STARK warnings from artificial intelligence researchers that advanced forms of the technology could wipe out humanity have raised questions over whether governments are moving fast enough to regulate it.
What are the potential dangers of “superintelligent” computer systems, and should we be worried?
AI experts have long described the threat as critical.
In 2023, hundreds of AI scientists and industry figures, including the heads of top US labs, signed a “statement on AI extinction risk” calling for the issue to be treated as seriously as pandemics or nuclear war.
If an out-of-control future AI deems that humans are obstructing its goals, it could use robots to “synthesise and spread novel pathogens”, said Stuart Russell, computer science professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
Or it could “convince people to initiate nuclear war, including by hacking into early warning systems”, Russell, a prominent voice on AI safety, said.
Such existential fears do not concern current AI systems, he said. But as the technology improves, it could take lethal action beyond our understanding, such as by removing oxygen from the atmosphere.
“We are less intelligent than superintelligent AI. If you ask chimpanzees how humans could wipe them out, they probably wouldn’t be able to give you all the right answers.”
In the meantime, “in the next year or two, I think the risk is higher from human misuse”, Russell added, such as an AI-enabled terror attack.
“The stakes are well-understood,” Jacob Coxon, a 27-year-old researcher, wrote on X last week, announcing his resignation from US AI startup Anthropic.
“But they are locked in a race to get there first,” he added, saying that Anthropic “believes no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves”.
Anthropic this year removed a pledge from its safety charter to halt development of its models if it failed to control their risks.
It argued that if it unilaterally paused its work, its less cautious rivals would dominate the industry, making it less safe overall.
“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” said Coxon, who previously worked at ChatGPT maker Open-AI.
He accused both companies of “gambling with our lives” as they strive to develop AI models capable of self-improvement.
Fears are heightened over rogue AI after OpenAI technology operating outside human supervision hacked into Hugging Face, a repository of AI models.
“We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” Anthropic safety executive Evan Hubinger chimed in on X, estimating the risk at more than 10 per cent over the next decade.
It’s important to remember that doom-laden percentage predictions are “absolutely unscientific”, said Hussein Abbass, a computing professor at UNSW Canberra.
“The situation is still controllable, and it can be managed,” Abbass said.
But governments should not sit on their hands when it comes to regulating AI, he added, urging an “agile” approach as AI development accelerates.
Both Anthropic and OpenAI are expected to go public soon, and some sceptics say scary warnings make AI appear powerful and worthy of large investments.
Others argue that focusing on the risk of extinction distracts from more pressing problems caused by AI, from job losses to machines discriminating against minorities.
In July, more than 1,000 tech employees, including Anthropic’s CEO, called on Washington to support a coordinated slowdown in the development of the most advanced AI systems.
OpenAI halted training of its latest models for two weeks in August before resuming it under tighter controls.
The United States has been firmly against global regulation of the sector that could stifle innovation.
But the hacking capabilities of the most cutting-edge models have given Washington pause, with recent Anthropic and OpenAI releases delayed over national security concerns.
Even then, “we don’t want to restrict them where all of a sudden we come in second to China”, President Donald Trump has said.
“Maybe it will take a massive, Chernobyl-scale disaster to get governments to act,” Russell said, urging them to establish a licensing regime for AI, as exists with aviation, medicine or water supply.
“Perhaps at some point governments will remember that their voters prefer not to be dead.”
If Douma, one of the highest-profile “proven” chemical attacks attributed to Syria’s former Bashar Assad government, has been shown to be fake, what does it say about new, undeclared Syrian chemical weapons that have supposedly been found?
It says we should be extremely skeptical about news of such discoveries.
I spent years compiling an insider’s analysis of the evolving Western narrative of Syrian chemical attacks while I was at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) as well as afterwards.
My conclusion was it is nigh impossible to prove a negative in this situation; to say there had never been a chemical attack by the Syrian government forces.
However, when it came to high-profile allegations of such attacks in the Syrian towns of East Ghouta, Khan Sheykhoun, Ltamenah, Saraqib and Douma, there were fatal flaws in the official narratives.
There were unmistakable signs, clear to us on the inside, of fabrication.
The Douma attack eight years ago appeared to be the last of a series of chemical allegations against the regime.
Yet the saga continues. The OPCW sent a new mission to Syria this May to try to find alleged, undeclared chemical weapons from the government of Bashar al-Assad, who was ousted in 2024.
Before examining the intentions and results of this mission, it is useful to review how the Western-backed OPCW handled its investigation into the 2018 chemical weapons attack in Douma, a suburb of Damascus.
I was an OPCW inspector on that mission and this is why I blew the whistle.
The Establishment Narrative
Just how much of the establishment narrative that blamed Assad for using chemical weapons be believed ?
Devised during the early part of the Western and Gulf-backed jihadist war to overthrow Assad a decade and a half ago – and built upon steadily by Western belligerents throughout the crisis – the story that Assad had “gassed his own people” was widely believed with mainstream media fully on board.
Doubters were glibly dismissed, including “official” dissenters such as some senior inspectors at the OPCW. I was among them.
The chemical allegations followed a well-oiled procedure. Armed opposition groups – who were seeking direct Western military intervention to support their effort to overthrow Assad – would raise the alarm online by posting slick images and videos of an alleged chemical attack.
These opposition groups, sometimes assisted by Western NGOs, would then bring supposed witnesses of these alleged attacks to Gaziantep in Turkey, where the OPCW would send fact-finding missions to interview them.
The OPCW would generally believe the opposition groups and their witnesses and accept items of supposed “evidence” handed over to them, sometimes months after the alleged attack. Until the Douma allegation in 2018, the fact-finding mission never got to the scene of any Syrian chemical attack after an initial attempt in 2014 went awry.
The fact-finding report would be secretly drafted under the direct control of OPCW top management, bypassing any procedural or technical oversight, and would conclude that it was “reasonable to believe” that a chemical attack had indeed taken place.
The follow-up investigations by the heavily politicized Joint Investigative Mechanism (J.I.M.), or by the later Investigation and Identification Team (I.I.T.), would suggest that “a reasonable person would believe” that the Syrian Armed Forces were responsible for the attack.
OPCW inspectors are not fools. Many of us saw what was going on, seeing the tight political control that the U.S. and to a lesser degree the U.K. exerted over anything to do with the Syrian file. But the draconian confidentiality regime in the OPCW kept everyone subdued.
The breakthrough came after the April 2018 Douma allegation.
For the first time, an OPCW team actually got to the scene of an alleged chemical attack, at the town of Douma, in southwestern Syria, about 10 kilometers (6 miles) northeast of Damascus.
We did our job thoroughly, and in doing so we identified serious flaws in the allegation.
OPCW Extreme Measures
The OPCW resorted to ever-escalating measures to bring things back on track. After trying to secretly modify the interim report by withdrawing it from publication and sneaking in the preordained conclusions that were required by influential delegations, senior OPCW officials went to extremes.
They removed all the team members who had gone to Douma and produced a flawed Fact Finding Mission report written by persons unknown, none of whom had much knowledge of what the Douma team had done.
The fact-finding report predictably found that “it was reasonable to believe” there had been an attack with chlorine in Douma. This was followed much later by the OPCW’s inevitable I.I.T. report that blamed the Syrian regime for the attack.
In reaching its conclusions, the drafters claimed, as usual, to have been informed by anonymous experts. The context in the reports was usually along the lines of the fact-finding mission (F.F.M.) “asked an expert about this and the expert said it was possible.” Many qualified experts and commentators, including me, consider this laughable.
The OPCW were going too far, and ultimately this led to the ongoing dispute where the two most senior and experienced inspectors in the F.F.M. team objected.
The drafter of the team’s interim report, Dr. Brendan Whelan (“Inspector B”), was one. I was the other. In my case I had also led the politically-mandated inspections at two facilities of the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre (S.S.R.C.) suspected of harbouring illicit chemical weapons activities.
Here again, we did our work thoroughly and in drafting the S.S.R.C. inspection reports I made clear that there was nothing amiss in either of the facilities.
This didn’t stop the U.S., U.K. and France from conducting punitive missile strikes on Barzah S.S.R.C., on the basis of social media postings on the Douma allegation, even before the OPCW team had arrived at the incident scene.
Rather than another detailed analysis of the Douma scandal, suffice it to say, the official Douma narrative has been clearly and scientifically picked apart by many credible observers, including by Dr. Whelan and myself.
This has been widely reported, although predictably not much in the mainstream media.
The OPCW and Western delegations have been in crisis management mode ever since the first leak, that of an internal engineering summary that cast doubt on the allegation that chlorine cylinders had been dropped from aircraft, raising the possibility that militants had placed the cylinders to stage the scene of a chemical attack.
I was the author of that report.
Nose of chlorine cylinder alleged to have smashed through a steel-reinforced concrete roof, April. 21, 2018. (OPCW, courtesy former Syrian government)
Worse still for the prevailing Douma narrative, Dr. Whelan recently won a legal case against the OPCW for their charges against him of confidentiality breaches.
In their submissions, the OPCW inadvertently admitted to suppressing the key toxicology assessment (incidentally by NATO specialists) that dismissed chlorine as the likely cause of death of deceased victims shown in images posted from the scene.
The OPCW has refused to engage in any discussion on the facts and scientific substance of the case, ever since concerns were first raised by Dr. Whelan and myself.
This intransigence to re-open the file is likely dictated by the needs of the three belligerent governments that subjected Syria to punitive missile strikes in retaliation for the supposed Syrian chemical attack even before the Douma F.F.M. had started work.
Any updated or corrected findings on Douma would be inconvenient.
The New OPCW Mission
Still apparently seeking to prove its case, the OPCW formed a new Syria mission in May aimed at “finding” alleged missing, un-declared chemical weapons.
At the end of May the mission reported finding 42 empty chemical weapons munitions; a launcher; bomb-mixing units; precursor-type containers; a facility whose contents were not revealed and thousands of pages of documents that are still being reviewed.
The mission also found 650 kg of “a chemical compound known to have been used by the former government for the production of nerve agents,” which the report does not name. It says an unknown quantity of hexamine, a legal chemical with wide industrial use, was found but it is not clear if this is the same compound as in the 650 kg.
In September, the Syrian government, now under the leadership of a former al-Qaeda and ISIS leader, began destroying the empty bombs, but not any of the chemicals that were found, presumably meaning none were banned.
Despite all the fanfare of these results being presented at a U.N. Security Council meeting last month, it appears that the new OPCW mission came up as empty as those bombs.
None of these discoveries does anything to prove that Assad ever used a chemical weapon, in other words, nothing to prove that I, along with other OPCW officials and countless observers and commentators who challenged the Assad chemical weapons narrative were wrong.
Presumably after all the effort in creating that narrative, Western governments and mainstream media that promoted the Iraq war and then the Syrian conflict to achieve regime change in that country, require a tidier ending than the mess they made of the Iraqi WMD story.
An early press release from the OPCW is telling. It shows what they were attempting to prove with this May mission, in particular two rather flimsy suggestions.
They report the discovery of some of the empty munitions,
“including the same type of aerial bombs that were used in chemical attacks in Ltamenah in March 2017 and Khan Shaykhun in April 2017.”
This refers to empty M4000 aerial bombs, declared by the Syrians as part of their stockpile.
Aside from the questionable Douma-like irregularitiessurrounding “evidence” used by the OPCW to conclude that sarin-filled M4000 bombs were used in those attacks, it’s important to mention something else.
The Syrians had clearly explained to us that 2,000 of these bombs, never filled, had been set aside to be “repurposed,” in other words to be filled with high explosive to turn them into conventional munitions. These could turn up anywhere.
A second questionable statement in the press release is,
“Rockets were also found, of the same type as those that were used in the Ghouta chemical weapons attack in August 2013.”
This relates to artillery rockets crudely modified with a large cylindrical payload container added at the front.
For a start, the U.N./OPCW report of Ghouta did not attempt to identify the perpetrators of that sarin attack, since it was not part of their mandate. The accusations against the regime have always been political, something the mainstream media happily took up.
The Most Credible Analysis So Far
The Ghouta sarin attack took place on Aug. 21, 2013 and according to Western sources killed more than 1,000 people in the Damascus suburb.
The most serious investigation of the Ghouta incident to date points to the attack being launched from opposition-occupied positions, and remains the most credible analysis of the attack.
The opposition forces allegedly responsible were from the al-Nusra Front, which conducted joint operations in 2013 in the Damascus area with the Liwa Al Islam opposition group. Al-Nusra were known to be in possession of sarin, according to reporting by Seymour Hersh, who wrote:
“In the months before the [Aug. 21, 2013] attack [in Ghouta], the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.”
Indeed the U.N./OPCW team was in Damascus at the time of the attack in Ghouta because it was responding to an earlier request from the Syrian government to investigate chemical attacks against their forces.
The OPCW release also mentions a typical catch-all referring to “quantities of separately stored chemicals and related equipment, the nature of which is currently under technical analysis.”
There will always be suggestions of vague bits and pieces, rusty remnants that “may have been a part of” alleged undeclared elements of a chemical weapons program.
And, keep in mind, it’s been 22 months since the Assad government was ousted and their enemies in the opposition group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) have been running the country.
So far as I can see, the OPCW hasn’t found anything remotely close to the desired smoking gun. Anything real, I should say.
Partners in the Anti-Assad Chemical Narrative
Syrian President Ahmaad Al Shaara, former Al Nusra/HTS fighter, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio in New York City, September 2025. (State Department Photo, Wikimedia)
We need to keep in mind how this is working. There are three partners in this latest endeavour on the anti-Assad chemical narrative.
First, we have the Western governments, belligerents in the Syrian conflict, which worked hard on building the chemical narrative to delegitimise the regime.
The U.K. government offered specialists to check out suspected sites in Syria to prepare them for the May mission in order to “assist” the current government in finding evidence of hidden chemical weapons.
That leads us to the second group, the government in Syria, reportedly eager to please their Western sponsors in return for economic favours. They are the Al-Nusra/HTS extremists who, in the case of Douma, fabricated the scene to raise a chemical false flag allegation against the Assad.
The third partner is the OPCW.
That means the various groups who have been on this mission are a) those who staged scenes of chemical attacks; b) those who directed them to do so (including Western intelligence agents who allegedly coached and assisted them); and c) the organisation that went along with the narrative and dutifully produced reports damning the Assad regime.
It may appear to the reader that I’m suggesting that the OPCW reports on Syrian chemical weapons will continue to be little more than propaganda, the usual sexed-up nonsense. Perhaps so. In disputing this, these assertions will be dismissed as conspiracy theories.
However, this argument is weakened because the source of the alternative narrative is the scientists and senior inspectors (many “Western”) from within the OPCW teams, including the Douma fact-finding mission and Scientific Studies and Research Centre inspections.
This is why Douma remains a key element in the debate. If they did it once (and doggedly stuck to their guns), they probably did it before.
Many serious and eminent observers are imploring the OPCW to conduct a review of the Douma case, including by the OPCW’s own Scientific Advisory Board.
I see this being done by credible, independent and neutral experts in the fields of chemistry, toxicology, metallurgy and engineering, overseen by the relevant professional institutes.
These experts would report their findings transparently, putting their names and reputations behind their analysis. This will clear up the Douma controversy, either demonstrating that it could have actually happened as alleged, or demonstrating the flaws in the OPCW reports.
Exposing a clear and deliberate fraud would seriously weaken the Western narrative on alleged Syrian chemical attacks. Therefore, in my view, it is not going to happen under the purview of the OPCW.
Ever.
I don’t mean to suggest that those calling for a review are unrealistically hopeful. But the risks of such a review are perhaps too high for it ever to be envisaged by the Western group that was aligned with the efforts on regime change in Syria — chiefly the U.S., the U.K. and France.
This does not mean it can’t happen. There is more than enough open-source material, as well as now-unclassified facts, images, analysis results and information available from the OPCW itself, from former OPCW officials and inspectors, and held by Member States, that would support a credible in-depth review.
The basis for expert analysis would be the material used in the fact-finding mission and I.I.T. reports themselves.
By now we know there isn’t any “smoking gun” evidence. If there had been, it would have been cited in the mission and I.I.T. reports.
Trust me, this study will bear clear results. My hope is that someone sufficiently curious and responsible will commission and fund it.
Ian Henderson served as an OPCW inspector from the establishment of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, and was appointed as one of the first Inspection Team Leaders. An experienced chemical engineer with military experience, he led many of the more complex missions to more than 55 countries. After returning to a career in the chemical industry for 10 years he rejoined the OPCW in 2016 as part of the “rehire” scheme aimed at bringing back experienced inspectors. It was during this time that he became involved in the Syrian chemical weapons operations and, along with others, objected to the apparent influences of political control in the organization. He was suspended from the OPCW in May 2019 after the leak (by unknown others) of his dissenting engineering report on the Douma cylinders.
LONDON: The Washington Post has denied Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s description of an attack on one of its photojournalists in the occupied West Bank, The Independent reported. Footage of the Friday incident involving veteran war reporter Heidi Levine, shared by the newspaper, shows masked Israeli settlers beating and kicking the journalist as she lies on the ground. On the day, about 80 masked Israelis stormed the Palestinian olive harvest in Abu Falah, burning olive trees and th
As Mark Cocker approaches a landmark for the world’s oldest column in an English-language newspaper, he is still inspired by powerful encounters with nature
In the autumn of 1987, Mark Cocker sat in a field near Norwich and watched a jay burying acorns for the long winter ahead. He described the scene in his first country diary for the Guardian. Thirty-nine years on, some of those jay-planted acorns will be mature oaks now, and Cocker is completing his 1,000th diary for the world’s oldest column in an English-language newspaper.
In his next diary, he will reflect on the changing birdlife around Flint Clough, in the Peak District, where he first marvelled at rare birds aged 12 after devouring bird books in his bedroom. As a boy, he would find cuckoo, golden plover, ring ouzel and twite, a once-common bird which is now virtually extinct in England.
Setting aside the jokes about the shortness of Katie Zacharia’s tenure as White House press secretary, the controversy over her claim to be a lawyer obscures a more damaging issue. For years, she promoted some of the most heinous and bizarre conspiracy theories bubbling up from the right-wing swamp. Simply put: Zacharia was ousted for the wrong reason. Her embrace of extreme and downright loony assertions amount to a much stronger basis for dismissal than her bogus lawyer claim.
Zacharia’s social media history suggests a worldview colored by baseless thinking, defamatory accusations and sinister fantasies — not exactly a good look for someone tasked with conveying the U.S. president’s policies and actions to the press and public with authority and integrity. The noxiousness of her posts and reposts was apparently evident even to her, since she deleted many of them before her new role was announced.
According to reporting by CNN, the Bulwark and the newsletter Popular Information, Zacharia has repeatedly accused people, particularly Democrats, of sexually molesting children. In April 2022, she reposted and later deleted a Truth Social post from “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander: “Democrats want to mask and rape your children. That’s their satanic platform.”
She repeatedly referred to Democratic operative and former White House chief of staff John Podesta as a “pedo,” apparently still connecting him to an outrageous child-abuse conspiracy theory that had been debunked years earlier. She later paid tribute to the late Robert David Steele, a conspiracist who claimed that children were being kidnapped and sent to a colony on Mars: “He was exposing the pedo rings of the elite cabal,” Zacharia wrote. “May he Rest in Peace and the work of his hands not have been in vain.” In another Truth Social post, she noted that “the radical left Hollywood elites are sick pedo cannibals.” She added, “Change my mind.”
If Trump does indeed find another role for Zacharia in his administration, questions should be asked.
Another of Zacharia’s reposts suggested that Joan Rivers’ death in 2014 was somehow connected to an insulting crack the comedian once made about the Obamas: “Remember that time Joan Rivers said Obama was gay and Michelle had a dick then suddenly died?”
This wasn’t the output of a mischievous teen troll; Zacharia’s controversial deleted posts and reposts date from as recently as 2022. By then, Zacharia was in her late 30s and had been employed in various senior communications roles, including most recently as an adviser to Truth Social, the Trump-owned social media platform.
Zacharia’s deleted posts on political issues were problematic for another reason. For instance, she re-posted and deleted a tweet accusing the Justice Department of covering up the crimes of people involved in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, an opinion at odds with the administration she was tapped to speak for. Last year, she advocated suspending habeas corpus — the fundamental right to challenge detention in court — for migrants arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an extreme and authoritarian measure. (Zacharia’s legal theory, if any, was that the Constitution justifies denial of this right in cases of rebellion or invasion.)
In its article Tuesday on this social media activity, CNN reported that neither Zacharia nor White House communications director Steven Cheung directly addressed the issue. In a statement, CNN reported, Cheung called her “uniquely qualified” and “whip smart to help inform the American people.” The White House responded to Popular Information’s request for comment by referring it “to the President’s TRUTH on Katie,” a post in which Trump praised Zacharia as “a loyal and brilliant supporter, right from the beginning.” Zacharia wasn’t asked about these posts in interviews with three conservative outlets, including Fox News, between Thursday and her ousting Friday.
Clearly, the safe space couldn’t last. Trump apparently realized that if she ever assumed the podium again, Zacharia would inevitably face a barrage of questions about herself. That, too, is problematic: A press secretary shouldn’t be the story. But Zacharia’s history of hair-raising statements rightly made her one.
The lawyergate bubble burst in just five days. On Thursday, in an interview with right-wing influencer Jack Posobiec — himself a noted purveyor of conspiracy theories — Zacharia acknowledged that she didn’t pass the California bar exam. On advice from legal experts, she said, she decided that it was proper to call herself a lawyer but not an “attorney.” She said much the same to the New York Times, which reported on Thursday that she had identified herself on LinkedIn as general counsel to a group led by a Trump loyalist. In the wake of a CNN report Thursday that Zacharia had shared at least 15 social media posts over the past two years in which she referred to herself as an attorney, she told Sean Hannity that those were retweets of a title she had been given — but she was out shortly after lunchtime Friday.
But if Trump does indeed find another role for Zacharia in his administration, questions should be asked. Among them: Did she really think Hollywood “elites” engaged in pedophilia and cannibalism? How did she come by this knowledge, and who are the individuals who’ve engaged in these repulsive crimes? Is the Justice Department still covering up Epstein’s crimes? Does she truly believe there’s a lost colony of kidnapped children on Mars? As press secretary, there was no way Zacharia could keep the public focus on war, the economy, healthcare and the midterm elections while also defending a conspiracy about Joan Rivers’ death. But a less prominent position doesn’t moot the questions that should be asked if Zacharia is drawing a taxpayer-funded salary.
For Trump, media controversy may be on brand. The White House’s most recent top spokesperson had been a font of misinformation, outrageous “theories” and mortifying lies. In view of her boss’ track record, that may not be a bug or even a feature. It may be why Zacharia got the job in the first place.
For more than three decades, Michael Gove has been a leading figure in British Conservatism. As a journalist, government minister and now editor of the Tory bible, the Spectator, he has helped shape the right even as it has moved further rightwards. In the latest episode of Radical Thinking, Gove joins Aditya Chakrabortty to discuss the future of the right, his record on Brexit and austerity, and the Spectator’s position on Islam
To read the fruits of Michael Gove’s dalliance with the Marxism Today gang, look up his essay in a 1998 collection called The Moderniser’s Dilemma: Radical Politics in the Age of Blair
For slalom ride through Michael Gove’s years in power, read The Demented Dalek by the historian Richard J Evans in the London Review of Books
To learn more on what’s become of the British right, there’s a column by me for the Guardian
Phil also writes a very good blog on British politics, which keeps a close eye on how each party is trying to marshall a coalition of voters. Here he is on Kemi Badenoch
Geoffrey Wheatcroft does an entertaining short narrative in Bloody Panico!:
For more on the economics of the Cameron years, this paper is acute on how the Tories failed to move the UK away from being a country of renters towards a country of makers. Two of its authors will join us for a podcast later in the series.
And if you want to read how Brexit may have cost the UK 8% of GDP, there’s this paper based on data from the Bank of England
Finally, on the Spectator read Nesrine Malik’s recent column in The Guardian
A billboard ad in Times Square for the sports-betting site Novig featuring the actress Sydney Sweeney. She appeared in commercials aired during the Major League Baseball playoffs.
Francisco Balsemão, que morreu no ano passado, foi fundador da Associação da Imprensa Não Diária, que posteriormente deu lugar à Associação Portuguesa de Imprensa
Talvez seja útil notar que alguns dos mais aflitos com a famosa “desinformação” são os que a produzem com método e com zelo. Deve ser receio da concorrência.
Katie Zacharia left her White House press secretary job after five days. Anthony Scaramucci, who also had a short tenure in the Trump administration in 2017.
Dustin Chambers/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Katie Zacharia left her White House press secretary job after five days.
Anthony Scaramucci can relate.
The internet is awash with memes that measured Zacharia's run in "Scaramuccis."
Katie Zacharia’s run as White House press secretary lasted five days, and memes about her exit are rolling in.
There is someone who can relate: Anthony Scaramucci, whose brief stint as Trump’s White House communications director in July 2017 became a pop-culture unit of time — a “Scaramucci,” or “Mooch” — for measuring short-lived political appointments.
Scaramucci held the role for roughly 10 days — six if not including the time lapsed between Trump's announcement and his first day — before Trump fired him.
Scaramucci has been following Zacharia's journey closely and, in a series of tweets, has gone from wishing her well to offering advice.
It started on Thursday, when Scaramucci placed his bet that Zacharia would "make it."
Dear @katiezacharia — speaking as the world's leading expert on short White House tenures: turn off the news and go enjoy your family. In time you’ll realize that the Universe did you a major favor.
Workers have long been told to stay in a job for at least a year to avoid looking uncommitted to future employers. A string of short stints can still raise eyebrows, but the dates on a résumé don’t always tell the whole story.
Leadership consultants have previously told Business Insider that quick moves that come with more responsibility and opportunities to build skills can strengthen a résumé, in which quick changes in roles could be seen as a sign of ambition and adaptability rather than instability.
Zacharia succeeded Karoline Leavitt, who left in August to spend more time with her young children. She became Trump’s sixth press secretary across his two terms, and the fourth to last less than a year.
While there is helpful career advice out there for Zacharia, a LinkedIn profile picture of Zacharia with the infamous "#Opentowork" tag has also taken off on X. The tweet was originally posted by the Democrats' official account.
The green tag itself has been a much-debated topic on the professional networking platform.
Some recruiters have previously told Business Insider that the label is the "biggest red flag" to hiring managers because it suggests "desperation." Data from 2024, however, show that workers with the public green tag receive 40% more messages from LinkedIn Recruiter than those who use only the private signal.
A former Cornell student’s lawsuit accusing members of a fraternity of sexual assault stirred anger and debate at the university and on college campuses nationwide.
In our first edition of The Backstory, a new newsletter about Times journalism, we’re diving into coverage of a rape allegation and talking to a critic who says we’re not tough enough on Trump.
Leitão Amaro considera que a agência noticiosa está mais próxima de se tornar num serviço público viável — e deixa a porta aberta para continuar conversa sobre a alteração dos estatutos.
Aguiar-Branco considerou que é "importante que o Ministério Público e os juízes se habituem a falar com a imprensa", de uma forma quotidiana, em "assuntos que não impliquem o segredo de justiça".
O Governo está a rever as regras da publicidade e prepara um novo código que pretende “reduzir ao ponto de partida, com condensação, atualização e modernização de todas as principais leis do setor”. O anúncio foi feito por António Leitão Amaro, ministro da Presidência, no Dia Nacional da Imprensa 2026, o encontro anual dos media portugueses promovido pela Associação Portuguesa de Imprensa (API).
“Estamos a reduzir, era o ponto de partida, com condensação, atualização e modernização de todas as principais leis do setor e, evidentemente, a abolição de todas aquelas barreiras, por mais bem intencionadas que fossem”, afirmou.
E deixou um aviso. “Quando a proposta do código sair, vai haver viúvas, vão existir viúvas das leis anteriores e da limitação para isto e para aquilo. Há viúvas e viúvos porque vamos optar por, na desregulamentação de algumas destas limitações, acreditar na liberdade e confiar nos meios”, explicou.
Leitão Amaro deu como exemplo as restrições de horário e de tempo de publicidade na televisão e na rádio, que desaparecem quando o mesmo conteúdo é visto numa aplicação. “Hoje já nem é no sítio ao lado, é na mesma televisão. Ando para as aplicações e entro ali e desapareceu a restrição”, disse. “Mas isto é só a primeira camada.”
A segunda, explicou, é a publicidade dirigida. “Porque é que a publicidade está a fugir? Porque a publicidade nas plataformas é dirigida, é customizada para quem a vê”, argumentou. “Se conseguirmos permitir que os meios de comunicação social façam a mesma utilização da tecnologia, ou equivalente, para utilizar a publicidade dirigida, o preço dispara.”
O ministro recordou, “com muita cautela” e “por respeito institucional”, a decisão da Autoridade da Concorrência que pôs fim à Playce, a ferramenta de publicidade dirigida nas boxes de televisão.
“Uma decisão da Autoridade da Concorrência deitou abaixo um instrumento que as televisões e as operadoras de cabo tinham encontrado e que valia, pasme-se, no ano em que foi destruído, 20 milhões de euros de publicidade. Neste ano estávamos a começar a caminhar para 30”, afirmou. O novo código, defendeu, deve “criar condições” para que os meios possam “aproveitar tecnologicamente as possibilidades” e tornar esse valor “apropriável”.
“Podemos fazer, por intervenções legislativas, um desencadear de receitas que podem ajudar muito. As regras da publicidade são um exemplo”, sublinhou.
Uma decisão da Autoridade da Concorrência deitou abaixo um instrumento que as televisões e as operadoras de cabo tinham encontrado e que valia, pasme-se, no ano em que foi destruído, 20 milhões de euros de publicidade.
Amália já em negociações com comunicação social
No apoio à transição digital, o Governo está “a olhar seriamente para o tema da criação das condições de arbitragem necessárias” nas negociações entre os media e as plataformas. E quer dar o exemplo com o Amália, o modelo de linguagem do Estado.
Leitão Amaro contou que, no início do verão, perguntou em Conselho de Ministros quanto é que o Amália pagava aos órgãos de comunicação social. A resposta foi “nada”. Com base num parecer jurídico, o modelo limitava-se a usar conteúdos com mais de dois anos, que não estariam assim protegidos por direitos. O Governo já iniciou conversações com os media para que o Amália passe a ir buscar conteúdos em tempo real “se e apenas se” houver um acordo de pagamento, com termos comerciais, regras de transparência e de referenciação dos conteúdos. O preço será calculado de forma objetiva, em função do tráfego de cada meio. O objetivo é que sirva de exemplo nas negociações bilaterais de cada órgão de comunicação social com as plataformas.
O ministro anunciou também a retoma da linha de apoio à digitalização de arquivos, criada em 2023-2024, e alargada agora ao tratamento de bases de dados.
Lusa até 90% mais barata
Leitão Amaro destacou ainda a verba de até dois milhões de euros prevista no Orçamento do Estado para a Comissão da Carteira Profissional de Jornalista, destinada a “financiar todas as atividades de autorregulação, que podem ir desde o funcionamento normal da Comissão da Carteira até funções novas”, como a formação, a capacitação e a modernização tecnológica dos jornalistas.
Sobre a Lusa, revelou que, a partir de 1 de janeiro de 2027, os órgãos de comunicação social vão ter descontos que “atingem 90% do que é hoje a cobrança da Lusa”, com uma verba de dois milhões de euros inscrita o Orçamento do Estado.
Quanto ao concurso de apoio à distribuição de publicações, o relatório final deverá sair na próxima semana. “Ambos [os concorrentes] colocaram muitas questões sobre a proposta do outro e pedi que houvesse o escrúpulo máximo, exigência máxima, avaliação máxima de todas as observações, para que não subsistam dúvidas nenhumas sobre a integridade da decisão”, explicou. “Quisemos lançar um processo que descobrisse o preço certo e não uma renda pedida”, acrescentou.
Para as rádios, o ministro referiu o apoio extraordinário de 500 mil euros às estações que tiveram retransmissores destruídos pelas tempestades do início do ano e uma verba de 23 milhões de euros no Orçamento para financiar a resiliência da rede de rádio. “São mais de 23 milhões de euros disponíveis para financiar a resiliência da rede de rádios nacionais”, destacou.
Apoio aos órgãos de comunicação locais
O Governo fixou esta sexta-feira uma dotação de mais de 1,4 milhões de euros para o Regime de Incentivos do Estado à Comunicação Social.
O despacho conjunto do Ministro da Presidência, do Ministro de Estado e das Finanças e do Ministro da Economia e da Coesão Territorial fixa, de acordo com o Governo, em 1.417.639,71 euros a dotação para 2026. Segundo o comunicado, o valor representa um aumento de 45,4% face a 2025. O despacho será publicado em Diário da República no início da próxima semana.
No ano passado, o montante total de apoios a atribuir foi de 955.062,45 euros para Portugal Continental, a que se juntaram, numa portaria separada, 19.998 euros para a comunicação social madeirense. Os Açores ficaram de foram destes incentivos, por não terem sido recebidas candidaturas consideradas elegíveis. Os 45,4% avançados pelo Governo parecem resultar da soma destes dois valores. Se a dotação de 2026 disser respeito apenas ao Continente, como o despacho do ano passado, o aumento é de 48,4%.
Os apoios destinam-se a promover a modernização tecnológica, o desenvolvimento digital, a acessibilidade, as parcerias estratégicas e a literacia e educação para a comunicação social, “reforçando a capacidade dos órgãos de comunicação social regionais e locais para responder aos desafios do setor”, explica o executivo.
Divulgação das decisões autárquicas nos media avança
A Assembleia da República aprovou esta sexta-feira, em votação final global, a proposta do Governo que altera o Regime Jurídico das Autarquias Locais. Votaram a favor PSD, Chega, PS, IL, Livre, CDS-PP, BE, PAN e JPP e o PCP absteve-se.
A lei obriga as autarquias a divulgar as suas deliberações na comunicação social regional e local. A obrigação já estava prevista na legislação desde 2013, mas nunca foi regulamentada nem aplicada. O novo texto alarga-a aos meios digitais e define que a regulamentação tem de ser aprovada nos 60 dias seguintes à publicação da lei, que entra em vigor 90 dias depois de publicada.
Durante a sua intervenção no evento, Leitão Amaro acusou PS e Chega de terem retirado a norma que considerava central. “À última hora, havia uma regra mais importante, sagrada de todas: a deliberação autárquica não produz efeito se não for publicitada na comunicação social. Isto, pelas nossas contas, representava muito mais que o porte pago em termos de consumo público. Hoje, o PS e o Chega juntaram-se para retirar essa norma da lei.” E prometeu: “Vou continuar a tentar.”
O novo regime prevê a divulgação obrigatória de um resumo “deliberações dos órgãos autárquicos colegiais destinadas a ter eficácia externa” em meios de comunicação social regionais ou locais, em suporte impresso e digital. O mesmo vale para atos que determinem contratos públicos acima do limiar do ajuste direto, “quando produzam efeitos externos e envolvam a realização de despesa pública”.
Para serem elegíveis, os meios têm de acompanhar com regularidade a atualidade do município ou da freguesia em questão. Os jornais impressos não podem ser gratuitos, têm de sair pelo menos uma vez por mês e têm de estar entre os seis de maior circulação no município. Os digitais têm de ser atualizados todos os dias. Os sítios de internet das rádios regionais e locais são igualmente abrangidos, “com exceção das rádios que apenas façam retransmissão de outros serviços de programas”.
Se o concelho tiver apenas um meio elegível, a divulgação deve ser feita nesse meio.Se tiver vários, as autarquias devem alternar entre eles, com base nos critérios que vão ser definidos. Se não tiver nenhum, deve-se recorrer a um “órgão regional ou local de município limítrofe, de âmbito intermunicipal ou metropolitano, de âmbito regional ou de âmbito nacional”.
As tabelas de referência serão fixadas todos os anos por portaria dos membros do Governo responsáveis pela comunicação social e pela administração local. Antes disso, o Governo terá de ouvir as associações do setor e mediante parecer, no prazo de 20 dias úteis, da Associação Nacional de Municípios Portugueses (ANMP), da Associação Nacional de Freguesias (ANAFRE) e da Associação Nacional das Assembleias Municipais (ANAM).
Se o preço proposto por um meio local exceder o valor constante da tabela, a autarquia deve promover a publicação, “em cada modalidade, em órgão de comunicação social de município limítrofe, de âmbito intermunicipal ou metropolitano, de âmbito regional ou de âmbito nacional”. Se todos propuserem um valor superior, o órgão municipal e de freguesia fica dispensado da publicação, “devendo justificar documentalmente essa decisão”.
A legislação prevê ainda a avaliação da aplicação do regime e a previsão de verbas nos Orçamentos do Estado para fazer face aos encargos adicionais das autarquias.
“É uma notícia que a API saúda de forma muito particular, depois de mais de 12 anos de espera pela publicação efetiva deste regime”, afirmou Cláudia Maia, presidente da Associação Portuguesa da Imprensa (API), na abertura do evento e destacou que o trabalho na especialidade “acolheu várias das preocupações e propostas” da associação.
Ainda assim, a presidente da API deixou um aviso: “A aprovação da lei não encerra este trabalho. Pelo contrário, começa agora a fase decisiva da sua execução. Durante mais de 12 anos, uma obrigação prevista na lei ficou sem aplicação efetiva por falta de regulamentação. Não podemos permitir que a história se repita.” A associação pediu que a verba prevista para cobrir os encargos das autarquias tenha “tradução efetiva e atempada no Orçamento do Estado de 2027, para que a falta de recursos não volte a ser um obstáculo à aplicação da medida”.
Histórico
Tal como nota o Plano de Ação para a Comunicação Social,o Regime Jurídico das Autarquias Locais (RJAL) ainda em vigor já obrigava a publicitar, nos jornais regionais e locais, todas as deliberações e decisões com eficácia externa. No entanto, “esta norma é claramente desproporcionada ao nível da sua exigência e complexidade. Assim, esta norma do art.º 56º da Lei n.º 75/2013, de 12 de setembro, nunca foi regulamentada e, por isso, nunca implementada”, lê-se no documento.
De forma a resolver esta questão, o Governo havia promovido na legislatura anterior uma revisão da mesma, tendo sido aprovada na generalidade em outubro de 2024. Foi até a primeira proposta do plano de ação para os media a ser aprovada. A medida estava já a ser discutida na especialidade, mas acabou por cair com a queda do Governo em março de 2025.
Em janeiro de 2025, num parecer sobre essa versão, o Conselho Regulador da Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social (ERC) avisava que a proposta podia “não ser eficaz” e que continha “formulações imprecisas e equívocas”.
In the latest surge of violence, settlers targeted Palestinians during the olive harvest, a cultural touchstone and economic lifeline in the Israeli-occupied area.
The Washington Post’s executive editor said Friday that Israeli settlers attacked one of its photojournalists, who was working on assignment in the West Bank. “She was wearing visible markings clearly identifying her as a journalist,” Matt Murray wrote in a statement shared to social platform X. “We are outraged by this unwarranted attack on a…
Login
, X