Latest news with #Anglo-American
Euractiv
3 days ago
- Business
- Euractiv
Tapping the EU's media slush fund; Kallas' view from nowhere
FOURTH ESTATE When was the last time you watched Euronews? Be honest. If you're like us it was while channel surfing late one night at the Intercontinental in Sofia sometime in the twenty-tens after trying in vain to find CNN. Like so many EU projects (see 'New European Bauhaus'), Euronews is the kind of undertaking that sounds like an interesting idea for a fleeting second until your prefrontal cortex (aka the rational part of the brain) kicks in. While Euronews is not strictly speaking an EU project, it may as well be. Over the past decade alone (2014-2024), the Commission has shelled out more than €230 million for the broadcaster, according to our colleague Magnus Lund Nielsen, who crunched the numbers on the EU's media-funding racket for us. If that seems like an obscene amount of public money for a channel few outside an Eastern European hotel room are likely to ever see, that's because it's an obscene amount of public money for a channel few outside an Eastern European hotel room are likely to ever see. While there's been some grumbling in Brussels recently over Euronews' owners, who have links to Viktor Orbán, there's little reason to think the gravy train is going to halt anytime soon. We hear that Euronews, which did not respond to our requests for comment, recently put its hand out for even more money under the latest Commission media tender. For reasons we've tried (and admittedly failed) to understand, the Commission is intent on funding an array of Euronews-like media outlets to the tune of €35 million a year that range from the superfluous to the outright useless. We suspect it has something to do with a desire to blunt the influence of 'Anglo-American' journalism on European affairs. If so, it's not working. And yes, under its previous ownership, Euractiv was also addicted to EU funding. One could even argue it was central to the company's business model. But that was then. Both our new owner, Mediahuis, and the newsroom leadership are committed to preserving Euractiv's editorial independence and have halted the practice. The Chattering Classes' view in a nutshell: Media can't claim independence if a government or public donor is an outlet's primary or even a major source of funding. The only model that ensures true independence is one governed by market forces, i.e. subscriptions and/or advertising. It's not always perfect, but it's certainly better than the alternative. What's more, given that there are plenty of private media on the market – yes, we're talking our own book here – the impulse of the Commission to flush taxpayer money down that tubes by funding outlets that have little chance of survival without substantial public support is all the more vexing. Behold The European Correspondent! To fully appreciate the folly of the Commission's media-funding scheme, it's worth spending a few minutes on the site of The European Correspondent (not to be confused with the EU Reporter, the EUobserver, much less Euractiv!) The site was founded by a group of Gen Z'ers in 2022 and reads like it, replete with a grandiloquent mission statement, which they refer to (inevitably) as their 'Manifesto'. 'In the 21st century, Europe must learn to be a continent,' it reads. 'Histories and destinies are interweaving, and power is renegotiated.' Our favourite part: 'European journalism has not really been done before.' While that may be news to anyone over the age of 25, it seems to have convinced the subsidy tsars in the Commission, who just wrote a cheque to The European Reporter to the tune of €2.2 million – money the outlet intends to use to 'expand into six new languages, grow our vertical video journalism, develop training programmes for European journalists, and much more'. The face of The European Reporter is Julius E.O. Fintelmann, an earnest young German-born journalist best known for his pensive profile pictures and impressive turtleneck collection. As The European Reporter's editor, E.O. Fintelmann will hold primary responsibility for ensuring that the €2.2 million is spent wisely. European taxpayers can expect that E.O. Fintelmann has the requisite experience to undertake such a mission and that it's a serious news organisation, right? Decide for yourself. Prior to co-founding The European Reporter and inventing European journalism writ large, E.O. Fintelmann worked as a par-time freelancer for Germany's Handelsblatt from Istanbul. 'I work at the news desk and am responsible for steering the website on the weekends,' he wrote on his LinkedIn profile. Prior to that, he wrote freelance articles on the German-speaking theatre and one piece for Germany's taz about the shortage of housing for students in Amsterdam, where he studied. So far, The European Reporter's promise to invent European journalism appears to be stuck at the aspiration stage. It began its flagship daily newsletter on Friday not with the latest from the European Council like the hidebound mainstream media, but with this bombshell about Winston Churchill: 'He's celebrated for leading Britain to victory during World War II, but he was also a firm supporter of the British Empire and held deeply racist views.' Meanwhile, its 'European Affairs' newsletter dissected how unfairly US and Israel (which the authors accused of committing genocide) were treating Iran. It also include this original insight: 'War in the Middle East risks driving up energy prices and inflation as oil and gas prices go up.' To be fair, no one seemed more surprised by the Commission's decision to hand a motley collection of twenty-something, left-wing aspiring journalists €2.2 million than E.O. Fintelmann himself. 'I still can't quite believe I get to write this: The European Correspondent has secured funding that will support us for the next two years,' he wrote on LinkedIn. Our advice: Enjoy it while it lasts. FOREIGN POLICY Just over half a year into her term as the EU's 'High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Securty Policy', Kaja Kallas has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the role is completely unnecessary. It's not her fault anymore than it was the fault of her predecessors (except for Josep Borrell, whose gaffe-filled tenure is the stuff of diplomatic lore). The problem is a simple one: The high representative has less say in Europe's foreign policy than any of the foreign ministers of the EU-27. And so long as important foreign policy decisions require an absolute majority (which gives smaller members a de facto veto they are unlikely to ever relinquish), that's not going to change. What that means in practice is that the high commissioner is often caught in the middle between two or more factions. Take Gaza. After 18 EU members signed a letter calling for a review of Israel's compliance with human rights requirements under its trade deal with the EU, Kallas agreed to undertake a review. Yet many of the remaining nine members weren't happy with her decision. 'Kallas should have known from the beginning how far she could go with this,' a senior EU diplomat told us at last week's Council. The same diplomat added that after some member states 'scolded' Kallas, she toned down her rhetoric, saying last week that the review should not be perceived as 'punishing' Israel. The Council is divided into three camps on the issue Israel and Gaza: · The hardcore anti-Israel faction (Ireland, Spain, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia) · Germany, Italy, Czechia, Austria, which say Europe should not touch Israel · The moderates: Greece, Cyprus, Baltics, Poland, which support tougher language towards Israel but no action That leaves Kallas in an impossible position. Her ostensible role is to craft a common position, but that is clearly not going to happen. Indeed, about the only thing one can say for sure is that Israel's allies in the Council will do whatever is necessary ensure that the association agreement is not suspended. The Middle East is hardly the only foreign policy issue that divides the Council. There's no consensus on how to handle Trump or China either. Recent history suggests EU countries will go their own way, pursuing a path they deem the best for their national interests. That leaves very little room for 'EU foreign policy'. It's high time Europe acknowledges that reality. THE CAROUSEL Word is that Politico Europe veteran Cory Bennett, the outlet's energy and climate editor, is departing to join Bloomberg's Brussels bureau as a politics editor. Congrats! CORRIGENDA We misspelled Carrie Budoff Brown's surname in the last edition of The Chattering Classes. Mea culpa! Thanks for reading. Remember: send tips to transom@
Scottish Sun
3 days ago
- Sport
- Scottish Sun
Sheffield United ready to splash £6million on Tottenham defender who has never played for Spurs
Blades will battle Birmingham to sign a midfielder from a Prem club SHEFF'S KISS Sheffield United ready to splash £6million on Tottenham defender who has never played for Spurs Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) SHEFFIELD UNITED are ready to pay a stunning £6million for Ashley Phillips — if Tottenham change their minds. The Blades want the centre-half, 20, who spent the season on loan at Stoke. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 Ashley Phillips is wanted by Sheffield United Credit: Shutterstock Editorial But they have been rebuffed as new Spurs boss Thomas Frank wants to include him. Phillips joined Tottenham from Blackburn for a fee of £2m in 2023 after just 14 senior appearances. But the England Under-20s star is yet to play for Tottenham's first-team. He went on loan to Plymouth Argyle for the 2023/24 season and won their Young Player of the Year award. READ MORE IN FOOTBALL TRANSFER LATEST Gittens to have Chelsea MEDICAL, Liverpool wait for Isak, Joao Pedro latest And last season he caught the eye with Stoke and helped them avoid relegation by two points. Phillips is of interest to Sheffield United, who SunSport exclusively revealed have axed top scouts in favour of an Anglo-American AI talent spotting company to find new players. Tottenham's £6m valuation of Phillips is similar to the price tag they have put on midfield magician Alfie Devine, 20. Spurs are yet to decide on his future after his spell on loan at Westerlo in Belgium. BEST FREE BETS AND BETTING SIGN UP OFFERS Meanwhile, Sheffield United are hope to bring back midfielder Tommy Doyle from Wolves on loan but face a fight with Birmingham. Ruben Selles is now in charge at Bramall Lane after Chris Wilder was sacked.
Indian Express
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Why regime change in Iran is easier said than done
Written by Hussein Banai In the wake of Israel's military campaign against Iran – launched on June 13 – and the subsequent US strikes on key Iranian nuclear infrastructure, it might appear, at least from the outside, that the Islamic regime in Tehran is more vulnerable than ever, despite the fragile ceasefire announced on June 23. Its deterrence has been shattered, its military and nuclear command structures exposed, and its regional proxies either dismantled or in disarray. For some outside observers, this moment presents a long-awaited opportunity: A weakened regime ripe for popular overthrow. Yet inside Iran, a more complicated and sobering reality persists. Despite mounting grievances, persistent repression, and a discredited ruling elite, many ordinary Iranians remain hesitant to embrace the project of regime change – especially under the shadow of foreign bombardment and looming military escalation. A people under seige The reluctance is not born of loyalty to the regime, but informed by historical experience. Iran's political memory is haunted by the twin legacies of domestic repression and foreign intervention. The latter has often cloaked itself in the language of salvation, only to deliver chaos and further repression. From the Anglo-American coup of 1953 to the bloody eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s – during which much of the West supported Saddam Hussein – Iranian society has developed a deep skepticism of external actors claiming to act in its interest. That scepticism is neither abstract nor merely ideological; it is generational, embedded in families, and sustained by a collective understanding that foreign involvement often leads to national fragmentation. The Israeli campaign, however tactically precise, has reinforced these anxieties. While it has effectively exposed the vulnerabilities of the Islamic Republic's military doctrine, it has also triggered fears of escalation, civilian casualties, and long-term domestic instability. The strikes have deepened the sense that Iran is under siege, a feeling the regime has long cultivated but which now resonates with uncomfortable clarity. In such moments, opposition can become indistinguishable from betrayal in the public imagination (as has already become the case between different ideological factions in the diaspora). This is not because people approve of the regime; it is because they dread the alternative. That dread is compounded by the absence of a credible, unified opposition either at home or abroad. Decades of repression have fragmented civil society, crushed independent media, and made a mockery of reformist possibilities. Those who continue to organise inside the country do so under enormous risk and with limited resources. In the diaspora, although opposition voices have flourished online, they remain politically fractured and often disconnected from the lived realities of those inside Iran. Calls for mass mobilization, especially when voiced from exile, are met with understandable skepticism: Who will lead? What comes next? And, crucially, who will protect the country if the regime falls and secessionist movements in provinces from Azerbaijan to Kurdistan, and further to Khouzestan and Balouchestan rush for independence? Ayatollah's regime is weak, but not weak enough This is the trap of the current moment. The regime is profoundly weak – morally, politically, institutionally, and strategically – but it is not so weak that it cannot crush dissent. Nor is the opposition so strong that it can offer a stable, inclusive, and broadly legitimate alternative. As a result, many Iranians find themselves in an impossible position: Politically alienated from the state, but fearful that acting decisively against it will only deepen the country's exposure to external coercion and internal collapse. That is, thus far, the overwhelming sentiment traceable on social media and in the torrent of Iranian political commentary in the foreign-based press. This does not mean that resistance has disappeared. On the contrary, Iran remains a society simmering with frustration and defiance. From the 2009 Green Movement to the 2017-2019 economic protests and the 2022 'Women, Life, Freedom' uprising, Iranians have demonstrated extraordinary courage in confronting state violence. But these uprisings have not translated into regime collapse. And in the aftermath of the June 2025 military escalation, the space for such mobilisation has contracted further. Wartime logic – amplified by the state's propaganda machine and reinforced by the threat of further strikes – tends to conflate protest with treason. This, too, is part of the regime's survival toolkit. Moreover, the current moment lacks what past revolutions have required: A catalysing vision. The Islamic Republic was not born from despair alone — it was animated by an idea of moral renewal and sovereignty. Today, many Iranians are deeply disillusioned with that legacy. But disillusionment does not guarantee consensus around what should replace it. Secular republic? Constitutional monarchy? Federal democracy? None of these options has yet emerged as a unifying alternative. Complexity of regime change That said, the status quo is not sustainable. The war has dramatically accelerated the hollowing-out of the regime's legitimacy. The image of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a defiant guardian of sovereignty now rings hollow as Iranian skies are repeatedly penetrated, and top commanders are killed with impunity. The economic toll of war, layered onto years of sanctions and mismanagement, will deepen social despair. And the regime's reliance on coercion over consensus can only persist so long as its security forces remain intact and obedient. Should the regime's capacity for repression falter, the political landscape may shift quickly. In such a scenario, popular demands are likely to reemerge with force. But whether they coalesce into a coherent movement or devolve into localized unrest is uncertain. Much will depend on whether political and civil actors, both inside and outside the country, can overcome the divisions that have long plagued them and articulate a program that speaks to both dignity and stability. If the international community genuinely supports democratic change in Iran, it must reckon with this paradox. Change cannot be delivered from the skies, nor imposed through external pressure alone. It must be nurtured from within, supported by sustained diplomatic engagement, and informed by humility about the limits of outside influence. Military action may buy time or leverage, but it cannot substitute for legitimacy, as the recent cases of Iraq and Libya have painfully made clear. This is the sobering truth of the current moment: The Islamic Republic is at a dead-end, but not yet headed for collapse. Its legitimacy is eroded, but its coercive apparatus remains largely intact. Its economy is strangled, yet functional enough to avert mass breakdown. And its population is disillusioned, but too wary of the alternatives – especially in wartime – to risk the leap into the unknown. The writer is Associate Professor of International Studies at the Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, Indiana University. He's the author of several books on Iran's political development and US-Iran relations
USA Today
17-06-2025
- Entertainment
- USA Today
When does Season 2 of 'The Buccaneers' come out? Date, cast, where to watch regal drama
When does Season 2 of 'The Buccaneers' come out? Date, cast, where to watch regal drama Show Caption Hide Caption Need a show to binge? These are the must watch shows this summer USA TODAY's TV critic Kelly Lawler breaks down the best TV shows you don't to want to miss this summer The Anglo-American cultural clash continues, but "The Buccaneers" are no longer the invaders. In Season 2 of Apple TV+'s regal drama, "The Buccaneers," a group of feisty young American girls, who "exploded into the tightly corseted London of the 1870s, setting hearts racing and kicking off an Anglo-American culture clash" in Season 1 now call England is their home and are in fact "practically running the place." "Last time we got a taste of England. This time we're in for a veritable feast," says Apple TV+ about the upcoming season, adding the next chapter will explore "sisterhood, romance, wit, steamy love affairs, extravagant gowns, spectacular landscapes and jaw-dropping plot twists," against the backdrop of musical hits by Chappell Roan, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Sabrina Carpenter, Gracie Abrams, and The Last Dinner Party among others. Here's what to know about Season 2 of "The Buccaneers," including the release date, cast and trailer. Watch 'The Buccaneers' on Apple TV+ Join our Watch Party! Sign up to receive USA TODAY's movie and TV recommendations right in your inbox When does 'The Buccaneers' Season 2 come out? Season 2 of "The Buccaneers" will premiere on Wednesday, June 18 on Apple TV+. The streaming service did not specify what time the episode will be available on the platform. Earlier when Season 2 of "Severance" released, Apple TV+, in an emailed statement to USA TODAY, said that since it is a global streaming service and not a linear network, it does not promote exact tune-in times week-to-week. Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. How to watch 'The Buccaneers' Season 2 "The Buccaneers" Season 2 will be available to stream on Apple TV+ starting Wednesday, June 18. New episodes will drop weekly on Wednesdays. Seasons 1 of "The Buccaneers" are also available to stream on Apple TV+. Watch 'The Buccaneers' on Apple TV+ Do you need an Apple TV+ subscription to watch 'The Buccaneers'? Yes, viewers need an Apple TV+ subscription to watch "The Buccaneers." An Apple TV+ subscription is $9.99 per month, after a seven-day free trial. How many episodes will 'The Buccaneers' Season 2 have? Season 2 of 'The Buccaneers' will have eight episodes, with new episodes dropping weekly on Wednesdays. Here's what the episode schedule looks like: Episode 1 / Season Premiere: June 18 Episode 2: June 25 Episode 3: July 2 Episode 4: July 9 Episode 5: July 16 Episode 6: July 23 Episode 7: July 30 Episode 8 / Season Finale: Aug. 6 'The Buccaneers' Season 2 cast Season 2 of "The Buccaneers" welcomes a mix of new and old cast members, including: Kristine Frøseth Alisha Boe Aubri Ibrag Josie Totah Imogen Waterhouse Mia Threapleton Christina Hendricks Guy Remmers Matthew Broome Josh Dylan Barney Fishwick Amelia Bullmore Fenella Woolgar New cast members include: Leighton Meester Greg Wise Jacob Ifan Grace Ambrose Maria Almeida Watch the 'The Buccaneers' Season 2 trailer We occasionally recommend interesting products and services. If you make a purchase by clicking one of the links, we may earn an affiliate fee. USA TODAY Network newsrooms operate independently, and this doesn't influence our coverage. Saman Shafiq is a trending news reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at sshafiq@ and follow her on X and Instagram @saman_shafiq7.
Time Out
16-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Time Out
Stereophonic
Stereophonic playwright David Adjmi recently wrote an article for a major British newspaper in which he waxed effusively about how his Broadway smash had been inspired by the band Led Zeppelin. I wonder if his lawyer was holding a gun to his head as he wrote it, because while the Zep may have been a tertiary influence, Stereophonic is very very very very very very very clearly about Fleetwood Mac. There are Fleetwood Mac fan conventions less about Fleetwood Mac. Hell, there are incarnations of Fleetwood Mac that have been less about Fleetwood Mac. Specifically, it's a lightly fictionalised account of the recording of the Anglo-American band's mega-selling Rumours album, and while not every detail is the same, many are identical, from the cities it was recorded in (Sausalito then LA) to the gender, nationality and internal-relationship makeup of the band, to details like female members 'Holly' (aka Christine McVie) and 'Diana' (aka Stevie Nicks) moving out out the studio accommodation they were sharing with the band's menfolk in favour of their own condominiums. Which l hasten to say is all to the good, even if it frequently feels like a miracle that Stereophonic has stormed Broadway – becoming the most Tony-nominated play of all time – without being derailed by legal issues (though there is a lawsuit against it from Rumours producer Ken Caillet, who has accused Adjmi of ripping off his memoir). Of course, it is a great subject for a play. The story of how erstwhile blues noodlers Fleetwood Mac recorded one of the greatest pop albums in history, while breaking up with each other, while on drugs isn't simply a bit of pop trivia: it's a parable on the nature of the creative process. It's an incredibly tricky story to tell in a way that doesn't come across all VH1 Behind the Music. But Stereophonic carries it off spectacularly well. For starters, the veil of fiction allows Adjmi to portray Peter (Jack Riffiford, basically Lindsay Buckingham) and Reg (Zachary Hart, basically John McVie) as catastrophic fuck ups - the former toxic and controlling, the latter addled and out of control. The reason biographical musicals are uniformly terrible is that the musicians or their estate have to sign the content off before they'll allow their songs to be used, resulting in tediously flattering portraits. That does not happen here. For all their faults it's a pleasure spending time with these fuck ups And then there are the songs by erstwhile Arcade Fire man Will Butler. They don't sound anything like Fleetwood Mac really: at a pinch you could argue they sound like Arcade Fire gone '70s soft rock. The lyrics don't have the stinging rawness of Rumours – it would be clunky cosplay to try and write a song like 'Go Your Own Way' for this project. But they're rousing, emotional, layered tunes, written for a band with the same makeup of singers and instrumentalists as Fleetwood Mac, performed live by the cast. There's a notable scene in which the band go through endless takes of a track called 'Masquerade': spoiler etc, but the scene finally ends with them getting it right – the scene would fall flat if it wasn't a good song. So no, Butler hasn't written Rumours II, or even tried. But Daniel Aukin's production hinges on the songs written for it being good enough to feel credible, which is pretty audacious. Structurally, it's a three-and-a-bit-hour interrogation of the creative process that features little more than the band chatting to each other or recording. Set solely in a windowless studio, director Aukin has supreme confidence in the play's pacing and rhythms. There is a lot – like a lot – of fannying around over drum sounds and guitar tones, but the play leads us to the right psychological space to understand that there's much more to this than musos muso-ing. A blizzard of coke, exhaustion, the enormous pressure to follow up their previous album, and of course cataclysmic inter-band tensions all go some way to explain why the band and their affable engineers Grover (Eli Gelb) and Charlie (Andrew R Butler) find themselves agonising over every detail. There is a lot about gender and power here. If the broad brushstroke picture is 'band makes an album', the more nuanced one is 'two talented women try to assert themselves in a toxic male-dominated creative environment'. Both Holly (Nia Towle) and Diana (Lucy Karczewski) know their worth. But Holly has to negotiate the broken heart of her ex, Reg, who has pretty much fallen apart after she dumped him and needs to be looked after if they're actually going to make this record. Meanwhile Diana has to deal with the brittle, self-absorbed musical virtuoso Peter, who she's still in a relationship with. His natural sense of perfectionism has been curdled by resentment over Diana's rising star status in the band, and his many snarling putdowns of her work are deeply uncomfortable. Zoom in even closer, and it's the story of Diana stepping out from Peter's control – at the beginning she's subservient to him for the sake of keeping the peace, but she will soon reject this volcanically. It's worth stressing that Stereophonic is extremely entertaining, because it's a show about seven great characters, and the reason the characters are so great is largely because the IRL Fleetwood Mac are a great bunch of characters. For all their faults it's a pleasure spending time with these fuck ups, from Towle's tough, brassy Holly to Chris Stack's avuncular-but-edgy Simon (ie the Mick Fleetwood character). Knob twiddlers Grover and Charlie aren't based on famous people, but still counterbalance the story, a couple of guys who might have expected themselves to be out of their depth musically instead finding themselves totally stumped by the band's emotional problems If there's one thing beyond a degree of legal protection that Stereophonic obviously gains from not technically being about Fleetwood Mac, it's that it ends on a genuinely uncertain note, and not with, I dunno, the band slamming through 'The Chain' while stats about the album's colossal sales flash up. Was this tectonic creative process worth all the damage inflicted for the music it created? Rumours is so beloved now that it's hard to conclude the band should have actually sacked it off. And you'd probably say the same for the Stereophonic band to be honest. But without the quadrillions of sales and instantly recognisable tunes, the damage these people did to each other in the name of art is brought home with devastating eloquence.
