jili 7788

jili 7788 AP News Summary at 6:13 p.m. ESTNo. 22 UCLA edges No. 14 Gonzaga in another classic between rivals

Kings vs. Pelicans Injury Report Today – December 12

Monument Valley 3 strains our brains with more gorgeous puzzlesIn a message to the American people, the King expressed “great sadness” at the news of Mr Carter’s death, describing him as “a committed public servant” who “devoted his life to promoting peace and human rights”. He added: “His dedication and humility served as an inspiration to many, and I remember with great fondness his visit to the United Kingdom in 1977. “My thoughts and prayers are with President Carter’s family and the American people at this time.” Mr Carter, a former peanut farmer, served one term in the White House between 1977 and 1981 and spent his post-presidency years as a global humanitarian, winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. Sir Keir Starmer said Mr Carter had “lived his values in the service of others to the very end” through “decades of selfless public service”. Praising a “lifelong dedication to peace” that saw him win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, Sir Keir added: “Motivated by his strong faith and values, President Carter redefined the post-presidency with a remarkable commitment to social justice and human rights at home and abroad.” Tributes to Mr Carter followed the announcement of his death by his family on Sunday, more than a year after he decided to enter hospice care. His son, Chip Carter, said: “My father was a hero, not only to me but to everyone who believes in peace, human rights, and unselfish love.” Very sorry to hear of President Carter’s passing. I pay tribute to his decades of selfless public service. My thoughts are with his family and friends at this time. pic.twitter.com/IaKmZcteb1 — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) December 29, 2024 US President Joe Biden, one of the first elected politicians to endorse Mr Carter’s bid for the presidency in 1976, said the world had “lost an extraordinary leader, statesman and humanitarian”. He said: “Over six decades, we had the honour of calling Jimmy Carter a dear friend. But, what’s extraordinary about Jimmy Carter, though, is that millions of people throughout America and the world who never met him thought of him as a dear friend as well. “With his compassion and moral clarity, he worked to eradicate disease, forge peace, advance civil rights and human rights, promote free and fair elections, house the homeless, and always advocate for the least among us.” Vice President Kamala Harris said Mr Carter “reminded our nation and the world that there is strength in decency and compassion”. “His life and legacy continue to inspire me — and will inspire generations to come,” she said. “Our world is a better place because of President Carter.” Other UK politicians also paid tribute to Mr Carter. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said he was “an inspiration” who “led a truly remarkable life dedicated to public service with a genuine care for people”. Scottish First Minister John Swinney described the former president as “a good, decent, honest man who strove for peace in all that he did”, while Welsh First Minister said he was “a remarkable man” and “a humanitarian and scholar”. Former prime minister Sir Tony Blair said Mr Carter’s “life was a testament to public service”. He added: “I always had the greatest respect for him, his spirit and his dedication. He fundamentally cared and consistently toiled to help those in need.” Mr Carter is expected to receive a state funeral featuring public observances in Atlanta, Georgia, and Washington DC before being buried in his hometown of Plains, Georgia. A moderate democrat born in Plains in October 1924, Mr Carter’s political career took him from the Georgia state senate to the state governorship and, finally, the White House, where he took office as 39th president in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War. His presidency saw economic disruption amid volatile oil prices, along with social tensions at home and challenges abroad including the Iranian revolution that sparked a 444-day hostage crisis at the US embassy in Tehran. But he also brokered the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel, which led to a peace treaty between the two countries in 1979. After his defeat in the 1980 presidential election, he worked more than four decades leading The Carter Centre, which he and his late wife Rosalynn co-founded in 1982 to “wage peace, fight disease, and build hope”. Under his leadership, the Carter Center virtually eliminated Guinea Worm disease, which has gone from affecting 3.5 million people in Africa and Asia in 1986 to just 14 in 2023. Mrs Carter, who died last year aged 96, had played a more active role in her husband’s presidency than previous first ladies, with Mr Carter saying she had been “my equal partner in everything I ever accomplished”. Earlier this year, on his 100th birthday, Mr Carter received a private congratulatory message from the King, expressing admiration for his life of public serviceThe one question every legislator should be asking this session

Donald Trump is returning to the world stage. So is his trollingWhat ended up as the most consequential post-presidency in U.S. history began just as inauspiciously. Jimmy Carter had lost his 1980 bid for reelection by ten percentage points, pulling just 41% of the popular vote versus 51% by his Republican challenger, Ronald Reagan. Shortly afterward, he discovered that the prosperous agricultural business he had built earlier in his career had been driven into the ground by a blind trust, leaving him millions in debt, adding to the $1.4 million of debt he had accrued as part of his failed reelection campaign, with no cash reserves to pay it off. Then there was the unresolved matter of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, which had crippled Carter's presidency, leading critics to charge him with being weak and ineffectual. When Reagan succeeded him as president on Jan. 20, 1981, Carter had been awake for over two full days as he oversaw the negotiation to release the 52 American hostages that had been detained by the Iranian government for 444 days. A last thumb in Carter's eye: They would be freed in the first minutes of Reagan's presidency. Upon relinquishing the White House, Carter returned briefly to his native Plains, Georgia, which at the time boasted a population of just 640 residents, where he was welcomed home in a driving rain by friends and neighbors with a covered-dish supper. The rain-soaked homecoming didn't last for long. Just hours afterward, Carter flew off to Wiesbaden, Germany, to greet the freed hostages, only to be met with anger by many of them who believed he had failed to ensure their liberation earlier. On Jan. 22, 1980, Carter returned to Plains, to the ranch-style home he and wife Rosalynn had built in 1961, but hadn't lived in for ten years. Exhausted and depleted, the now former president slept for 24 hours before awakening to what he described as "an altogether unwanted life" - and with no idea what he would do next. Twenty-one years later, Carter would be awakened by an early-morning phone call in that same home, in that same small town, with the news that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize for, as the Nobel committee wrote, "his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development." Along the way, Carter reinvented the post-presidency, manifesting its possibilities and potential and providing a playbook, and a daunting standard, for activist former presidents. He showed how a president can leverage the stature of being a "former" to advance a philanthropic agenda, while enhancing his overall legacy and strengthening the American brand. The improbable journey from newly defeated one-term president to Nobel laureate reflected a pattern throughout Carter's fruitful life, one spent achieving outsize ambitions by defying long odds. Carter launched his career in politics in 1962 by challenging the political machine in Southwestern Georgia, successfully contesting a rigged election and winning a seat in the Georgia state legislature. While he lost a race for Georgia governor four years later, he came back to win the office in 1970, becoming one of a crop of new leaders to usher in a new, post-segregation South. After leaving the governor's mansion in 1975 due to a state law then prohibiting governors from serving consecutive terms, Carter set his sights on the distant presidency, a dark-horse former governor of a deep Southern state with little or no name recognition - so much so that even his home state's Atlanta Constitution newspaper ran a story headlined, "Jimmy Who Is Running for What?" "Nobody thought I had a chance in God's world to be the nominee," Carter told me in 2013. His unlikely nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate and subsequent victory over incumbent President Gerald Ford in the 1976 election spoke to Carter's relentless drive and preternatural self-assuredness. Those same qualities would come to bear in his post-White House endeavors. Just a little more than a year out of office, as he considered his future, Carter had an epiphany: that he could create a nongovernmental, non-profit organization that could focus on intractable problems around the world which the international community and the United Nations were not addressing. The Carter Center, attached to his presidential library in Atlanta, did just that, becoming an outlet for the former president's activism and vision for a better world. Since its launch in 1982, the Carter Center, scrupulously overseen by Carter himself, has monitored over a hundred elections in 39 countries and has helped to peacefully resolve disputes throughout the world - including in Haiti, Sudan, and Bosnia - while working toward the eradication of Guinea worm disease and river blindness, insidious ailments that went largely unchecked among the world's poor and developing nations. Recognizing his skill in conflict resolution, President Bill Clinton tapped the ex-president in the 1990s to represent the U.S. in a negotiation to dismantle North Korea's nuclear weapons program, and in staving off a U.S. military invasion of Haiti. As prodigious as they were, Carter's activities weren't limited to the Carter Center. Soon into his post-presidency, Carter took up a hammer for Habitat for Humanity, providing both labor and inspiration for the next four-and-a-half decades on work projects that bear his name. Somehow, he also found time to teach Sunday school nearly every week at Plains' Maranatha Baptist Church - and pose afterward for photographs with visitors to the congregation - as well as do woodwork, fly fish, paint, and become our most prolific presidential author. Carter sometimes bristled when he was called "our best ex-president," a backhanded compliment that disregarded a presidential term that he saw as largely successful. "I don't know of any decisions I made in the White House that were basically erroneous," he told me in 2005. But he didn't spend a great deal of time worrying about his place in the presidential pantheon. The things Jimmy Carter wanted to be remembered for went beyond any achievement he may have chalked up in the White House. In 2014, in an interview at the LBJ Library, I asked Carter how he wanted to be remembered. "I think lot of people will say 'He only served one term and got defeated [ for reelection ] ,'" he replied. "I would like for people to remember that I kept the peace and that I promoted human rights ...That would be my preference." He will get his wish. Mark K. Updegrove is a presidential historian and ABC News political contributor. He is the president and CEO of the LBJ Foundation, and the author of "Second Acts: Presidential Lives and Legacies After the White House."Dolphins defeat Browns to keep playoff hopes alive

Three Penticton Vees will represent at BCHL Top Prospects game

NoneLibra Yearly Horoscope 2025 prediction says employment opportunities

Kirchner's Quest: Reunifying Peronism to Challenge MileiRussia To Stop Gas Exports To Moldova

Newborn found 10 years ago at northwest Indy park honored by local organizationsOlivia Hussey, the actor who starred as a teenage Juliet in the 1968 film "Romeo and Juliet," has died, her family said on social media Saturday. She was 73. Hussey died on Friday, "peacefully at home surrounded by her loved ones," a statement posted to her Instagram account said. Hussey was 15 when director Franco Zeffirelli cast her in his adaptation of the William Shakespeare tragedy after spotting her onstage in the play "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie," which also starred Vanessa Redgrave. "Romeo and Juliet" won two Oscars and Hussey won a Golden Globe for best new actress for her part as Juliet, opposite British actor Leonard Whiting, who was 16 at the time. Decades later, Hussey and Whiting brought a lawsuit against Paramount Pictures alleging sexual abuse, sexual harassment and fraud over nude scenes in the film. They alleged that they were initially told they would wear flesh-colored undergarments in a bedroom scene, but on the day of the shoot Zeffirelli told the pair they would wear only body makeup, and that the camera would be positioned in a way that would not show nudity. They alleged they were filmed in the nude without their knowledge. The case was dismissed by a Los Angeles County judge in 2023, who found their depiction could not be considered child pornography and the pair filed their claim too late. Whiting was among those paying tribute to Hussey on Saturday. "Rest now my beautiful Juliet no injustices can hurt you now. And the world will remember your beauty inside and out forever," he wrote. Hussey was born on April 17, 1951, in Bueno Aires, Argentina, and moved to London as a child. She studied at the Italia Conti Academy drama school. She also starred as Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the 1977 television series "Jesus of Nazareth," as well as in the 1978 adaptation of Agatha Christie's "Death on the Nile" and horror movies "Black Christmas" and "Psycho IV: The Beginning." She is survived by her husband, David Glen Eisley, her three children and a grandson.

The world according to Jim: • As we approach the latest edition of USC vs. UCLA – in other words, a 5-5 team against a 4-6 team, their game Saturday at the Rose Bowl shunted to a 7:30 Pacific time slot so people in the Eastern half of the country who don’t have a bet on the game need not bother – the question must be asked: Are there people in those athletic departments who have buyers’ remorse over the move to the Big Ten? And will that remorse only increase as the travel horror stories involving non-football programs’ conference travel pile up? ... • Here’s a reminder of the reason for this displacement, as well as the only thing that seemingly makes it make sense: The L.A. schools are getting full shares of the Big Ten media pie, somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 million a year, as the first programs to jump the Pac-12 ship on the final day of June, 2022. Given the way former Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff subsequently botched the conference’s media rights negotiations, which began the mass exodus, the L.A. schools’ move in retrospect was understandable if regrettable. ... • Hey, it is more expensive to live in L.A., right? ... • Oregon and Washington, among the last to defect, get half shares for the balance of the Big Ten contract, which runs through the spring of 2030 (although Phil Knight’s largesse almost certainly helps offset the difference at Oregon). The teams that scattered to the Big XII and Atlantic Coast Conference similarly received reduced shares from their new conferences. Oregon State and Washington State have been living off the Pac-12’s surplus and a stopgap TV deal and teamed with Octagon this week in search of a new media rights agreement for the rebuilding conference. ... • On the football field, at least, it has been an unqualified triumph for Oregon, undefeated and currently at the top of the College Football Playoff pecking order. Washington is 6-5 overall and 4-4 in the Big Ten. The L.A. schools are reduced to playing for bowl scraps. And the idea that Washington, USC and UCLA are respectively eighth, 12th and 13th in their conference is its own special kind of culture shock. ... • We’ve had more than a year to get used to it, but I still miss the old Pac-12 and its regional rivalries. That’s not going to change for a good, long while. ... • Meanwhile, Ole Miss’ Lane Kiffin said the quiet part out loud the other day, as he is prone to do. His team’s on a heater – 8-2 overall, 4-2 in the SEC, No. 9 in the last College Football Playoff rankings and winner of three in a row, including a 28-10 thumping of then-No. 3 Georgia. Yet in an expanded SEC that – like the Big Ten – no longer has divisions and sends its first- and second-place teams to the conference championship game, Kiffin said he wanted no part of that 13th game and a potential third loss that would knock his team out of playoff contention. He indicated other SEC coaches had similar feelings. ... • In other words: The bloated nature of the current Power Four conferences – and, as former colleague Mark Whicker noted in his Substack column, the realization that contenders don’t all play each other because of that bloat – has already made the 12-team playoff unwieldy and borderline obsolete. Nice work, guys. ... • And let the empha$i$ on the bottom line, both among athletic programs and among those players getting NIL money, be one more reminder that the NCAA’s insistent reference to “student athletes,” parroted by its member schools, is as big a fallacy as ever and maybe more so. Reverse the order of that phrase and it’s closer to the truth. ... • The other aspect of what at first glance seems to be a diminished crosstown rivalry – at least until the game starts and the emotions on the field take over – is that one coach, UCLA’s DeShaun Foster, is digging out from the Chip Kelly era, and his team has already displayed progress this season. The other, USC’s Lincoln Riley, is drawing comparisons to predecessor Clay Helton among some alumni – and that’s not good. ... • The Rams will be honoring their 1999 team, which won the franchise’s first Super Bowl for St. Louis, at Sunday evening’s game against Philadelphia at SoFi Stadium. And if you are an L.A. Rams fan, all in on the team once again, do you really care about the ’99 champs, never mind willing to celebrate them? Or is there still a void between the team’s departure for St. Louis in 1995 and its return to Los Angeles in 2016? ( The Reddit conversation from this past May, “What Is Your Opinion of Georgia Frontiere,” indicates where longtime L.A. Rams fans stand on this.) ... • From the “things I wish I’d written” file, Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins’ wonderful description of the monstrosity that was the Jake Paul-Mike Tyson “fight” a week ago: “Was Jake Paul’s not the most punchable face in the history of punched faces? It was a face with all the character and lived experience of a canned ham. It was the consummate face of an influencer, with all the smirky grifting in search of the lux life that term suggests. There wasn’t a hint of true toughness — much less truth — in it. Just blandness cloaked in a poseur-pharaoh’s beard and topped by some box-color bleached curls, and God did you ever want Mike Tyson to put his very real fist in it.” Priceless. ... Related Articles • The ball from Freddie Freeman’s World Series Game 1 walkoff grand slam, grabbed by 10-year-old Zachary Ruderman of Venice – who was told he was leaving school early that Friday to go to a orthodontist’s appointment only to have his dad take him to Dodger Stadium instead – is going to be auctioned off by SCP Auctions from Dec. 4-14. It should fetch seven figures, easy, maybe even more than the $4.392 million top bid last month for Shohei Ohtani’s 50th home run (which is currently held up by a dispute over who actually had the right to auction it). ... • If I could afford to make the winning bid on Freeman’s ball – and if I actually could, you wouldn’t be reading this column – I’d lend it to the Dodgers to prominently display among their MVP and Cy Young and Silver Slugger trophies, with the stipulation that it would eventually go to the Hall of Fame. That’s where it belongs. Now if someone could just find the Kirk Gibson ball from 1988. ... jalexander@scng.com

Rich Paul And Lakers Won't Shut Down Interested Teams If LeBron James Requests A TradeBayern Munich jump to 3rd place in EuroLeague after defeating Barcelona 100-78

-- Shares Facebook Twitter Reddit Email During the pandemic, food delivery became more than a convenience — it became a lifeline. For many of us, it’s still a habit that feels hard to shake. But with rising fees, health goals unmet, and local restaurants squeezed by third-party apps, 2025 might be the year to reassess our reliance on takeout. I know this because I was there. Delivery meals became a near-nightly occurrence in my household, driven by convenience, but costing us a little more than we realized. The financial strain was obvious — delivery fees, service charges and tips added 30% or more to each meal — but the hidden costs were just as significant. My nutritional goals suffered, and I began to feel disconnected from the joy of cooking and the support I wanted to offer local businesses. Related No more apps: How saying goodbye to Big Food delivery changed the way I eat Breaking the habit wasn’t easy, but it was transformative. If you’re ready to do the same, this guide is for you. Start with your “why” To break any habit, you need a reason. For me, it was threefold: my health , my wallet and my ethics. I wanted to eat more nutritious meals , save money for bigger goals and do better by the restaurants I love. Food delivery apps often take a significant cut from local businesses, leaving them with a fraction of the money you think you’re spending to support them. Take a moment to identify your own “why.” Is it financial? A desire to cook more? A way to feel more connected to your community? Write it down. Let it guide your next steps. Find your roadblocks Once I had my “why,” I had to figure out what was stopping me from cooking at home. Here’s what I learned: I wasn’t meal planning, which led to last-minute delivery orders. My kitchen was often too cluttered to feel inspiring. I didn’t have easy fixes for nights when cooking felt like too much. Delivery had become a default, especially on busy or lazy nights. From there, I borrowed a strategy from Kendra Adachi, author of “ The Lazy Genius Way ”: break big problems into small, actionable solutions. We need your help to stay independent Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism Small solutions that work Plan meals ahead Meal planning doesn’t have to be elaborate. A few simple steps — like theme nights ( Taco Tuesday , Soup Sunday ) or jotting down meals for the week — can make a huge difference. Knowing what’s for dinner eliminates the temptation to open a delivery app when hunger strikes. If meal planning feels overwhelming, start small. I found success by planning just three dinners a week and leaving the rest flexible for leftovers or low-effort meals. Over time, I got better at stocking ingredients for meals we genuinely enjoyed, which made cooking less of a chore and more of a pleasure. Keep the kitchen ready A dirty kitchen is the enemy of cooking. Inspired by K.C. Davis’s “ How to Keep House While Drowning, ” I started practicing “closing duties.” Every night before bed, I empty the sink, store (or freeze) leftovers and wipe down the counters. These three small tasks transformed my relationship with cooking. This routine became one of my favorite parts of the day. I toss on music, use cleaning products I genuinely enjoy (a good-smelling spray can be oddly motivating) and savor the ritual. Waking up to a clean kitchen not only makes mornings smoother, but also removes an easy excuse to order delivery later. Stock the freezer Freezer meals became my secret weapon. I had dabbled in meal prep before but mostly for office lunches—and let’s be honest, they weren’t thrilling. This time, I shifted my focus to comforting dinners that could be made in double batches and frozen for later. Curries , stews , pasta bakes , pot pies , vegetable lasagnas and Swedish meatballs all became staples. Pinterest and Instagram are full of ideas, and I started thinking of freezer cooking as a favor to “future me.” After a long day of interviews in the Chicago slush, knowing that dinner was just a reheating away was often enough to keep me off the apps. Plan for “lazy” nights Not every night needs to involve a full recipe. Delivery often felt easiest on nights when I was low on energy, so I started keeping ingredients for mix-and-match meals on hand. Shredded rotisserie chicken and bagged salads became a go-to. Omsom noodle kits paired with tofu, rotisserie chicken or frozen meatballs were another lifesaver. Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods freezer sections offered plenty of solid options — from stir-fry kits to frozen pizzas — that felt quicker and cheaper than delivery. Recreate your favorites One of the most satisfying parts of this process has been recreating some of my delivery staples at home. Cà ri gà — Vietnamese coconut curry with chicken — now simmers on my stove instead of arriving in a takeout container. Sweetgreen-inspired salads have become a lunchtime highlight. Even pad Thai feels less intimidating thanks to Pinterest’s wealth of dupe recipes. Learning to make these dishes didn’t just save money; it also gave me a sense of accomplishment. And the best part? They taste even better fresh than they do after languishing in a delivery bag. The reward As I reflect on the past year, I’ve noticed changes beyond the numbers in my bank account. I’ve rediscovered the joy of cooking, embraced a sense of agency over my meals and felt more connected to the food I eat. I also support local restaurants by dining in or ordering directly from their websites, skipping the third-party fees. Breaking a delivery habit doesn’t mean swearing off takeout entirely—it’s about finding balance. Start small, celebrate your wins, and remember your “why.” Read more about this topic Edy Massih talks his new cookbook, Lebanese food and why restaurants are "built for competition" "Cooking saved my life more than once": Chef Einat Admony on her culinary memoir "Taste of Love" On the promise and joy found in the cookbook section of used bookstores By Ashlie D. Stevens Ashlie D. Stevens is Salon's food editor. She is also an award-winning radio producer, editor and features writer — with a special emphasis on food, culture and subculture.Her writing has appeared in and on The Atlantic, National Geographic’s “The Plate,” Eater, VICE, Slate, Salon, The Bitter Southerner and Chicago Magazine, while her audio work has appeared on NPR’s All Things Considered and Here & Now, as well as APM’s Marketplace. She is based in Chicago. MORE FROM Ashlie D. Stevens Related Topics ------------------------------------------ Commentary Food Delivery Grubhub Guide Resolutions Uber Eats Related Articles Advertisement:

Brock Purdy will miss Sunday's game for the 49ers with a shoulder injury

ITV I'm A Celebrity star forced to leave camp in unexpected twistPresident-elect Donald Trump’s controversial nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as United States health secretary presents new challenges for how media will report on health matters. Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and believes in various conspiracies about the COVID-19 pandemic . His nomination landed with a thud among health experts and the mainstream media . This appointment, coupled with Trump’s frequent complaints about a liberal bias in the mainstream media that he claims exaggerate and distort the world around us, will make it difficult for media trying to maintain credibility when reporting health news . The pandemic provides a good place to draw some lessons. Despite claims of the demise of mainstream media , there are still many people who refer to traditional news sources, particularly in uncertain times when accurate information is at a premium. Based on a global study of the early stages of the pandemic , most people regardless of age ranked traditional media outlets (newspapers, television and radio) and the social media accounts belonging to these outlets as their primary sources of information during COVID-19. Media in the pandemic The pandemic resulted in an increase in demand for traditional media. In Canada, an April 2020 survey found that less than 10 per cent of respondents relied on social media as their main source of information; 51 per cent relied on local, national and international news outlets, and 30 per cent relied on daily briefings from public health agencies and political leaders. All major daily television news programs nearly doubled their year-to-date, average-minute audience. Media coverage was indispensable during the pandemic for three reasons: First, the media communicated important health and economic information to the public. Second, the media highlighted the struggles of vulnerable communities affected by the pandemic when non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that typically addressed such issues were struggling themselves. Almost half of charities and NGOs received no support from permanent donors during the pandemic . Finally, the media played an important role in supporting democratic accountability when government policymaking was frequent and spending was high but parliamentary and legislative checks were reduced . When comparing legislative sittings between 2018-19 and 2020-21, for example, provincial legislatures met anywhere from 5.5 per cent (Alberta) to 62.5 per cent (Nova Scotia) less often . Despite these important roles, there were important limitations to how the media reported the uncertainty of the pandemic. Lessons from COVID-19 Media is prone to exploiting cognitive biases. According to risk psychologists, people are typically more concerned about risks that are unknown and have high dread characteristics . A pandemic has many of these characteristics, which made it fertile ground for sustained and, at times, sensationalized coverage, focusing on conflict and emotion, excluding probability data, oversimplifying complex matters, and vilifying those who went against the grain. Here are some salient examples. Despite the frequent claims to “follow the science” that featured so prominently in the media, U.S. research showed that coverage of the pandemic by American publications with a national audience tended to be more negative than the coverage by scientific journals, international publications and regional media. In 2020, 87 per cent of COVID-19 coverage in U.S. media was deemed negative, emphasizing bad news and amplifying conflict and disagreement over government policies, regardless of whether different voices represented a small minority or a sizeable amount of the population. Psychologists refer to identifiable-victim effect , when people focus on individuals and consequences and omit probability data. COVID-19’s serious toll in long-term care (LTC) homes, and the poor conditions found in some of those homes, was widely covered in 2020. However, even among those with loved ones in long-term care, over 78 per cent commented that they were satisfied with the service of the LTC facility — a fact that was virtually unobtainable if one depended solely on popular media for information. During the third wave of the pandemic, the media ran stories about Canadian children becoming seriously ill even though youth made up only two per cent of hospitalizations . While it is true that stories about sick kids are newsworthy, they can also be sensationalist and exploitative . After more than a year of COVID-19 stories and high death counts, at times it was difficult to distinguish between lower-probability and higher-probability cases, which is a fundamental characteristic of any risk problem. The media also tended to vilify young people when they broke public health orders and gathering limits . Despite being at low risk of severe illness throughout the pandemic, young people paid a very heavy price for governments’ responses. One study found that younger adults had to implement more behavioural changes than older individuals to comply with COVID-19 restrictions . The political priorities of young people — housing, social justice, environment and affordability — received much less attention from the media during the pandemic. RFK Jr.’s nomination The role of the health secretary is partly an advisory role. RFK Jr. would influence as much as lead . Still, his appointment would be consequential. Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director at the American Public Health Association , said of Kennedy’s nomination: “ More people will get sick, and I’m really concerned more people will die .” Decentralized technology is changing the way we consume media. Despite Trump’s use of unconventional media strategies during the election campaign , it’s clear that the mainstream media play a disproportionately important role in how we consume information. Part of the challenge lies in how news sources maintain trustworthiness among their audiences. Trustworthiness depends on being transparent, knowledgeable and concerned . Mainstream media will now have to develop new standards for transparency, particularly on how it uses and communicates scientific data. Media need to ensure that emotive stories that animate coverage are informed by appropriate probability and consequence data. This will help ensure that the audience knows whether the cases in media are shown as exceptions to the norm, or pervasive. More transparent use of probability data will help ensure this.Heparin Market to Grow by USD 3.34 Billion (2024-2028), Driven by Coagulation Disorder Prevalence and AI Impacting Market Trends - Technavio

President-elect Donald Trump’s controversial nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as United States health secretary presents new challenges for how media will report on health matters. Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and believes in various conspiracies about the COVID-19 pandemic . His nomination landed with a thud among health experts and the mainstream media . This appointment, coupled with Trump’s frequent complaints about a liberal bias in the mainstream media that he claims exaggerate and distort the world around us, will make it difficult for media trying to maintain credibility when reporting health news . The pandemic provides a good place to draw some lessons. Despite claims of the demise of mainstream media , there are still many people who refer to traditional news sources, particularly in uncertain times when accurate information is at a premium. Based on a global study of the early stages of the pandemic , most people regardless of age ranked traditional media outlets (newspapers, television and radio) and the social media accounts belonging to these outlets as their primary sources of information during COVID-19. Media in the pandemic The pandemic resulted in an increase in demand for traditional media. In Canada, an April 2020 survey found that less than 10 per cent of respondents relied on social media as their main source of information; 51 per cent relied on local, national and international news outlets, and 30 per cent relied on daily briefings from public health agencies and political leaders. All major daily television news programs nearly doubled their year-to-date, average-minute audience. Media coverage was indispensable during the pandemic for three reasons: First, the media communicated important health and economic information to the public. Second, the media highlighted the struggles of vulnerable communities affected by the pandemic when non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that typically addressed such issues were struggling themselves. Almost half of charities and NGOs received no support from permanent donors during the pandemic . Finally, the media played an important role in supporting democratic accountability when government policymaking was frequent and spending was high but parliamentary and legislative checks were reduced . When comparing legislative sittings between 2018-19 and 2020-21, for example, provincial legislatures met anywhere from 5.5 per cent (Alberta) to 62.5 per cent (Nova Scotia) less often . Despite these important roles, there were important limitations to how the media reported the uncertainty of the pandemic. Lessons from COVID-19 Media is prone to exploiting cognitive biases. According to risk psychologists, people are typically more concerned about risks that are unknown and have high dread characteristics . A pandemic has many of these characteristics, which made it fertile ground for sustained and, at times, sensationalized coverage, focusing on conflict and emotion, excluding probability data, oversimplifying complex matters, and vilifying those who went against the grain. Here are some salient examples. Despite the frequent claims to “follow the science” that featured so prominently in the media, U.S. research showed that coverage of the pandemic by American publications with a national audience tended to be more negative than the coverage by scientific journals, international publications and regional media. In 2020, 87 per cent of COVID-19 coverage in U.S. media was deemed negative, emphasizing bad news and amplifying conflict and disagreement over government policies, regardless of whether different voices represented a small minority or a sizeable amount of the population. Psychologists refer to identifiable-victim effect , when people focus on individuals and consequences and omit probability data. COVID-19’s serious toll in long-term care (LTC) homes, and the poor conditions found in some of those homes, was widely covered in 2020. However, even among those with loved ones in long-term care, over 78 per cent commented that they were satisfied with the service of the LTC facility — a fact that was virtually unobtainable if one depended solely on popular media for information. During the third wave of the pandemic, the media ran stories about Canadian children becoming seriously ill even though youth made up only two per cent of hospitalizations . While it is true that stories about sick kids are newsworthy, they can also be sensationalist and exploitative . After more than a year of COVID-19 stories and high death counts, at times it was difficult to distinguish between lower-probability and higher-probability cases, which is a fundamental characteristic of any risk problem. The media also tended to vilify young people when they broke public health orders and gathering limits . Despite being at low risk of severe illness throughout the pandemic, young people paid a very heavy price for governments’ responses. One study found that younger adults had to implement more behavioural changes than older individuals to comply with COVID-19 restrictions . The political priorities of young people — housing, social justice, environment and affordability — received much less attention from the media during the pandemic. RFK Jr.’s nomination The role of the health secretary is partly an advisory role. RFK Jr. would influence as much as lead . Still, his appointment would be consequential. Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director at the American Public Health Association , said of Kennedy’s nomination: “ More people will get sick, and I’m really concerned more people will die .” Decentralized technology is changing the way we consume media. Despite Trump’s use of unconventional media strategies during the election campaign , it’s clear that the mainstream media play a disproportionately important role in how we consume information. Part of the challenge lies in how news sources maintain trustworthiness among their audiences. Trustworthiness depends on being transparent, knowledgeable and concerned . Mainstream media will now have to develop new standards for transparency, particularly on how it uses and communicates scientific data. Media need to ensure that emotive stories that animate coverage are informed by appropriate probability and consequence data. This will help ensure that the audience knows whether the cases in media are shown as exceptions to the norm, or pervasive. More transparent use of probability data will help ensure this.WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump is telling the Supreme Court that he can make a deal that will resolve the national security dispute over TikTok and preserve the video site for 170 million Americans. All the justices need to do, he says, is to stand aside and suspend a pending law that could shut down TikTok on Jan. 19, the day before Trump takes office again. "President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal-making expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform," his attorney said in a friend-of-the court brief filed Friday night. His plan might work, at least to buy more time. The justices had agreed to make a fast-track decision on the potentially momentous issue involving social media and free speech. "I think the court is likely to see great benefit in issuing a stay and little downside," said University of California, Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. "The case poses a novel and very difficult First Amendment issue. Never before has the government tried to ban a medium of communication, but there also is a history of judicial deference to national security claims." Before Trump's intervention, TikTok appeared to face a difficult fight in the court. The House and Senate had passed legislation by large bipartisan majorities requiring the platform to separate itself from its Chinese owner or to shut down in this country. President Joe Biden signed the bill into law in April. And by its terms, it was scheduled to take effect in 270 days. Although the justices are not shy about striking down federal regulations, they are wary of overturning an act of Congress, particularly one that is based on threats to national security. The U.S. appeals court in Washington cited national security when it upheld the law earlier this month. In a 3-0 decision, the judges said the law did not target speech or expression. Rather, lawmakers were convinced the Chinese parent company could gather personal data on millions of Americans, the judges said. If the law took effect on Jan. 19, Apple, Oracle and other U.S. companies could have faced large civil fines if they continued to work with TikTok. Trump's attorney D. John Sauer filed a friend-of-the-court brief that differed in tone and substance from all the others. Rather than weigh in on the First Amendment question the justices had agreed to decide , he explained why Trump was better-suited to decide it. "Through his historic victory on November 5, 2024, President Trump received a powerful electoral mandate from American voters to protect the free-speech rights of all Americans — including the 170 million Americans who use TikTok," he wrote. "Moreover, President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential users of social media in history." Noting that Trump has 14.7 million followers on TikTok, Sauer argued that the president-elect is well-positioned "to evaluate TikTok's importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including core political speech." He also wrote that as the founder of another social-media platform, Truth Social, Trump has "an in-depth perspective on the extraordinary government power attempted to be exercised in this case — the power of the federal government to effectively shut down a social-media platform favored by tens of millions of Americans." "In light of these interests — including, most importantly, his overarching responsibility for the United States' national security and foreign policy — President Trump opposes banning TikTok in the United States at this juncture, and seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office." In 2020, Trump had voiced alarm over TikTok because of its Chinese ownership. Lawmakers later heard classified briefings that convinced them the foreign ownership posed a danger. But by the time the law won approval, Trump had switched sides. He said he believed TikTok helped him win the support of young voters. "TikTok had an impact, so we're taking a look at it," he told reporters two weeks ago. "I have a little warm spot in my heart." A year ago, his attorney Sauer drew criticism from some legal experts for boldly asserting that Trump as a former president had an absolute immunity from criminal charges for his official acts while in office. But in July, he won a 6-3 ruling from the Supreme Court that gave him and Trump what he had sought. Sauer is now set to represent Trump and his administration before the Supreme Court as U.S. solicitor general. He did not say precisely what the court should do now, only that it "should consider staying the statutory deadline to grant more breathing space" to the incoming administration and that one provision in the law allowed for a 90-day extension before it took effect. The court asked for responses to the competing briefs by next Friday. It scheduled two hours of argument for Jan. 10. It's not certain the justices will readily comply with Trump's request. Two weeks ago, former Trump attorney Noel Francisco filed an appeal on TikTok's behalf urging the justices to put the law on hold for a brief period. But the justices brushed aside that suggestion and said they would decide whether divestiture law violated the First Amendment. "I am skeptical Trump's intervention will make a difference," said Alan Rozenshtein, a University of Minnesota law professor who has written about the pending law. He noted that the Supreme Court denied TikTok's request to stay the law because it did not think TikTok could meet the requirements for a stay: a reasonable chance of winning on the merits. "Trump's argument does not change that," he said. "It may be bad luck for TikTok (and Trump) that the law goes into effect the day before inauguration, but such is life." ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com . Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.TikTok is challenging the federal government’s order to shut down its operations in Canada. The company filed documents in Federal Court in Vancouver last Thursday. In November, Ottawa ordered the dissolution of TikTok’s Canadian business after a national security review of the Chinese company behind the social media platform. That means TikTok must “wind down” its operations in Canada, though the app will continue to be available to Canadians. TikTok is asking the court to overturn the government’s order and to put a pause on the order going into effect while the court hears the case. It is claiming the decision was “unreasonable” and “driven by improper purposes.”