Airbnb et Booking : deux récits du voyage pour une même bataille de l’hébergement touristique

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Victor Piganiol, Docteur en géographie du tourisme, rattaché au laboratoire UMR PASSAGES 5319 CNRS | enseignant d’histoire-géographie (Bordeaux), Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS)

En 2025, deux entreprises leaders de la réservation en ligne d’hébergement touristique ont produit des films publicitaires. Si l’objectif est de faire vendre, les deux marques ont révélé leurs conceptions du voyage et de la façon dont elles entendaient les faciliter. Valorisation de l’expérience singulière pour l’un, puissance du choix pour l’autre. Où il est vérifié que la concurrence est aussi une bataille de récits. Et vous, quel est le vôtre ?


À quelques mois d’intervalle, Airbnb et Booking, deux mastodontes de l’hébergement touristique, ont lancé des campagnes publicitaires d’envergure. Ces publicités cristallisent deux visions antagonistes du voyage : l’expérience singulière d’un côté, la puissance du choix de l’autre.

Ces deux mini-films de trente secondes chacun constituent un bon observatoire de leurs stratégies, sur fond de régulation accrue et de recomposition du marché hôtelier. Derrière ces récits se joue une rivalité asymétrique, non seulement en termes de résultats financiers, mais surtout de position dans l’écosystème touristique : Airbnb demeure un acteur différencié par l’expérience tandis que Booking s’impose comme une infrastructure centrale de la réservation hôtelière.

Les bénéfices d’Airbnb sont passés de 1,9 milliard de dollars (1,59 milliard d’euros) en 2022 à 3,3 milliards (2,76 milliards d’euros) en 2024 quand Booking est monté de 3,9 milliards (3,27 milliards d’euros) à 7,3 milliards de dollars (6,12 milliards d’euros). En septembre 2025, la valorisation boursière d’Airbnb atteignait 75,6 milliards de dollars contre 176,9 pour Booking.

Touriste ou visiteur ?

Airbnb critique le tourisme de masse et propose de « vivre » un lieu plutôt que de le visiter : l’hébergement devient un passeport vers une expérience personnelle avec une promesse de transformation. Booking, à l’inverse, met en avant l’exhaustivité de son catalogue et la sécurité de l’annulation gratuite, faisant de l’hébergement un élément d’un récit associant choix et flexibilité. La plateforme se représente comme le guichet unique, à même de répondre à tous les types de préférences, du séjour familial au départ improvisé.




À lire aussi :
Les Jésuites, ou l’histoire mouvementée d’une congrégation catholique


Si les moyens divergent, les deux plateformes poursuivent le même objectif, si on s’intéresse au client payeur. Il s’agit de gagner la bataille de l’attention. Pour cela, leur communication sature tous les écrans – TV, réseaux sociaux, streaming, affichage – avec des contenus très soignés.

Airbnb : du Grand Tour à l’évasion intime

Le film publicitaire La Grande Aventure (voir ci-dessous) date de mai 2025. Airbnb y déroule un abrégé de l’histoire du voyage, du Grand Tour du XVIIIᵉ siècle à une carte onirique mêlant tracés réalistes et territoires imaginaires. Un couple en calèche ouvre la séquence, repris en bateau à vapeur, croisant au crépuscule une créature marine. Le clin d’œil aux récits fantasmés du XIXe siècle est patent. Puis le récit bascule, de l’esthétique, de l’exploration à celle du « surtourisme ». Les protagonistes se retrouvent tassés au fond d’un bus à impériale. Devant un monument, les smartphones se lèvent en cadence. Le dernier tableau révèle un embouteillage au pied de la tour Eiffel, qui devient le symbole d’une surfréquentation devenue une habitude.

Face à cette situation, Airbnb se présente comme une véritable échappatoire, en proposant d’abandonner le « voyage check list » pour retrouver l’expérience authentique, centrée sur l’individu plus que sur le lieu. Le film enchaîne dans ce sens trois microvignettes afin d’incarner la promesse : « Don’t just see a place. Experience it » (en français : « Ne visitez pas un lieu, vivez-le »).

En filigrane, l’hébergement n’est plus qu’un moyen. La finalité réside dans le souvenir transformateur que chaque rencontre gravera chez le voyageur. En exaltant la singularité, l’émotion et la mémoire, Airbnb amplifie son credo initial « Belong anywhere ».

Un contrepied au tourisme de masse

Le spot prend ouvertement le contrepied du tourisme de masse. L’image d’un bus touristico impérial englué au pied d’une tour Eiffel congestionnée illustre ce qu’il faut éviter – finir, comme ce couple captif, par « subir » ses vacances. Le passé est ainsi magnifié à nouveau : après deux siècles d’évolution, Airbnb se place comme un l’aboutissement du voyage séculaire tout en s’en distinguant, proposant sa plateforme comme la solution pour ne pas répéter les travers du surtourisme.

Cette orientation stratégique s’inscrit dans un contexte tendu : en France, son deuxième marché mondial, la loi Le Meur (2024) encadre plus strictement la location de courte durée, et l’administration fiscale cible les usages intensifs des plateformes. En parallèle, Airbnb annonce vouloir développer son offre hôtelière, en relançant l’application de réservation d’hôtels HotelTonight, achetée avant la pandémie, en 2019.

Booking : la galaxie du choix illimité

Dans le Big Game Ad(voir ci-dessous), une publicité de janvier 2025, Booking adopte le format d’un show télévisé où acteurs et Muppets enchaînent, au rythme d’une sitcom, des scènes d’hébergement : boutique-hôtel feutrée, resort avec parc aquatique, fête à Las Vegas. Chaque rotation de plateau martèle l’argument de la publicité : « Tout désir peut être comblé. » La voix off répète « Free cancellation », véritable soupape cognitive qui abaisse le risque perçu.

Le ton utilitaire et ludique constitue un moyen d’unifier la pop culture et la promesse de trouver – et d’annuler – sans effort. Rien n’est extravagant, humains et marionnettes rendent la proposition universelle, présentant aussi bien un couple branché qu’un clan familial plus traditionnel. La marque se pose en guichet unique et fait de la réversibilité (annulation gratuite) le leitmotiv qui autorise l’impulsion. Dans cette publicité, Booking théâtralise l’exhaustivité : un site, d’innombrables possibles, sécurisés par la flexibilité.

Cette logique d’exhaustivité renforce la domination de Booking sur l’hôtellerie européenne – au prix d’une contestation croissante. En août 2025, plus de 10 000 hôteliers européens ont dénoncé ses clauses tarifaires restrictives, tandis que la direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes (DGCCRF) en France l’a épinglée pour « pratiques restrictives de concurrence ».

Deux publicités, deux approches

Airbnb magnifie l’expérience singulière, quand Booking célèbre la liberté de choisir – et de changer d’avis. Chez Airbnb, l’hébergement n’est qu’un moyen d’accès à l’« aventure », de vendre du sentiment,de se démarquer du tourisme de masse, et, in fine, de viser une transformation du voyageur. Booking adopte l’approche inverse : rassurer, simplifier, centraliser pour rester la porte d’entrée numéro 1.




À lire aussi :
Un tourisme durable est-il possible ?


Deux récits coexistent donc dans un même segment : l’expérience intégrale (Airbnb) vs l’exhaustivité (Booking). Cette tension entre l’émotion et la rationalité structure la différenciation : valeur expérientielle chez Airbnb, valeur fonctionnelle chez Booking.

Au plan sémiotique, Airbnb réenchante le passé et critique le voyage standardisé tandis que Booking légitime toutes les préférences grâce à la plasticité de sa plateforme. Deux visions irréductibles : l’une promet la métamorphose émotionnelle, l’autre la quiétude d’un choix illimité.

2025 un tournant

Cette rivalité ne se limite pas au terrain symbolique. Airbnb vise désormais le marché hôtelier, jusqu’ici le bastion de Booking. Cette convergence accentue la compétition. La plateforme des locations veut séduire les hôteliers indépendants, souvent critiques face aux commissions de Booking.

À l’inverse, Booking élargit ses services avec une stratégie de « voyage connecté », intégrant vols, taxis et activités. Derrière cette guerre commerciale se joue une redéfinition du voyage. Sera-t-il demain un récit intime, inscrit dans la mémoire de l’individu, ou un catalogue infini, sécurisé par la flexibilité ?

L’analyse des campagnes 2025 montre que la concurrence entre Airbnb et Booking dépasse le marketing pour révéler deux visions du tourisme contemporain. L’une privilégie l’expérience comme moteur de différenciation, l’autre l’exhaustivité comme promesse de maîtrise. La question reste ouverte : dans un monde où régulation, crise du logement et critiques contre le « surtourisme » imposent de nouvelles contraintes, quel récit saura convaincre durablement voyageurs… et hôteliers ?

The Conversation

Victor Piganiol 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. Airbnb et Booking : deux récits du voyage pour une même bataille de l’hébergement touristique – https://theconversation.com/airbnb-et-booking-deux-recits-du-voyage-pour-une-meme-bataille-de-lhebergement-touristique-268789

Comment les organisations à but non lucratif se transforment face à la baisse des subventions publiques

Source: The Conversation – France in French (3) – By Angélique Chassy, Docteure en Sciences Economiques – EM-Normandie – Business School – Enseignante-Chercheure, EM Normandie

Le modèle économique d’Emmaüs comporte un volet marchand avec la vente d’objets récupérés et un volet non marchand consistant en actions de solidarité. Dan Shachar/Shutterstock

Plus de 186 000 emplois sont menacés dans les structures de l’économie sociale et solidaire (ESS), notamment les associations de loi 1901. Pour affronter ces défis, ces organisations à but non lucratif, ou à lucrativité limitée, doivent trouver de nouvelles sources de revenus. L’enjeu : redéfinir de nouveaux modèles économiques en diversifiant les sources de financement.


L’économie sociale et solidaire (ESS) occupe une place structurante dans le paysage économique français. Selon l’Observatoire national de l’ESS, elle représente 13,7 % des emplois privés et 10 % du produit intérieur brut (PIB) français en 2025.

Afin d’examiner les évolutions de leurs modèles économiques et les enjeux contemporains de performances sociale et territoriale, une journée dédiée à l’ESS a été organisée 26 novembre 2025 à l’EM Normandie.

Les échanges ont mis en évidence deux constats majeurs : le risque d’une dépendance accrue des structures lié au désengagement progressif de l’État, et la nécessité de développer des modèles d’affaires innovants pour assurer leur pérennité.

Deux questions centrales ont émergé : la recherche de viabilité économique risque-t-elle de masquer les atouts de long terme de l’ESS pour l’économie ? Comment penser le modèle économique d’acteurs engagés dans des activités non marchandes et socialement utiles dans un contexte de baisse des subventions ?

Plus de 186 000 emplois de l’ESS menacés

Depuis la loi du 31 juillet 2014, dite loi Hamon, l’ESS est définie par des critères spécifiques : un but autre que le seul partage des bénéfices, une gouvernance démocratique et une gestion fondée sur le réinvestissement des excédents et la constitution de réserves impartageables.

Le contexte économique actuel fragilise fortement le secteur. Plus de 186 000 emplois de l’ESS sont aujourd’hui menacés, sous l’effet combiné de la baisse des subventions publiques, de l’inflation durable et de tensions de trésorerie accrues. Parallèlement, les structures sont confrontées à une augmentation de la part des revenus d’activité, liée à la diversification de leurs sources de financement.

Diversification des sources de financement

Face à la baisse des subventions publiques, les associations renforcent la part de leurs revenus d’activité et cherchent à diversifier leurs sources de financement.

Cette évolution est clairement visible dans les données récentes : entre 2011 et 2020, les financements publics sont passés de 51 % à 48 % des ressources. Elles se basent sur un portage collectif du risque via des mécanismes coopératifs – fonds propres associatifs, financement participatif, adhésion des bénévoles, etc. – pour absorber les chocs économiques ce qui rompt avec l’autonomie économique des entreprises.




À lire aussi :
Entre l’État et le monde associatif, une alliance brisée


Cette évolution des pratiques économiques des structures de l’ESS s’inscrit dans un environnement économique plus contraignant, sans pour autant remettre en cause les finalités sociales. En combinant diversification des ressources, recherche de viabilité et prise en compte explicite de leur impact social et territorial, ces organisations déplacent progressivement le débat de la seule maîtrise des coûts vers une interrogation plus large sur la valeur créée pour la société. La question n’est plus seulement « Combien cela coûte-t-il ? », mais bien « Quelle valeur cela crée-t-il ? ».

Redéfinir la performance

Dans ces conditions, repenser les modèles d’affaires de l’ESS devient un enjeu central, à la croisée de la viabilité économique, de l’ancrage territorial et de la finalité sociale. Car, loin d’être un modèle marginal, ce secteur offre un cadre d’analyse instructif pour comprendre comment performance économique et utilité sociale peuvent se renforcer plutôt que s’opposer.

L’ESS occupe un espace intermédiaire, là où ni le marché ni l’action publique ne suffisent à répondre durablement aux besoins sociaux. Les activités de l’ESS se caractérisent par une faible rentabilité directe, des publics souvent peu solvables et de fortes externalités positives – cohésion sociale, prévention sanitaire, insertion professionnelle – rarement prises en charge par les entreprises privées, faute de modèles économiques immédiatement viables.

Dans l’entreprise classique, la performance repose sur une logique individuelle de mesurabilité, d’efficience et de comparabilité, héritée de l’industrie. Les pratiques des organisations de l’ESS reposent sur un modèle protéiforme de performance, de plus en plus fondé sur l’associatif entrepreneurial. Par exemple, le modèle économique d’Emmaüs comporte un volet marchand – vente d’objets récupérés – qui permet de financer un volet social consistant en actions de solidarité et d’accompagnement.

Ce modèle performant constitue avant tout un mode d’entreprendre collectif, reposant sur l’implication et le financement des parties prenantes. Il conduit naturellement à des formes de gouvernance démocratique qui se traduisent notamment par le principe « Une personne, une voix », la représentation des usagers, salariés ou bénévoles dans les conseils d’administration, ainsi que par la limitation de la lucrativité individuelle et l’affectation prioritaire des excédents au projet collectif.

Cette logique a permis à l’ESS d’occuper une place structurante dans l’organisation des services sanitaires, sociaux et médico-sociaux, en complément durable de l’action publique dans de nombreux territoires.

Innovations sociales

Les formes juridiques de l’ESS, comme le statut d’association de loi 1901 ou la société coopérative et participative (SCOP), encadrent statutairement la lucrativité, l’affectation des excédents et la gouvernance multipartite. Elles créent un cadre propice à l’expérimentation de modèles économiques orientés vers l’impact, plutôt que vers la maximisation du profit.

Parmi les initiatives récentes, plusieurs illustrent des innovations sociales combinant impact territorial et modèles économiques hybrides. Dans l’éducation populaire, Synergie Family a créé le tiers‑lieu l’Épopée, mutualisant espaces de coworking, formation et animation culturelle pour favoriser la mixité sociale, financé par des locations, des prestations payantes et des subventions. Le projet Territoires zéro chômeur de longue durée (TZCLD) innove à l’échelle territoriale en créant des emplois durables pour les personnes éloignées du marché du travail, financés par une reconversion des aides sociales non dépensées et des partenariats avec collectivités et entreprises, transformant les coûts sociaux en emplois utiles au territoire. Pour les aidants, l’application AMI accompagne les proches fragiles via un service numérique en abonnement et un partenariat avec des mutuelles alors que Les Bobos à la ferme proposent des séjours de répit et des activités adaptées, financés par tarification, aides publiques et mécénat.

Condition essentielle de la pérennité de l’ESS

Ces principes ne relèvent pas d’un cadre théorique abstrait : ils se traduisent concrètement dans les pratiques développées par de nombreuses structures de l’ESS.

La Manufacture circulaire du Cotentin développe des prestations administratives et des logiciels de paie générant des revenus, tout en favorisant l’inclusion professionnelle de personnes en situation de handicap. L’association La Recyclette propose la location d’objets de seconde main et des ateliers manuels afin de financer ses actions de solidarité locale. La Fabrique à Yoops conçoit, quant à elle, des « tiny houses » modulables pour l’hébergement d’urgence, cherchant à renforcer la rentabilité de son modèle pour accroître son impact social.

Dans un contexte de raréfaction des financements publics, de crises économiques récurrentes et d’attentes sociétales accrues, la capacité à renouveler les modèles économiques apparaît désormais comme une condition essentielle de la pérennité et de l’impact des organisations de l’ESS. La question n’est peut-être plus seulement de savoir comment soutenir l’ESS, mais ce que l’économie dans son ensemble peut apprendre de ces formes d’innovation sociale.

The Conversation

Laré Amandine a reçu des financements de la Macif, Malakoff Humanis et la Fondation de l’EM Normandie pour l’organisation de la journée ESS du 26 Novembre

Angélique Chassy et Khaled Saadaoui 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 poste universitaire.

ref. Comment les organisations à but non lucratif se transforment face à la baisse des subventions publiques – https://theconversation.com/comment-les-organisations-a-but-non-lucratif-se-transforment-face-a-la-baisse-des-subventions-publiques-269840

Pourquoi le choix de Donald Trump pour la présidence de la Fed fait-il chuter l’or et l’argent ?

Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

Alors que Donald Trump multiplie les attaques contre la Fed, le choix de Kevin Warsh peut être lu comme un signal paradoxal envoyé aux marchés : préserver, malgré tout, la crédibilité de la politique monétaire américaine dans un monde en recomposition.


Après des mois de spéculations, Donald Trump a confirmé qu’il nommerait Kevin Warsh au poste de prochain président de la Réserve fédérale. Cette nomination était très attendue dans le contexte du conflit persistant entre le président américain et la Fed, ainsi que de ses tensions avec l’actuel président de l’institution, Jerome Powell.

L’annonce a provoqué une réaction immédiate sur les marchés, avec un net décrochage de l’or et de l’argent. Après plusieurs mois de records et de valorisations étirées, les prix au comptant de l’or et de l’argent ont chuté respectivement de 9 % et de 28 %. Le marché boursier américain a également reculé, les principaux indices enregistrant tous des pertes modérées.

Mais dans le climat de défiance suscité par les tentatives d’ingérence de Donald Trump à l’égard de la Fed, ce décrochage des marchés peut, ironiquement, se lire comme un premier signal de confiance accordé à Kevin Warsh, semblant valider sa légitimité pour le poste et miser sur son indépendance future.

Pour saisir cette apparente contradiction, il faut la replacer dans le cadre du bras de fer de longue date entre Trump et la Réserve fédérale et prendre en compte le rôle crucial que joue l’indépendance des banques centrales dans l’architecture financière mondiale contemporaine.

La guerre de Trump contre la Fed

L’année écoulée a été marquée par un affrontement sans précédent entre le président états-unien et la Réserve fédérale. Donal Trump avait lui-même nommé l’actuel président de la Fed, Jerome Powell, en 2017. Mais la relation s’est rapidement détériorée lorsque Powell n’a pas abaissé les taux d’intérêt aussi rapidement que Trump l’exigeait. Fidèle à son style outrancier, Donald Trump a depuis traité Powell de « clown » souffrant de « sérieux problèmes mentaux », ajoutant : « J’adorerais le virer ».

Cette guerre de mots a finalement glissé vers le terrain judiciaire. Le Department of Justice a annoncé l’ouverture d’une enquête visant la gouverneure de la Fed Lisa Cook, soupçonnée de fraude liée à d’anciens documents de prêts immobiliers. Puis, le mois dernier, dans une escalade spectaculaire, le ministère de la Justice a ouvert une enquête pénale retentissante contre Jerome Powell, portant sur des soupçons de dépenses excessives lors de la rénovation des bâtiments de la Réserve fédérale.

Les deux séries d’accusations sont largement considérées comme dénuées de fondement. Donald Trump a néanmoins tenté de s’appuyer sur cette enquête pour justifier le limogeage de Lisa Cook. L’affaire est actuellement examinée par la Cour suprême des États-Unis.

Jerome Powell a vivement répliqué à Trump, affirmant que ces menaces judiciaires étaient :

« la conséquence du fait que la Réserve fédérale fixe les taux d’intérêt sur la base de ce que nous estimons, en toute indépendance, être dans l’intérêt général, plutôt qu’en fonction des préférences du président ».
Jerome Powell a reçu le soutien de 14 dirigeants de banques centrales à travers le monde, qui ont rappelé que « l’indépendance des banques centrales est un pilier de la stabilité des prix, financière et économique ».

Par le passé, les ingérences présidentielles dans les affaires de la Fed ont été l’un des facteurs majeurs de la crise de stagflation des années 1970. Plus récemment, l’Argentine et la Turquie ont toutes deux traversé de graves crises financières provoquées par des atteintes à l’indépendance de leurs banques centrales.

Qui est Kevin Warsh ?

Kevin Warsh est un ancien banquier et ex-gouverneur de la Réserve fédérale. Il a également exercé les fonctions de conseiller économique auprès de deux présidents américains : George W. Bush et Donald Trump.

Dans un premier temps, le président américain semblait plutôt enclin à choisir l’actuel directeur du National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett. Mais ce dernier était largement perçu comme trop étroitement aligné sur Trump, ce qui a ravivé les craintes d’une remise en cause de l’indépendance de la Fed. Kevin Warsh présente un profil plus indépendant et bénéficie d’une réputation de « faucon » en matière de lutte contre l’inflation.

Qu’est-ce qu’un « faucon » ?

La Réserve fédérale est chargée de fixer les taux d’intérêt aux États-Unis. Schématiquement, des taux bas peuvent stimuler la croissance économique et l’emploi, mais au risque d’alimenter l’inflation. À l’inverse, des taux élevés permettent de contenir l’inflation, au prix d’un ralentissement de l’activité et d’une hausse du chômage.

Trouver le juste équilibre entre ces objectifs constitue le cœur de la mission de la Réserve fédérale. L’indépendance des banques centrales est cruciale pour que cet arbitrage délicat repose sur les meilleures données disponibles et sur les besoins de long terme de l’économie, plutôt que sur des objectifs politiques à court terme.

On qualifie de « faucon » anti-inflation un banquier central qui donne la priorité à la lutte contre la hausse des prix, par opposition à une « colombe », davantage encline à privilégier la croissance économique et l’emploi.

Lors de son précédent passage à la Réserve fédérale, Kevin Warsh s’est forgé une solide réputation de « faucon » en matière d’inflation. Même au lendemain de la crise financière mondiale de 2008, Warsh se montrait davantage préoccupé par les risques inflationnistes que par la situation de l’emploi.

Au regard des conflits passés entre Donald Trump et Jerome Powell autour de la baisse des taux d’intérêt, le choix de Warsh peut donc, à première vue, surprendre.

Plus récemment toutefois, Kevin Warsh a infléchi sa position, reprenant à son compte les critiques de Trump à l’égard de la Fed et ses appels à des taux d’intérêt plus bas, dans la lignée de tribunes dénonçant le pilotage actuel de l’institution. Reste à savoir si cet alignement perdurera, ou si ses réflexes de faucon reprendront le dessus, au risque de raviver à terme un nouveau conflit avec Trump.

La réaction des marchés

Le décrochage de l’or et de l’argent, ainsi que le repli des marchés boursiers, suggèrent que les investisseurs jugent désormais des baisses de taux moins probables avec Kevin Warsh qu’avec d’autres candidats potentiels.

Les prix de l’or et de l’argent ont tendance à grimper en période d’instabilité ou lorsque les craintes d’inflation s’accentuent.

Les précédents records s’expliquaient par une combinaison de facteurs, parmi lesquels l’instabilité géopolitique, les inquiétudes autour de l’indépendance de la Fed et une dynamique spéculative marquée.

Le fait que l’annonce de la nomination de Warsh ait déclenché une correction sur les métaux précieux indique que les investisseurs anticipent une inflation plus faible et une plus grande stabilité financière. La hausse concomitante du dollar américain vient conforter cette lecture.

La crédibilité de la Fed est en jeu

Ces dernières semaines ont été rythmées par de nombreux débats sur l’évolution de l’ordre mondial. Le Premier ministre canadien Mark Carney a ainsi récemment acté la fin de l’ordre international fondé sur des règles, appelant à s’affranchir de « l’hégémonie américaine ».

La domination mondiale du dollar américain demeure l’un des fondements centraux de cette puissance économique. Si Donald Trump reste ouvertement méfiant à l’égard de l’indépendance des banques centrales, le choix de Kevin Warsh laisse penser qu’il a conscience de l’enjeu que représente la crédibilité de la monnaie américaine et de la Réserve fédérale.

Rien ne garantit toutefois que cette lucidité suffira à contenir durablement son penchant pour l’ingérence dans la conduite de la politique monétaire.

The Conversation

Henry Maher 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. Pourquoi le choix de Donald Trump pour la présidence de la Fed fait-il chuter l’or et l’argent ? – https://theconversation.com/pourquoi-le-choix-de-donald-trump-pour-la-presidence-de-la-fed-fait-il-chuter-lor-et-largent-274837

Some companies claim they can ‘resurrect’ species. Does that make people more comfortable with extinction?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Christopher Lean, Research Fellow in Philosophy, Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology, Macquarie University

Ross Stone/Unsplash

Less than a year ago, United States company Colossal Biosciences announced it had “resurrected” the dire wolf, a megafauna-hunting wolf species that had been extinct for 10,000 years.

Within two days of Colossal’s announcement, the Interior Secretary of the US, Doug Burgum, used the idea of resurrection to justify weakening environmental protection laws: “pick your favourite species and call up Colossal”.

His reasoning appeared to confirm critics’ fears about de-extinction technology. If we can bring any species back, why protect them to begin with?

In a new study published in Biological Conservation, we put this idea to the test. We found no evidence people will accept extinction more readily if they’re promised de-extinction. But it’s important to communicate about de-extinction efforts with care.

The ‘moral hazard’ of de-extinction

Since the emergence of de-extinction technology, critics have argued it potentially undermines support for conserving existing species.

In other words, de-extinction technology poses a “moral hazard”. This is a situation in which someone is willing to behave in riskier ways than they would otherwise, because someone or something else will bear the cost or deal with the consequences. Behaving recklessly because you have health insurance is a classic example.

The moral hazard of de-extinction technology is that if we believe extinct species can be brought back, we may be more willing to let species go extinct in the first place.

Photo of a white wolf with the word extinct crossed out above it.
TIME magazine cover featuring the dire wolf ‘de-extinction’ story.
TIME

This concern mirrors debates in other areas of environmental policy. For example, critics of carbon capture and solar radiation modification worry that believing we can later fix climate change may weaken the incentive to reduce emissions now. However, most studies investigating this claim found these technologies don’t reduce people’s support for also cutting back carbon emissions.

Our study is the first to investigate whether de-extinction technology reduces people’s concern about the extinction of existing species.

What we found

We presented 363 people from a wide range of backgrounds with several scenarios. These described a company doing something that yields an economic or public benefit, but results in the extinction of an existing endangered species.

For example, in one scenario a company intended to build a highway for a new port through the last habitat of the dusky gopher frog, a critically endangered species. The construction would lead to the frog’s extinction.

A medium sized spotted frog with golden eyes held up to a camera.
Endemic to the southern United States, the dusky gopher frog is critically endangered because its native habitat, longleaf-pine forests, are almost entirely destroyed.
ememu/iNaturalist, CC BY-NC

There were two versions of each scenario, differing in how the company would compensate for the species’ extinction.

In the “environmental compensation” version, a large investment would be made to preserve other species. In the “de-extinction” version, de-extinction technology would be used to reintroduce the DNA of the extinct species into a related species at a later date.

For each scenario, people were asked: did they think the project was good for the public? Was the species extinction justified? Did compensation make the company less blameworthy for causing the species extinction? Should we allow projects like this one in the future?

Finally, in cases where de-extinction was proposed, we asked if the respondent believed the companies’ claims that genetic engineering could be used to successfully recreate the extinct species.

A warning against spin

We found no evidence that proposing de-extinction makes people more accepting of extinction than compensation for environmental destruction would.

Therefore, moral hazard alone is not a reason to outright reject the ethical deployment of de-extinction technology. Further, overemphasising potential but unsubstantiated hazards of de-extinction research may undermine the development of effective tools for preserving current species.

We did, however, find one reason for caution.

There was a correlation between a person’s belief that de-extinction could resurrect the species and the belief that causing its extinction would be acceptable.

This is a correlation, so we can’t tell which belief comes first. It could be that these people already think extinction is justified to gain access to economic benefits, and then adopt the view that de-extinction is possible to excuse that belief.

A more worrying possibility is the reverse: believing that de-extinction is possible could have led to these individuals viewing extinction as acceptable. A strong belief in de-extinction’s success could either act as an excuse for extinction, or a reason for extinction.

This creates a major risk if those who develop de-extinction technology overstate or mislead the public about what this tech can achieve.

Avoid misleading claims

It’s crucial the companies and scientists working on de-extinction efforts communicate accurately and without hype. Claims that de-extinction can reverse extinction are misleading. Genetic engineering can introduce lost traits from an extinct species into a closely related living species and restore lost ecological functions, but it can’t re-create the extinct species.

Problems arise when companies present these limits cautiously within the scientific community but make stronger claims in public-facing communication.

Doing so encourages the false belief that extinction is fully reversible. This risks undermining the ethical justification for any de-extinction efforts.

This risk can be avoided. For example, the de-extinction project attempting to restore aurochs (ancient cattle) to Europe clearly states it’s creating aurochs 2.0. It’s an ecological proxy for the extinct species, not the species itself.

Colossal Biosciences attracts widespread controversy for publicising its projects, which include “resurrection” of the woolly mammoth, the dodo, and the thylacine.

Our results show claims that de-extinction will necessarily create a moral hazard are unjustified.

However, de-extinction advocates bear a burden to be cautious and clear in their communication about what their technology offers – and what it can’t do.

The Conversation

Christopher Lean receives funding from the Australian Government through the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology (project number CE200100029).

Andrew James Latham has been supported by a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship.

Annie Sandrussi receives funding from the Australian Government through the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology (project number CE200100029).

Wendy Rogers receives funding from The Australian Research Council. She is a Chief Investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology (project number CE200100029), funded by the Australian Government.

ref. Some companies claim they can ‘resurrect’ species. Does that make people more comfortable with extinction? – https://theconversation.com/some-companies-claim-they-can-resurrect-species-does-that-make-people-more-comfortable-with-extinction-273583

Over 100 deaths linked to January storms – here’s how to stay safe when cold, snowy weather moves in

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Brett Robertson, Associate Professor and Associate Director of the Hazards Vulnerability and Resilience Institute, University of South Carolina

Powerful winter storms that left hundreds of thousands of people across the U.S. without power for days in freezing temperatures in late January 2026 have been linked to more than 100 deaths, and the cold weather is forecast to continue into February.

The causes of the deaths and injuries have varied. Some people died from exposure to cold inside their homes. Others fell outside or suffered heart attacks while shoveling snow. Three young brothers died after falling through ice on a Texas pond. Dozens of children were treated for carbon monoxide poisoning from improperly used generators or heaters.

These tragedies and others share a common theme: Winter storms pose multiple dangers at once, and people often underestimate how quickly conditions can become life-threatening.

A man stands by the open door of a car stuck on a road with deep snow.
If you plan to drive in a winter storm, be prepared to be stranded, as this driver was in Little Rock, Ark., on Jan. 24, 2026. Cars can slide off roads, slide into each other or get stuck in snow drifts. Having warm winter gear, boots and a charged cell phone can help you deal with the cold.
Will Newton/Getty Images

I’m the associate director of the Hazards Vulnerability and Resilience Institute at the University of South Carolina, where we work on ways to improve emergency preparedness and response. Here is what people need to know to reduce their risk of injury during severe winter weather.

Prepare before the storm arrives

Preparation makes the biggest difference when temperatures drop, and services fail. Many winter storm injuries happen after power outages knock out heat, lighting or medical equipment.

Start by assembling a basic emergency kit. The Federal Emergency Management Agency recommends having water, food that does not require cooking, a flashlight, a battery-powered radio, extra batteries and a first-aid kit, at minimum.

Some basics to go into an emergency kit
In addition to these basics, a winter emergency kit should have plenty of warm clothes and snacks to provide energy to produce body heat.
National Institute of Aging

In wintertime, you’ll also need warm clothing, blankets, hats and gloves. When you go out, even in a vehicle, make sure you dress for the weather. Keep a blanket in the car in case you get stranded, as hundreds of people did for hours overnight on a Mississippi highway on Jan. 27 in freezing, snowy weather.

Portable phone chargers matter more than many people realize. During emergencies, phones become lifelines for updates, help and contact with family. Keep devices charged ahead of the storm and conserve battery power once the storm begins.

If anyone in your home depends on electrically powered medical equipment, make a plan now. Know where you can go if the power goes out for an extended period. Contact your utility provider in advance to ask about outage planning, including whether they offer priority restoration or guidance for customers who rely on powered medical equipment.

What to do if the power goes out

Loss of heat is one of the most serious dangers of winter storms. Hypothermia can occur indoors when temperatures drop, especially overnight.

If the power goes out, choose one room to stay in and close its doors to keep the warmth inside. Cover windows with curtains or blankets. Wear loose layers and a knit hat to keep your own body heat in, even indoors. Remember to also eat regular snacks and drink warm fluids when possible, since the body uses energy to stay warm.

Five people sit around a table, each wrapped up in warm clothes and hats. Two children are studying.
Wearing knit caps, lots of layers and staying together in one room can help with warmth. If you light candles, use them carefully to avoid fires.
SimpleImages/Moment via Getty Images

It might seem tempting, but don’t use camp stoves, outdoor grills or generators inside a home. These can quickly produce carbon monoxide, an odorless and deadly gas. During the January storm, one Nashville hospital saw more than 40 children with carbon monoxide poisoning linked to unsafe heating practices.

If you must use a generator, keep it outdoors and far from windows and doors. Make sure your home’s carbon monoxide detectors are working before storms arrive.

If your home becomes too cold, go to a warmer place, such as a friend’s home, a warming center or a public shelter. You can call 2-1-1, a nationwide hotline, to find local options. The American Red Cross and the Salvation Army also list open shelters on their websites. Several states maintain online maps for finding warming centers and emergency services during winter storms, including Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, Tennessee, and Texas.

Be careful outside – ice changes things

Winter storms make everyday activities dangerous. Ice turns sidewalks into slippery hazards. Snow shoveling strains the heart.
Frozen ponds and lakes might look solid but often are not as the ice can change quickly with weather conditions.

Walking on icy surfaces, even your own sidewalk, requires slow steps, proper footwear and full attention to what you’re doing. Falls can cause head injuries or broken bones, and it can happen with your first step out the door.

A group of kids scream as they sled down a hillside, legs flying in the air.
Playing in the snow, like this group was at Cherokee Park in Louisville, Ky., can be the best part of winter, but be sure to do it safely. At least three people died in accidents while being towed on sleds behind vehicles on icy streets during the January 2026 storm.
Jon Cherry/Getty Images

Shoveling snow is a common risk that people often overlook, but it deserves special caution. The actions of shoveling in cold weather can place intense strain on the heart. For people with heart conditions, it that extra strain can trigger heart attacks.

Why shoveling snow is more stressful on your heart than mowing your lawn. Mayo Clinic.

If you’re shoveling, take frequent breaks. Push snow instead of lifting when possible. And stop immediately if you feel chest pain, dizziness, or shortness of breath.

Communication saves time and lives

Winter storms disrupt information flows. Cell service fails. Internet access drops. Power outages silence televisions.

In my research on heat and storm emergencies, people frequently rely on personal networks to share updates, resources, and safety information. With that in mind, check on family, friends and neighbors, especially older adults and people who live alone.

Research I have conducted shows that nearby social ties matter during disasters because they help people share information and act more quickly when services are disrupted. Make sure that the information you’re sharing is coming from reliable sources – not everything on social media is. Also, let others know where you plan to go if conditions worsen.

A woman in a puffy jacket, hat and scarf walks up snow-covered subway stairs.
Walk carefully on snow and ice, particularly stairs like these in a New York subway station on Jan. 25, 2026. At home, be sure to clear snow off your steps soon after a storm so ice doesn’t build up.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Use multiple sources for information. Battery-powered radios remain critical during winter storms. Sign up for local emergency alerts by email or text. Studies have found that in regions accustomed to frequent hazardous weather, people often take actions in response to risks more slowly when they don’t have reliable local updates or clear alerts.

Practice matters

Many injuries happen because people delay actions they know they need to take. They wait to leave a house that’s getting too cold or at risk of damage by weather, such as flooding. They wait to ask for help. They wait to adjust plans.

In research I contributed to on evacuation drills involving wildfires, people who practiced their evacuation plan in advance were more likely to react quickly when conditions changed. Talking through evacuation plans for any type of emergency, whether a hurricane or a winter storm, builds people’s confidence and reduces their hesitation.

Take time each winter to review your emergency supplies, communication plans, and heating options.

Winter storms will test your preparation, judgment, and patience. You cannot control when the next one arrives, but you can decide how ready you will be when it does.

This article, originally published Jan. 29, 2026, has been updated with additional details on the new storm.

The Conversation

Brett Robertson receives funding from the National Science Foundation (Award #2316128). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

ref. Over 100 deaths linked to January storms – here’s how to stay safe when cold, snowy weather moves in – https://theconversation.com/over-100-deaths-linked-to-january-storms-heres-how-to-stay-safe-when-cold-snowy-weather-moves-in-274605

The only remaining US-Russia nuclear treaty expires this week. Could a new arms race soon accelerate?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Tilman Ruff, Honorary Principal Fellow, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne

The New START treaty, the last remaining agreement constraining Russian and US nuclear weapons, is due to lapse on February 4.

There are no negotiations to extend the terms of the treaty, either. As US President Donald Trump said dismissively in a recent interview, “if it expires, it expires”.

The importance of the New START treaty is hard to overstate. As other nuclear treaties have been abrogated in recent years, this was the only deal left with notification, inspection, verification and treaty compliance mechanisms between Russia and the US. Between them, they possess 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

The demise of the treaty will bring a definitive and alarming end to nuclear restraint between the two powers. It may very well accelerate the global nuclear arms race, too.

What is New START?

The New START or Prague Treaty was signed by then-US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dimitri Medvedev, in Prague on April 8, 2010. It entered into force the following year.

It superseded a 2002 treaty that obligated Russia and the United States to reduce their operationally deployed, strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012.

The New START Treaty called for further reductions on long-range nuclear weapons and provided greater specificity about different types of launchers. The new limits were:

  • 700 deployed intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (together with heavy bombers)
  • 1,550 nuclear warheads deployed on those platforms, and
  • 800 launchers (both deployed and non-deployed).

These reductions were achieved by February 5, 2018.

The treaty included mechanisms for compliance and verification, which have worked effectively. It provided for twice-yearly exchanges of data and ongoing mutual notification about the movement of strategic nuclear forces, which in practice occurred on a nearly daily basis.

Importantly, the treaty also mandated short-notice, on-site inspections of missiles, warheads and launchers covered by the treaty, providing valuable and stabilising insights into the other’s nuclear deployments.

Lastly, the treaty established a bilateral consultative commission and clear procedures to resolve questions or disputes.

Limitations of the deal

The treaty was criticised at the time for its modest reductions and the limited types of nuclear weapons it covered.

But the most enduring downside was the political price Obama paid to achieve ratification by the US Senate.

To secure sufficient Republican support, he agreed to a long-term program of renewal and modernisation of the entire US nuclear arsenal – in addition to the facilities and programs that produce and maintain nuclear weapons. The overall pricetag was estimated to reach well over US$2 trillion.

This has arguably done more harm by entrenching the United States’ possession of nuclear weapons and thwarting prospects for disarmament.

As the New START treaty was about to expire in 2021, Russia offered to extend it for another five years, as allowed under the terms. US President Donald Trump, however, refused to reciprocate.

After winning the 2020 US presidential election, Joe Biden did agree to extend the treaty on February 3, 2021, just two days before it would have expired. The treaty does not provide for any further extensions.

In February 2023, Russia suspended its implementation of key aspects of the treaty, including stockpile data exchange and on-site inspections. It did not formally withdraw, however, and committed to continue to abide by the treaty’s numerical limits on warheads, missiles and launchers.

What could happen next

With the imminent expiry of the treaty this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in September 2025 that he was prepared to continue observing the numerical limits for one more year if the US acted similarly.

Besides an off-the-cuff comment by Trump – “it sounds like a good idea to me” – the US did not formally respond to the Russian offer.

Trump has further complicated matters by insisting that negotiations on any future nuclear arms control agreements include China. However, China has consistently refused this. There is also no precedent for such trilateral nuclear control or disarmament negotiations, which would no doubt be long and complex. Though growing, China’s arsenal is still less than 12% the size of the US arsenal and less than 11% the size of Russia’s.

The New START treaty now looks set to expire without any agreement to continue to observe its limits until a successor treaty is negotiated.

This means Russia and the US could increase their deployed warheads by 60% and 110%, respectively, within a matter of months. This is because both have the capacity to load a larger number of warheads on their missiles and bombers than they currently do. Both countries also have large numbers of warheads in reserve or slated for dismantlement, but still intact.

If they took these steps, both countries could effectively double their deployed strategic nuclear arsenals.

The end of the treaty’s verification, data exchanges, and compliance and notification processes would also lead to increased uncertainty and distrust. This, in turn, could lead to a further build-up of both countries’ already gargantuan military capabilities.

An ominous warning

The most unsettling part of this development: it means nuclear disarmament, and even more modest arms control, is now moribund.

No new negotiations for disarmament or even reducing nuclear risks are currently under way. None are scheduled to begin.

At a minimum, after New START expires this week, both Russia and the US should agree to stick to its limits until they negotiate further reductions.

And, 56 years after making a binding commitment in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to achieve nuclear disarmament, both nations should work to implement a verifiable agreement among all nuclear-armed states to eliminate their arsenals.

But Russia, the US and and other nuclear-armed states are moving in the opposite direction.

Trump’s actions since taking office a second time – from bombing Iran to toppling Venezuela’s leader – show his general disdain for international law and treaties. They also affirm his desire to use any instrument of power to assert US (and his personal) interests and supremacy.

Putin, meanwhile, has used of a nuclear-capable intermediate-range ballistic missile to strike Ukraine, made repeated threats to use nuclear weapons against Kyiv and the West, and continued his unprecedented and profoundly dangerous weaponisation of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants.

These moves signal a more aggressive Russian stance that rides roughshod over the UN Charter, as well.

All of this bodes ill for preventing nuclear war and making progress on nuclear disarmament.

The Conversation

Tilman Ruff is affiliated with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the Medical Association for Prevention of War, Doctors for the Environment Australia and the Public Health Association of Australia.

ref. The only remaining US-Russia nuclear treaty expires this week. Could a new arms race soon accelerate? – https://theconversation.com/the-only-remaining-us-russia-nuclear-treaty-expires-this-week-could-a-new-arms-race-soon-accelerate-269508

Pierre Poilievre aces leadership review: Why the Conservatives opted to stand by their man

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sam Routley, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

With the support of almost 90 per cent of party delegates, Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative party leadership review results are clear and decisive.

These results not only demonstrate that the party continues to believe that he is their best option to win the next federal election, but that a large majority of Conservatives remain broadly united behind his leadership and message.

Post-election reflection

Poilievre entered the review following a period of assessment and recovery. As is typical after an election loss, this phase involved internal debate, intense media scrutiny and renewed attention to the leader’s perceived weaknesses.

Critics pointed to a familiar set of concerns: Poilievre’s attack-dog political style, his strained relationship with much of the national media and his perceived alignment with American populism, particularly Donald Trump.

His approach, they argued, had been designed for Justin Trudeau and was less effective against the former prime minister’s replacement, Mark Carney. Polling reinforced the sense of unease. While the Conservative Party continues to be seen as a better economic manager, Poilievre also lags behind Carney in personal popularity.

Organizational concerns also compounded these doubts. Controversies over nomination processes and strained relationships with other Conservative politicians, particularly Ontario Premier Doug Ford, raised questions about party management and coalition-building.

Within conservative intellectual circles, there has also been extensive ideological debate about tone, strategy and the party’s electoral ceiling.

Poilievre, after all, had to win an Alberta by-election after he lost his Ottawa seat in the federal election and has faced high-profile floor crossings over the past several months.

Yet this moment of reflection proved more cathartic than transformative. Much of the criticism levelled against Poilievre by Conservatives proved fleeting, an emotional response to loss rather than a durable movement to replace him. Instead, it reflected a familiar post-election pattern: disappointment amplified by punditry and frustration rather than a genuine collapse of confidence within the party.

Election results

How did Poilievre survive? Likely because the election results themselves were ambiguous. Although the Conservatives failed to form government, they were otherwise successful by many other measures.

They increased their vote share, expanded their support to new voter constituencies — especially young adults and recent immigrants — and demonstrated strength on core issues such as affordability, housing and cost of living. From the conservative perspective, this suggests incompletion — an inability to seal the final deal — rather than total rejection.

With the largest share of the popular vote for any Conservative party in Canada since 1988, the only thing that stood between the party and governing was a few percentage points.

This creates a powerful argument for continuity. Replacing Poilievre would have required the party to gamble that a new leader could quickly unify the coalition, define themselves nationally and outperform an already familiar figure in Carney — all without the benefit of incumbency or clear front-runner status.

Compounding this, of course, was the absence of a clear successor. No alternative candidate commanded widespread loyalty or offered an obviously superior electoral profile. In such circumstances, continuity becomes the least risky option.

The broader political and electoral context also matters. While Carney may be more personally popular than Poilievre, he governs on top of a coalition that is internally complex, undefined and potentially short-lived.

Carney’s electoral success depended heavily on the collapse of the NDP vote and the broader political disruption caused by Trump’s threats to annex Canada. With a new NDP leader, the New Democrats could recover and cut into Liberal margins.

Meanwhile, the government’s more mixed response to issues such as pipeline development, housing and the cost-of-living crisis could push enough voters toward the Conservatives by the next federal election campaign.

Young voters like Poilievre

All this said, however, Poilievre’s support cannot be explained solely by institutional inertia or a lack of alternative leadership candidates. His leadership has and continues to generate genuine enthusiasm among some voters — especially those who are young, recently immigrated or working in trades. This support is fuelled by economic frustration, declining living standards and the sense of a lost promise.

At a moment when centre-right parties elsewhere are struggling with internal upheaval and fragmentation, Poilievre’s Conservative Party has remained cohesive and even expanded by organizing around what former communications director Ben Woodfinden calls the “locked-out:” voters who feel shut out of prosperity amid weak growth and chronic productivity problems.

In this context, Poilievre’s orthodox centre-right agenda — cutting regulatory burdens, boosting competition and removing interprovincial trade barriers — continues to attract broad, cross-class support that transcends cultural and regional divides.

The success of this can be seen from the fact that, throughout his keynote address at the Conservative Party convention, Poilievre’s core message and policy proposals haven’t changed substantively.




Read more:
Why does Pierre Poilievre appeal to young Canadians? It’s all about economics


But there has been a shift in style. Poilievre has begun to pair his combative style with a more personal, reflective and occasionally vulnerable public persona, an adjustment aimed at consolidating support while expanding appeal among undecided voters.

Finally, although Poilievre’s coalition wasn’t large enough to win the 2025 election, Canadian electoral history suggests that his prospects aren’t bleak. There’s a long history of decisive results or shifts playing out across two electoral successes, as coalitions are consolidated and expanded. Both John Diefenbaker and Stephen Harper, for example, endured defeats before securing durable governing mandates.

By endorsing Poilievre so decisively, Conservatives signalled their belief that he remains on an upward trajectory. The leadership review was less about absolution than affirmation: a collective judgment that the party is closer to power with Poilievre than without him.

The Conversation

Sam Routley 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. Pierre Poilievre aces leadership review: Why the Conservatives opted to stand by their man – https://theconversation.com/pierre-poilievre-aces-leadership-review-why-the-conservatives-opted-to-stand-by-their-man-274159

16 Oscar nods for ‘Sinners’ signals a broader appetite for imaginative Black cinema

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Cornel Grey, Assistant Professor in Department of Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies, Western University

When Sinners recently received a record-breaking 16 Oscar nominations, the response was overwhelmingly celebratory, but not uncomplicated.

The nominations capped a year in which the film had already defied expectations at the box office. An original horror film with no built-in franchise, Sinners broke multiple domestic and international records and earned more than US$300 million during its theatrical run.

Critics also responded strongly, praising Ryan Coogler’s direction and the film’s blend of spectacle and social commentary. Those reviews helped cement Sinners as both a commercial hit and a critical success.

Sinners doesn’t resolve longstanding debates about Black recognition or racial equity in Hollywood. However, its nominations arrive at a moment that suggests wider audience interest — and possible film industry openness — to Black films that are culturally specific, formally ambitious and uninterested in proving their importance through suffering alone.

Questions of popular success and excellence

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences — the group of just over 10,000 film industry professionals who vote on Oscar nominations and winners — has long grappled with how to balance popular success and its self-image as an arbiter of artistic excellence.

In the wake of declining viewership, the academy proposed a new category in 2018 for “Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film.”

The plan was met with significant backlash from commentators who were offended by the implication that commercially successful films couldn’t also be great art. The idea was shelved amid concerns that it would undermine the Oscars’ standards instead of bridging the gap between popular taste and critical recognition.

Sinners is not a traditional prestige drama designed for the awards circuit. It is a piece of work that refuses easy classification, blending elements of horror, musical, Southern Gothic and Black folklore into a form that balances excess and control.

As director Ryan Coogler has said, the film resists categorical conventions, dubbing it “genre-fluid.”

‘Sinners’ official trailer.

Directorial innovation

Coogler’s directorial innovation is central to the cultural significance of the film’s nominations.

Historically, the Oscars have rewarded Black films that conform to a narrow range of familiar narratives. Stories centred on racial trauma, historical injustice, moral redemption or social pathology have been far more likely to receive acknowledgement than films that foreground pleasure and fantasy.

Best Picture winners like 12 Years a Slave and Green Book, along with heavily awarded films such as Precious and The Help, illustrate this pattern, as does Halle Berry’s Best Actress win for Monster’s Ball, a performance structured around sexualized suffering and endurance.

Acclaimed Black films that don’t focus on trauma or suffering have been long overlooked by the academy.

Movies like Do the Right Thing, Eve’s Bayou, Girls Trip and Sorry to Bother You received strong critical and cultural support, but were largely ignored during Oscar voting.

Rather than critiquing those films or performances, this pattern points to how Hollywood taste — reflecting racialized assumptions and values — shapes what kinds of Black stories are recognized as important and deserving of reward.

Black creative achievement and possibility

Sinners does something different. It bends and unsettles the frames that tell audiences how to read a film. Vampires, music, violence, sex and history are woven together in a way that invites audiences in, without stopping to explain or defend each choice.

The film draws on familiar genre esthetics that white audiences recognize (like horror, spectacle, supernatural myth) but it refuses to translate its cultural references or soften its Black specificity.

Viewers unfamiliar with Black Southern folklore, diasporic spiritual traditions or the film’s musical and historical cues may miss things. The film does not slow down to catch them up.

Award bodies’ reception

The film’s success also raises questions about how awards bodies respond when Black creative experimentation gains critical acclaim.

A recent example comes from the Recording Academy. After Beyoncé won Best Country Album in 2025, the Grammys split the category into “traditional” and “contemporary” — a change that expanded recognition while also reintroducing distinctions.




Read more:
Beyoncé’s ‘Cowboy Carter’ transmits joy, honours legends and challenges a segregated industry


The move echoed earlier controversies around genre-labelling, including debates over the now-retired “urban” category. It also underscored how recognition can be followed by new forms of sorting rather than lasting structural change.

Wider shift in Black creative possibility

The risk is that Sinners is celebrated as a one-off, rather than understood as part of a wider shift in Black creative possibility.

Some conservative responses have framed Sinners less as an artistic achievement and more as an example of cultural overreach, reading its genre play and historical remixing as ideological provocation rather than creative labour.

Alongside this, the film’s record-breaking nominations are likely to be interpreted by some viewers or critics as further evidence of a so-called “woke era” in awards culture, a framing that tends to downplay the craft, ambition and substance of works featuring Black talent.

These reactions reveal ongoing anxieties over who gets to reshape tradition, and how recognition by industry powerbrokers is interpreted when it is attached to Black cultural production.

Reputational weight, star power

Sinners could take these creative risks in part because of the reputational weight behind it.

Coogler’s track record of commercially successful films, combined with the star power of Michael B. Jordan and their history of delivering profitable collaborations, created a level of confidence among funding studios that is rarely extended to Black filmmakers more broadly.

The uneven distribution of that creative latitude and resourcing remains visible across the industry, where many Black directors continue to face funding barriers for innovative or less conventional projects.

Challenging esthetic norms

The academy recently introduced representation and inclusion standards for Best Picture eligibility that require films to meet benchmarks for on-screen representation, creative leadership, industry access or audience outreach to be considered for nomination.

These measures are aimed at expanding opportunities for underrepresented groups, yet they focus on who appears in and works on films rather than on how films innovate or challenge esthetic norms.

As a result, longstanding assumptions about genre bias and what counts as quality cinema are largely unexamined, even as the rules change around how films qualify for consideration.

Works that trust audiences

The recognition of Sinners by the academy points to a widening space for Black films rooted in lived experience, place and history. Similar dynamics are visible elsewhere.

Recent global successes like K-Pop Demon Hunters show that viewers are drawn to genre-blended, culturally grounded stories that stimulate the imagination rather than explain themselves away. These works trust audiences to enter unfamiliar worlds without constant translation.




Read more:
With _KPop Demon Hunters_, Korean women hold the sword, the microphone — and possibly an Oscar


Sinners belongs to this moment. Its record-breaking nominations expand the range of Black cinema visible at the highest levels of recognition and quietly signal greater room for formal experimentation. The film treats Black creativity as something that can include visual excess, genre experimentation and narrative openness, and still be recognized as artistically rigorous work.

The Conversation

Cornel Grey 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. 16 Oscar nods for ‘Sinners’ signals a broader appetite for imaginative Black cinema – https://theconversation.com/16-oscar-nods-for-sinners-signals-a-broader-appetite-for-imaginative-black-cinema-274191

Black women’s health-care experiences remain marked by structural racism — here’s how institutions should move forward

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Elizabeth Kusi Appiah, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta

Racism has long disrupted relationships, deepened social divisions and hindered collective action on global challenges. While modern societies strive to be just and advocate against social injustices, many still turn away from engaging in conversations surrounding racism, health inequities and racial tensions.

Yet these issues significantly impact health — including the care Black people receive and their health outcomes. Research shows that racism has many long-term effects on health, and is linked to both poorer mental and physical health overall.

Black History Month is an opportunity to reflect critically on the impact of racism in health care and how to address it. As researchers focused on Black women’s acute and critical care experiences, our recent review draws lessons from studies on Black women’s health-care experiences in high-income countries to propose an approach for addressing racism.

The review included 10 studies conducted in the United States between 1987 and 2024. We found that Black women’s experiences in health care continue to be marked by reports of structural racism, microaggressions and persistent mistrust of the care system and care providers. Such experiences reduced the chances for shared decision-making, early detection of health issues, adherence to treatments, pain management and person-centred care.

We revealed that the enduring legacy of racism in medicine contributes to suboptimal communication and poor-quality care for Black women. Some of the women did not receive appropriate followup for diagnostic tests or see a specialist because their physician dismissed their concerns. Most of the women felt invisible because their providers disregarded their concerns. As a result, they felt discouraged from seeking care.

For instance, in one of the studies included in our review, a woman described her experiences of arriving at the emergency department for care. She said:

“As a Black woman I was told that it was a female problem, instead of my heart….The head doctor took a look at me and said, she doesn’t have a heart problem, this is absolutely no heart problem, it’s some kind of female problem. It was in my head.”

Another described feeling dismissed by doctors due to the way she described her pain, stating:

“I called it a wrecking ball pain. That’s what I was experiencing … Then my doctor, who likes to joke about everything, would say ‘Oh! Here’s the lady with the wrecking ball disease.’”

This left the patient feeling like a medical novelty — rather than being seen as a person worthy of respect and care.

Our discussions also identified how some Black adult patients responded to racial tensions and unjust conditions in their care.

When feeling disregarded by clinicians, some people purposefully limited what they shared. Others changed how they spoke to clinicians to fit white-dominated medical culture. Some even disengaged from the care decision-making process entirely — while others chose to advocate for themselves.

Further, if the physician appeared dismissive or disrespectful, some people ignored their medical advice as they felt the doctor didn’t have their best interests at heart. Others became hyper-vigilant against injustices and were likely to interpret subsequent care encounters based on past experiences.

Impact of racism on health care work

Health-care staff are compassionate people who want to provide the best care for patients. But they may not always be sure how to avoid getting it wrong.

Research indicates that nurses worry about getting it wrong and coming across as disrespectful when caring for people from different cultural backgrounds. Likewise, many nurses fear being labelled as racist, as they say it implies they’re a terrible person. Yet many are unwilling to accept personal responsibility for their actions — or inactions — if such a label is given to them.

There’s also a lack of clarity among nurses regarding what constitutes racist practices. This causes them anxiety. Some find it upsetting to think that their actions have been perceived as racist when that wasn’t their intention. Others are hesitant to express their genuine opinions on issues of this nature due to the fear of being called racist.

A separate study on nurse-patient relationships found that racism hinders nurses’ ability to meet a patient’s care needs and threatens patients’ and nurses’ dignity in the care system. Racism from patients also increases nurses’ stress and causes emotional trauma.

Racism in health-care settings continues to have a detrimental effect on the care patients are receiving. It’s clear institutions need to do more to ensure patients aren’t being harmed when receiving care.

Inclusive and nurturing communities

We believe that building inclusive and nurturing communities that counter racism and celebrate our interdependence is how we can move forward and address racism in health care.

Inclusive and nurturing communities equip people to have difficult conversations about race — whether that’s in health care, the classroom, universities, workplaces and neighbourhoods.

This type of community teaches people the importance of listening and engaging authentically and open-mindedly, and of learning about racism through the experiences of others. It doesn’t see people who engage in racist practices as inherently racist — but as people who need more support in recognizing and addressing racism.

In such spaces, every person bears a social responsibility to combat racism in their own ways — whether by fostering conversations about racism in their homes, workplaces or shared community spaces.

We’re hoping to conduct research investigating how such spaces can be built — and how this framework can be used in health-care settings to address the racism patients experience there.

We’re all part of the bigger picture. When we create safe and brave spaces for thinking, analyzing and talking about racial tensions, we’re inviting everyone to authentically participate in problem-solving.

Research shows trust is essential in building strong and productive human relations. So in order to build inclusive and nurturing communities, we need to invest time and effort into restoring the broken trust of racialized communities through accountability, transparency, consistency and genuine efforts to address systemic racism.

The Conversation

Elizabeth Kusi Appiah is affiliated with the GROWW national mentorship program.

Elisavet Papathanasoglou receives funding from Women & Children health Research Institute (WHCRI).

ref. Black women’s health-care experiences remain marked by structural racism — here’s how institutions should move forward – https://theconversation.com/black-womens-health-care-experiences-remain-marked-by-structural-racism-heres-how-institutions-should-move-forward-250337

‘Sinners’’ 16 Oscar nods signals a broader appetite for imaginative Black cinema

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Cornel Grey, Assistant Professor in Department of Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies, Western University

When Sinners recently received a record-breaking 16 Oscar nominations, the response was overwhelmingly celebratory, but not uncomplicated.

The nominations capped a year in which the film had already defied expectations at the box office. An original horror film with no built-in franchise, Sinners broke multiple domestic and international records and earned more than US$300 million during its theatrical run.

Critics also responded strongly, praising Ryan Coogler’s direction and the film’s blend of spectacle and social commentary. Those reviews helped cement Sinners as both a commercial hit and a critical success.

Sinners doesn’t resolve longstanding debates about Black recognition or racial equity in Hollywood. However, its nominations arrive at a moment that suggests wider audience interest — and possible film industry openness — to Black films that are culturally specific, formally ambitious and uninterested in proving their importance through suffering alone.

Questions of popular success and excellence

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences — the group of just over 10,000 film industry professionals who vote on Oscar nominations and winners — has long grappled with how to balance popular success and its self-image as an arbiter of artistic excellence.

In the wake of declining viewership, the academy proposed a new category in 2018 for “Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film.”

The plan was met with significant backlash from commentators who were offended by the implication that commercially successful films couldn’t also be great art. The idea was shelved amid concerns that it would undermine the Oscars’ standards instead of bridging the gap between popular taste and critical recognition.

Sinners is not a traditional prestige drama designed for the awards circuit. It is a piece of work that refuses easy classification, blending elements of horror, musical, Southern Gothic and Black folklore into a form that balances excess and control.

As director Ryan Coogler has said, the film resists categorical conventions, dubbing it “genre-fluid.”

‘Sinners’ official trailer.

Directorial innovation

Coogler’s directorial innovation is central to the cultural significance of the film’s nominations.

Historically, the Oscars have rewarded Black films that conform to a narrow range of familiar narratives. Stories centred on racial trauma, historical injustice, moral redemption or social pathology have been far more likely to receive acknowledgement than films that foreground pleasure and fantasy.

Best Picture winners like 12 Years a Slave and Green Book, along with heavily awarded films such as Precious and The Help, illustrate this pattern, as does Halle Berry’s Best Actress win for Monster’s Ball, a performance structured around sexualized suffering and endurance.

Acclaimed Black films that don’t focus on trauma or suffering have been long overlooked by the academy.

Movies like Do the Right Thing, Eve’s Bayou, Girls Trip and Sorry to Bother You received strong critical and cultural support, but were largely ignored during Oscar voting.

Rather than critiquing those films or performances, this pattern points to how Hollywood taste — reflecting racialized assumptions and values — shapes what kinds of Black stories are recognized as important and deserving of reward.

Black creative achievement and possibility

Sinners does something different. It bends and unsettles the frames that tell audiences how to read a film. Vampires, music, violence, sex and history are woven together in a way that invites audiences in, without stopping to explain or defend each choice.

The film draws on familiar genre esthetics that white audiences recognize (like horror, spectacle, supernatural myth) but it refuses to translate its cultural references or soften its Black specificity.

Viewers unfamiliar with Black Southern folklore, diasporic spiritual traditions or the film’s musical and historical cues may miss things. The film does not slow down to catch them up.

Award bodies’ reception

The film’s success also raises questions about how awards bodies respond when Black creative experimentation gains critical acclaim.

A recent example comes from the Recording Academy. After Beyoncé won Best Country Album in 2025, the Grammys split the category into “traditional” and “contemporary” — a change that expanded recognition while also reintroducing distinctions.




Read more:
Beyoncé’s ‘Cowboy Carter’ transmits joy, honours legends and challenges a segregated industry


The move echoed earlier controversies around genre-labelling, including debates over the now-retired “urban” category. It also underscored how recognition can be followed by new forms of sorting rather than lasting structural change.

Wider shift in Black creative possibility

The risk is that Sinners is celebrated as a one-off, rather than understood as part of a wider shift in Black creative possibility.

Some conservative responses have framed Sinners less as an artistic achievement and more as an example of cultural overreach, reading its genre play and historical remixing as ideological provocation rather than creative labour.

Alongside this, the film’s record-breaking nominations are likely to be interpreted by some viewers or critics as further evidence of a so-called “woke era” in awards culture, a framing that tends to downplay the craft, ambition and substance of works featuring Black talent.

These reactions reveal ongoing anxieties over who gets to reshape tradition, and how recognition by industry powerbrokers is interpreted when it is attached to Black cultural production.

Reputational weight, star power

Sinners could take these creative risks in part because of the reputational weight behind it.

Coogler’s track record of commercially successful films, combined with the star power of Michael B. Jordan and their history of delivering profitable collaborations, created a level of confidence among funding studios that is rarely extended to Black filmmakers more broadly.

The uneven distribution of that creative latitude and resourcing remains visible across the industry, where many Black directors continue to face funding barriers for innovative or less conventional projects.

Challenging esthetic norms

The academy recently introduced representation and inclusion standards for Best Picture eligibility that require films to meet benchmarks for on-screen representation, creative leadership, industry access or audience outreach to be considered for nomination.

These measures are aimed at expanding opportunities for underrepresented groups, yet they focus on who appears in and works on films rather than on how films innovate or challenge esthetic norms.

As a result, longstanding assumptions about genre bias and what counts as quality cinema are largely unexamined, even as the rules change around how films qualify for consideration.

Works that trust audiences

The recognition of Sinners by the academy points to a widening space for Black films rooted in lived experience, place and history. Similar dynamics are visible elsewhere.

Recent global successes like K-Pop Demon Hunters show that viewers are drawn to genre-blended, culturally grounded stories that stimulate the imagination rather than explain themselves away. These works trust audiences to enter unfamiliar worlds without constant translation.




Read more:
With _KPop Demon Hunters_, Korean women hold the sword, the microphone — and possibly an Oscar


Sinners belongs to this moment. Its record-breaking nominations expand the range of Black cinema visible at the highest levels of recognition and quietly signal greater room for formal experimentation. The film treats Black creativity as something that can include visual excess, genre experimentation and narrative openness, and still be recognized as artistically rigorous work.

The Conversation

Cornel Grey 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. ‘Sinners’’ 16 Oscar nods signals a broader appetite for imaginative Black cinema – https://theconversation.com/sinners-16-oscar-nods-signals-a-broader-appetite-for-imaginative-black-cinema-274191