America rages towards the 'greatest risk to the future of civilization' as it teeters on the edge of major crisis
Over the past two decades, the US fertility rate has dropped dramatically — a shift Elon Musk has warned is 'the greatest risk to the future of civilization.'
Your browser does not support iframes. Your browser does not support iframes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Aneurin Donald equals record for fastest Twenty20 half-century in Derbyshire win
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the BBC's future: the broadcaster's independence and funding face challenges
The BBC will soon charge US users for full news access. In Britain, it may seem a distant prospect, but if universality can be dropped abroad, how long before it's tested at home? With the BBC's charter due for renewal in 2027, the funding debate is intensifying. What becomes of the licence fee will define the broadcaster's future. There is increased scrutiny of Auntie's independence and impartiality after political pressure was applied through censure, funding freezes and contentious board appointments. What the BBC should look like in a fragmented media landscape is uncertain. A big question is whether the licence fee levied on households should be replaced by subscription, limited advertising or public funding. The last option is surely a non-starter, opening the door to more direct political control. Carrying adverts would force the BBC to compete with other broadcasters for cash, and destabilise existing providers. A subscription-style BBC, even if technical hurdles were overcome, wouldn't be a national institution. Those most in need of public-service media – navigating disinformation, political alienation or regional marginalisation – would be left out. Once you charge, the question isn't how to inform, educate and entertain the public; it's who can afford to be included. Partial subscription might keep some core services – like news – free, while others are paywalled. This would entrench a two-tier public service. The BBC is a large organisation and not without its faults. But critics with vested interests often exaggerate them. What began as commercial pressure has been inflamed by culture wars. Success – from Peaky Blinders to Blue Planet – has not shielded it from attack. No wonder the director-general, Tim Davie, warned in May of a looming 'trust crisis'. It's now easier to list the political groups at war with BBC News than those who trust it. The row over Glastonbury – and the BBC's retreat – underscores the pressure on Mr Davie. But the broadcaster's fight isn't just with critics. It's also battling for attention in an ecosystem flooded by algorithmic noise. Since the last charter renewal in 2016, streamers, podcasts and AI have disrupted the landscape, collapsing trust in 'legacy' media. When outrage spreads faster than facts, and filter bubbles shape belief, the BBC's global stature as a respected public institution matters more than ever. Every government leans on the BBC – at a price. The BBC pulled a documentary, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, citing vague concerns about 'partiality'. Channel 4 aired it instead. Meanwhile, Robbie Gibb, a controversial Johnson-era appointee, helps shape BBC editorial priorities as a board member. A former Tory spin doctor, he became the Jewish Chronicle's owner, appointing an editor who pushed a hardline pro-Israel stance and oversaw multiple scandals. He refused to reveal who was funding the paper. His role in guiding how the BBC reviews its Middle East coverage raises concerns about impartiality. More than 400 media figures last week called for his removal. His departure is long overdue. In 1977, the Annan committee reimagined broadcasting for a changing Britain. Channel 4 was the result. The culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, who has sensibly called for a modern Annan‑style review, is chary of backing Mr Davie. But broader reform is needed in a time of distrust and disruption. For the BBC, this could offer not just a funding fix but a democratic roadmap. The charter review must rebuild a trusted civic platform – a public good, not a private preserve.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Inside Trump's 20-hour play to win over stubborn Republicans on Big Beautiful Bill including signed MAGA swag
President Donald Trump wasn't on the House floor for Thursday's vote on his 'Big, Beautiful Bill' – but he was there in spirit, including on the right hand of one South Carolina lawmaker voting his way. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, was sporting a custom ring on the big day with a golden image of the president's face as he cast his vote for the mega-bill that extended Trump's 2017 tax cuts. With Wilson's help, the massive bill passed 218-214 after a pressure campaign by Trump and congressional leaders kept lawmakers working overnight. 'It's gold Donald Trump on silver. You don't see it every day,' Wilson told the Daily Mail about the special jewelry he wore for the occasion. 'One of my staff was kind enough to get it for me,' he explained. Wilson's vote wasn't considered up for grabs, which may be why his staff came up with its own special Trump swag. For the about a dozen of other lawmakers who were wavering, the president applied his famous fear tactics – as well as a charm and even an array of signed swag – to get Republicans to push the mammoth bill across the finish line. That came despite polls showing the underwater and even some people who voted for it warning about steep cuts to Medicaid or fretting about the estimated $3 trillion it's estimated to tack onto the national debt. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) testified to Trump's salesmanship in a video he posted of himself leaving the White House after conservative House Freedom Caucus members who were wavering met with the president. 'The president was wonderful, as always,' Burchett gushed. 'Informative, funny, he told me he likes seeing me on TV, which was kind of cool.' Then Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida, a Trump loyalist who was walking with him, asked: 'Did you show them what he signed for you?' 'Yeah, he signed a bunch of stuff,' Burchett responded, downplaying it. 'It's cool.' Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins also poured on the charm when she ran into Burchett outside the White House, offering a hug and asking: 'Are we getting it done?' 'Yes m'am,' he replied, before adding, 'I'm a happily married man.' The video also shows Burchett gripping a gold challenge coins of the kind Trump doles out, as he did to an African reporter he called 'beautiful.' 'Donald Trump absolutely was our closer, and Donald Trump never stopped,' said House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), whose own role is to line up support for legislation on the Floor. 'Every day [he] was there in the fight [asking] "Who do I need to call? What do I need to do?"' Scalise said no president was 'more directly engaged.' 'President Trump was in the Oval Office making phone calls to just about everybody in the House,' said Trump's economic advisor Kevin Hassett. There were also threats, including some delivered in public. 'For Republicans, this should be an easy yes vote. Ridiculous!!!' Trump wrote in all-caps on his Truth Social site. 'MAGA is not happy, and it's costing you votes!!!' he wrote in another. Not all of his persuasive tactics resulted in votes. Trump golfed this past weekend with ally Sen. Lindsey Graham but also Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one of three Senate Republicans who voted against the bill. (Victory came in the Senate after leaders offered a series of concessions to Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who nevertheless wrote that 'This bill needs more work' and 'this has been an awful process' with a 'frantic rush to meet an artificial deadline.') Trump has notably avoided railing against Paul, even while vowing to primary Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who Trump rips as a 'grandstander' and who also opposed the bill. Just two House Republicans, Massie and Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, voted against the bill. That comes even as fellow Republicans who had wavered ultimately got behind it. That includes New Jersey GOP Rep. Jeff Van Drew, who had raised concerns that limits on health care provider taxes in his state could and up sapping critical resources for Medicaid. 'I couldn't vote for it that way,' he said, because it would have devastated how the state operates. He said he worked with President Trump directly and got a change incorporated in a final 'wrap-around' amendment. He said he was trying to persuade some of his own colleagues with the misguided view that 'Medicaid was for lazy people.' 'We addressed that, okay? But the bottom line is it's working people, it's disabled people, it's nursing homes, senior citizens, a whole array of people.' Now that the bill is through Congress, Van Drew acknowledged that the fight now becomes a PR battle – with pre-vote polls showing support for Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is underwater, and a potential risk for Republicans in the 2026 elections. A nonpartisan Congressional Budget estimate said the bill would cut Medicaid by $1 trillion and could cause nearly 12 million people to lose health insurance coverage. 'So the bottom line is, yes, so now this changes from the bureaucratic public policy process into a policy of who's going to be a better mouthpiece? Who's going to articulate the political sense of the ramifications of this bill better? Are you going to be able to emphasize the tax cuts .. So if we articulate that well, if we sell it well, if we talk about we're still maintaining the safety net, then I think we'll be okay.'
