Academic Reportage – Page 235 – MIL Submissions Engine

November 24, 2025

« Le discours monotone du dictateur » ou comment Franco a construit un autoritarisme sans charisme

Source: The Conversation – France in French (3) – By Susana Ridao Rodrigo, Profesora catedrática en el Área de Lengua Española (UAL), Universidad de Almería

On associe volontiers les dictateurs aux discours tonitruants et exaltés d’un Hitler ou d’un Mussolini et à une mise en scène exubérante pensée pour galvaniser les foules. Franco, lui, a fait exactement l’inverse : les prises de parole de l’homme qui a verrouillé l’Espagne pendant près de quarante ans se distinguaient par une élocution froide et monotone et un style volontairement très austère.

Francisco Franco (1892-1975) a été le chef de l’État espagnol de la fin de la guerre civile (1936-1939) jusqu’à sa mort. Le régime franquiste a instauré une dictature autoritaire, qui a supprimé les libertés politiques et a établi un contrôle strict sur la société. Pendant près de quarante ans, son leadership a profondément marqué la vie politique, économique et culturelle de l’Espagne, dont l’empreinte durable a souvent fait et fait encore l’objet de controverses.

Mais d’un point de vue communicationnel, peut-on dire que Franco était un grand orateur ?

Cela dépend de la façon dont on définit « grand orateur ». Si l’on entend par éloquence la capacité à émouvoir, persuader ou mobiliser par la parole – comme savaient le faire Churchill ou de Gaulle –, Franco n’était pas un grand orateur. Cependant, si l’on analyse sa communication du point de vue de l’efficacité politique et symbolique, son style remplissait une fonction spécifique : il transmettait une impression d’autorité, de distance et de contrôle.

Son éloquence ne visait pas à séduire le public, mais à légitimer le pouvoir et à renforcer une image de stabilité hiérarchique. En ce sens, Franco a développé un type de communication que l’on pourrait qualifier de « discours de commandement », caractérisé par une faible expressivité et une rigidité formelle, mais qui cadrait avec la culture politique autoritaire du franquisme.

Sur le plan verbal, Franco s’appuyait sur un registre archaïque et protocolaire. Son lexique était limité, avec une abondance de formules rituelles (« tous espagnols », « glorieuse armée », « grâce à Dieu ») qui fonctionnaient davantage comme des marqueurs idéologiques que comme des éléments informatifs.

Du point de vue de l’analyse du discours, sa syntaxe tendait à une subordination excessive, ce qui générait des phrases longues, monotones et peu dynamiques. On observe également une préférence pour le mode passif et les constructions impersonnelles, qui diluent la responsabilité de l’émetteur : « il a été décidé », « il est jugé opportun », « il a été nécessaire ».

Ce choix verbal n’est pas neutre ; il constitue un mécanisme de dépersonnalisation du pouvoir, dans lequel la figure du leader est présentée comme l’incarnation de l’État, et non comme un individu qui prend des décisions. Ainsi, sur le plan verbal, Franco communique davantage en tant qu’institution qu’en tant que personne.

Communication paraverbale : voix, rythme et intonation

C’est un aspect caractéristique de sa communication. Franco avait une intonation monotone, avec peu de variations mélodiques. D’un point de vue prosodique, on pourrait dire que son discours présentait un schéma descendant constant : il commençait une phrase avec une certaine énergie et l’atténuait vers la fin, ce qui donnait une impression de lenteur et d’autorité immuable.

Le rythme était lent, presque liturgique, avec de nombreux silences. Cette lenteur n’était pas fortuite : dans le contexte politique de la dictature, elle contribuait à la ritualisation du discours. La parole du caudillo ne devait pas être spontanée, mais solennelle, presque sacrée.

Son timbre nasal et son articulation fermée rendaient difficile l’expressivité émotionnelle, mais renforçaient la distance. Ce manque de chaleur vocale servait la fonction propagandiste. Le leader n’était pas un orateur charismatique, mais une figure d’autorité, une voix qui émanait du pouvoir lui-même. En substance, sa voix construisait une « éthique du commandement » : rigide, froide et contrôlée.

Contrôle émotionnel

Sa communication non verbale était extrêmement contrôlée. Franco évitait les gestes amples, les déplacements ou les expressions faciales marquées. Il privilégiait une kinésique minimale, c’est-à-dire un langage corporel réduit au strict nécessaire.

Lorsqu’il s’exprimait en public, il adoptait une posture rigide, les bras collés au corps ou appuyés sur le pupitre, sans mouvements superflus. Ce contrôle corporel renforçait l’idée de discipline militaire et de maîtrise émotionnelle, deux valeurs essentielles dans sa représentation du leadership.

Son regard avait tendance à être fixe, sans chercher le contact visuel direct avec l’auditoire. Cela pourrait être interprété comme un manque de communication du point de vue actuel, mais dans le contexte d’un régime autoritaire, cela consistait à instaurer une distance symbolique : le leader ne s’abaissait pas au niveau de ses auditeurs. Même ses vêtements – l’uniforme, le béret ou l’insigne – faisaient partie de sa communication non verbale, car il s’agissait d’éléments qui transmettaient l’idée de la permanence, de la continuité et de la légitimité historique.

Charisme sobre d’après-guerre

Le charisme n’est pas un attribut absolu, mais une construction sociale. Franco ne jouait pas sur une forme de charisme émotionnel, comme Hitler ou Mussolini, mais il avait un charisme bureaucratique et paternaliste. Son pouvoir découlait de la redéfinition du silence et de l’austérité, car dans un pays dévasté par la guerre, son style sobre était interprété comme synonyme d’ordre et de prévisibilité. Son « anti-charisme » finit donc par être, d’une certaine manière, une forme de charisme adaptée au contexte espagnol de l’après-guerre.

Du point de vue de la théorie de la communication, quel impact ce style avait-il sur la réception du message ? Le discours de Franco s’inscrivait dans ce que l’on pourrait appeler un modèle unidirectionnel de communication politique. Il n’y avait pas de rétroaction : le récepteur ne pouvait ni répondre ni remettre en question. L’objectif n’était donc pas de persuader, mais d’imposer un sens.

En appliquant là théorie de la communication du linguiste Roman Jakobson, on constate que les discours solennels de Franco, la froideur de son ton, visaient à forcer l’obéissance de l’auditoire en empêchant toute forme d’esprit critique et en bloquant l’expression des émotions.

Anachronique devant la caméra

Au fil du temps, son art oratoire n’a évolué qu’en apparence. Dans les années 1950 et 1960, avec l’ouverture du régime, on perçoit une légère tentative de modernisation rhétorique, tout particulièrement dans les discours institutionnels diffusés à la télévision. Cependant, les changements étaient superficiels : Franco usait de la même prosodie monotone et du même langage rituel. En réalité, le média télévisuel accentuait sa rigidité. Face aux nouveaux dirigeants européens qui profitaient de la caméra pour s’humaniser, Franco apparaissait anachronique.

L’exemple de Franco démontre que l’efficacité communicative ne dépend pas toujours du charisme ou de l’éloquence, mais plutôt de la cohérence entre le style personnel et le contexte politique. Son art oratoire fonctionnait parce qu’il était en accord avec un système fermé, hiérarchique et ritualisé. Dans l’enseignement de la communication, son exemple sert à illustrer comment les niveaux verbal, paraverbal et non verbal construisent un même récit idéologique. Dans son cas, tous convergent vers un seul message : le pouvoir ne dialogue pas, il dicte.

Aujourd’hui, dans les démocraties médiatiques, ce modèle serait impensable ; néanmoins, son étude aide à comprendre comment le langage façonne les structures du pouvoir, et comment le silence, lorsqu’il est institutionnalisé, peut devenir une forme de communication politique efficace.

Susana Ridao Rodrigo ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. « Le discours monotone du dictateur » ou comment Franco a construit un autoritarisme sans charisme – https://theconversation.com/le-discours-monotone-du-dictateur-ou-comment-franco-a-construit-un-autoritarisme-sans-charisme-270336

November 24, 2025

It isn’t all or nothing

Thinking about these questions reminded me of Umberto Eco’s essay “Apocalyptic and Integrated,” which was originally written in the early 1960s. Parts of it were later included in an anthology titled “Apocalypse Postponed,” which I first read as a college student in Italy.

In it, Eco draws a contrast between two attitudes toward mass media. There are the “apocalyptics” who fear cultural degradation and moral collapse. Then there are the “integrated” who champion new media technologies as a democratizing force for culture.

An older man with a beard, glasses and a suit poses while holding a cigarette. — Italian philosopher, cultural critic and novelist Umberto Eco cautioned against overreacting to the impact of new technologies.
Leonardo Cendamo/Getty Images

Back then, Eco was writing about the proliferation of TV and radio. Today, you’ll often see similar reactions to AI.

Yet Eco argued that both positions were too extreme. It isn’t helpful, he wrote, to see new media as either a dire threat or a miracle. Instead, he urged readers to look at how people and communities use these new tools, what risks and opportunities they create, and how they shape – and sometimes reinforce – power structures.

While I was teaching a course on deepfakes during the 2024 election, Eco’s lesson also came back to me. Those were days when some scholars and media outlets were regularly warning of an imminent “deepfake apocalypse.”

Would deepfakes be used to mimic major political figures and push targeted disinformation? What if, on the eve of an election, generative AI was used to mimic the voice of a candidate on a robocall telling voters to stay home?

Those fears weren’t groundless: Research shows that people aren’t especially good at identifying deepfakes. At the same time, they consistently overestimate their ability to do so.

In the end, though, the apocalypse was postponed. Post-election analyses found that deepfakes did seem to intensify some ongoing political trends, such as the erosion of trust and polarization, but there’s no evidence that they affected the final outcome of the election.

Listicles, news updates and how-to guides

Of course, the fears that AI raises for supporters of democracy are not the same as those it creates for writers and artists.

For them, the core concerns are about authorship: How can one person compete with a system trained on millions of voices that can produce text at hyper-speed? And if this becomes the norm, what will it do to creative work, both as an occupation and as a source of meaning?

It’s important to clarify what’s meant by “online content,” the phrase used in the Graphite study, which analyzed over 65,000 randomly selected articles of at least 100 words on the web. These can include anything from peer-reviewed research to promotional copy for miracle supplements.

A closer reading of the Graphite study shows that the AI-generated articles consist largely of general-interest writing: news updates, how-to guides, lifestyle posts, reviews and product explainers.

The primary economic purpose of this content is to persuade or inform, not to express originality or creativity. Put differently, AI appears to be most useful when the writing in question is low-stakes and formulaic: the weekend-in-Rome listicle, the standard cover letter, the text produced to market a business.

A whole industry of writers – mostly freelance, including many translators – has relied on precisely this kind of work, producing blog posts, how-to material, search engine optimization text and social media copy. The rapid adoption of large language models has already displaced many of the gigs that once sustained them.

Collaborating with AI

The dramatic loss of this work points toward another issue raised by the Graphite study: the question of authenticity, not only in identifying who or what produced a text, but also in understanding the value that humans attach to creative activity.

How can you distinguish a human-written article from a machine-generated one? And does that ability even matter?

Over time, that distinction is likely to grow less significant, particularly as more writing emerges from interactions between humans and AI. A writer might draft a few lines, let an AI expand them and then reshape that output into the final text.

This article is no exception. As a non-native English speaker, I often rely on AI to refine my language before sending drafts to an editor. At times the system attempts to reshape what I mean. But once its stylistic tendencies become familiar, it becomes possible to avoid them and maintain a personal tone.

Also, artificial intelligence is not entirely artificial, since it is trained on human-made material. It’s worth noting that even before AI, human writing has never been entirely human, either. Every technology, from parchment and stylus paper to the typewriter and now AI, has shaped how people write and how readers make sense of it.

Another important point: AI models are increasingly trained on datasets that include not only human writing but also AI-generated and human–AI co-produced text.

This has raised concerns about their ability to continue improving over time. Some commentators have already described a sense of disillusionment following the release of newer large models, with companies struggling to deliver on their promises.

Human voices may matter even more

But what happens when people become overly reliant on AI in their writing?

Some studies show that writers may feel more creative when they use artificial intelligence for brainstorming, yet the range of ideas often becomes narrower. This uniformity affects style as well: These systems tend to pull users toward similar patterns of wording, which reduces the differences that usually mark an individual voice. Researchers also note a shift toward Western – and especially English-speaking – norms in the writing of people from other cultures, raising concerns about a new form of AI colonialism.

In this context, texts that display originality, voice and stylistic intention are likely to become even more meaningful within the media landscape, and they may play a crucial role in training the next generations of models.

If you set aside the more apocalyptic scenarios and assume that AI will continue to advance – perhaps at a slower pace than in the recent past – it’s quite possible that thoughtful, original, human-generated writing will become even more valuable.

Put another way: The work of writers, journalists and intellectuals will not become superfluous simply because much of the web is no longer written by humans.

Francesco Agnellini does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. More than half of new articles on the internet are being written by AI – is human writing headed for extinction? – https://theconversation.com/more-than-half-of-new-articles-on-the-internet-are-being-written-by-ai-is-human-writing-headed-for-extinction-268354

November 24, 2025

Social media can be understood as a role-playing game like Dungeons & Dragons

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Stephen M Yeager, Professor of English, Concordia University

It’s a cliché that any “geek” who knows how to program computers will also probably play Dungeons & Dragons, or D&D. If you need to find someone at work who can explain to you the latest episode of Stranger Things, then you could probably safely start in the IT department and the D&D fans working there.

This isn’t an accident, and it isn’t a new development. The history of D&D and the history of the personal computer are closely aligned, and today’s social media platforms are basically just free-to-play mobile role-playing games.

D&D is more popular than it’s ever been. In October 2024, D&D’s owners, Wizards of the Coast, estimated that 85 million people either played the game or engaged with the brand, either through its physical “table-top” games or through smash success video games like Baldur’s Gate 3.

A 2022 survey determined that the average age of a D&D player was 30 years old, and that more than 40 per cent of players identified as female, non-binary or gender-fluid.

Jon Peterson, a major D&D historian, traces the origins of D&D back to the war-game hobbyists of the late 1960s. He refers to them as a “conservative youth movement” of overwhelmingly white male gamers who kept in touch through a loose social network based in hobby magazines.

D&D’s growth over the last 50 years was driven by digital social networks in the same way that the evolution of digital social networks was driven by D&D.

Progression mechanics

Social media platforms like X, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn all make money from views, refreshes and eyeballs on advertisements. To motivate their users to stay on the apps, these platforms have developed algorithms to govern what posts are seen by which users.

These algorithms deploy what game designers call “progression mechanics,” which is to say systems of points where the more points you have, the more control you have over events in the game.

If you get a high score in Tetris, you still start over at zero the next time you play. But if you get a high number of likes and followers on Facebook, then it’s more likely that other people will see your posts, and in that sense your high scores are a form of “progress.”

The most important precedent for social media progression mechanics is the “experience points” of D&D’s collaborative story-telling game system. When D&D players choose actions to shape the story surrounding their characters, they roll dice, which determines if their actions succeed or fail.

Experience points — or “XP” — reward player successes by improving the odds in future rolls, thereby giving them more control over the shared narrative of their D&D adventure. Similarly, social media progression mechanics give users control over what public relations specialists call “the narrative” about whatever subject those users choose to discuss.

There’s a long history of D&D progression mechanics in the design of social media platforms, going back to the dial-up “BBS” or “Bulletin Board System.”

A BBS was a computer hooked up to a modem that let users log in one at a time to leave messages for other users to read, like a cork bulletin board in a community space. Like D&D, the community of computer hobbyists who built and ran the very first BBS systems were mostly white, male and midwestern — the first edition of D&D was published in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin in 1974, and the first BBS was started in Chicago in 1978.

Also like D&D, BBS communities started out as subscribers to hobby magazines: the Avalon Hill General for D&D, Byte for BBS users.

The role of BBS

In 1986, a programmer named Guy T. Rice launched a BBS named TProBBS, which in Version 4.2f was both an early social media platform and an early digital role-playing game.

Like other BBS systems, TProBBS 4.2f required its users to create user profiles. But 4.2f took this a step further to ask users to create D&D characters for themselves: you weren’t just “User3788,” but “User3788 the Novice Bard.” The more you logged into the system, the more treasure and experience points you could gain, and so the more motive you had to log in to make use of the resources you’d accumulated.

In his book The Modem World: A Prehistory of Social Media, Internet historian Kevin Driscoll identifies another BBS designed around fantasy role-playing progression mechanics: Seth Able Robinson’s Legend of the Red Dragon (LoRD), launched in 1989.

In LoRD, players were allowed a limited number of “actions” per day: exploring, trading, duelling, hunting, hanging out in the tavern. The more days you dialled in, the more actions you could complete, and so the more “progress” you could make in the fantasy world of the BBS.

In 2006, Facebook introduced the first social media algorithm, EdgeRank. It curated the posts on each users’ feed, assessing, among other factors, the evidence of each poster’s engagement to promote certain posts over other posts. The more you liked other users’ posts, the more “affinity” you built with those other users, and so the more likely your posts would be visible to a wider audience.

These progression mechanics aren’t just similar to the progression mechanics of D&D — they co-evolved alongside the progression mechanics of D&D towards the same ends.

Stephen M Yeager receives funding from SSHRC.

– ref. Social media can be understood as a role-playing game like Dungeons & Dragons – https://theconversation.com/social-media-can-be-understood-as-a-role-playing-game-like-dungeons-and-dragons-266440

November 24, 2025

From invasive species tracking to water security – what’s lost with federal funding cuts at US Climate Adaptation Science Centers

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Bethany Bradley, Professor of Biogeography and Spatial Ecology, UMass Amherst

Mahonia bealei, also known as Beale’s barberry or leatherleaf mahonia, is invasive but still sold for landscaping. HQ Flower Guide via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

When the Trump administration began freezing federal funding for climate and ecosystem research, one of the programs hit hard was ours: the U.S. Geological Survey’s Climate Adaptation Science Centers.

These nine regional centers help fish, wildlife, water, land – and, importantly, people – adapt to rising global temperatures and other climate shifts.

The centers have been helping to track invasive species, protect water supplies and make agriculture more sustainable in the face of increasing drought conditions. They’re improving wildfire forecasting, protecting shorelines and saving Alaska salmon, among many other projects.

All of this work happens through partnerships: Scientists, many of them affiliated with universities, team up with public and private resource managers – the people who manage water supplies, wildlands, recreation areas, shorelines and other natural resources – to develop the research and solutions those managers need.

A map of the Northeast and Midwest showing the projected rise of invasive species, with the large number in the northern areas. — The Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center has been tracking invasive species to help natural resource managers prepare. Federally funded scientists develop risk maps and work with local communities to head off invasive species damage.
Regional Invasive Species and Climate Change Network, CC BY

But in spring 2025, after 15 years of operation of the centers, the president’s proposed federal budget zeroed out funding for them. Federal workers at the centers were threatened with layoffs.

Three of the nine regional centers – covering the South Central, Pacific Islands and Northeast regions – were left unfunded when the Office of Management and Budget withheld and then blocked funds Congress had already appropriated.

In spite of these challenges, we have hope that the work will eventually continue. Congress’ proposed budgets in both the U.S. House and Senate recommend fully funding the Climate Adaptation Science Centers, and there’s a reason: Natural resources managers and the public have consistently told their elected officials that the work is important.

Here are three examples of projects in regions where funding has been blocked that show why resource managers are speaking up.

Sustainable water supplies in arid lands

In south-central Texas, the Edwards Aquifer Authority is responsible for providing sustained water resources for 2.5 million people in cities such as San Antonio and Uvalde. It also maintains the groundwater-fed springs that support threatened and endangered species.

In recent decades, however, both heavy rainfall and prolonged, intense droughts have increased uncertainty about how much water will be available from the aquifer.

At the South Central Climate Adaptation Science Center, researchers from the University of Oklahoma teamed up with the aquifer authority to develop high-resolution climate projections for assessing future changes to groundwater recharge and ecologically sensitive springs.

The climate projections are helping the authority determine whether its existing drought-mitigation practices are effective for sustaining freshwater springs and groundwater levels.

A panorama photo of a lake next to a building — The San Marcos springs on the Texas State University campus, shown in this panorama photo, are fed by the Edwards aquifer.
Adrienne Wootten

Losing funding for the Climate Adaptation Science Center means this technical guidance for water management and many other projects in the region are no longer available.

Stalled science doesn’t just hurt Texas. Many arid and semi-arid regions of the U.S. rely on aquifers to provide water supplies for homes, businesses and agriculture, and they need this type of research to maintain water security.

Solutions for agriculture and fire protection

On the Hawaiian island of O’ahu, up to 40% of agricultural land is unmanaged and unplanted pasture that is often invaded by non-native grasses. These grasses increase fire risk as the islands face more intense and longer-lasting droughts.

The Pacific Islands Climate Adaptation Science Center has been working on a solution to help restore fallow lands through agroforestry, in which farmers grow crops among trees, mirroring Indigenous practices.

People plant crops among existing trees on Oahu. — In agroforestry, crops such as coffee are grown among trees, preserving the trees’ carbon storage while helping to keep invasive plants at bay.
Leah Bremer/University of Hawaii at Mānoa Institute for Sustainability and Resilience

Climate Adaptation Science Center researchers at the University of Hawai’i Mānoa partnered with Kākoʻo ʻŌiwi, a nonprofit organization that is restoring Indigenous food systems, to identify lands that will remain suitable for agroforestry even under worsening drought caused by climate change. The research has shown how management practices can increase soil health and increase the soil’s carbon storage.

Since 2019, researchers have taught hundreds of volunteers from the community and student groups about restoration practices that include food production, forest conservation and climate resilience.

Lost funding for Climate Adaptation Science Centers put the brakes on science that supports local communities.

Managing invasive species in a warming world

Invasive species cost the U.S. economy an estimated US$10 billion a year in damage to crops, forests and ecosystems. At the same time, climate change is increasing the range of many invasive species and making them harder to control.

A map of the Northeast shows the spread of an invasive evergreen shrub. — Scientists involved in the Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center map invasive species risks. This map shows the current and potential range map of Beale’s barberry, or leatherleaf mahonia, an invasive evergreen shrub that is still being sold for ornamental uses. The plant, which deer don’t eat, has taken over habitat and outcompeted native species in parts of the U.S.
Regional Invasive Species and Climate Change Network, CC BY

In 2016, researchers from the Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center at the University of Massachusetts Amherst learned that resource managers were concerned about how climate change would affect invasive species ranges. To understand and address the needs of resource managers, Climate Adaptation Science Center researchers created the Regional Invasive Species and Climate Change Network, which has become a primary source for mapping invasive species’ movement and sharing invasive species research across the region.

Climate Adaptation Science Center researchers conducted a series of projects to identify invasive plants expanding into northern and southern New England and mid-Atlantic states. The results have helped the state of Massachusetts update its invasive plant risk assessment and expanded regulators’ lists of invasive species to prohibit from sales in New York and Maine.

States recently asked the center’s researchers to develop a database of current and emerging invasive plants across the Northeast to help them build consistent and proactive defenses against emerging invasive species. Stalled funding has also stalled this project.

These are the kind of real-world solutions that federal funding cuts are stopping. When that work disappears, it leaves America and Americans more vulnerable to climate change.

Bethany Bradley receives funding from the US Geological Survey as the University Director of the Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center.

Adrienne Wootten previously received funding from the US Geological Survey for research projects through the South Central Climate Adaptation Science Center and is currently engaged in research with the Edwards Aquifer Authority.

Ryan Longman receives funding from the US Geological Survey as the University Director of the Pacific Islands Climate Adaptation Science Center

– ref. From invasive species tracking to water security – what’s lost with federal funding cuts at US Climate Adaptation Science Centers – https://theconversation.com/from-invasive-species-tracking-to-water-security-whats-lost-with-federal-funding-cuts-at-us-climate-adaptation-science-centers-269908

November 24, 2025

Nonprofit news outlets are often scared that selling ads could jeopardize their tax-exempt status, but IRS records show that’s been rare

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Katherine Fink, Associate Professor of Media, Communications, and Visual Arts, Pace University

Volunteer Bonnie Ralston hosts a show in the Allegheny Mountain Radio studio in Monterey, Va., in September 2025. Pierre Hardy/AFP via Getty Images

Although advertising revenue largely sustained the news media in the 20th century, it’s been harder to come by in the digital age. News media outlets just aren’t as important these days for advertisers when they can reach potential customers so many other ways, including through social media.

Some news outlets are relying more on subscription revenue. But that can also be a tough sell when readers have so many alternatives – often free – for finding news, if they’re even looking for it at all.

Increasingly, local news media outlets are adopting nonprofit models to be able to obtain grants from foundations and donations from individuals as new revenue sources.

At the same time, some nonprofit news leaders have avoided selling ads because the IRS has said their organizations would have to pay taxes on that revenue. They have also heard that selling too many ads might jeopardize their tax-exempt status altogether.

My research suggests that they need not worry about that – although, given recent threats by the Trump administration against Harvard University and other nonprofits, they may have reasons to be wary.

Encouraging earned revenue

I’m a former public radio journalist who now researches the nonprofit news sector.

I interviewed 23 nonprofit news leaders in 2023 about their fundraising practices. I also reviewed hundreds of 990 forms that most nonprofits are required to file annually with the IRS.

In early 2025, I published a study that found most nonprofit news leaders still depended heavily on foundations and individual donors. That’s despite calls from foundations and the Institute for Nonprofit News, an organization representing these media outlets, that they should diversify their revenue sources.

The Institute for Nonprofit News especially encourages news nonprofits to consider adding earned revenue. That category can include lots of things, but most often it means selling ads. The nonprofit news leaders I spoke with had mixed feelings about that.

Taxing unrelated business income

The philanthropic dollars that charitable nonprofits get from foundations, individual donors and corporations are exempt from taxes. But their earned revenue from sources such as advertising, sponsorships or ticketed events is often taxable.

That’s because U.S. tax law requires nonprofits to pay taxes on income deemed to be “not substantially related” to their public service missions.

Take, for example, money that a nonprofit museum earns through its gift shop. The government taxes that as unrelated business income so nonprofits don’t get an unfair edge over their for-profit competitors.

Money raised through ad sales has also historically counted as unrelated business income for nonprofits, according to the IRS. Some nonprofit news leaders say that’s not how it should be.

Some news nonprofits are directly challenging the traditional classification of advertising revenue as unrelated business income.

For example, the San Antonio Report, a nonprofit news outlet, reported receiving US$361,649 in advertising revenue in tax year 2022. But the organization did not pay taxes on it, because it identifies advertising as part of its mission. In fact, a Supreme Court ruling in the 1986 United States v. American College of Physicians case left open the possibility that advertising could be a tax-exempt form of revenue if it had an “educational function” related to the nonprofit’s purpose.

Someone writes using a laptop in a hazy photo. — Nonprofit news outlets need revenue, and their donors want them to find new sources of it.
Maria Korneeva/Moment via Getty Images

Selling ads anyway

Nonprofit news leaders not trying to challenge that classification still had reason to be concerned about running paid ads.

The IRS has warned it could revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that had too much unrelated business income in their portfolios. That’s one of the top six reasons organizations lose their nonprofit status, according to the IRS. Other reasons include failure to serve an exempt purpose, lobbying, political campaigning, mission drift and failure to complete annual 990 forms.

How much unrelated business income is too much? The IRS has not provided clear guidance on this, despite pleas from local nonprofit news advocates.

One editor I interviewed, whose free weekly newspaper had recently converted from a for-profit enterprise to a nonprofit, lamented that her copious ad portfolio could put her tax-exempt status in jeopardy. Ads had always been part of what readers appreciated about her newspaper, she said – it was how they learned about restaurants and nightlife.

Some tax advisers recommend that nonprofits keep unrelated business income below 25% of their total revenue. But the ambiguity is enough to make some nonprofit news leaders prefer to not get any at all.

Some local news nonprofits are selling ads, despite their reservations about the potential tax impact and the potential threat of the IRS revoking their tax-exempt status. Of the Institute for Nonprofit News’ roughly 201 local newsroom members, 21 reported earning at least $1,000 in unrelated business income in the most recent year for which data was available when I conducted these interviews – usually 2022 or 2023. That happens to be the minimum reportable amount.

Paying no taxes

Only three of these 21 local news nonprofits paid taxes on their advertising revenue – and the ones that paid did so at reduced amounts. The outlets were largely able to avoid taxes due to exemptions the IRS allows nonprofits to claim for advertising-related expenses, such as commissions, agency fees and production. Several news nonprofits were also able to deduct readership costs, such as printing and distribution.

Local news nonprofits also appeared not to draw the ire of the IRS for accepting too much advertising revenue. While most reported unrelated business income that amounted to less than 25% of their total revenue, five news nonprofits did exceed that percentage, sometimes by quite a bit.

Rarely revoking tax exemptions

It turns out the IRS rarely revokes the tax-exempt status of charitable nonprofits of any kind for collecting too much unrelated business income.

IRS records indicate that the most common reason for revocations was the failure of nonprofits to file their 990 forms annually.

Not doing so for three years in a row triggers an automatic revocation, which can be reversed if nonprofits get back into compliance by belatedly filing their overdue paperwork. Revocations for all other reasons, including excessive unrelated business income, have impacted less than 0.1% of nonprofits, according to my analysis of IRS records.

In other words, two common concerns about advertising expressed by the nonprofit news leaders I interviewed – the potential tax burden and the risk of running afoul of the IRS – appear to have been unfounded.

At the same time, it can be hard to keep up with what might run afoul of IRS rules.

Starting in April 2025, the Trump administration threatened to revoke the nonprofit status of Harvard University after its leaders resisted numerous demands, including changes to its leadership and admissions policies.

Nonprofit news organizations have also faced pressure from the Trump administration. Several public media outlets are planning to shut down or reduce their operations following the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s loss of government funding in 2025. It’s part of what’s widely seen as the administration’s attempt to control news media, a campaign that has also led to defamation lawsuits, a leadership shakeup at CBS News, and the Federal Communications Commission’s deregulation efforts.

So far, Harvard’s nonprofit status remains intact, and legal experts say it’s likely to stay that way. Still, at a time when many local news nonprofits are struggling to keep the lights on, I can understand why they might choose to tread lightly.

The Conversation U.S. is a member of the Institute for Nonprofit News and does not get any revenue from advertising.

Katherine Fink does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Nonprofit news outlets are often scared that selling ads could jeopardize their tax-exempt status, but IRS records show that’s been rare – https://theconversation.com/nonprofit-news-outlets-are-often-scared-that-selling-ads-could-jeopardize-their-tax-exempt-status-but-irs-records-show-thats-been-rare-268844

November 24, 2025

We created health guidelines for fighting loneliness – here’s what we recommend

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Daniel P. Aldrich, Professor of Political Science, Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Northeastern University

Extensive research shows that social connection is crucial for good health, but there have been no standardized metrics for assessing it. Yaakov Aldrich, CC BY

Social isolation kills. It increases your risk of death by 30% — roughly the same as smoking cigarettes and much worse than factors such as obesity and sedentary living.

Americans are living through what researchers call a friendship recession, spending less time with friends than at any point in recent history.

In 2023, the U.S. Surgeon General declared loneliness an epidemic. Deaths from factors like suicide, addiction and alcoholism, referred to as deaths of despair, continue climbing.

While doctors routinely check patients’ blood pressure and ask about exercise habits, they rarely assess social health.

Public health guidelines urge Americans to eat their vegetables, exercise for 150 minutes weekly, sleep seven to nine hours nightly and drink less than one or two alcoholic beverages per day. But few public health bodies have addressed social connection — until now.

As scholars who focus on public policy and social determinants of health and well-being, we are part of an international team of more than 100 experts who undertook the first systematic effort to develop evidence-based guidelines for social connection.

These guidelines, which are now publicly available, aim to do more than offer advice. Elements of them are already being embedded into policies in the Netherlands and the U.K.

Our hope is that the guidelines can elevate the importance of social connection to the same level as basic public health practices such as exercising, not smoking and relying on a designated driver when you go out drinking with friends.

Social isolation increases people’s risk of death dramatically – about as much as smoking does.

The value of guidelines

Research has shown for decades that social connection is crucial for good health. The World Health Organization’s constitution, adopted in 1946, defines health as “complete physical, mental and social well-being.”

Codifying different dimensions of health into evidence-based guidelines matters because guidelines allow people to put recommendations into action. Nutrition labels help people understand what they’re eating. Exercise recommendations help people know how much movement protects their health. Blood pressure cutoffs tell both patients and clinicians when it’s time to intervene.

Guidelines also shape systems in ways people feel every day. Exercise guidelines, for example, helped motivate cities to invest in walkable streets and bike lanes, workplaces to design wellness programs, and schools to include physical activity in curricula.

Social health guidelines can play a similar role.

Standardized metrics for social well-being can help health care providers identify when someone is socially isolated, enable employers to design workplaces that foster connection, and give schools and cities clearer targets for building socially supportive environments.

They also lay the groundwork for “social prescriptions” — structured ways to connect people with community programs or group activities — which some health care systems are already beginning to test.

The science of connection

Beginning in the summer of 2023, our team spent more than two years developing a set of international guidelines for social health by drawing on more than 40 plain-language evidence summaries, numerous case studies, conversations with marginalized communities, and extensive consultation with global experts.

What we found highlights several foundational principles of social well-being.

First, there are no universal rules for social health. There is no magic number of friends or ideal number of weekly social hours. Social needs vary widely. Both introverts and extroverts need connection, but they meet that need differently. A new parent’s social world is completely unlike a retiree’s. And quality trumps quantity: One meaningful conversation can be more nourishing than a dozen quick exchanges.

Second, technology is not the villain it’s often made out to be. Passive scrolling can harm well-being, but active, intentional use can strengthen bonds — whether through video calls with distant family, group chats that sustain friendships or apps that help neighbors organize local meetups. The key is using technology to facilitate real connection rather than replace it.

Older woman talking to family on a cell phone video call. — Technology can help maintain connections at a distance.
FG Trade Latin/E+ via Getty Images

Third, relationships are shaped as much by systems as by individuals. Social health isn’t just about personal effort. It emerges from local environments that make connection possible. Research shows that investments in social infrastructure – the places and spaces where we connect, such as libraries, parks and cafes – measurably improve well-being. And communities that have denser concentrations of such spaces have better health outcomes after disasters.

Finally, diverse networks matter. Strong social health includes both close relationships and “weak ties” — acquaintances, neighbors, local business staff and others you see in passing. These lighter-touch interactions offer meaningful benefits: the barista who remembers your order, a colleague you exchange a few words with, a fellow dog walker along your route.

Studies show that weak ties provide novel information, unexpected opportunities and a broader sense of belonging that close friends alone can’t provide. A mix of ties — deep and shallow — forms the basis of a socially healthy life.

From research to reality

Forward-thinking institutions are already experimenting with principles that underpin our guidelines.

Some workplaces now assess social health when making decisions about policies such as remote work or office layout, recognizing that communication norms and physical design shape how employees connect. Schools are teaching emotional intelligence and friendship skills as core curriculum, not extras. Cities are investing in social infrastructure — community centers, shared public spaces and plazas — that naturally bring people together.

On a personal level, the guidelines suggest a few simple shifts:

Prioritize face-to-face time. Even short, in-person interactions boost mood, reduce stress and build trust.
Use technology actively, not passively. Reach out to someone, schedule a video call or use apps to create opportunities for connection — not just to scroll.
Treat solitude as restoration, not failure. Healthy social lives include both meaningful interaction and the downtime needed to recharge.
Build routines that create natural interaction. Walk the same route daily, become a regular at neighborhood spots or join recurring community activities to create predictable opportunities for connection.
And most importantly, take initiative. In a culture that treats socializing as a luxury, prioritizing connection is quietly radical.

Kiffer George Card receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Health Research BC. He is also an affiliate of Social Health Canada and the GenWell Project.

Daniel P. Aldrich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. We created health guidelines for fighting loneliness – here’s what we recommend – https://theconversation.com/we-created-health-guidelines-for-fighting-loneliness-heres-what-we-recommend-268560

November 24, 2025

Trump y Putin se reparten el botín de guerra en Ucrania con un plan de paz que pone a la UE contra las cuerdas

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By José Ángel López Jiménez, Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público, Universidad Pontificia Comillas

El borrador de acuerdo de alto el fuego/plan de paz para Ucrania negociado por Donald Trump y Vladimir Putin reproduce las mismas sospechas que en los últimos días han suscitado las resoluciones aprobadas por el Consejo de Seguridad sobre el Sáhara Occidental y la Franja de Gaza, estas dos últimas ratificadas con la abstención de China y Rusia.

Tanto el caso de Ucrania como los referidos sobre Sáhara y Gaza revelan que las decisiones nacen al calor de acuerdos negociados entre bambalinas. En el caso del borrador sobre Ucrania, todo indica que los líderes de Rusia y Estados Unidos se están repartiendo negocios y esferas de influencia al margen de los principios estructurales del derecho internacional contemporáneo.

El presidente ucraniano, Volodymyr Zelenski, como se encargó de recordar Trump durante su infame encerrona en la Casa Blanca, no tiene buenas cartas en esta partida. Con la supresión de la ayuda norteamericana a Ucrania (financiera, armamentística y en inteligencia), queda sin garantizar la potencial continuidad del apoyo de algunos estados de la UE.

Los 28 puntos trasladan un potencial acuerdo plagado de sombras para el futuro de una Ucrania post-conflicto. Redactado por los dos principales beneficiarios (Rusia y Estados Unidos), deja al margen a la Unión Europea, a la inane Organización para la Seguridad y Cooperación en Europa (OSCE) y al sistema de Naciones Unidas.

El hecho de ignorar a la Unión Europea supone un agravio flagrante, si tenemos en cuenta que Ucrania es un Estado candidato a la adhesión a la organización internacional de carácter regional.

Una rendición incondicional

El contenido de la propuesta promueve una rendición incondicional del Estado agredido desde la anexión ilegal de Crimea en el año 2014. La publicación del texto ha ido acompañada de un inédito ultimátum de Trump, que exige respuesta definitiva en el margen de una semana. Detallamos a continuación algunas cuestiones recogidas en los diferentes puntos.

1. En primer término, hay que destacar que se presenta como un acuerdo jurídicamente vinculante, cuando viola abiertamente algunos principios estructurales de la Carta de Naciones Unidas, que conforman las reglas básicas del derecho internacional contemporáneo.

El principio de no injerencia en los asuntos internos de Ucrania se vulnera con la imposición de recoger constitucionalmente la prohibición de una potencial adhesión a la OTAN. Esta imposición se hace extensiva también a la misma organización atlántica de defensa, que deberá de recoger esta disposición en sus estatutos.

2. Obliga a la convocatoria de elecciones en Ucrania en un plazo máximo de cien días desde la aceptación del acuerdo. Claramente, Trump y Putin quieren a Zelenski fuera de la ecuación. También plantea una reducción unilateral de las capacidades militares del Estado ucraniano, con un notable debilitamiento sobre los niveles de gasto y contingentes actuales.

3. La integridad territorial de Ucrania se fragmenta, consolidando el control de los cuatro distritos ocupados –aunque no controlados militarmente– y de Crimea. Esto avala los objetivos de la guerra de agresión de Putin.

4. Resultan grotescos los compromisos recogidos en los puntos segundo y tercero, que establecen un pacto de no agresión entre Rusia, Ucrania y Europa. El texto afirma de forma literal que, con este acuerdo, se “resuelven las ambigüedades de los últimos treinta años”. La redacción de estos puntos sitúa al mismo nivel dos obligaciones muy dispares. Por un lado, que Rusia no invada a otros vecinos. Por otro, impone la no expansión de OTAN. Putin ha demostrado el valor de su palabra a través del incumplimiento sistemático de las normas internacionales.

5. Desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial se ha ido construyendo toda una arquitectura normativa y judicial para juzgar la responsabilidad internacional de los estados y de los individuos por la comisión de crímenes internacionales (genocidio, crímenes de guerra, crímenes contra la humanidad y crímenes de agresión).

Todo este esfuerzo de la comunidad internacional y del ordenamiento jurídico internacional se evapora en el punto 26 del proyecto de acuerdo, que recoge una amnistía total. “Todas las partes implicadas en el conflicto recibirán amnistía total por sus actos durante la guerra y aceptarán no presentar reclamaciones ni examinar denuncias en el futuro”.

Bajo esta premisa, la demanda ucraniana ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia respecto a la Convención para la Prevención y Sanción del Delito de Genocidio de 1948, o la orden de detención de la Fiscalía de la Corte Penal Internacional contra Putin y María Lvova-Belova por la desaparición de los niños ucranianos desde el inicio de la agresión rusa queda en papel mojado. Al igual que los numerosos crímenes de guerra de los que hemos sido testigos y que han quedado documentados.

La Unión Europea, cómplice por inacción

Todo un rosario de concesiones ucranianas se desprenden de este lamentable (e impuesto) proyecto de acuerdo de paz, que puede contar con el apoyo de la UE por inacción.

Estas incluyen la desnuclearización permanente de Ucrania, en una reedición del memorándum de Budapest de 1994, y el reparto energético de la producción de la central nuclear de Zaporiya. También favorecen acuerdos bilaterales de cooperación entre Rusia y Estados Unidos, el “blanqueo de Putin” y el retorno de Rusia al escenario internacional con el levantamiento de las sanciones.

En definitiva, sentencian a Ucrania, que se convierte en objeto de rapiña económica para Trump. Un expolio que se anticipaba hace unos meses, cuando se firmó el acuerdo sobre la explotación de las “tierras raras”.

Incógnitas no resueltas para Ucrania

¿Qué consigue Ucrania de este acuerdo? El cese de las hostilidades en unas condiciones sumamente desfavorables. ¿Hasta cuándo? Hasta que Putin vuelva activar sus ambiciones neoimperiales. No hay explicitada ninguna garantía de seguridad concreta para Kiev. ¿Quién supervisará el alto el fuego excluida la OTAN? Resulta evidente que este eventual papel se traslada a la UE, que incorporará un nuevo Estado miembro con su soberanía territorial fragmentada, la economía quebrada y una inseguridad permanente, con tropas rusas instaladas en sus distritos orientales.

La comisión de ilícitos internacionales muy graves por parte de Rusia en Ucrania y su responsabilidad internacional deberían derivar en un conjunto de obligaciones tendentes a reparar el daño causado. El punto 14 recoge que, tanto Rusia como la UE destinarían 100 000 millones de dólares para la reconstrucción de Ucrania, equiparando las obligaciones del Estado agresor con las que se atribuyen unilateralmente a la UE. En el caso de Rusia, estos fondos provendrán en parte de sus activos congelados por las sanciones.

Todo ello a beneficio de Estados Unidos y, en menor grado, de Rusia, como fruto un acuerdo de cooperación bilateral entre ambos estados.

Si el escenario dibujado por los mencionados acuerdos sobre el Sáhara, la Franja de Gaza y este proyecto de imposición bilateral ruso-norteamericana a Ucrania no representan un escandaloso reparto en esferas de influencia de las grandes potencias dentro de un nuevo orden multipolar, se le parece bastante.

Como dice el aforismo atribuido al filósofo italiano Giordano Bruno, [Si non e vero e ben trovato].

José Ángel López Jiménez no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Trump y Putin se reparten el botín de guerra en Ucrania con un plan de paz que pone a la UE contra las cuerdas – https://theconversation.com/trump-y-putin-se-reparten-el-botin-de-guerra-en-ucrania-con-un-plan-de-paz-que-pone-a-la-ue-contra-las-cuerdas-270418

November 24, 2025

Pourquoi en France les start-ups dirigées par des femmes lèvent en moyenne 2,5 fois moins de fonds que celles dirigées par des hommes ? retour sur des biais partagés par tous (ou presque)

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Pauline Gibard, Maîtresse de conférences en entrepreneuriat, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3

L’investisseuse est souvent perçue comme bienveillante, plus accessible et plus à l’écoute. Un stéréotype ancré chez certaines entrepreneures. Lightspring/Shutterstock

Le financement d’une entreprise n’est pas qu’une affaire d’argent. C’est une relation, une danse à deux où chaque partenaire projette des stéréotypes. Une étude donne la parole à des entrepreneures qui portent elles-mêmes ces représentations.

En France, les start-ups fondées par des femmes lèvent en moyenne 2,5 fois moins de fonds que celles fondées par des hommes. Ce constat illustre à quel point le financement reste l’un des principaux enjeux liés de l’entrepreneuriat féminin, parfois décrit comme un second plafond de verre. Il faut déjà s’imposer comme entrepreneuse, puis encore franchir la barrière de l’accès aux capitaux.

Jusqu’ici, c’est l’offre de financement qui a été principalement étudié : combien d’argent est disponible, comment fonctionnent les banques et les fonds ? Mais pour obtenir un financement, il faut d’abord… en faire la demande. Sur ce point, la recherche est encore rare.

C’est précisément ce que nous avons exploré dans notre étude publiée dans la Revue internationale PME, à travers 29 entretiens narratifs avec des entrepreneures. Leurs récits montrent que la demande de financement est avant tout une relation : une danse à deux entre entrepreneuse et financeurs, imprégnée d’attentes, de craintes et de stéréotypes.

La finance pensée comme un univers masculin

Dans cette danse, l’investisseur est spontanément imaginé comme un homme : « Quand je pense à un investisseur, je pense automatiquement à un homme » raconte une entrepreneure. Cela leur confère une légitimité « naturelle », rationnels, ambitieux, cartésiens.

Certaines entrepreneures y voient même un atout : « Je pense que les hommes investisseurs seraient plus à même de nous pousser dans nos retranchements pour faire avancer notre projet », estime l’une. Mais cette admiration s’accompagne souvent d’un malaise.

Plusieurs redoutent un regard condescendant ou un manque de crédibilité : « Si je demande un financement à un homme, j’aurais tendance à penser qu’il estime que j’ai moins de revenus », observe une autre. D’autres évoquent un sentiment de domination, voire le risque d’abus : « Je ne suis pas une friandise. Avec une femme au moins, on ne risque pas d’attouchement », insiste une fondatrice.

Les investisseuses, trop bienveillantes ?

Quand la partenaire de danse est une investisseuse, le pas change. Elle est souvent perçue comme plus accessible et plus à l’écoute « Je pense que les femmes seraient plus bienveillantes avec moi » estime une entrepreneure. Pour certaines, elles incarnent même un modèle inspirant.

On pourrait croire que les entrepreneures se tournent plus facilement vers des investisseuses. Mais la réalité est plus ambivalente. Certaines redoutent un excès de bienveillance, perçu comme un manque d’exigence :

« C’est très cliché, mais j’aurais peur qu’avec un trop-plein de bienveillance, on ne me “pousse” pas assez. J’ai l’impression qu’entre hommes, on fait plus d’argent, on pousse plus ».

D’autres craignent au contraire une rivalité ou un jugement plus sévère : « On a un peu plus de pression face à une femme, car c’est soit de la compassion, soit du mépris… » explique une autre.

« Pas prévu de faire des enfants ensemble »

Face à ces représentations contrastées, les entrepreneures apprennent à choisir leurs partenaires de danse.

Certaines privilégient les investisseuses pour des projets destinés à un public féminin, ou dans des situations particulières comme une grossesse perçue comme mieux acceptée par une femme. D’autres préfèrent des investisseurs masculins, jugés plus crédibles ou plus susceptibles de « pousser » leur projet.

Notons que toutes ne se laissent pas enfermer dans ce jeu de projections :

« Pour mon financement, je cherche des investisseurs qui font écho à mes valeurs profondes. Fille ou garçon, nous n’avons pas prévu de faire des enfants ensemble donc ce n’est pas un problème » raconte une fondatrice.

Une danse à deux traversée de stéréotypes

Ces témoignages rappellent que le financement entrepreneurial n’est pas qu’une affaire de capitaux ou de business plans. C’est une relation, une danse à deux, où chaque partenaire projette des stéréotypes.

Nos résultats montrent que les entrepreneures elles-mêmes portent et mobilisent des représentations. Voir les hommes comme plus rationnels, ou les femmes comme plus bienveillantes, influe sur la façon dont elles valorisent une relation de financement, et parfois sur leur capacité à s’y engager.

Améliorer l’accès au financement ne peut pas se limiter à féminiser les instances d’investissement. Il faut aussi comprendre comment ces imaginaires se construisent et orientent les relations. Car finalement, lever des fonds, ce n’est pas seulement obtenir un chèque. C’est accepter de danser, et la danse n’a de sens que si les deux partenaires trouvent l’accord.

Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

– ref. Pourquoi en France les start-ups dirigées par des femmes lèvent en moyenne 2,5 fois moins de fonds que celles dirigées par des hommes ? retour sur des biais partagés par tous (ou presque) – https://theconversation.com/pourquoi-en-france-les-start-ups-dirigees-par-des-femmes-levent-en-moyenne-2-5-fois-moins-de-fonds-que-celles-dirigees-par-des-hommes-retour-sur-des-biais-partages-par-tous-ou-presque-267562

November 24, 2025

COP30 : cinq raisons pour lesquelles la conférence sur le climat a manqué à sa promesse d’être un « sommet des peuples »

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Simon Chin-Yee, Lecturer in International Development, UCL

À Belém, au Brésil, la COP30 devait réconcilier ambitions climatiques et justice sociale. Elle a finalement exposé la fragilité du processus onusien, pris en étau entre le poids des industries fossiles et les frustrations croissantes des pays les plus vulnérables, sur fond d’urgence climatique. Voici cinq raisons qui illustrent en quoi ce grand sommet tient du rendez-vous manqué.

La promesse d’un « sommet des peuples » s’est éteinte avec les feux de la COP30, samedi 22 novembre 2025. Le dernier sommet des Nations unies sur le climat, organisé dans la ville brésilienne de Belém, s’est déroulé dans le contexte géopolitique habituel, avec en prime le chaos suscité par une inondation et un incendie.

Le sommet a été marqué par des manifestations de communautés de peuples autochtones d’une ampleur sans précédent, mais les négociations finales ont, une fois de plus, été dominées par les intérêts des énergies fossiles et les tactiques pour jouer la montre. Après dix ans d’(in)action climatique depuis l’accord de Paris, le Brésil avait promis que la COP30 serait une « COP de mise en œuvre ». Mais le sommet n’a pas tenu ses promesses, alors même que le monde a enregistré un réchauffement climatique de 1,6 °C l’année dernière.

Voici nos cinq observations principales à porter au bilan de la COP30.

Des peuples autochtones présents mais pas assez impliqués

Le sommet se déroulait en Amazonie, ce qui a permis de présenter cette COP climat comme celle vouée aux populations en première ligne face au changement climatique. De fait, plus de 5 000 autochtones y ont participé et ont fait entendre leur voix.

Cependant, seuls 360 d’entre eux ont obtenu un laissez-passer pour la « zone bleue » ; principale zone consacrée aux négociations. Un chiffre à comparer aux 1 600 délégués de l’industrie des combustibles fossiles qui y ont été admis. À l’intérieur des salles de négociation régnait l’approche traditionnelle visant à privilégie la bonne marche des affaires (« business as usual »).

Les groupes autochtones n’avaient que le statut d’observateurs, privés du droit de voter ou d’assister aux réunions à huis clos.

Le choix du lieu, en Amazonie, était un symbole fort, mais qui s’est révélé délicat au plan logistique. Il a coûté des centaines de millions de dollars dans une région où une large partie de la population n’a toujours pas accès aux infrastructures de base.

Une image frappante de ces inégalités pourrait être la suivante : les chambres d’hôtel étant toutes occupées, le gouvernement brésilien a immobilisé deux bateaux de croisière pour les participants aux négociations. Or, ces derniers peuvent générer huit fois plus d’émissions de gaz à effet de serre qu’une nuitée en hôtel cinq étoiles par personne.

Des manifestations qui ont permis des avancées locales

Mais il s’agissait du deuxième plus grand sommet des Nations unies sur le climat jamais organisé et le premier depuis la COP26 de Glasgow en 2021 à se dérouler dans un pays autorisant de véritables manifestations publiques.

Cela avait son importance. Des manifestations de toutes dimensions ont eu lieu tous les jours pendant les deux semaines de la conférence, notamment une « grande marche populaire » menée par les peuples autochtones le samedi 15 novembre au milieu de la conférence.

Cette pression, bien visible, a permis d’obtenir la reconnaissance de quatre nouveaux territoires autochtones au Brésil. Cela a montré que lorsque la société civile a voix au chapitre, elle peut remporter des victoires, même en dehors des négociations principales.

L’absence des États-Unis, à la fois un vide et une opportunité

Lors du premier mandat de Donald Trump, après son retrait de l’accord de Paris, en 2016, les États-Unis avaient malgré tout envoyé une équipe réduite de négociateurs. Cette fois-ci, pour la première fois dans l’histoire, les États-Unis n’ont envoyé aucune délégation officielle.

Donald Trump a récemment qualifié le changement climatique de « plus grande escroquerie jamais perpétrée dans le monde ». Depuis son retour au pouvoir, les États-Unis ont ralenti le développement des énergies renouvelables et relancé celui du pétrole et du gaz. Ils ont même contribué à faire échouer, en octobre 2025, les plans visant à mettre en place un cadre de neutralité carbone pour le transport maritime mondial.

Alors que les États-Unis reviennent sur leurs ambitions passées, ils permettent à d’autres pays producteurs de pétrole, comme l’Arabie saoudite, d’ignorer leurs propres engagements climatiques et de tenter de saper ceux des autres.

La Chine a comblé ce vide et est devenue l’une des voix les plus influentes dans la salle. En tant que premier fournisseur mondial de technologies vertes, Pékin a profité de la COP30 pour promouvoir ses industries solaire, éolienne et électrique et courtiser les pays désireux d’investir.

Mais pour de nombreux délégués, l’absence des États-Unis a été un soulagement. Sans la distraction causée par les États-Unis qui tentaient de « mettre le feu aux poudres » comme ils l’avaient fait lors des négociations sur le transport maritime, la conférence a pu se concentrer sur l’essentiel : négocier des textes et des accords pour limiter l’ampleur du réchauffement climatique.

Une mise en œuvre non plus sur la scène principale, mais grâce à des accords parallèles

Qu’est-ce qui a été réellement mis en œuvre lors de la COP30 ? Cette année encore, l’action principale s’est traduite par des engagements volontaires de certains États plutôt que par un accord mondial contraignant.

Le pacte de Belém, soutenu par des pays tels que le Japon, l’Inde et le Brésil, engage ses signataires à quadrupler la production et l’utilisation de carburants durables d’ici 2035.

Le Brésil a également lancé un important fonds mondial pour les forêts, avec environ 6 milliards de dollars (environ 5,2 milliards d’euros) déjà promis aux communautés qui œuvrent pour la protection des forêts tropicales. L’Union européenne (UE) a emboîté le pas en s’engageant à verser de nouveaux fonds pour le bassin du Congo, la deuxième plus grande forêt tropicale du monde.

Il s’agit d’étapes utiles, mais elles montrent que les avancées les plus importantes lors des sommets climatiques de l’ONU se produisent désormais souvent en marge plutôt que dans le cadre des négociations principales.

Le résultat des discussions principales de la COP30 – le « paquet politique de Belém » – est faible et ne nous permettra pas d’atteindre l’objectif de l’accord de Paris visant à limiter le réchauffement climatique à 1,5 °C.

Le plus frappant est l’absence des mots « combustibles fossiles » dans le texte final, alors qu’ils occupaient une place centrale dans l’accord de Glasgow sur le climat (en 2021, à la suite de la COP26, ndlr) et dans le consensus des Émirats arabes unis (en 2023, après la COP28, ndlr)… et qu’ils représentent bien sûr la principale cause du changement climatique.

Le texte du « mutirão » mondial, une occasion manquée

Une avancée potentielle avait toutefois vu le jour dans les salles de négociation : le texte du « mutirão (effort collectif, en tupi-guarani, ndlr) mondial », une feuille de route proposée pour sortir des énergies fossiles. Plus de 80 pays l’ont signé, des membres de l’UE aux États insulaires du Pacifique vulnérables au changement climatique.

Tina Stege, envoyée spéciale pour le climat de l’un de ces États vulnérables, les îles Marshall, a pressé les délégués :

« Soutenons l’idée d’une feuille de route pour les combustibles fossiles, travaillons ensemble et transformons-la en un plan d’action. »

Mais l’opposition de l’Arabie saoudite, de l’Inde et d’autres grands producteurs d’énergies fossiles l’a édulcoré. Les négociations se sont prolongées, aggravées par un incendie qui a reporté les discussions d’une journée.

Lorsque l’accord final a été conclu, les références clés à l’élimination progressive des combustibles fossiles avaient disparu. La Colombie, par exemple, a réagi vivement à l’absence de mention de la transition vers l’abandon des combustibles fossiles dans le texte final. Cela a contraint la présidence de la COP à proposer un réexamen dans six mois en guise de geste d’apaisement.

Ce fut une énorme déception car, au début du sommet, l’élan semblait très fort.

Un fossé qui se creuse

Ce sommet sur le climat a donc été une nouvelle fois source de divisions. Le fossé entre les pays producteurs de pétrole (en particulier au Moyen-Orient) et le reste du monde n’a jamais été aussi large.

Le sommet a toutefois eu un aspect positif : il a montré la force des mouvements organisés. Les groupes autochtones et la société civile ont pu faire entendre leur voix, même si leurs revendications n’ont pas été reprises dans le texte final.

Le sommet de l’année prochaine se tiendra en Turquie. Ces sommets annuels sur le climat se déplacent de plus en plus vers des pays autoritaires où les manifestations ne sont pas les bienvenues, voire totalement interdites. Nos dirigeants ne cessent de répéter que le temps presse, mais les négociations elles-mêmes restent enlisées dans un cycle sans fin de reports.

Mark Maslin est vice-recteur adjoint du programme « UCL Climate Crisis Grand Challenge » et directeur fondateur de l’Institut pour l’aviation et l’aéronautique durables de l’UCL. Il a été codirecteur du partenariat de formation doctorale NERC de Londres et est membre du groupe consultatif sur la crise climatique. Il est conseiller auprès de Sheep Included Ltd, Lansons, NetZeroNow et a conseillé le Parlement britannique. Il a reçu des subventions du NERC, de l’EPSRC, de l’ESRC, de la DFG, de la Royal Society, du DIFD, du BEIS, du DECC, du FCO, d’Innovate UK, du Carbon Trust, de l’Agence spatiale britannique, de l’Agence spatiale européenne, de Research England, du Wellcome Trust, du Leverhulme Trust, du CIFF, de Sprint2020 et du British Council. Il a reçu des financements de la BBC, du Lancet, de Laithwaites, de Seventh Generation, de Channel 4, de JLT Re, du WWF, d’Hermes, de CAFOD, de HP, du Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, de la John Templeton Foundation, de la Nand & Jeet Khemka Foundation et de la Quadrature Climate Foundation.

La professeur Priti Parikh est directrice de la Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction de l’UCL et vice-doyenne internationale de la Bartlett Faculty of Built Environment. Elle est membre et administratrice de l’Institution of Civil Engineers. Ses recherches sont financées par l’UKRI, la Royal Academy of Engineering, Water Aid, la British Academy, Bboxx Ltd, l’UCL, la Royal Society et le British Council. Son cabinet de conseil a reçu des financements de l’AECOM, du Cambridge Institute for Sustainable Leadership, de Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor, de l’UNHABITAT, d’Arup, de l’ITAD et de la GTZ.

Simon Chin-Yee ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. COP30 : cinq raisons pour lesquelles la conférence sur le climat a manqué à sa promesse d’être un « sommet des peuples » – https://theconversation.com/cop30-cinq-raisons-pour-lesquelles-la-conference-sur-le-climat-a-manque-a-sa-promesse-detre-un-sommet-des-peuples-270475

November 24, 2025

Mid-Atlantic mushroom foragers collect 160 species for food, medicine, art and science

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amy Wrobleski, Ph.D. Candidate in Ecology and Anthropology, Penn State

Pennsylvania is home to a diverse range of wild mushrooms, both edible and poisonous. Vaivirga/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Like many mushroom harvesters, I got interested in foraging for fungi during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I had been preparing for a summer of field work studying foraged desert plants in a remote part of Australia when the pandemic hit, and my travel plans were abruptly frozen. It was March, right before morel mushrooms emerge in central Pennsylvania.

I wasn’t doing a lot other than going on long hikes and taking classes remotely at Penn State for my doctoral degree in ecology and anthropology. One of the classes was an agroforestry class with Eric Burkhart. We studied how agriculture and forests benefit people and the environment.

These two things eventually led to a yearslong project on mushroom harvesting in our region.

Why people forage

Foragers have been harvesting wild mushrooms in what is now Pennsylvania and the rest of the U.S. mid-Atlantic region for generations, but the extent and specifics of the practice in the region had not been formally studied.

In 2021, Burkhart and I decided that we wanted to better understand the variety of wild mushroom species that Pennsylvania harvesters collect and what they use them for.

We conducted a series of surveys in 2022 and 2023 that revealed a wide variety of fungi are foraged in the region – though morels, chicken of the woods and chanterelles are most common. We also learned that harvesters use the mushrooms primarily for food and medicinal purposes, and that foragers create communities that share knowledge. These community based projects often use social media tools as a way for mushroom harvesters to share pictures, notes and even the results of DNA sequences.

Our findings were published in the journal Economic Botany in October 2025.

160 species

Having spent a year building connections with local mushroom harvesters, starting in central Pennsylvania, including members of mushroom clubs and mycological associations, we recruited a diverse group of harvesters from around the mid-Atlantic. We also used mushroom festivals, social media and word of mouth to get the word out.

We asked harvesters about their favorite mushrooms, common harvesting practices, resources they used while harvesting and any sustainability practices.

Over 800 harvesters responded to the survey and reported that, collectively, they foraged 160 species of wild mushrooms. Morels and chicken of the woods were the two most popular, as each were reported by 13% of respondents. About 10% of respondents reported collecting chanterelles. Other popular species were hen of the woods, oysters, lion’s mane, black trumpet, honey mushroom, turkey tail, bolete, reishi, puffball, chaga, shrimp of the woods and Dryad’s saddle, which is also known as the pheasant’s back mushroom.

Harvesters reported a variety of reasons for collecting mushrooms. Many collected morels and chanterelle to eat, and species such as turkey tail, reishi and chaga for medicinal purposes. Art was another common reason cited for foraging, with photography being the most popular use, followed by using mushrooms to create natural dyes and pigments.

Other survey respondents said they foraged to feel more connected to nature. And while there is a thriving commercial wild mushroom industry in the region, we found that only a small minority of harvesters sell their mushrooms. Most people reported giving their mushrooms to friends, neighbors and family.

Person holds basket of mushrooms as another person places a mushroom inside of it — Mushroom foraging can be a way for people to connect with nature.
Natalia Lebedinskaia/Moment Collection via Getty Images

Citizen science

We also wanted to better understand which resources mushroom harvesters turn to in order to learn more about this hobby. We asked all the harvesters what they used as a resource when they were first learning to hunt for mushrooms. A quarter of new harvesters said they used the “the internet,” followed by “family,” at 24%, and then guide books, at 20%.

Based on the survey responses, we also learned that mushroom-identification phone apps are growing in popularity, especially among new harvesters. For example, a commonly used app called iNaturalist allows harvesters to upload a few pictures of their find – one of the mushroom in its habitat, another of the underside of the cap, and a third of the entire mushroom. From there, other community members can comment and help with identification.

Harvesters also use these apps to contribute to community science projects that document biodiversity.

Some mushrooms are poisonous if eaten, which is part of why harvesters are so careful with their identification. When learning a new mushroom species, it’s important to look into multiple sources to make sure what you’re harvesting is safe to eat.

With more harvesters documenting their findings on social media and sharing information about fungal biodiversity in the region, there is much to glean and learn about the diverse world of mushrooms in the mid-Atlantic. We believe that deeper collaboration between community groups and researchers at universities and other institutions is an opportunity for scientific growth within the field of mycology. This collaboration can support long-term tracking of fungal populations and any impact that harvesters might have on them.

A wild mushroom growing out of the side of a tree trunk — Chicken of the woods mushrooms are among the most commonly foraged. When cooked, their flavor resembles that of chicken.
James Grewer/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

Amy Wrobleski receives funding from the Mycological Association of Washington DC.

Eric Burkhart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Mid-Atlantic mushroom foragers collect 160 species for food, medicine, art and science – https://theconversation.com/mid-atlantic-mushroom-foragers-collect-160-species-for-food-medicine-art-and-science-268143