legislative changes that require the TEC to ensure a postal voter hasn’t already voted by other means.
Postals must be received by 10am on July 29 to be included. In Tasmania the Hare-Clark distribution of preferences is done by hand, and will begin after the postal receipt deadline. The TEC expects to have final results by August 2.
Analyst Kevin Bonham has called 14 of the 35 seats for the Liberals, ten for Labor, five for the Greens and four for left-wing independents, leaving two undecided. In Lyons, the final seat is likely to be won by a Shooters, Fishers and Farmers candidate.
In Bass, there’s a complex fight for the last seat between Labor, the Liberals and the Shooters. Labor may benefit from having two candidates in the race who have nearly equal votes, possibly enabling them to win three seats when they only deserve two based on party totals.
If Labor wins the final Bass seat, they would gain a seat in an election where their statewide vote slid 3.1% to 25.9%.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
