Johansen.se

The Labor Party has won a seventh consecutive ACT election.

The ACT uses the Hare Clark proportional representation method with five five-member electorates, for a total of 25 seats. A quota is one-sixth of the vote or 16.7%.

For Saturday’s election, the ABC is calling
ten Labor seats, eight Liberals, two Greens, one Independent for Canberra (IfC) and one other independent, with three still undecided.

Labor has won a seventh consecutive term, having governed in the ACT since 2001, often in coalition with the Greens. At the 2022 federal election, the ACT gave Labor a 67–33 two-party win, easily the most pro-Labor jurisdiction. This strong left lean makes it difficult for the Liberals to win ACT elections.

Vote shares were 34.5% Labor (down 3.3% since the 2020 election), 33.0% Liberals (down 0.9%), 12.5% Greens (down 1.0%), 8.5% Independents for Canberra (new) and 11.5% for all Others (down 3.3%). Postal votes have not yet been counted, and these should help the Liberals.

Nearly all pre-poll votes and some election day votes were cast electronically. Provisional preference distributions for these votes were published on election night, with paper ballots to be added to these electronic votes in the coming days.

Analysis of each of the five electorates follows. The final seat result will probably be ten Labor (steady since 2020), ten Liberals (up one), three Greens (down three), one IfC (new) and one other independent (up one). If this occurs, Labor and the Greens will retain their combined majority with 13 of the 25 seats.

In Brindabella, the Liberals won 2.57 quotas, Labor 2.05, the Greens 0.55 and IfC 0.45. Analyst Kevin Bonham says the Liberals are likely to win the last seat after postals are counted.

In Ginninderra, Labor has 2.26 quotas, the Liberals 1.52, the Greens 0.89 and IfC 0.45. Bonham says the Greens and Liberals easily win the final two seats on the provisional distribution.

In Kurrajong, Labor has 2.20 quotas, the Liberals 1.41, the Greens 1.07 and IfC 0.83. IfC easily wins the last seat on the provisional distribution.

In Murrumbidgee, the Liberals have 2.06 quotas, Labor 2.02, independent Fiona Carrick 0.78 and the Greens 0.57. Carrick easily wins the last seat.

In Yerrabi, the Liberals have 2.19 quotas, Labor 1.86, the Greens 0.71 and IfC 0.58. The Greens easily defeat IfC on the provisional distribution.

Harris dips in polls, but US presidential contest remains tight

The United States presidential election will be held on November 5. In analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of national polls, Democrat Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump by 49.1–46.8, a gain for Trump since last Monday, when Harris led by 49.3–46.5. Harris’ national lead peaked on October 2, when she led by 49.4–45.9.

Joe Biden’s final position before his withdrawal as Democratic candidate on July 21 was a national poll deficit against Trump of 45.2–41.2.

The US president isn’t elected by the national popular vote, but by the Electoral College, in which each state receives electoral votes equal to its federal House seats (population based) and senators (always two). Almost all states award their electoral votes as winner-takes-all, and it takes 270 electoral votes to win (out of 538 total).

Relative to the national popular vote, the Electoral College is biased to Trump, with Harris needing at least a two-point popular vote win to be the narrow Electoral College favourite in Silver’s model.

In Silver’s state poll aggregates, Harris leads by just 0.4 points in Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes) and Wisconsin (ten). She leads by about one point in Michigan (15 electoral votes) and Nevada (six). Trump leads by 0.8 points in North Carolina (16 electoral votes), 1.4 points in Georgia (16) and 1.8 points in Arizona (11).

If Harris holds her current leads in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada, she likely wins the Electoral College by at least 276–262. But Harris’ margins in these states are now very narrow.

While Silver’s model is still effectively a 50–50 toss-up, Trump is now the slight favourite with a 51% chance to win the Electoral College, up from 48% last Monday. Harris’ Electoral College win probability had peaked at 58% on September 27. There’s a 26% chance that Harris wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College.

While Trump was the favourite in Silver’s model between late August and mid-September, this is his first lead in FiveThirtyEight since early August.

Silver said on Friday that current economic conditions imply Harris should win the national popular vote by about one point, so the contest is trending towards this outcome. But Trump would be likely to win the Electoral College with just a one-point Harris advantage in the popular vote.

Liberals lose Pittwater to teal at NSW state byelections

Byelections occurred Saturday in the New South Wales state Liberal-held seats of Epping, Hornsby and Pittwater. Labor did not contest any of these byelections. In Pittwater, The Poll Bludger’s projections give teal independent Jacqui Scruby a 54.1–45.9 lead over the Liberals, a 4.8% swing to Scruby since the 2023 state election.

Current primary votes are 53.7% Scruby (up 17.3%), 42.4% Liberals (down 2.6%) and 3.9% for a Libertarian. The Greens had won 6.8% in 2023, but did not contest, presumably to stop left-wing votes exhausting under NSW’s optional preferential system.

The other two byelections were easy Liberal holds, with the Liberals beating the Greens by 61.6–38.4 in Hornsby (58.0–42.0 against Labor in 2023). The Liberals won Epping by 65.8–34.2 against the Greens (54.8–45.2 against Labor in 2023).

Federal Morgan poll and NT redistribution

A national Morgan poll, conducted October 7–13 from a sample of 1,697, had a 50–50 tie, unchanged from the September 30 to October 6 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 37.5% Coalition (steady), 30% Labor (down 1.5), 14% Greens (up 1.5), 6% One Nation (up 0.5), 9% independents (steady) and 3.5% others (down 0.5).

The headline figure uses respondent preferences. By 2022 election preference flows, Labor led by 51–49, a one-point gain for the Coalition.

The Northern Territory has two federal electorates: Lingiari and Solomon. It had been seven years since the last NT redistribution, so a new redistribution was required, and this was released Friday.

ABC election analyst Antony Green said Labor’s margin in Lingiari was increased from 0.9% to 1.7%, but decreased in Solomon from 9.4% to 8.4%. This is a draft redistribution, but there are not expected to be any changes before finalisation. Läs mer…

Each year in Kenya, familiar faces are feted at the national remembrance of the country’s heroes and heroines. Dedan Kimathi is arguably the most commemorated of figures. As one of the most prominent leaders of the anti-colonial Land and Freedom Army, Mau Mau, he has become a symbol of the bloodshed for independence.

Field Marshal Muthoni Kirima also features. She avoided British capture for 11 years, hiding in the forests of central Kenya, and was the only woman to reach the status of field marshal in the Mau Mau. So it is unsurprising that the then deputy president, Rigathi Gachagua, and other top government leaders attended her funeral in September 2023. Kirima died at the age of 92. The surviving Mau Mau generation is now declining, but many of those who fought or grew up during the 1950s rebellion live on.

While the leaders of the Mau Mau and the political elite now hold a prominent place in Kenya’s national history of independence, this cannot be said of the thousands of civilians who contributed to the anti-colonial cause. These include the unarmed women who sustained the freedom fighters during this fraught period of Kenya’s history.

Historians estimate that between 1952 and 1960, British colonial forces detained 80,000 Kenyans, hanged over 1,000 suspected rebels, and forcibly resettled approximately 1.2 million civilians in colonial “villages”. As its control of the colony dwindled, Britain used brutal measures including torture, forced labour and collective punishment to suppress anti-colonial dissent. It wasn’t until 2013 that Britain finally acknowledged these human rights abuses, having been exposed in the landmark High Court hearings (2011-2012).

These discoveries have instigated a flurry of historical examination from historians and activists to assess British brutality in Kenya. This work has largely focused on the detention camps incarcerating freedom fighters and Britain’s military campaign. But what of the civilians, mainly women and children, whose lives were disrupted and threatened by their forced resettlement into guarded villages? In 2018, I set out to conduct research in Kenya to capture these important stories.

The oral histories of women Britain forcibly resettled in the 1950s offer important insights into life in these villages. They challenge the evidence in the colonial archive. Archival records lack rich or diverse information about the day-to-day experiences of those who lived in the villages.

Brutal history

Between 1954 and 1960, an estimated 1.2 million Kenyans were forcibly removed from their homes and forced into colonial “villages”. This form of collective punishment was to work in tandem with the mass detention of suspected freedom fighters. Torture and forced labour were practised widely.

The High Court hearings forced Britain to release its “migrated archive”, which consisted of over 20,000 files pertaining to 37 of its former colonies. These records had been secretly removed during the process of decolonisation. The archive corroborated survivors’ testimonies of torture, sexual violence and mistreatment in the camps. These new histories of colonial violence expose the limits of international human rights laws in the wars of decolonisation.

For its audience back home and across the world, Britian’s Colonial Office circulated images of the colonial villages, images depicting community, safety and even joy. Photographs of children playing on a make-shift slide, women laughing in a sewing class, a village headman smiling in the local shop. But how well did these depictions represent lived experiences?

Women’s stories

Over the Spring of 2019, I interviewed several women who had at some stage of the 1950s been forcibly resettled. Their ages at the time of interview ranged from 69 to 105 years old.

Most women were put in contact with me during my time spent in the central region of Kenya, building up relationships with community leaders, cultural heritage practitioners, and through friends. The interviews conducted for the project mainly took place in the participant’s homes. Stories and memories shared over a warm mug of chai (tea).

Several themes emerged from the interviews with women who experienced forced resettlement.

Firstly, surveillance. When the British colonial government declared a state of emergency in October 1952, it was concerned by the growing anti-colonial sentiment and initial attacks made by Mau Mau fighters. By 1953 it became apparent to colonial officials that women in the Gikuyu, Embu and Meru regions were playing a significant role in sustaining the forest fight. Much of the Mau Mau strategising took place deep in the forests of Mount Kenya, with women supplying food, ammunition, and intelligence to the armed combatants.

Women were characterised as the eyes and ears of the movement and concentrating them in colonial “villages” ensured the colonial state’s eyes and ears were fixed upon them. As one interviewee explained to me:

everything had changed … you do not play, you do not make a noise … We see the Home Guards up there.

Women and children in the villages knew they were under constant watch from the colonial state and its guards, and they regulated their own behaviour accordingly.

The villages, while depicted in propaganda as lush green spaces with happy villagers, instead followed similar patterns to the detention scheme. Most villages were surrounded by barbed-wire fences, or trenches filled with sharpened sticks.

These were well fortified spaces to keep out the Mau Mau and keep in those who might support them. Security posts were often situated at the top of hillsides facing down on the huts of inhabitants. Security officials monitored all movement.

As one interviewee expressed it:

We looked like caged people. Like people in prison.

The punishments inflicted if rules were broken raise a second theme in these interviews: brutality. Violence and coercion came in several forms. If a family was suspected of continuing to aid forest fighters, guards set the roof of their hut ablaze.

Village-wide curfews were put in place and people were locked inside their homes for extended periods of time. They were denied food. Public beatings were inflicted. People were executed. Many women sustained severe bodily harm when being interrogated at the security post. These punishments often extended to sexual violence.

But the British colonial state could not break the women’s spirit. Women spoke of the food they shared with one another. They recalled caring for children who had been orphaned. Women set up trading networks that sustained the community and prepared them for life post-conflict. Many persisted in their support of the Mau Mau, sneaking food out of the village, breaking the fences so forest fighters could get into the village site, and strategising under nightfall.

With military operations subduing from 1956, Britain slowly began releasing families from the colonial villages. Some women were allocated land elsewhere, others were assigned land that had once been part of that village. For many then, the memories of forced resettlement remain ever present.

Silent heroes

During this research I often received a similar response from women: “you want to speak to my husband, he was in the forest, he was detained, he was one of those heroes”.

Collectively, women who faced forced resettlement for their participation and connection to the liberation movement have tended to marginalise their own significance.

Yet, in many ways, women across the central region of Kenya embodied the conflict. Their day-to-day lives became part of the battlefield. It raises a challenge for scholars to recognise all the experiences of colonialism in Kenya. To extend our anti-colonial histories beyond Mau Mau, also. Läs mer…

The UK government has given the go-ahead to carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) schemes worth £22 billion (US$28.6 billion). Critics are insisting that this technology – which involves capturing carbon as it is emitted or taking it back out of the atmosphere, then pumping it into rocks deep underground – is unsafe, unproven and unaffordable. Defenders are responding with painstaking rebuttals.

Could the whole debate be missing the point? I think it is better to focus on the big picture – why we need CCS to work – rather than playing whack-a-mole with every objection to individual projects.

The case for CCS boils down to waste disposal: we are going to make too much carbon dioxide (CO₂), so we need to start getting rid of it, permanently.

By burning fossil fuels and producing cement alone, we will generate more CO₂ than we can afford to dump into the atmosphere to have any chance of limiting global warming to close to 1.5°C – even after accounting for the capacity of the biosphere and oceans to mop it up.

So, we need to start disposing of that CO₂, safely and permanently, on a scale of billions of tonnes a year by mid-century. And the only proven way of doing this right now is to re-inject it back underground.

Keep our options open

The world is not giving up fossil fuels any time soon, and the transition is going to be difficult enough without tying our hands by ruling out using CCS technology.

The questions we should be asking are: will “green hydrogen” – a low-carbon fuel produced from water using renewable electricity – be a cheaper way of dealing with lulls in renewable energy generation than gas-fired power plants fitted with CCS? And, can we get by entirely on recycled steel, and eliminate the use of conventional cement in construction, when steel and cement are notoriously hard to produce without fossil fuels?

If the answer to any of these questions, anywhere in the world, turns out to be “no” – or even “not by 2050” – then we need CCS.

Conventional cement, responsible for about 8% of global emissions, is impossible to make without generating CO₂.
Nordroden / Shutterstock

Would taking CCS off the table focus minds and make us abandon fossil fuels faster? Perhaps, but it could equally make us abandon climate targets – ultimately, the most expensive option of all.

We should be conscious of “lifecycle emissions” for all forms of energy – including, for example, green hydrogen made with electricity from solar panels that were manufactured using coal-fired power. The right response is to find cleaner suppliers of solar panels for green hydrogen, and cleaner suppliers of gas for blue hydrogen. The wrong response is to give up on either fuel source.

Nature is maxed out

What about offsetting continued fossil fuel use with nature-based solutions, such as restoring ecosystems and rewilding? Unfortunately, we are already maxing out nature’s credit card.

In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) scenarios in which warming is kept close to 1.5°C, we need to eliminate deforestation almost immediately, and restore a cumulative total of 250 billion tonnes of CO₂ to the biosphere over the coming 75 years – by restoring forests and wetlands, for example.

Over the same period, we also need to dispose of four times that amount of CO₂ back underground through various forms of CCS – after slashing the amount of CO₂ we produce by 75%-80%.

We cannot bank on stuffing an additional trillion tonnes of CO₂ into the biosphere over the next 75 years – especially as more Earth system feedbacks emerge and accelerate, whereby carbon stored at the Earth’s surface is re-released to the atmosphere as the world warms, forests burn, and peatlands dry out.

Invest, but invest wisely

To limit global warming to the extent the planet urgently requires, we need a means of permanent CO₂ disposal that does not make further demands on the biosphere. But at the same time as enabling CCS technology, we also need to make sure its availability does not encourage yet more CO₂ emissions.

This is where critics of government policy may have a point. If CCS is widely available and heavily subsidised, will that just encourage individuals and companies to use more fossil fuels? The danger is real, but it doesn’t mean we should abandon CCS. We need to be smart about how it is implemented.

Given the way the first CCS projects were set up by the previous UK government, an initial injection of £22 billion from taxpayers is, by now, the only way to kickstart a CO₂ disposal industry. But this should not become an endless subsidy which allows private industry to keep profiting from selling the stuff that causes global warming, while taxpayers pay for the clean-up.

Fortunately, there is another way. The EU has shown, in its Net Zero Industry Act, how regulation can force the fossil fuel industry to contribute to the cost of CCS without relying on US-style subsidies.

The UK government could make it clear that, by mid-century, anyone selling fossil fuels in the UK will be responsible for permanently disposing all CO₂ generated by their activities and the products they sell.

Pricing in safe CO₂ disposal would make fossil fuels more expensive, potentially adding 5p per kWh to the cost of natural gas over the next 25 years. That’s cheap compared with the cost of just dumping CO₂ into the atmosphere.

It is possible, and even affordable, to ensure fossil fuel use falls to meet our available CO₂ disposal capacity. There again, building a global CO₂ disposal industry from a standing start in only 25 years will be hard.

Fortunately, the UK has the right geology, skills and expertise, as well as a history of innovation in climate policy. It also has a clear interest in getting involved in what should become one of the major industries of the second half of this century. And it has a moral obligation, having pioneered taking fossil carbon out of the Earth’s crust, to join the first wave of countries putting it back.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get our award-winning weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 35,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far. Läs mer…

Young children spend a lot of time using screens: watching television, playing on touchscreen apps, or facetiming with grandparents. In fact, research on global screen time guidelines has found that around 75% of children aged up to two years use some form of digital media daily, and 64% of children aged two to five years use it for more than an hour a day.

Digital media is part of children’s lives and is set to stay that way. This means it is crucial to understand how to use this technology so children can benefit from it, and how to maximise its educational potential.

A key way to do this is for parents and other adults to use digital media together with children. This is known as co-use, and can range from parents actively discussing the media content with their children to simply watching a show together.

Our recent research with colleagues has investigated how adults using digital media with children aged up to six affects children’s ability to learn from digital media.

We carried out a meta-analysis: a wide-ranging examination of existing research studies to identify trends and themes.

We found that, overall, parent-child co-use is helpful for supporting young children’s learning from digital media. Adults using digital media together with children can help them understand and relate to the digital content better. Our research chimes with other studies which suggest that, for instance, parents using digital media with children can boost language skills.

Our findings suggest that by being actively engaged, adults can help their children make the most of the educational benefits of digital media. This could involve one-to-one interactions directing their child’s attention to the educational content and relating it to real-world situations.

Here are some practical tips for parents to maximise the benefits of co-using digital media with their children.

Be an active participant

Don’t just sit next to your child while they use digital media — engage with them. Ask questions about what they are watching or playing, and encourage them to think critically about the content. For example, if they are watching a video, you might ask “what do you think will happen next?” or “why do you think the character did that?”

‘Scaffold’ learning

Scaffolding is a teaching technique in which parents can provide support to help their child understand new concepts, then let them use that concept by themselves. During co-use, you can scaffold by explaining difficult words, relating on-screen content to real-life experiences, or helping your child apply what they’ve learned from the media to other day-to-day situations.

Choose high-quality content

Not all digital media is created equal. Look for educational content designed to teach specific skills, whether it’s language, maths, or social-emotional learning.

An educational app should have a clear learning goal, include problems for children to solve, and offer clear and specific feedback to support children’s learning. It should be presented with an entertaining narrative.

Look for educational apps with learning goals.
M_Agency/Shutterstock

Apps and shows that encourage interaction and problem-solving are particularly valuable. Other research suggests that the quality of the content plays a crucial role in how much children learn from it.

Encourage discussion and reflection

After engaging with digital media, encourage your child to talk about what they watched or played. This helps reinforce the material and allows you to address any misunderstandings. Reflection helps children make connections between what they’ve learned and their own lives, deepening their understanding. For instance, if a show teaches about penguins, you could follow up by discussing if you might see penguins at the zoo, or which books your child has read that they appear in.

Adapt your approach as your child grows

As children get older, they may need less direct support during media use – but co-use remains valuable. Older children might benefit from discussions that challenge them to think critically about the media they consume. It could help them explore related activities, such as researching a topic they saw in a documentary or creating something inspired by what they watched.

Balance screen time with other activities

Digital media can help children learn. But it’s important to balance screen time with other activities that support development, such as reading, playing outside, and interacting with others face-to-face. Our study emphasises that for digital media to form part of a well-rounded day, families should try to co-use it with their children. Läs mer…

Fungi are known for causing superficial infections of the nails, skin and hair, but they can also cause systemic infections that can have much more serious health implications. Indeed, over 6.5 million people are infected yearly with a life-threatening fungal infection, leading to 3.8 million deaths.

Many of the fungi we know are an essential part of nitrogen and carbon recycling in the environment through their action of decomposing complex material. As they grow, they can undergo “sporulation”, where they release tiny spores that are dispersed on air currents. These spores are breathed in but are usually cleared by the lungs.

However, this clearing is impaired in people with lung issues, such as cystic fibrosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, tuberculosis and lung cancer, putting them at a significant risk of developing a fungal lung infection.

Many of the fungal pathogens are resistant to treatment with current drugs – of which only four classes are in use – or can rapidly acquire resistance during treatment or in their natural environment. As with bacteria and antibiotic resistance, so fungi can evolve to become resistant to the drugs used to treat them.

In 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the fungal pathogens priority list that catalogued fungi that pose a significant risk to human health. Of critical importance are Candida albicans and auris, Aspergillus fumigatus and Cryptococcus neoformans.

The WHO list was designed to guide public health action and boost research and awareness in this field. Yet it has become clear that the desired effect of including fungal infections in the antimicrobial resistance policy debate is yet to be achieved. In a recent series of four articles in The Lancet about antimicrobial resistance (which includes resistance to bacteria, fungi, viruses and parasites), the problem of fungal disease contained just five sentences on the issue.

The second UN-hosted meeting on antimicrobial resistance took place on September 26. Aside from the wider acknowledgement of antimicrobial resistance, the meeting drew attention to the growing problem of fungal pathogens and their resistance to known treatments, globally.

Combating drug-resistant fungal infections is a complex problem. An important factor is that diagnoses of infections are often delayed – if they are even diagnosed at all. Simple tests for fungal infections are rarely available and only a few simple lateral flow tests are available.

More sensitive tests require trained personnel and expensive equipment, which is usually not available in laboratories in poorer countries.

Another issue is that antifungal drug development takes a long time and is very expensive. Fungal and human cells are more similar than bacterial and human cells, making finding antifungal targets with minimal toxicity to humans difficult.

Because of this, only several antifungals that work differently to traditional antifungals are being developed. But even after they reach the market, the development of resistance in fungi is a threat to these treatments.

Tons of fungicides are used annually to protect crops, of which some work the same way as antifungals used in humans. An example of this is an antifungal drug class called the azoles. There is strong evidence to suggest that azole resistance in the clinic can be of environmental origin due to agriculturally used azoles.

This is a particular problem in Aspergillus fumigatus, where some hospitals and research centres have reported resistance to azoles in up to 20% of fungal samples.

Over the last 25 years, a compound with a novel mechanism of action has been in development called olorofim. This compound is effective against many fungal pathogens. It is expected to be approved for use in humans soon.

But recently a fungicide for agricultural use, ipflufenoquin, has been approved in the US, that works the same way as olorofim. This makes the risk of resistance to both compounds high as they both target Aspergillus fumigatus the same way – or, in the lingo, they have the same mechanism of action. Resistance to one compound will cause resistance to the other compound.

This is not the only example of the dual-use of antifungals where compounds with the same way of working are used on farms and in hospitals and doctors’ clinics. This is a high risk for resistance development to antifungals we desperately need to treat human infections. The agricultural fungicide aminopyrifen has a similar target to the antifungal fosmanogepix, which can be used to treat humans.

Environmentally acquired resistant fungi can cause infections in patients and therefore, from the first day of treatment, can’t be treated with the desired antifungal. As food security requires antifungal protection from plant pathogens, the question arises: how do we balance human health and crop health?

Hospital-acquired fungal infections can be hard to treat as drug resistance is growing.
Science Photo Library / Alamy Stock Photo

The latest threat makes these issues more pressing

The rise of fungal pathogens that we have only seen more recently, such as Candida auris, make these issues even more important.

Candida auris is a yeast that was first found in 2009 and has spread globally since. It can cause life-threatening infections and has caused outbreaks in hospitals in several countries, including the UK. Unfortunately, it is resistant to many of the antifungals that are currently available.

The UN-hosted AMR meeting was a good starting point, getting fungi and antimicrobial resistance acknowledged globally. However, it is unclear what specific action will be put into place to combat fungal resistance. But having this discussion is a first step to making progress on an issue that affects so many people daily. Läs mer…

When someone famous dies, particularly if they are young or it was unexpected, it is natural for their fans to want to know what happened. But, as the reporting on the tragic death of singer Liam Payne shows, the media does not always handle this appropriately or ethically.

The singer, 31, fell to his death from the third floor of a hotel in Buenos Aires while under the influence of “drugs or alcohol”, local police said. LA-based celebrity news website TMZ initially reported the story alongside graphic images of Payne’s body.

After a backlash, TMZ removed the photos, but executive editor Michael Babock defended publication, claiming the site was “trying to confirm reports Liam had died before police had established his identity”.

Other mainstream outlets published transcripts or recordings of a 911 call made to police shortly before Payne was found, and an Argentinian newspaper published images of Payne’s hotel room which included images of drugs paraphernalia.

This is certainly not the first time the media, and TMZ in particular, has come under fire for insensitive or harmful reporting of celebrity deaths. When basketball great Kobe Bryant died in a helicopter crash in January 2020, TMZ shared the news before police were able to notify his family. Bryant’s widow later testified that she learned of her husband and daughter’s deaths through social media. This breaches the UK’s journalism codes of practice.

In their quest to get a scoop, what precautions and sensitivities do journalists have to respect when it comes to reporting sudden and tragic deaths?

Media guidelines and ethics

The ethical standards and guidelines vary from country to country. In the UK,
these are set out by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) and independent press monitor Impress for print media, and by Ofcom for broadcasters.

An Ipso clause around intrusion into grief and shock says journalists should make enquiries with “sympathy and discretion” and publication should be handled “sensitively”.

Ofcom has similar guidelines for broadcasters. The section on privacy states: “When people are caught up in events which are covered by the news they still have a right to privacy.”

This can be infringed if “warranted”, says Ofcom, for example if it is in the public interest. This could include revealing or detecting crime, protecting public health or safety, exposing misleading claims or disclosing incompetence. But a tragic death, even of a high profile person, is unlikely to meet this standard.

Broadcasters should not interview or film people who have experienced a personal tragedy unless it is “warranted” or they have given consent. And journalists are advised not to “reveal the identity of someone who has died unless it is clear that the next of kin have been informed”.

Impress, which regulates more independent journalism, has released a statement condemning the reporting of Payne’s death.

It said: “The defence of publishing in the public interest does not give outlets carte blanche to report the most intimate details of a celebrity’s life, or their death.”

It is important to state at this stage that what happened prior to Payne’s tragic death and his intentions at the time are unknown. It is the job of the coroner to investigate and come to a conclusion at his inquest.

The effect of reporting on tragedy

Beyond accuracy and respect for the victim of a tragedy and their family, there are wider concerns that journalists should take into account.

Research conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) has shown irresponsible media reporting of celebrity deaths, particularly suicides, can increase suicide rates.

One study examining patterns of suicide and media coverage found that in the five months following comic Robin Williams’ death in 2014, there were 1,841 more deaths from suicide in the USA compared to the same period the previous year – a 9.85% rise.

The WHO’s international guidelines for reporting suicide urge the media to avoid sensationalism. Journalists should not provide details about methods, and should include information about mental health resources in stories.

Analysis of over 100 academic studies found repeated coverage and high-profile news stories were most strongly associated with copycat behaviour.

The WHO states: “Such stories can inadvertently function as celebrity endorsements of suicidal behaviour and it is known that celebrity endorsements can have an impact on behaviour of the public.”

A memorial to the deceased singer Liam Payne in Copenhagen.
Emil Nicolai Helms/EPA-EFE

Sensitive reporting can reduce the risk of copycat suicides. Providing context in relation to mental health challenges and offering resources for support is vital.

In the UK, guidelines were first drawn up by the Samaritans charity in 1994 to improve reporting on suicide and prevent copycat attempts. These are taught to journalism students on courses accredited by the National Council for the Training of Journalists.

Guidance includes avoiding “dramatic” headlines, emotive or sensational pictures or video footage and excessive amounts of coverage. Not speculating about the trigger or cause is urged, because it can oversimplify the issue.

“Coverage that reflects the wider issues around suicide, including that it is preventable, can help reduce the risk of suicidal behaviour”, the guidelines state. “Include clear and direct references to resources and support organisations.”

Making a change

Despite all of these guidelines, many media outlets flout them in the race for clicks. It is heartening that there has been so much outrage at the publication of the images of Payne, but some members of the public still seem to have an insatiable appetite for it. Nothing, it seems, is off limits.

We need to take collective responsibility. Journalists and editors should reacquaint themselves with responsible reporting guidelines and put themselves in the bereaved family’s shoes. Members of the public can also do their bit by not clicking on or sharing this kind of material, so editorial priorities change.

Ultimately, our thoughts must be with Payne and his loved ones. A death so young is a real tragedy and those who loved him will be affected for the rest of their lives.

If you’re struggling with suicidal thoughts, the following services can provide you with support:
In the UK and Ireland – call Samaritans UK at 116 123.
In the US – call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or IMAlive at 1-800-784-2433.
In Australia – call Lifeline Australia at 13 11 14.
In other countries – visit IASP or Suicide.org to find a helpline in your country. Läs mer…

The US Department of Justice may be on the verge of seeking a break-up of Google in a bid to make it less dominant. If the government goes ahead and is successful in the courts, it could mean the company being split into separate entities – a search engine, an advertising company, a video website, a mapping app – which would not be allowed to share data with each other.

While this is still a distant prospect, it is being considered in the wake of a series of rulings in the US and the EU which suggest that regulators are becoming increasingly frustrated by the power of big tech. That power tends to be highly concentrated, whether it’s Google’s monopoly as a search engine, Meta’s data gathering from Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, or by small businesses becoming dependent on Amazon.

But what would a breakup of these tech giants achieve for consumers? Those in favour of shaking up Silicon Valley in this way argue that it would lead to more competition and more choice. And the best-case future scenario might look something like this:

The year is 2030, and you are on your way to meet a friend for a meal. You receive a message notification on WhatsApp, which was sent by your friend using her Signal messaging app. Sending and receiving messages from different apps is now so common you barely notice it.

In fact, “interoperability” – where different systems and tech work seamlessly together – is everywhere. In the same way you could send an email from Gmail to Hotmail back in 2024, you can now choose from a range of social media apps – alongside Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat – with text, pictures and video posted on one network easily accessible via another.

You choose an app because you like the way it looks or the way it filters and presents content – not just because everyone else is on it.

Similarly, your choice of restaurant and information on directions came from apps you have chosen from a much wider selection than the one you had access to back in 2024. You look at reviews produced by people you follow, irrespective of the platform they used to share it.

Product placement and AI-generated content have practically disappeared, as the mapping app does not want to risk giving you advice you don’t want. If it did, you would simply switch to a competitor which provides a superior service.

This increased level of competition is central to those who argue for breaking up big tech. Instead of app developers having to pay 30% of their sales to Google or Apple, there would be numerous app stores available, all competing to offer the best apps by cutting their profit margins. The theory is that the app market – and technological innovation – would thrive as a result.

Research also suggests that the existence of competing apps makes consumers less lazy, and forces businesses to deliver better products, and better value for money.

Private browsing

In 2024, you would have had to trust the results provided to you by Google search, Google Maps, or a Google advert. And because Google owned your data, it could auction information about you to other businesses trying to reach you, without your say.

You might have found Google’s services useful, but most of the benefit from personalised data would have gone to Google. And another big change that could come from breaking up big tech is that you might finally become the unique owner of that data.

Potentially, you would be the only one with full access to your browsing history – the products you searched for, the ones you bought and the ones you almost bought. You would own the information about where you went for lunch, what you ordered, and how much you spent.

Other information that would be owned by you might include how you commute to work, which video clips make you laugh, and which books you finished and the ones you abandoned immediately. The same goes for how you met your partner online, your dating history, and the health data your watch has collected about how hard you work at the gym.

Your workout, your data.
PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

In the imagined year of 2030, you would keep this data on an encrypted server, and different companies would offer apps to help you organise and manage your information. Whenever you wanted to, you could decide to use your data for your own purposes.

Breaking up is hard to do

Splitting up big tech companies is not without risks however. An obvious consequence is that those big companies would be less profitable.

Right now, Google and Meta make (a lot of) money from advertising, and this is only possible because they own so much information about us. If they didn’t, they might end up charging users for the services they provide.

Interoperability and greater competition may also provide more room for scam app operators. And while more choice about apps may be fine for some, it may be problematic for those who find modern technology challenging enough already.

For regulators though, the challenge of modern technology seems to be a sense of powerlessness. And if they do decide to take the radical option and break up dominant companies, it could make a big difference to the online world for all of us. Läs mer…