Donor-advised funds have more money than ever – and direct more of it to politically active charities

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Brian Mittendorf, Professor of Accounting, The Ohio State University

Using investment accounts for charitable gifts could be influencing giving in unexpected ways. sesame/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

Charitable giving in the United States has changed significantly in recent years.

Two of the biggest changes are the swift growth of donor-advised funds and the increasingly blurred lines between charity and politics.

Donor-advised funds, or DAFs, are charitable investment accounts. After donors put money or other financial assets into these accounts, the assets are technically no longer theirs. But they do get a say in how those funds are invested, as well as when and which charities should get some of the money.
Americans gave nearly US$90 billion to DAFs in 2024 – up from the $20 billion DAFs took in a decade earlier.

One distinguishing feature about DAF donors is that when they dispatch money from their charitable accounts, they fund politically engaged charities at higher rates than people who give directly to charity.

That’s what we, two scholars who research the flow of money between donors and nonprofits, found when we conducted a study examining the links between donor-advised funds and donations to charities that are politically active. Our results will be published in a forthcoming issue of Nonprofit Policy Forum, a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Resembling family foundations

As charitable investment accounts, donor-advised funds straddle a middle ground between family foundations and organizations doing direct charitable work.

Like foundations, DAFs give donors a sense of long-term control over funds they’ve designated for charitable spending in the future. But because DAFs are accounts held within certified public charities, often those affiliated with financial institutions like Fidelity and Vanguard, they offer added tax benefits and simplicity.

DAFs let donors take charitable tax deductions immediately, and then decide later how much of that money to give to which charity – and when – by telling the account managers what to do.

Timing gifts this way can increase the tax advantages tied to charitable giving through tax deductions. And DAFs help donors do this without the expenses, staffing and complexity of running their own foundations.

These advantages – coupled with persuasive marketing campaigns – have helped spur a DAF boom. Donor-advised funds held $326 billion in 2024.

A proponent of donor-advised funds explains how they work and why many donors like to use them.

More politically engaged charitable activity

We consider charities “politically engaged” if they either do lobbying or have related organizations that participate in political campaigning. These groups span the political spectrum: For example, they include both the National Rifle Association and the Environmental Defense Fund.

We gathered data from the nearly 250,000 charities in the U.S. that filed a 990 form with the Internal Revenue Service from 2020 to 2022. The country’s largest charities must file these informational forms annually and make them available to the public.

When we crunched the numbers, we discovered that nearly 6% of payments from DAF accounts go to politically engaged charities. In comparison, other funding sources paid out only 3.6% to politically engaged charities.

This means a funding rate from DAFs is 1.7 times the benchmark level. When it comes to fringe hate and antigovernment charities, overall funding levels are low, but the DAF difference is more pronounced – DAF donors fund these groups at a rate 3.5 times that of other donors.

Giving donors more privacy

One other advantage DAFs offer donors is that they provide more anonymity than if donors give to a cause directly.

Under current disclosure rules, when donors give more than $5,000 to any charitable nonprofit – whether it’s their local food bank or animal shelter or art museum – both the charity and the IRS have to know who they are. When donors give that much to private foundations, it becomes part of the public record as well.

But when donors give any amount, even if it’s much more than $5,000, through their DAFs, even the charity that ultimately gets the money may not know the donor’s identity.

This anonymity may be one reason donors more often use DAFs to give to organizations that engage in politics, either directly or indirectly.

To be sure, charities are permitted to engage in different types of political engagement to varying degrees. In fact, U.S. charities have long been important public policy advocates. And it is also understandable that donors might want to be anonymous. Yet the use of DAFs to provide gifts to fringe groups suggests this lack of transparency is not always a good thing.

The rules around donor disclosure were originally set up to prevent private interests from abusing the system.

This is the reason that foundations – like those set up by tech billionaire Elon Musk or Google co-founder Larry Page – must publicly disclose both their major donors and their grant recipients.

But when these foundations make grants to donor-advised funds, the digital trail becomes a dead end. The public has no way to know which charities the foundations are ultimately funding with their grants after the money enters a DAF’s coffers.

Consistent with this arrangement, we found that the DAFs that get more grants from foundations tend to fund politically active organizations at higher rates.

Changing the charity landscape

As DAFs continue to expand, further research can help cast light on what effect they will ultimately have. Though much research and many proposed new rules have focused on whether Americans need to move the money in their DAFs out to charities more quickly, we’re focused on where that money goes.

In examining tax filings, we have also learned that some charitable sectors get more money from DAFs than others.

For example, social service nonprofits, which include homeless shelters and food banks, get 25% of all giving, but only 20% of DAF giving. This may seem like a small difference, but it can actually represent seismic shifts in where charitable dollars go.

And we’re now examining whether the size of a charity’s DAF program can influence that organization’s behavior. The data collected from 990 forms suggests that even community foundations may become less focused on their local communities when they court DAF donors.

The Conversation

Helen Flannery is employed by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank that has done research related to charity reforms.

Brian Mittendorf 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. Donor-advised funds have more money than ever – and direct more of it to politically active charities – https://theconversation.com/donor-advised-funds-have-more-money-than-ever-and-direct-more-of-it-to-politically-active-charities-270758

Whether Netflix or Paramount buys Warner Bros., entertainment oligopolies are back – bigger and more anticompetitive than ever

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Matthew Jordan, Professor of Media Studies, Penn State

Warner Bros. was one of five studios that joined forces with Wall Street investors to gobble up independent theaters and movie producers in the 1920s. Nextrecord Archives/Getty Images

News of Netflix’s bid to buy Warner Bros. last week sent shock waves through the media ecosystem.

The pending US$83 billion deal is being described as an upending of the existing entertainment order, a sign that it’s now dominated by the tech platforms rather than the traditional Hollywood power brokers.

As David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, put it, “The deal with Netflix acknowledges a generational shift: The rules of Hollywood are no longer the same.”

Maybe so. But what are those rules? And are they being rewritten, or will moviegoers and TV audiences simply find themselves back in the early 20th century, when a few powerful players directed the fate of the entertainment industry?

The rise of the Hollywood oligopolies

As Hollywood rose to prominence in the 1920s, theater chain owner Adolf Zuker spearheaded a new business model.

Cartoon of man straddling three different horses and cracking them with a whip.
Lew Merrell’s 1920 cartoon for Exhibitors Herald, a film industry trade publication, depicts Adolf Zukor performing the feat of vertical integration.
Wikimedia Commons

He used Wall Street financing to acquire and merge his film distribution company, Famous Players-Lasky, the film production company Paramount and the Balaban and Katz chain of theaters under the Paramount name. Together, they created a vertically integrated studio that would emulate the assembly line production of the auto industry: Films would be produced, distributed and shown under the same corporate umbrella.

Meanwhile, Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack Warner – the Warner brothers – had been pioneer theater owners during the nickelodeon era, the period from roughly 1890 to 1915, when movie exhibition shifted from traveling shows to permanent, storefront theaters called nickelodeons.

They used the financial backing of investment bank Goldman Sachs to follow Zucker’s Hollywood model. They merged their theaters with several independent production companies: the Vitagraph film distribution company, the Skouras Brothers theater chain and, eventually, First National.

But the biggest of the Hollywood conglomerates was Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, created when the Loews theater chain merged Metro Pictures, Goldwyn Pictures and Mayer Pictures.

At its high point, MGM had the biggest stars of the day under noncompete contracts and accounted for roughly three-quarters of the entire industry’s gross revenues.

By the mid-1930s, a handful of vertically integrated studios dominated Hollywood – MGM, Paramount, Warner Brothers, RKO and 20th Century Fox – functioning like a state-sanctioned oligopoly. They controlled who worked, what films were made and what made it into the theaters they owned. And though the studios’ holdings came and went, the rules of the industry remained stable until after World War II.

Old Hollywood loses its cartel power

In 1938, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission sued the “Big Five” studios, arguing that their vertically integrated model was anti-competitive.

After the Supreme Court decided in favor of the U.S. government in 1948 – in what became known as the Paramount Decisionthe studios were forced to sell off their theater chains, which checked their ability to squeeze theaters and squeeze out independent producers.

With the studios’ cartel power weakened, independent filmmakers like Elia Kazan and John Cassavetes flourished in the 1950s, making pictures like “On the Waterfrontthat the studios had rejected. Foreign films found their ways to American screens no longer constrained by block booking, a practice that forced exhibitors to pay for a lot of mediocre films if they wanted the good ones, too.

By the 1960s, a new generation of filmmakers like Mike Nichols and Stanley Kubrick scored big with audiences hungry for something different than the escapist spectacles Hollywood was green-lighting. They took risks by hiring respected writers and unknown actors to tell stories that were truer to life. In doing so, they flipped Hollywood’s generic formulas upside down.

A decade ago, I wrote about how Netflix’s streaming model pointed to a renaissance of innovative storytelling, similar to the period after the Paramount Decision.

By streaming their indie film “Beast of No Nation” directly to subscribers at home, Netflix posed a direct threat to Hollywood’s blockbuster model, in which studios invested heavily in a small number of big-budget films designed to earn enormous box office returns. At the time, Netflix’s 65 million global subscribers gave it the capital to produce exclusive content for its expanding markets.

Hollywood quickly closed the streaming gap, developing its own platforms and restricting access of its vast catalogs to subscribers.

Warner Bros. bought and sold

In 2018, AT&T acquired Time Warner, the biggest media conglomerate of the time, and DirectTV. It hoped to merge its 125 million-plus telecommunication customers with Time Warner’s content and create a streaming giant to compete with Netflix.

Then came the COVID-19 pandemic, and the theatrical model for film distribution collapsed.

The pressure on AT&T’s stock led the company to sell off HBO and WarnerMedia to Discovery in 2022 for $43 billion. Armed with the HBO and Warner Bros. libraries – along with the advertising potential of CNN, TNT and Turner Sports – CEO David Zaslav was bullish about the company’s potential for growth.

Warner Bros. Discovery became the third-largest streaming platform in terms of subscribers behind Netflix and Disney+, which had gobbled up 20th Century Fox.

But the results have been bad for audiences.

In 2023, Zaslav rolled out a bundled streaming platform called Max that combined the libraries of HBO Max and Discovery+, which ended up confusing consumers and the market. So it reverted back to HBO Max because consumers recognized the brand.

Zaslav then decided it was more cost effective to cancel innovative projects or write off completed films as losses. Zaslav often claims his deals are “good for consumers,” in that they get more content in one place. But conglomerates who defend their anti-competitive practices as signs of an efficient market that benefit “consumer welfare” frequently say that, even when they are making the product worse and limiting choices.

His deals have been especially bad for the television side, yielding gutted newsrooms and canceled scripted shows.

Effectively, in only three years, the Warner Bros. Discovery merger has validated nearly all the concerns that critics of “market first” policymaking have warned about for years. Once it had a dominant market share, the company started providing less and charging more.

Older man smiles and waves while wearing sunglasses and a white baseball cap reading 'Max.'
In 2023, Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav attempted to merge HBO’s prestige programming with Discovery’s reality TV catalog under a broader, super-service called Max.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Meet the new boss – same as the old boss

If it does go through, the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger will likely please Wall Street, but it will further decrease the power of creators and consumers.

Like other companies that have moved from being a growth stock to a mature stock, Netflix is under pressure to be profitable. Indeed, it has been squeezing its subscribers with higher fees and more restrictive login protocols. It’s a sign of what tech blogger Cory Doctorow describes as the logic of “enshittification,” whereby platforms that have locked in audiences and producers start to squeeze both. Buying the competition – HBO Max – will mean Netflix can charge even more.

After the Netflix deal was announced, Paramount joined forces with President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, the Saudi Sovereign Wealth fund and others to announce a hostile counteroffer.

Now, all bets are off. Whichever platform acquires Warner Bros. will have enormous power over the kind of stories that get sold and told.

In either case, Warner Bros. would be bought by a direct competitor. The Department of Justice, under the first Trump administration, already pushed to sunset the Paramount Decision, claiming that the distribution model had changed to such an extent that it was unlikely that Hollywood could ever reinstate its cartel. It’s hard to imagine that Trump 2.0 will forbid more media concentration, especially if the new parent company is friendly to the administration.

No matter which bidder becomes the belle of Trump’s ballroom, this merger illustrates how show business works: When dominant platforms also own the studios and their assets, they control the fate of the movie business – of actors, writers, producers and theaters.

Importantly, the concentration is taking place as artificial intelligence threatens to displace many aspects of film production. These corporate behemoths will determine if the film libraries spanning a century of Hollywood production will be used to train the machines that could replace artists and creatives. And with each prospective buyer taking on over $50 billion in bank debt to pay for the deal, the new parent of Warner Bros. will be looking everywhere for profits and opportunities to cut costs.

If history is any guide, there will be struggles ahead for consumers and competing creatives. In a media system that has veered back to following Hollywood’s yellow brick rules of the road, the new oligopolies are an awful lot like the old ones.

The Conversation

Matthew Jordan 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. Whether Netflix or Paramount buys Warner Bros., entertainment oligopolies are back – bigger and more anticompetitive than ever – https://theconversation.com/whether-netflix-or-paramount-buys-warner-bros-entertainment-oligopolies-are-back-bigger-and-more-anticompetitive-than-ever-271479

Sleep problems and depression can be a vicious cycle, especially during pregnancy − here’s why it’s important to get help

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Jenalee Doom, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Denver

Restless or too little sleep can make us feel unfocused and indecisive the next day. Valerii Apetroaiei/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Imagine you got a rough night of sleep. Perhaps you went to bed too late, needed to wake up early or still felt tired when you woke up from what should have been a full night’s sleep.

For the rest of the day, you feel groggy and unfocused. Things that are usually fun or exciting don’t give you the same level of pleasure. You don’t have energy to exercise, so you avoid it. You don’t feel motivated to see friends, so you cancel plans with them. You focus on your rough day as you try to fall asleep that night and start to have anxiety about the next day. Instead of getting the restful night of sleep you need, you have another night of poor sleep. You become caught in a vicious cycle of poor sleep and depressed mood.

Sleep and mental health problems often go hand in hand. Sleep problems are a core symptom of depression. In addition, there is strong evidence that sleep problems contribute to many mental health disorders, including schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

Yet our mental health also affects how well we sleep. Issues such as distressing thoughts and trouble relaxing can make it difficult for people to fall asleep or stay asleep, exacerbating sleep problems.

These issues are particularly pronounced during pregnancy, when the circular effects of inadequate sleep and mental health challenges can have harmful effects for mothers and their offspring.

We are a developmental psychologist and a doctoral student in psychology who study sleep and mental health from pregnancy through adulthood. As researchers in this field, we see the impacts of sleep and mental health problems firsthand.

Sleep and mental health problems are so entangled that it is unsurprising that they can each make the other worse. But it does make treating them more challenging.

Biology of sleep and mental health

Researchers and medical professionals know that sleep is essential for the body and brain to function properly.

Sleep is important for establishing circadian rhythms, which optimize alertness during the day and rest at night. When sunlight fades in the evening, the brain produces more of the hormone melatonin, and your core body temperature drops to promote sleep. When the brain detects sunlight, it reduces melatonin production, and body temperature increases to promote wakefulness.

Although light and dark are the most important signals to the brain about when you should be awake and when you should be sleeping, other things such as stress, disruptions in daily routines and social interactions can also throw off your circadian rhythm.

Circadian rhythms affect other important biological processes, including the body’s production of the stress hormone cortisol. Cortisol follows a daily rhythm where it is highest soon after waking in the morning and lowest in the middle of the night. Disruptions in normal sleep can lead to difficulties in daily regulation of cortisol levels, which can have negative effects on mental health and the ability to effectively manage stress.

Sleep is central to the proper functioning of the immune system, which in turn has implications for mental and physical health. Sleep disturbances have been linked to poorer immune responses against viruses and other challenges to the immune system, making it harder to stay healthy and to recover after getting sick.

Sleep disturbances also lead to greater inflammation, which is when the immune system’s natural responses become overactive. Inflammation underlies mental and physical health problems, including depression, heart disease and cancer.

Without adequate sleep, cognitive functions suffer and emotional resilience weakens.

How poor sleep leads to behavior changes

Chronic disruptions to a person’s natural circadian rhythm – such as people who work night shifts or who switch between day and night shifts – lead to greater risk for both depression and anxiety.

Shift work is an extreme example of disrupting the natural pattern of sleeping at night. However, less severe types of sleep problems, such as not getting enough sleep or waking up feeling tired, are also bad for mental health.

Sleep disruptions make it more difficult to regulate emotions. Having too little or poor quality sleep make handling everyday stressors more difficult. This is because sufficient sleep is necessary for effective problem-solving, memory and focusing. The combination of impaired emotion regulation and stress management abilities are a recipe for greater mental health difficulties.

One key reason why poor sleep and mental health struggles can become so problematic and difficult to treat is that without adequate sleep, it’s challenging to muster energy for healthy activities such as exercise and maintaining social relationships.

What’s more, when decision-making is impaired by poor sleep and negative emotions, people are more likely to reach for alcohol, drugs and unhealthy foods to cope with stress. These unhealthy behaviors can, in turn, reinforce the cycle by interfering with sleep.

In a sleep study on healthy adults, researchers found that lack of sleep causes overactivity in the amygdala, a crucial area of the brain where emotional processing occurs.

Sleep and mental health problems in pregnancy

These cycles between poor sleep and mental health challenges can be especially problematic during pregnancy.

Common pregnancy symptoms include nausea, heartburn, back and joint pain, cramps, a frequent urge to pee and contractions, all of which can make it more difficult to get restful sleep.

Sadly, around 76% of pregnant women report having sleep problems at some point in their pregnancy, compared with only 33% in the general population. Relatedly, about 1 in 5 pregnant women in the U.S. struggle with mental health problems such as anxiety and depression.

Our team’s new research, published in December 2025, further establishes these links between sleep and mental health. We found that during pregnancy, mental health problems contribute to sleep problems over time and that sleep problems in turn can exacerbate mental health problems.

This cycle can also have negative effects on the fetus and on the child after birth.

Prenatal sleep problems such as short sleep, sleep apnea and restless sleep can lead to preterm births and low birth weight in newborns.

A large study in Sweden in 2021 found that pregnant women who frequently worked the night shift or quickly shifted between night and day work in early pregnancy showed a three-to-four times greater risk for having a preterm birth. Preterm birth and low birthweight are associated with greater cardiovascular risk in both mothers and their offspring.

Prenatal maternal sleep problems can also lead to problems later in the child’s development. A review we also published in 2025 found that children of mothers who had sleep problems in pregnancy tend to have more sleep problems themselves. Our review also reported that children of mothers with prenatal sleep problems are more likely to develop obesity and have more behavioral problems in childhood.

Pregnant woman with large belly sleeping on her side with a pillow covering her face.
Poor sleep during pregnancy has serious implications for both the parent and the offspring.
Tassii/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Talking to your doctor about these concerns

In our opinion, it should be standard to screen for sleep problems at medical visits, given the potential implications of inadequate sleep for both mothers and their babies.

If you’re close to someone who is pregnant, consider asking how their sleep is and how they’re feeling. If they note ongoing sleep issues or emotional or behavior changes, you can ask if they have talked to their doctor.

They may feel overwhelmed and need support in talking to their doctor or help finding resources. The Sleep Foundation’s website has a list of sleeping tips for pregnant women as well as guidelines for when to speak with a doctor.

If you are the person experiencing these issues, you can report sleep problems to your doctor and ask for guidance for improving sleep.

If you’re experiencing difficulties with depression or anxiety, tell your doctor and ask for resources. There are mental health resources specific to pregnancy that can help. You can also find mental health professionals through Psychology Today’s find-a-therapist tool.

Healthy sleep is a necessity for improving your mental health during pregnancy and at all times of life.

The Conversation

Jenalee Doom receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Melissa Nevarez-Brewster receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

ref. Sleep problems and depression can be a vicious cycle, especially during pregnancy − here’s why it’s important to get help – https://theconversation.com/sleep-problems-and-depression-can-be-a-vicious-cycle-especially-during-pregnancy-heres-why-its-important-to-get-help-264737

How a niche Catholic approach to infertility treatment became a new talking point for MAHA conservatives

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Emma Kennedy, Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics, Villanova University

‘Restorative reproductive medicine’ has become a buzzword in some conservative circles, among people morally opposed to in vitro fertilization Jose Luis Pelaez Inc/DigitalVision via Getty Images

Along the 2024 presidential campaign trail, Donald Trump pledged to make in vitro fertilization, or IVF, free – part of his party’s wider push for a new American “baby boom.”

But in October 2025, when the administration revealed its IVF proposal, many health care experts pointed out that it falls short of mandating insurance companies to cover the procedure.

Since Trump returned to the White House, it has become clear just how fraught IVF is for his base. Some conservative Christians oppose IVF because it often involves destroying extra embryos not implanted in the woman’s uterus.

According to Politico, anti-abortion groups lobbied against a requirement for employers to cover IVF. Instead, some vouched for “restorative reproductive medicine” – a term that has been around for decades but has received much more attention, especially from conservatives, in the past few months.

Proponents of restorative reproductive medicine tend to present it as an alternative to IVF: a different way of treating infertility, focused on treating underlying causes. But the approach is controversial, and some practitioners closely link their treatments to Catholic teachings.

As a scholar of religion, I study U.S. Catholics’ varied perspectives on infertility, seeking to understand how religious beliefs and practices influence physicians’ and patients’ choices. Their perspectives help provide a more nuanced understanding of Christianity’s role in the U.S. reproductive and political landscape.

Defining restorative reproductive medicine

Clinics that advertise themselves as offering restorative reproductive medicine try to diagnose underlying issues that could make conception difficult, like endometriosis. Typically, a patient and provider will closely monitor the patient’s menstrual cycle to identify potential abnormalities. Interventions include hormone therapies, medications, supplements, surgeries and lifestyle changes.

An open notebook shows rows of pink and white test strips, one for each day, with March dates written beside them.
Some approaches to treating infertility focus on analyzing the patient’s menstrual cycle.
Iana Pronicheva/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Much of the approach resembles the initial testing used to evaluate patients in mainstream reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinics. However, restorative reproductive medicine clinics do not typically offer IVF or other assisted reproductive technologies.

Depending on who you ask, proponents are not necessarily opposed to IVF; they see their treatments as another option to explore. Some clinicians, however, closely link their treatment offerings to their religious commitments and opposition to abortion.

Restorative reproductive medicine has prompted criticism from professional medical organizations. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine issued a statement in May 2025 calling it a “rebranding” of standard infertility treatment, with “ideologically driven restrictions that could limit patient care.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a brief warning that it is a “nonmedical approach” that threatens to impede access to IVF.

These critics are concerned that the focus on lifestyle changes and surgery may not address patients’ difficulties conceiving, while putting them through other unsuccessful treatments.

Church teachings

Today, restorative reproductive medicine is often described as gaining steam with conservative Christians and the “Make America Healthy Again,” or MAHA, movement. Its roots, though, are decades old, and largely Catholic.

Part of the Catholic Church’s objection to IVF stems from a concern that unused embryos are often discarded and destroyed. The church’s position is that all embryos ought to be treated with the same respect afforded a person – one of the key reasons its teachings oppose abortion.

Disapproval of IVF also stems from the church’s official teachings on marriage. According to this teaching, marriage has two chief ends, which it calls “procreation and union”: Typically, procreation is understood to mean having children, while union involves physical, emotional and spiritual intimacy. In this understanding, sexual intercourse should preserve what the church calls an “inseparable connection” between these two meanings.

The Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception because its goal is to block procreation. Instead, Catholics are encouraged to use “Natural Family Planning” – tracking a woman’s cycle so that couples can choose to abstain from sex during fertile periods. Similarly, it opposes artificial insemination and IVF because, by moving fertilization out of the body and into the lab, the process separates procreation from the act of sexual intercourse.

Survey data suggests most U.S. Catholics do not agree with these official stances, nor do they follow them.

Catholic doctors who do agree with official church teachings, however, have played a key role in developing infertility treatments that align with them. One of the most influential is Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers, who co-developed a “Natural Family Planning” method called the Creighton Model. In the early 1990s, he also developed NaProTechnology, an approach that seeks to identify fertility issues using cycle tracking, and then treat them with various medical and surgical interventions.

The NaProTechnology approach could be said to fall under the umbrella of restorative reproductive medicine, but it has mostly been used by Catholic reproductive health clinics and hospitals. Catholic physicians’ networks promote it, as do parishes and dioceses.

Navigating infertility

For Catholics who share the church’s official perspective on IVF, NaProTechnology and the clinics offering it are often a welcome alternative. Several of the Catholic women I interviewed as part of my academic research had also been to mainstream fertility clinics, but they felt that those providers did not offer much apart from IVF.

By contrast, the clinics offering NaProTechnology were often cheaper, in part because they do not offer IVF. They were also easier to navigate, since clinicians shared these patients’ religious views. Many felt that the providers were able to spend more time with them, helped them learn about their bodies, and were committed to understanding underlying issues beyond infertility.

However, others found clinics offering NaProTechnology to be lacking, often because clinicians weren’t up front about its limitations, especially when it comes to male infertility. Some patients felt that clinicians weren’t willing to admit drawbacks, for fear it would encourage couples to try IVF.

A rumpled medical gown with a light-blue print sits on top of an examining table.
Infertility treatments are a confusing landscape for many women.
Catherine McQueen/Moment via Getty Images

Most Catholics dealing with infertility, however, find themselves in mainstream clinical settings that offer IVF. Women I interviewed who opted for IVF were frank in their critiques of church teachings and their skepticism of Catholic clinics. Many took issue with the underlying assumption that the people who ought to be procreating are heterosexual, married couples and that conception is usually possible without the help of IVF.

However, many of these women were also dissatisfied with the approach that mainstream clinics take. Some felt that those clinics were focused on profit – a concern shared by some scholars scrutinizing the fertility industry. Some women also felt pressured to genetically test their embryos for chromosomal abnormalities and to discard unused embryos, even after explaining to staff that destroying them would be out of step with their moral commitments.

Understanding patient experiences in either kind of clinic helps underscore the difficulties many people face navigating infertility – and the stakes of policy reform.

The Trump administration’s plan largely maintains the status quo for IVF access while making more room for alternative treatments. But it intensifies questions about how the government responds to religious beliefs about reproductive health care, especially disagreements about the moral status of embryos. For now, patients and providers will continue to navigate a fractured landscape.

The Conversation

Emma Kennedy is affiliated with the Center for Genetics and Society.

ref. How a niche Catholic approach to infertility treatment became a new talking point for MAHA conservatives – https://theconversation.com/how-a-niche-catholic-approach-to-infertility-treatment-became-a-new-talking-point-for-maha-conservatives-265461

Cities aren’t built for older people – our study shows many can’t walk fast enough to beat a pedestrian crossing

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Max Western, Associate Professor of Behavioural Science, Co-Director, Centre for Motivation and Behaviour Change, University of Bath

Multishooter/Shutterstock

To many people, crossing a road at a traffic light is a mundane task requiring little thought or effort. But for the growing population of senior citizens with limitations to their mobility, strength or balance, crossing the road can be a stressful and sometimes life-threatening experience.

The reason? Cities simply aren’t designed for older people and others with restricted mobility – as our latest research demonstrates. We found that only 1.5% of the older people with reduced mobility in our study – just 17 out of 1,110 participants who had an average age of 77 – could cross the road faster than the 1.2 metres per second walking speed that is programmed into many UK pedestrian crossings.

They told us how “hurried”, “rushed” and “unsafe” they felt being out and about in a city. All lived independently across seven English cities: Bristol, Bath, Birmingham, Cardiff, Exeter, Manchester and Stoke.

Our latest study is part of our community-led active ageing programmes, designed to help adults over 65 with reduced mobility to improve their physical function. From the outset, we were struck by just how slowly many of the people we met walked. The task of trying to time them move four metres from a standing start with a stopwatch could be rather uncomfortable, such was the struggle of walking for some.

To test what this meant when they were faced with crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing, we made a simple comparison between the speed (1.2m/s) programmed into “standard” UK pedestrian crossings and the participants’ normal walking speed. While their average speed was significantly slower at 0.77m/s, many of our participants with reduced mobility were much slower than that – meaning they had no chance of crossing the road safely within the time allowed.

In fact, the majority would have needed to walk nearly twice as fast as their comfortable walking speed to cross a road without significant risk.

Distribution of walking speeds of older adults with limited mobility:

Chart showing walking speeds in metres per second for a total of 1,110 participants.
Walking speeds in metres per second for a total of 1,110 participants. Only 17 could walk faster than the standard UK pedestrian crossing setting.
Max Western/Centre for Motivation and Behaviour Change, CC BY-NC-SA

As many of our participants told us, this mismatch between urban design and the capabilities of the growing ageing population can have catastrophic consequences.

First, there is a risk that a failure to take account of inadequate mobility in street features such as pedestrian crossings lowers confidence in older people for staying active and walking outdoors. This often leads to further reductions in physical function and greater social isolation.

Second, those who do keep walking around their local town or city can feel rushed. This places them at risk of a fall when they cross roads quicker than feels comfortable – made worse by wet or windy conditions.

A fall in older adults increases the likelihood of disability and the need for hospital care. It can have a significant impact on life expectancy.

How to make cities truly age-friendly

Pedestrian crossings are one of many features of towns and cities that can affect the physical activity of a mobility-limited older population. In reviewing determinants of physical activity in older adults, we found that the aesthetic quality of the environment, a reduction in noise and air pollution, and the availability of places to rest were all aspects that can lead to greater walkability.

The Centre for Urban Wellbeing has partnered with older adults and local communities and companies to explore how Birmingham, the UK’s second-largest city, can better support its ageing population and move closer to becoming truly age-friendly.

Graphic of an urban pedestrian crossing.
Graphic from Active Travel England’s report: Critical safety issues for walking, wheeling and cycling (November 2025).
Active Travel England

Our research has highlighted the critical role of accessible infrastructure – well-maintained pavements, ramps, benches and public toilets make a big difference. Just as important are safe, welcoming spaces such as parks, gardens, and community hubs that encourage social connection and active living.

Much of our effort to improve quality of life in later years has centred on improving, or at least slowing the decline in, physical function and mobility. The benefits go beyond personal wellbeing: they translate into significant savings for the NHS and social care, largely through reduced hospital admissions.

But for these gains to last, older people need more than exercise programmes. They need safe, inviting communities that motivate them to get out and about. Walking to local destinations is one of the simplest ways to boost daily activity – yet it depends on environments that feel secure and accessible.

To be fair, there is some variability in the way pedestrian crossings work. Some wealthier districts have crossings with sensors that will hold traffic before a road is cleared of walkers.

Other use countdown timers to give some indication of how long a pedestrian has to cross, aiding a judgement on when to start their crossing of a road. But one thing that seems to be consistent is that green signals are programmed based on an assumed walking speed of 1.2 metres per second, which is clearly inappropriate for many people.

The onus should not rest on individuals with reduced mobility to keep pace in a fast-moving world. Rather, we urge cities to prioritise urban design that puts pedestrians first – creating environments that enable physical activity, especially among vulnerable groups.

When it comes to road crossings, simple measures such as extending green signal times at locations frequently used by older adults could make a big difference.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Cities aren’t built for older people – our study shows many can’t walk fast enough to beat a pedestrian crossing – https://theconversation.com/cities-arent-built-for-older-people-our-study-shows-many-cant-walk-fast-enough-to-beat-a-pedestrian-crossing-271874

Stakeknife: should the British government reveal the real name of its top IRA informer?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Samantha Newbery, Reader in International Security, University of Salford

Of the countless people who provided intelligence to help the British state fight terrorism during the Troubles in Northern Ireland (1968-98), Agent Stakeknife was the best known. He had a reputation for having been involved in the most violent offences as a member of the IRA while simultaneously providing the British Army with intelligence.

While the identities of many of the informers who provided intelligence of this kind remain unknown, agent Stakeknife’s alleged identity as a man called Freddie Scappaticci was first made public in 2003.

The final report of a lengthy independent investigation into this case is now calling for the UK government to confirm Stakeknife’s identity. Operation Kenova, set up by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, found that Stakeknife was named as a suspect in dozens of crimes, including murders.

Although he denied it up until his death in 2023, Scappaticci is widely believed to have provided intelligence to the British Army from the late 1970s into the 1990s. Throughout this time he was also an active member of the IRA, something his handlers in the British Army – the people he reported to – were well aware of.

Agent Stakeknife was able to provide intelligence on the IRA’s members and activities across Northern Ireland. He was privy to a huge amount of sensitive information because he was part of – and may even have led – the IRA’s “nutting squad”. This unit’s aim was to find suspected informers within the IRA and punish or even kill them. Yet he himself was an informer.

The nutting squad has been described as being “like an electrical junction box through which every wire must flow”. It gave Stakeknife access to people and information across the IRA, making him particularly useful to the British Army.

But in this role, he was suspected of being involved in multiple counts of conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to unlawfully imprison and other potential charges in connection with the abduction, interrogation, torture and murder of people suspected, wrongly or rightly, of being informants.

Arguments for and against naming informers

Without the final piece of information on Stakeknife’s identity, the families of those who died feel they are not getting the whole truth.

Since Scappaticci’s death, there has been no attempt to refute claims he was Agent Stakeknife. While alive, a peer named him in the House of Lords as Stakeknife – a claim that was quickly retracted.

Scappaticci was never charged or convicted with any Troubles-related offences and now never will. Civil action is likely to continue, however. The High Court’s highly unusual ruling that Scappaticci’s will should be sealed rather than made public is likely to be challenged.

The Kenova investigators argued strongly that agent Stakeknife’s identity should be revealed. While they don’t confirm their belief that Stakeknife is Scappaticci, they do list the extensive list of reasons that have left many others thinking he was. Naming Stakeknife, they argue, is essential for victims and families, public discussion and debate, media freedom, open justice and public confidence in state authorities and the criminal justice system.

The British government has long maintained a policy regarding informers known as “neither confirm nor deny”. This protects informers’ lives as well as ensuring the government can continue to access intelligence that could save other lives.

Confirming that a particular individual is, or has been, an informer puts that person at risk of being killed by their associates to deter potential future informers and as a punishment. While Scappaticci is dead, others are still alive.

Naming informers also demonstrates to anyone considering becoming an informer that they may not be protected by whichever state organisation they come to work for, whether that be the police, the army or intelligence agencies such as MI5. This therefore reduces their chances of coming forward to provide intelligence.

On the other hand, to deny that Scappaticci or anyone else was an informer would create a situation where if someone else was later alleged to be an informer, if the government did not issue a denial for them, they would be assumed to be an informer. So while there is no harm to Scappaticci in either scenario, others could be put at risk.

Although this nine-year investigation has delivered some new nuggets of information about Agent Stakeknife, it is no surprise that there is disappointment from some quarters that the government still refuses to name Agent Stakeknife. This situation demonstrates the sometimes competing needs of truth, justice, accountability and intelligence work.

The Conversation

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

ref. Stakeknife: should the British government reveal the real name of its top IRA informer? – https://theconversation.com/stakeknife-should-the-british-government-reveal-the-real-name-of-its-top-ira-informer-271699

The UAE is leaving Saudi Arabia squeezed in Yemen

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andreas Krieg, Associate Professor, Defence Studies Department, King’s College London

Fighters aligned with the Southern Transitional Council (STC), a separatist group in southern Yemen, raised their flags in the provinces of Hadramout and Marah in early December. The seizures mean the STC now controls all eight of the provinces that make up the south of the country.

The new status quo looks like a fait accompli for the creation of a separate southern state. It has left Yemen’s internationally recognised government, the Presidential Leadership Council (PLC), squeezed between a pole in the south and a state run by the Iran-backed Houthi militia in the north.

The STC taps into memories of the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen which, until 1990, gave southerners their own state. Yemen’s 1990 unification produced one flag, but many people in the south never felt they joined a shared political project.

These grievances led to a brief civil war in 1994. This war ended with northern victory, purges of southern officers and civil servants, and what many in the south still describe as an occupation rather than integration.

A map showing North Yemen and South Yemen before unification.
Yemen unified in 1990, with Sana’a as its capital.
FANACK, CC BY-NC-ND

By the mid-2000s, retired officers and dismissed civil servants in the south were marching for pensions and basic rights. Those protests turned into al-Hirak al-Janoubi, a loose southern movement running from reformists to hardline secessionists.

And when the 2015 Saudi-led intervention began against the Houthis, which had seized the Yemeni capital of Sana’a the previous year, southern fighters were folded into a campaign to restore a “national” government that had never addressed their grievances.

The STC was formed in 2017 to try and give this crowded field in the south a recognisable leadership. It has a formal president, Aidarus al-Zubaidi, and councils. But in practice it sits at the centre of a web of armed units, tribal groups and businessmen.

Through sustained financial and material backing for the southern armed groups, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) emerged as the midwife of the organisation’s creation. Against the backdrop of widespread failed governance in Yemen, the STC project seems to deliver relatively well on security and public services.

In April 2022, several years after the STC’s formation, the PLC was created to unite the forces fighting the Houthis. Yemen’s Saudi Arabia-based president, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, resigned and handed his powers over to an eight-member body backed by Riyadh.

The PLC was designed to bridge the various tribal, ideological and political divides in the country. It also aimed to create a platform to coordinate governance and statecraft with a view to engaging the Houthis through diplomacy.

But as it mixes northern and southern leaders, including those from the STC, the PLC has never emerged as a viable hub to merge competing agendas. The inability of the PLC to deliver on its promise to consolidate governance across Yemen has incrementally eaten away at its legitimacy.

A Gulf proxy war

Yemen has turned into a quiet scorecard for two Gulf projects. Saudi Arabia intervened to defeat the Houthis, rescue a unified Yemeni state and secure its own borders. The UAE went in to secure reliable partners, access to ports and sea lanes and control of resources as part of its regional policy.

A glimpse at a map of Yemen today shows it is the UAE whose vision seems to have been realised. Through the STC and a web of allied units, the UAE has helped stitch together a power base that runs across nearly all of former South Yemen. STC-aligned forces hold the city of Aden, sit on much of Yemen’s limited oil production and control long stretches of the Arabian and Red Sea coasts.

Control of terrain in Yemen

A map showing control of terrain in Yemen.
Pink or blue shaded areas depict territory controlled by the PLC or allied forces, yellow or orange depict territory controlled by the STC or allied forces, green depicts areas controlled by the Houthis.
NordNordWest / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

Key national infrastructure in southern Yemen is now guarded by men whose salaries, media platforms and external ties flow through Abu Dhabi. In return, the UAE enjoys a loyal surrogate on the Gulf of Aden and the approaches to the Bab al-Mandab strait. Saudi Arabia, by contrast, has been left propping up a fragile PLC.

The Houthis remain the nominal enemy for everyone. But, in reality, UAE-aligned units have poured more bandwidth into sidelining Saudi-backed rivals in southern Yemen than engaging the insurgent-turned-state in the north. The UAE now holds leverage over Yemen’s crown jewels in the south, while Saudi Arabia shoulders the burden of the narrative of a “united Yemen” with few dependable allies inside the country.

Two-and-a-half Yemens

For decades, neighbours Saudi Arabia and Oman as well as most foreign capitals have sworn by a single Yemeni state. The UAE-backed STC project cuts directly across that line, with an entrenched southern order making a formal split far more likely.

If Yemen is carved in two, the Houthi structure in the north does not evaporate; it gains borders, time and eventually a stronger claim to recognition. That would cement a heavily armed ideological authority at the mouth of the Red Sea, tied to Tehran and Hezbollah and ruling over a population drained by war and economic collapse.

Yet, confronted with the multilayered network created by Iran and the UAE in Yemen, Saudi Arabia has few cards to play. It may eventually be forced to concede to a UAE-backed government-in-waiting in the south while the north settles into Houthi rule and territory held by the PLC gets increasingly squeezed.

Oman keeps arguing for a shared table that brings all parties – including the Houthis – into one system. But every new southern flag raised undercuts that goal. For outside powers, a southern client that keeps ports open and hunts Islamist militants is tempting.

The price is to freeze northern Yemen as a grey zone: heavily armed, ideologically rigid and wired into regional confrontation. That outcome cuts against the very unity project Saudi Arabia and Oman have endorsed for years. What is left today are two-and-a-half Yemens – with the half, territory administered by the PLC, looking the least sustainable moving forward.

The Conversation

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

ref. The UAE is leaving Saudi Arabia squeezed in Yemen – https://theconversation.com/the-uae-is-leaving-saudi-arabia-squeezed-in-yemen-271777

One sperm donor fathered 200 children and passed on a deadly mutation – and it could easily happen again

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicky Hudson, Professor of Medical Sociology, De Montfort University

Billion Photos/Shutterstock

Around 200 children in several countries were conceived with sperm from a single donor who unknowingly carried a rare genetic mutation linked to early onset cancers, it has been revealed. The consequences have been devastating. Several children have already died and many families across Europe are now facing a risk they never expected.

The case has prompted urgent questions. How was one donor used so widely? Why did standard safeguards fail to identify a mutation that can have such severe consequences? And how did a system created to create families allow a tragedy of this scale?

When someone donates sperm or eggs they are screened for a set of common inherited conditions before being accepted by a clinic. The exact process varies by country and it has limitations. Screening depends heavily on accurate family history, yet many people have incomplete information about their relatives.

Some conditions emerge later in adulthood, which means a young donor may appear healthy. Clinics also focus primarily on established, higher frequency conditions rather than the vast number of rare variants that exist.

Ordinarily, donors complete a detailed questionnaire covering their medical background and their family’s health history. If the information suggests a possible inherited risk, the donor may be offered further testing or, more commonly, they may be declined.

More recently, clinics have begun to use expanded genetic screening. These tests can examine hundreds of genes linked to childhood or early adulthood conditions.

However, the technology is still developing and cannot detect every possible disease-causing variant. Many rare mutations are not part of routine panels, either because they have only recently been identified or because the evidence base is still small.

That context matters in this case. The donor had no family history of the condition and showed no symptoms. A person can carry a harmful mutation without being affected themselves, so nothing in his medical history raised concerns. The newer, broader screening was not used, but even if it had been, the variant is so rare that it may not have been included or detectable.

The donor provided sperm to the European Sperm Bank in Denmark for around 17 years. His donations were used to create roughly 200 children across multiple European countries, although experts say the true number could be higher.

This scale was possible because there is no international law limiting how widely donor sperm can be distributed. Many countries have rules on how many families can be created from a single donor.

The United Kingdom, for instance, permits no more than ten families. These limits, however, apply only within national borders. A donor can be used in several countries without any system to flag that the overall number has far exceeded what any one country would allow.

A recent unrelated case showed how extreme this can become. A different donor was found to have fathered around 1,000 children in several countries. There were no known health issues in that situation, but it revealed how donor use can expand rapidly without oversight.

The challenges in the current case are profound. Families are dealing with grief and uncertainty. Some have lost children. Others face a very high likelihood that their child will develop cancer before the age of 60, often in infancy or childhood.

There has been little public discussion about the sperm donor himself, although the emotional impact of learning these outcomes is likely to be significant.

Because the mutation was so rare, additional routine testing would probably not have prevented what happened. In truth, every person carries some genetic variants that remain undetected and harmless in everyday life.

There have been earlier examples of donors unknowingly passing on inherited conditions, such as cystic fibrosis or fragile X syndrome, but those cases typically involved far fewer families. What makes this case stand out is the sheer number of children affected.

For this reason, simply calling for more screening is unlikely to be the full answer. The more pressing issue is the lack of limits and monitoring on how many families can be created from one donor across borders.

In this case, families were created in several countries and in some places even the national limits were breached. Belgium, for example, permits only six families per donor, yet reports indicate that about 38 families were created.

What is needed is a robust system for tracking and tracing donor use both within and between countries. Without coordinated oversight, national limits are easily bypassed. Establishing international upper limits will be difficult and politically complex, but the conversation has to begin if further tragedies are to be prevented.

As more people use commercial DNA testing to find donor relatives, large networks of siblings connected across countries are becoming increasingly visible. The implications for those families are significant. A coordinated global approach is overdue and would help prevent another case like this one, where families are left facing consequences they could never have foreseen.

The Conversation

Nicky Hudson receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council on expanded carrier screening and gamete donation (reference: ES/W012456/1, ES/N010604/1, ES/V002430/1. She is a member of the NICE Guideline Committee on Fertility and a member of the British Fertility Society’s Law Policy and Ethics Special Interest Group.

ref. One sperm donor fathered 200 children and passed on a deadly mutation – and it could easily happen again – https://theconversation.com/one-sperm-donor-fathered-200-children-and-passed-on-a-deadly-mutation-and-it-could-easily-happen-again-271856

Eleanor the Great: a tonally uncertain Holocaust drama with a wonderful central performance

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt Jacobsen, Senior Lecturer in Film History in the School of Society and Environment, Queen Mary University of London

Despite a wonderful central performance from June Squibb, Scarlett Johansson’s directorial debut is a sentimental, tonally uncertain drama about grief and holocaust survival

Eleanor Morgenstein, a 94-year-old Midwesterner living in Florida, moves to New York after the death of her close friend and roommate Bessie, a Holocaust survivor. She joins a Jewish seniors group and accidentally finds herself part of a meeting of Holocaust survivors.

Eleanor, at first buoyed by the prospect of new friends, fabricates past experiences based on the Bessie’s stories, claiming harrowing recollections as her own.

Nina (Erin Kellyman), a journalism student writing a piece on Holocaust survivors, attends the meetings and is moved by Eleanor’s stories. Having recently lost her mother she connects with Eleanor through shared grief.

Eleanor starts out with ambiguously good intentions of preserving the memory of a dear friend. However, she is soon out of her depth when Nina’s article is taken up by Nina’s news anchor father (Chiwetel Ejiofor) as a human interest story for his show.

Early in the film, a comic exchange in a supermarket aisle telegraphs the film’s central theme. An acquaintance in his 90s tells Eleanor crossly: “You were born in New York. You can’t feel bad about the Holocaust. You weren’t there.”

The film wants to probe the ways in which grief is processed individually and collectively, asking us to consider what drives Eleanor to appropriate her friend’s traumatic life history.

At the centre of the film is the wonderful performance by Squibb, then 94 but now 96, who had a sturdy but unspectacular stage and screen career for more than 60 years before her breakthrough performance in Alexander Payne’s superb Nebraska in 2013.

Eleanor the Great is not a film specifically concerned with ageing and we are not so conscious of the vivacious Squibb’s age until a care home subplot is shoehorned in.

Scarlett Johansson was motivated to direct this film after her own investigations into her family’s history of Holocaust survival. She may have the highest grossing body of work in Hollywood for action films like The Avengers series, but she has a considerable track record of excellent low key independent films – from her breakthrough in Ghost World to Noam Baumbach’s powerful Marriage Story. Eleanor the Great most clearly takes its inspiration from that kind of American character drama.

There is little technical flair or stylistic character to distinguish Johansson as a director in this first feature. The gently sentimental scenes of New York City, its diners, crosswalks and ranks of yellow taxis are clearly inspired by the work of Baumbach as well as Woody Allen, Johansson’s director in two films (Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Match Point).

The film is at its strongest in the Allen-esque day-to-day moments in the city that let Squibb embody her character with gentle acidity and likeable crankiness. Johansson, like many actors-turned-directors, has a strength when it comes to allowing performers space to breathe and inhabit their characters. Scenes unfold quietly and unhurriedly.

The script, by Tory Kamen, could be wittier, sharper and more engaging, as there is a promise in character interactions that never quite take flight. When the film reaches what should be its narrative peak with the unravelling of Eleanor’s fabrications it is neither emotional nor funny.

Instead the climax’s tone is uncertain, sentimental and lands flat. What follows is a series of fraught conversations where the actors gamely try to mine emotional heft from a dreary screenplay.

The cultural memory of the Holocaust and the enormity of its legacy on Jewish descendants has been probed with considerably more success elsewhere. Jesse Eisenberg’s impressive, Bafta-winning and Oscar-nominated A Real Pain featured a pair of cousins on a tour of Jewish Poland, confronting its young characters with the memory of the Holocaust.

That film takes a well-executed midway tonal turn from broad character comedy to unexpected powerful poignancy. This happens in a scene where the usually motor-mouthed, bickering men are silenced in the face of a visit to the Majdanek concentration camp. Eleanor the Great doesn’t possess a moment like this that would drive its well-intentioned message home.

The film attempts to sidestep the callousness of Eleanor’s appropriation of Bessie’s stories by switching to flashbacks. In these memories we see Eleanor hear these stories for the first time in the middle of a sleepless night. These scenes, where the words come directly from Bessie, are well acted and moving, especially in a longer, emotional monologue towards the film’s climax.

When the film’s attention turns in the final third to the issue of whether Eleanor should be placed in a retirement home, the tone similarly skirts between humour and pathos – neither of which connect.

The film has admirable intentions but its script and plotting are not worthy of the excellent performance at the film’s heart. It also can’t quite bear the seriousness or the potential power of its central themes, leading to a disappointingly hollow experience.


Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


The Conversation

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

ref. Eleanor the Great: a tonally uncertain Holocaust drama with a wonderful central performance – https://theconversation.com/eleanor-the-great-a-tonally-uncertain-holocaust-drama-with-a-wonderful-central-performance-271895

Le sort de Warner Bros suspendu au duel Netflix–Paramount

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Julien Jourdan, Professeur, HEC Paris Business School

Ce pourrait être un épisode d’une série américaine sur le monde des affaires. Qui, de Paramount ou de Netflix, mettra la main sur la Warner Bros ? Les deux projets n’ont pas les mêmes motivations. Surtout, l’un et l’autre devront faire avec le droit de la concurrence aux États-Unis, mais aussi en Europe, mondialisation oblige. Résumé des premiers épisodes, si vous avez manqué le début…


La nouvelle a frappé Hollywood de stupeur. Le 4 décembre dernier, Netflix annonçait l’acquisition des studios Warner Bros. (WB) pour 83 milliards de dollars, coiffant au poteau le favori Paramount. La situation s’est depuis compliquée : le patron de Paramount, David Ellison, a surenchéri avec une offre hostile à 108 milliards de dollars pour l’ensemble du groupe WB Discovery, incluant les studios ainsi qu’un bouquet – en déclin – de chaînes de télévision, dont la célèbre chaîne d’information CNN.

L’issue de cette bataille est incertaine à l’heure actuelle. Les deux opérations sont de nature différente. Un achat par Paramount impliquerait une triple fusion entre deux studios, deux plates-formes de streaming – Paramount+ (79 millions d’abonnés) et HBO+ (128 millions d’abonnés) – et deux bouquets de chaînes de télévision (dont CNN et CBS). Ce serait une fusion horizontale entre des acteurs en concurrence directe sur leurs marchés. L’impact social pourrait être très lourd : l’opération prévoit 6 milliards de dollars de synergies, en grande partie via la suppression de postes en doublon.




À lire aussi :
Netflix, une machine à standardiser les histoires ?


Si Netflix mettait la main sur WB, ce serait principalement pour acquérir le vaste catalogue de WB et de HBO, les chaînes du câble étant exclues de l’offre du géant du streaming. Les synergies anticipées, de l’ordre de 3 milliards, concerneraient les dépenses technologiques pour les deux tiers et seraient constituées, pour le reste, d’économies sur les achats de droits de diffusion. Netflix pourrait ainsi librement diffuser Game of Thrones ou Harry Potter auprès de ses 302 millions d’abonnés dans le monde. Ce serait une fusion verticale combinant un producteur de contenus, WB, et un diffuseur, Netflix, qui éliminerait au passage un concurrent notable, HBO+.

Des précédents coûteux

Ce type d’opération pourrait rendre nerveux quiconque se rappelle l’histoire des fusions de Warner Bros. Déjà en 2001, le mariage de WB et d’AOL célébrait l’alliance du contenu et des « tuyaux » – pour utiliser les termes alors en vogue. L’affaire s’était terminée de piteuse manière par le spin-off d’AOL et l’une des plus grosses dépréciations d’actifs de l’histoire – de l’ordre de 100 milliards de dollars. Quinze ans plus tard, AT&T retentait l’aventure. L’union fut de courte durée. En 2021, le géant des télécoms se séparait de WB, qui se voyait désormais associé au groupe de télévision Discovery, sous la direction de David Zaslav, aujourd’hui à la manœuvre.

Pourquoi ce qui a échoué dans le passé marcherait-il aujourd’hui ? À dire vrai, la position stratégique de Netflix n’a rien à voir avec celle d’AOL et d’AT&T. Les fusions verticales précédentes n’ont jamais produit les synergies annoncées pour une simple raison : disposer de contenu en propre n’a jamais permis de vendre plus d’abonnements au téléphone ou à Internet. Dans les deux cas, le château de cartes, vendu par les dirigeants, et leurs banquiers, s’est rapidement effondré.

Un catalogue sans pareil

Une fusion de Netflix avec WB délivrerait en revanche des bénéfices très concrets : le géant du streaming ajouterait à son catalogue des produits premium – films WB et séries HBO – dont il est à ce jour largement dépourvu. L’opération permettrait de combiner l’une des bibliothèques de contenus les plus riches et les plus prestigieuses avec le média de diffusion mondiale le plus puissant qui ait jamais existé. L’ensemble pourrait en outre attirer les meilleurs talents, qui restent à ce jour largement inaccessibles à Netflix.

En pratique, certains contenus, comme la série Friends, pourraient être inclus dans l’offre de base pour la rendre plus attractive et recruter de nouveaux abonnés. D’autres films et séries pourraient être accessibles via une ou plusieurs options payantes, sur le modèle de ce que fait déjà Amazon Prime, augmentant ainsi le panier moyen de l’abonné.

Le rapprochement de deux stars du divertissement ferait à coup sûr pâlir l’offre de leurs concurrents, dont Disney mais aussi… Paramount. Et c’est là que le bât blesse. Les autorités de la concurrence, aux États-Unis et en Europe, approuveront-elles la formation d’un tel champion mondial ? Si la fusion est confirmée, les procédures en recours ne tarderont pas à arriver.

CNN dans le viseur

C’est l’argument avancé par David Ellison, le patron de Paramount, qui agite le chiffon rouge de l’antitrust pour convaincre les actionnaires de WBD : que restera-t-il du studio si la fusion avec Netflix est rejetée après deux ans de procédures ? Ted Sarandos, le co-PDG de Netflix, pourrait lui retourner la pareille, car une fusion horizontale avec Paramount ne manquerait pas d’éveiller, elle aussi, des inquiétudes – d’autant plus qu’elle serait largement financée par des capitaux étrangers venant du Golfe.

France 24 2025.

Le fils de Larry Ellison, deuxième fortune mondiale, réputé proche du président américain, s’est assuré le soutien financier du gendre de ce dernier, Jared Kushner. Si Donald Trump se soucie probablement assez peu du marché du streaming, il pourrait être sensible au sort réservé à la chaîne CNN, une de ses bêtes noires. En cas de victoire de Paramount, CNN pourrait être combinée avec CBS et sa ligne éditoriale revue pour apaiser le locataire de la Maison-Blanche. Du côté du vendeur, David Zaslav laisse les enchères monter. Il pourrait empocher une fortune – on parle de plus de 425 millions de dollars.

À cette heure, le sort de WB est entre les mains de cette poignée d’hommes. Des milliers d’emplois à Los Angeles, et ailleurs, sont en jeu. Une fusion WB/Netflix pourrait par ailleurs accélérer la chute de l’exploitation des films en salles, dans un contexte d’extrême fragilité : le nombre de tickets vendus dans les cinémas en Amérique du Nord a chuté de 40 % depuis 2019. Netflix pourrait choisir de diffuser directement sur sa plateforme certains films de WB, qui représente environ un quart du marché domestique du cinéma. Pour les films qui conserveraient une sortie en salle, la fenêtre d’exclusivité réservée aux exploitants pourrait se réduire à quelques semaines, fragilisant un peu plus leur économie. Hollywood retient son souffle.

The Conversation

Julien Jourdan 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 sort de Warner Bros suspendu au duel Netflix–Paramount – https://theconversation.com/le-sort-de-warner-bros-suspendu-au-duel-netflix-paramount-271954