media

Dutch withdrawal is the latest in a number of boycotts by countries unhappy about Israel’s inclusion.

The Netherlands has withdrawn from next year’s Eurovision Song Contest, its public broadcaster NPO has confirmed, citing “sensitivities” over Israel’s participation.

“We have known for some time that Israel’s participation elicits various reactions in society and causes discussion and division,” the NPO’s media director Jurre Bosman said in a statement.

“Therefore, after consultation with the board of broadcasters, the NPO has decided to forgo participation in 2027.”

The announcement follows a decision in August by Dutch broadcaster AVROTROS to boycott the competition. AVROTROS, which usually selects the Netherlands’ entry and broadcasts the show, said the event could “no longer be considered neutral”.

NPO stepped in last month, saying it would take responsibility for the Dutch entry to the competition, before reversing course on Tuesday.

Jet de Ranitz, NPO’s executive chairman, acknowledged that the decision would disappoint fans but stressed that the contest would still be aired on public channels.

“Due to the sensitivities surrounding the themes currently at play, we have decided to take a step back for the time being,” De Ranitz said.

The announcement follows the Netherlands’ boycott of the 2026 edition. Iceland, Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia all pulled out, with the latter three refusing to broadcast the show at all.

More withdrawals

In August, the organisers announced that countries would be unable to host the competition if “an armed conflict, a sensitive geopolitical situation, or any other situation materially affects the security, safety or stability of their state or immediate region.”

But that has not prevented withdrawals, with Ireland already having announced that it will not be participating in next year’s contest for the second year in a row.

Earlier this month, the Czech broadcaster also pulled out of next year’s event, but cited spending cuts as the reason.

Bulgaria will host next year’s edition of Eurovision for the first time in the Black Sea city of Burgas, after Bulgarian singer Darina Yotova, known as Dara, won this year’s contest in Vienna, Austria, with her catchy floor-filler ‘Bangaranga’. 

Since its first edition in 1956, Eurovision has become the world’s biggest live televised music event. It catapulted Swedish icons ABBA to worldwide fame, as well as boosting artists such as Celine Dion and Olivia Newton-John. 

The plaintiffs argue they are losing access to vital information media outlets covering Trump used to provide.

A group of private citizens has sued the administration of United States President Donald Trump over its restrictions on news outlets covering the White House.

“All of the Plaintiffs rely on the White House press corps for independent reporting about the president and his administration, and all of them use that reporting in a variety of ways in their scholarship, teaching, journalism, or advocacy,” says the lawsuit, filed on Monday in a federal court in New York.

The lawsuit is the first lodged not by the news outlets being banned, but by those who consume the news and rely on it for their work.

The plaintiffs include a human rights advocate, a media watchdog, a university history professor, a high school teacher, a legal journalist and a student journalist.

Each argues they need unbiased, diverse media reporting from the White House to do their work.

“I’m gravely concerned that the Trump administration’s restrictions on White House reporters are cutting off access to crucial information,” Peter Schmidt-Nowara, a high school social studies teacher in New York City, said in a statement.

“I joined this lawsuit because my students deserve to know what’s happening in their government and to hear from a free and independent press.”

Trump already faces several legal challenges to his practice of banning journalists from outlets he dislikes from accessing the White House.

Last month, he banned journalists from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from attending news conferences at the White House. A federal judge later ruled the order was unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of the press, and ordered access be restored. However, the Trump administration continues to fight the ruling.

Last week, Trump dismissed reporting that he planned to evict journalists from the White House press briefing room and restore a swimming pool that was housed there starting in 1933. But he said he is still considering moving the press out of the briefing room.

“I am thinking about moving the Press, and putting them in a different location, but I will use that location for very badly needed space,” Trump said in a social media post.

Kenneth Roth, a senior fellow at Yale University and former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said the restrictions on press access were familiar postmarks in countries whose leaders have become authoritarian.

“Worldwide, I have seen how governmental leaders’ efforts to penalise independent journalists are a prelude to the rise of autocracy,” he said in a statement.

Demonstrators allege Prime Minister Andrej Babis and his coalition’s proposed reforms pose a threat to press freedom.

Several thousand people have taken to the streets in Prague to protest against plans to change the funding system for the Czech Republic’s public media, accusing the government of stifling press freedom.

On Sunday, protesters demanded the withdrawal of legislation seeking to abolish household licence fees and replace them with state budget allocations for public radio and television.

The Czech lower house of parliament approved fast-tracking the bill in a rare overnight vote on Saturday after governing coalition lawmakers rushed to open the issue, limiting the opposition’s ability to engage in debate before the vote was held.

The bill, proposed by the governing coalition led by billionaire Prime Minister Andrej Babis, which includes two far-right parties, must still be passed by the upper house before becoming law.

The opposition has pledged to challenge the legislation in the constitutional court. The plan would cut funding for public media by about 15 percent, possibly as early as next year.

At the protest in Prague’s Old Town Square, demonstrators chanted, “We’ve had enough”, “This must not be allowed to pass”, and “4:36”, referencing the early morning hour when the draft was approved by parliament.

Babis has said the plan is not an attack on media independence but a matter of funding transparency.

Critics warn the proposed change would allow the governing coalition to take control of the media. They compare it with the actions of populist governments, such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico.

Babis and his coalition, whose agenda includes reducing support for Ukraine as it fights off a Russian invasion, have a record of attacks against the media.

Public media staffers announced they would go on strike on November 3. They are backed by labour unions, university rectors, churches, international media organisations and many others.

A rally is also planned at Prague’s Letna park on November 15, two days before the anniversary of the 1989 anti-communist Velvet Revolution that ended more than 40 years of totalitarian government.

Since the January 3, 2026, military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has imposed semi-colonial rule over Venezuela, forcing dramatic shifts in the country’s domestic and foreign policies.

The capstone of the new tutelary regime is an oil deal announced in late August that Trump called “the biggest in history.” The agreement turns over 17 prime oilfields, holding over 20% of the country’s reserves, to a Pentagon-controlled corporation tasked with supplying cheap fuel to the US war machine for decades to come.

After spending years manufacturing consent for US-sponsored regime change in Venezuela (e.g., FAIR.org, 6/4/21, 1/11/23, 2/12/25), having a government in Caracas subservient to Washington represented a new scenario for the corporate media. The novel conditions have raised few significant qualms for Western outlets. Tactical objections notwithstanding, there is no fundamental disagreement with the US running the affairs of a Global South country.

Not ‘stealing Venezuela’s oil’

Working hand in glove with the Trump administration, the acting Delcy Rodríguez government has overhauled Venezuela’s hydrocarbon legislation (Venezuelanalysis, 7/13/26) to offer what oil experts consider a business environment more favorable to foreign capital than at any point in the country’s history. The new oil agreement with the White House manages to go even further.

The 17 oilfields in question will be taken over by North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), a private company in which the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) will get a 35% stake while investing nothing—and wielding veto power over its board.

Furthermore, according to the White House, the US State Department will secure 20% of NABEP’s output at cost, and have a right of first refusal over the remaining 80%. On top of this, Venezuelan officials have already suggested Washington would be given an additional “sales discount”  (Venezuelanalysis, 9/9/26).

In summary, Trump is looking to secure cheap crude supplies at a time when his disastrous Iran debacle has thrown global energy markets into upheaval. The agreement is so blatantly skewed that US Energy Secretary Chris Wright felt he needed to clarify that Washington was not “stealing Venezuela’s oil” (AFP, 9/3/26).

Nevertheless, Western media outlets were largely unfazed by such an obvious oil grab, euphemistically referring to the deal as “highly unusual” (New York Times, 8/29/26) or “remarkable” (BBC, 9/1/26), at most as “contentious” (Guardian, 9/1/26).

Corporate journalists did raise objections over the central role played by NABEP owner Alejandro Betancourt, a shady Venezuelan businessman who faced multiple money-laundering probes before the Trump administration intervened, and pressured judicial authorities at home and abroad to drop the investigations (BBC, 9/2/26; CNN, 9/4/26; New York Times, 9/4/26).

But media seemed satisfied with Trump’s state and energy secretaries Marco Rubio and Chris Wright pledging that US oversight will keep proceedings honest (Reuters, 9/2/26; New York Times, 9/4/26), despite the fact that billions in Venezuelan oil revenues, controlled by the US Treasury Department since January, are unaccounted for (Council on Foreign Relations, 6/3/26; Financial Times, 7/22/26).

Procedurally transparent plunder

Objections to the Venezuela/NABEP/Pentagon venture were mostly procedural and out of concern for appearances, not driven by any principled opposition to US imperialist predation. Faced with outright colonial plunder of Venezuela, the political and media establishment only demands “accountability” and “transparency” (New York Times, 5/5/26; Financial Times, 9/18/26).

For months, the White House has controlled Venezuelan oil export revenues, with Trump officials openly calling them “one of the largest assets ever to go on the US balance sheet,” and a source of “leverage” over Caracas. Yet Trump’s Democratic opponents have found no issue with seizing another country’s income, raising only questions about the allocation of the funds in reference to alleged corruption on the part of Caracas and Trump insiders (The Hill, 9/30/26; Washington Post, 9/17/26). This despite the fact that the Venezuelan government has to submit a “monthly budget” to access its own funds (New York Times, 1/28/26) and is subjected to US-imposed auditors (Reuters, 4/27/26).

The other source of disappointment with Trump stomping all over Venezuelan sovereignty, but prioritizing oil over regime change, is impatience for the restoration/recovery/return of “democracy” to Venezuela (Politico, 9/2/26; Guardian, 8/30/26; CBC, 9/3/26). Despite  widely acknowledgement that Trump is eroding democracy at home (New York Times, 8/20/26, 10/14/26; Guardian, 10/8/26), somehow pundits expected him to prioritize it in an oil-rich foreign country.

In the establishment’s consensus, “democracy” does not mean a political system that meaningfully reflects the Venezuelan people’s collective will, but simply one that empowers opposition figures that have been groomed for years, like far-right María Corina Machado, their undemocratic credentials notwithstanding (FAIR.org, 10/23/25).

Eager to stay in power, Rodríguez has over-complied with every US demand, going as far as adopting language about Venezuela undergoing a “democratic transformation.” Her pliancy has earned her favorable corporate media profiles that completely contrast with the demonization of Maduro.

After securing an exclusive interview, Time (7/30/26) described the acting leader as a “disciplined operator” who “advocate[s] for greater economic openness,” in contrast to the “authoritarian” Maduro, who oversaw “economic collapse.” Along the same lines, the Guardian (9/12/26) presented Rodríguez as a “a pragmatic, witty and intelligent workaholic,” unlike her “authoritarian” and “incompetent” predecessor in the presidential palace.

Nevertheless, given the broad Beltway consensus for comprehensive regime change, it is unlikely that the Rodríguez administration’s subservience to Trump will secure any leeway in determining its political path forward, free from outside meddling—especially if, as is anticipated, the GOP lawmakers most likely to be impressed by such obsequiousness lose power in the US’s upcoming midterm elections (Axios, 9/23/26; Financial Times, 10/9/26).

Please think of the corporations!

Alongside their exceptionalist expectations about “democracy,” legacy outlets also focus on those they consider the true victims of Trump’s neocolonial offensive in Venezuela: multinational oil corporations.

According to Reuters (9/1/26), the recent oil deal “raises red flags for major producers,” who fear having their reputation sullied by being “seated at the same table with Betancourt,” as well as the prospect of the US government becoming a “competitor.”

Bloomberg (8/30/26) raised concerns that the agreement “reprises [the] neocolonial past” of Venezuela’s oil industry. The warning stems not from apprehension that the Venezuelan people’s future is being determined by a foreign nation, but from fear that the US’s “out-sized power” might lead to “popular unrest.” This could create conditions for what the business mouthpiece views as a catastrophic outcome: the nationalization of foreign-owned oil assets.

“The troubled history of Venezuela’s oil offers a cautionary tale,” Bloomberg’s Kevin Crowley and Patricia Garip wrote:

The country was once dominated by US and European operators and was among the world’s largest producers. But assets owned by ExxonMobil Holdings Corps. and ConocoPhillips were seized and nationalized during political upheaval in the 2000s.

Corporate media present companies that made massive profits in Venezuela for decades as victims, because the Chávez government wanted them to comply with new laws and accept minority stakes in joint ventures.

The New York Times (9/1/26) complains that the two corporations “have spent years trying to get the country to repay them for their seized assets, with little success.” The statement conceals the fact that the Venezuelan government, when it enacted the 2007 decree imposing state majority in all Orinoco Oil Belt projects, offered to compensate ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips for their transition to minority partners, or to buy out their assets altogether. However, both corporations rejected the offers in order to pursue international arbitration. The former has already recouped most of what it was granted, while the latter will eventually collect on a significant award.

Despite the fact that Chevron, BP, Shell and other energy giants have signed deals in recent months taking advantage of the reformed hydrocarbon law (Venezuelanalysis, 9/3/26), pundits complain that ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips remain “hesitant” (CBS, 8/31/26) and need to be “lured” (Reuters, 9/1/26). Still, the Western corporations are likely to return to the country with favorable deals (Reuters, 9/16/26).

The victor and his spoils

Faced with strategic defeat in West Asia, Trump has clung to his Venezuela success, stating on multiple occasions that “to the victor belong the spoils,” in reference to the US hijacking the Venezuelan oil industry following the January 3 attacks and presidential kidnapping (Al Jazeera, 9/24/26; Guardian, 9/26/26).

Furthermore, Trump has not been shy in boasting about the US winning a “war” against Venezuela (Financial Times, 9/18/26; New York Times, 6/26/26). Corporate journalists have rarely pointed out that this stance directly contradicts the administration’s official position that the kidnapping of Maduro and Flores was a “law enforcement” operation (New York Times, 1/6/26; PBS, 1/8/26) in order to justify bypassing congressional approval.

The US president has likewise claimed to have recovered the costs of the military operation “many times over” (Al Jazeera, 3/3/26; Guardian, 6/28/26), a fact confirmed by Luigi Pisella, a business sector spokesperson with close ties to the acting Rodríguez administration (Venezuelanalysis, 8/10/26). Pisella stated that the US has retained $4.7 billion from the Venezuelan export revenues it controls to cover the costs of its military operation.

In spite of their ostensible hostility to Trump, corporate outlets have historically been complicit with his Venezuela policies, from whitewashing a deadly sanctions program (FAIR.org, 6/13/22) to endorsing a military buildup over debunked “narcoterrorism” accusations (FAIR.org, 11/19/25). The New York Times and Washington Post went as far as to withhold information in order to not jeopardize the January 3 operation (FAIR.org, 1/13/26).

Now, with a semi-colonial regime in place, the only concerns are about procedural transparency, democratic appearances and the well-being of multinational corporations. The Venezuelan people always get the short end of the stick.

Source: FAIR

Journalists prepare to strike as politicians push through changes that critics say threaten independence.

The Czech Republic’s governing coalition has advanced changes to the funding of public media, despite criticism that it could weaken broadcaster independence.

In a rare overnight vote in the early hours of Saturday, the coalition voted to send the bill to committees for further discussion.

The changes include scrapping the 205 crown ($9.45) household broadcasting fee, and replacing it with funding from the state budget.

The populist government of billionaire Prime Minister Andrej Babis, backed by the far-right SPD party, has frequently criticised public and private media coverage of its policies and accused some outlets of bias.

Babis promised to scrap the broadcasting fee before taking office last December, and says his three-party government is now fulfilling that pledge to voters.

Public media employees staged a strike against the move in June, saying it would make broadcasters vulnerable to government pressure.

Opposition parties have compared the changes with reforms under neighbouring Hungary’s former Prime Minister, Viktor Orban.

Babis has said the new funding model would be fairer to poorer households and encourage outlets to become more efficient.

“There is no war for independent media,” Babis said on Facebook late on Friday. “There is no fight for democracy and no nationalisation of media is being prepared.”

The proposal would cut funding for Czech Television and Czech Radio by about 15 percent and keep nominal funding unchanged for several years.

Public media are among the most trusted news sources in the Czech Republic, with Czech Television the most-watched broadcaster across several age groups.

A civic group has called a public protest for Sunday, while journalists and other employees at the broadcasters announced a strike for November 3.

LAS VEGAS — The Strip is broiling on a recent afternoon, but it’s cool and dark inside Mary J. Blige’s dressing room at the Park MGM.

As a humidifier moistens the dry desert air, the 55-year-old R&B star sits on a sofa wearing a brown jumpsuit and matching gaucho hat; through the walls we can hear Blige’s band sound-checking for her My Life, My Story residency, which launched in May and will pick up again Friday night for shows through Oct. 31.

In some ways, Las Vegas is a funny fit for the Queen of Hip-Hop Soul, who’s been transforming pain into music since her 1992 debut, “What’s the 411?” Yet her stay in this glittering showbiz mecca comes amid a season of flower-getting for Blige: Two years ago, she was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame; two years before that, she played the Super Bowl halftime show and landed a nomination for album of the year at the Grammy Awards.

“It definitely feels like people are taking notice of the fact that Mary J. Blige is one of the most important performers in R&B history,” she says. “I opened up a lane that hasn’t been closed yet. Female after female after female after female continue to do what Mary J. Blige has done and still does.”

Who opened that lane with you?
Back in the ’90s, when we first came out, it was myself and SWV that were really, really strong. Then there was 702, then Jazmine Sullivan and SZA and Beyoncé, and now right down to Summer Walker, who’s singing her truth.

That’s how you define what you do.
I’m not a great singer because I can sing better than everyone — I’m a great singer because I sing from my heart. Bono gave me that jewel. When Hurricane Katrina happened, we were doing [U2’s] “One,” and Bono was like, “Don’t worry about singing on key — people aren’t moved by you singing on key. What makes you a great singer is how you make them feel.” Not all of us are like the eighth wonders of the world — Aretha Franklin or Chaka Khan or Whitney Houston. They have pitch-perfect and they have emotion.

I saw Chaka Khan the other night and was thinking about how, even now, you never know where her voice is about to go.
She’s Chaka Khan — there’s nothing else you could say, really.

Why’d you cover “Sweet Thing” on “What’s the 411?”
First of all, when I was growing up, my mother played “Sweet Thing” all the time — it was our favorite song. So when I got to Uptown Records, Andre Harrell, the CEO, he was like, “You should do ‘Sweet Thing.’” I was like, “I don’t wanna do ‘Sweet Thing’! Chaka Khan could really sing — I can’t sing like that.” But he said I could do it, so I went and did the song and they all went crazy over it. My fans who didn’t know Chaka Khan, they thought it was my song. Same with Rose Royce’s “I’m Going Down” — to this day, a lot of people don’t know that’s a remake. I was afraid of both those songs. But I wanted to sing “I’m Going Down” all my life because I heard the song when I was 5 years old from the “Car Wash” soundtrack.

Tell me about your routine in Vegas. You stay on the Strip or you have a house somewhere?
I have a house out here. I’m not staying here — this is a lot. So I go home after I finish my performance, and I get ready for my performance tomorrow: I rest, I drink water, I do whatever I need to do. Then it’s the same thing: I come here, go into glam, do my meet and greet.

Get the humidifier going.
I got a steamer that I actually pull on over my mouth. Then I do my warmups, relax, keep my mind clear of any nonsense.

How do you think about doing your thing in a town built on glitz?
Mary is not the slickest Vegas person. But you can let people see that you’ve evolved — that you wear gowns now.

Would 19-year-old Mary be surprised to see her future self in a gown?
Hundred percent. Nineteen-year-old Mary was all tomboy — all baggy everything. Right now, I barely want to wear a gown, this Mary right here. But I’ve actually grown to like some of it when it looks good.

Did you look at anyone else’s residency when you were putting yours together?
I saw two people’s shows, and I said, “That’s not it.”

Shows in Vegas tend to be on the shorter side. The casino wants people back out there gambling.
I got 90 minutes — it’s a lot of time. People are very happy, but they’re standing there like they want more. I’m like, “I did 90 minutes! I don’t know how much more y’all want from me.”

Silk Sonic’s residency here was a no-phones show, which Bruno Mars told me was his attempt to preserve the freedom to make mistakes. Does it bum you out as a performer to know that everything winds up on the internet?
I don’t care about that at all. Social media, it’s bull—. You know what’s gonna happen — you know they’re gonna say, “Oh, her jaw is swollen.” Whatever. As long as you live truthfully, what they’re recording doesn’t matter.

In a recent interview with Fat Joe and Jadakiss, you talked about keeping your romantic partner a “mystery man” to the world. I wondered how you came to the decision not to make everything available to the public.
Because for so many years it has all been available. What you know already is what you know — I’ll elaborate on that. But what you don’t know, you will never know. I think I’ve given a lot, and it’s important to have something for myself. Nowadays, people just take things and ruin it for you. So if you have something beautiful, hold onto it, keep it to yourself. You have to protect the person that you’re with as well, because they don’t deserve to get beat up for something someone else did. I protect the ones I love — I’m not having anybody speaking ill about my family or the man that I love. I’m too old for that. Early in my life, if social media was around in 1991, I’d have been on that s— all day, cursing and going nuts on people.

Mary J. Blige performs during halftime of Super Bowl LVI at Inglewood’s SoFi Stadium in 2022.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

We were talking before about your accolades. Did the Rock Hall mean anything in particular to you?
It was important to me because those things don’t happen to us.

To Black women.
Yes. It happens to rock ’n’ roll stars every day, and they’re in their grave — there were people in their grave that they were honoring when I went. So when it happens to Mary J. Blige or Chaka Khan or Aretha Franklin, we have to honor that and raise it up. That’s a big deal.

Did Las Vegas feel like a place open to Black women?
I’m trying to think of what Black females I’ve seen do Vegas.

Mariah Carey was here. Toni Braxton had a show.
Yeah, but like me? But you know what I love? It’s time. And how I know it’s time is because my fans went up. When I made the announcement, they was going crazy — they still going crazy. I’m probably the first to open this door, and next it’ll be somebody else. You better believe they on their way. “Oh, Mary doing Vegas? I’m doing Vegas too.” That’s how it goes: “Mary did her hair blonde? I’m dying my hair blonde too.” That’s how my whole life has been, even actually before the music business.

Nosy question, but what’s an aspect of financial comfort that you especially enjoy?
Flying private — that’s the best one for me.

Getting to bypass the grind of travel.
That’s what I love about Vegas, because it’s not like tour. Tour, it’s a lot.

Are you soft now?
Probably a little spoiled.

Last one: Name an artist that meant a lot to you when you were young that might surprise people.
There were so many. I mean, Earth, Wind & Fire —

Everybody loves Earth, Wind & Fire.
But that “Way of the World” song — that really does something to me. We loved George Michael — George Michael was always one of our favorite artists. Duran Duran, come on. Oh, “Everybody Wants to Rule the World” — Tears for Fears. And Hall & Oates! [Sings] “Private eyes, they’re watching you.” Ambrosia. The Eagles. I could keep going.

I didn’t expect you to hit me with Ambrosia.
They were so soulful — I just got goosebumps. And Queen. That’s one of my favorite movies — “Bohemian Rhapsody.”

Who should play you in a movie about Mary J. Blige?
She wasn’t born yet.

On the balcony of a pink dockside building in San Pedro, a neon sign reading “Saturday Morning Fish Market” glows in the darkness. There’s a quiet stillness in the harbor — the only sounds are of the occasional gull and car whirring by. That is, until 1 a.m. rolls around.

Doors open at 1:30 a.m. at the Saturday Morning Fish Market.

This is when people begin to gather outside the roll-up door, some carrying backpacks ready to be filled.

At 1:30 a.m., a man in an orange apron lifts the door, releasing rays of white light onto the customers. They file inside, stepping onto the wet floor, eager to see the night’s beauties: freshly caught fish, filleted, deboned, washed and thrown onto thick mountains of crushed ice.

Shellfish, sardines, squid, mackerel and a market favorite, glowing salmon filets, sit on display. One employee pulls out crabs with a small net before letting a customer take their pick of the lot. Machines whir in an adjacent room, where fish are processed. Out back, sea lions bark, hoping for scraps.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

The Saturday Morning Fish Market, more formally known as J Deluca Fish Co., has existed for some time — owner John DeLuca claims a variation of the business began operating as early as the late ‘60s. As a child, DeLuca would greet his grandfather when he’d return to the San Pedro port with his catch, perhaps a fresh tuna or a bass to sell. For decades, the wholesale seafood distributor would open its market to the public just once a week — from 1:30 to 7:30 a.m. on Saturdays — usually seeing a smattering of mostly locals, the seafaring type, who might be shopping around after a late-night shift.

1

2

3

1. Harikrishnan Babuchandran holds up his fresh fish. 2. Customers can watch their fish be processed. 3. The fish that’s for sale changes from week to week. (Linnea Stephan / For The Times)

The Saturday Morning Fish Market in San Pedro has existed in some form since the late ‘60s but thanks to social media, flocks of new customers are wanting in on the late-night seafood-buying adventure.

Neither DeLuca nor his son and co-owner, Chris, could have predicted the San Pedro institution would experience the boom in popularity it’s seeing now, especially in an industry that’s struggled over the past two decades.

Thanks to social media, the market is witnessing an unprecedented revival. At its pre-pandemic peak, it would get around 800 to 1,000 customers on a typical Saturday morning. Nowadays, up to 2,000 people walk through the doors, according to Chris, many of whom are visiting for the first time.

Owners John and Chris DeLuca.

Regarding Instagram and TikTok, where posts giving a glimpse of the late-night fish market have gone viral, John, 73, says, “I know absolutely zero.”

To his credit, he does exhibit some understanding of its effect. And he’s glad for it. “People that live within walking distance never knew we existed. Now they do, and it’s got nothing to do with me,” he says, grinning.

What’s most notable is the number of young people roaming around the market well before the crack of dawn, Chris says. The business has changed a lot since his “father’s generation,” and social media unlocked access to a new audience.

“I think people like those hidden gems and people like that fresh seafood experience,” he says.

Between rows of sea bass and salmon, the energy is buzzing. Abdul Fahwami, dressed in jeans and flip-flops, visits the fish market at least once or twice a month, depending on how many people he‘s having over at his house that week.

“Every time we come here, we buy a minimum of between 100 and 200 pounds,” he says. “Red snapper is one of the best fish.”

Branzino is a favorite among customers and employees.

He smiles as he watches employees process his fish on a long table. First, blades run against the fish scales, removing them in quick fashion. Then, there’s a swift slice across its belly, starting at a hole near the tail and ending up near the gill plate. Finally, the guts are removed and filets are cut, skin optional.

Prices change week in and week out, and depend on supply. While prices are typically 10% to 40% less than at stores, market representative Joe Castelao says the team values the “quality of our products” over “trying to cater to bargain finders.” Another advantage for customers is the ability to buy seafood in bulk, which often isn’t possible at your standard, local grocer.

On this day, there wasn’t much branzino, the fish Fahwami came early to look for. “I found only 11 pieces,” he says. “I took all of it!”

Not far away, a man named Terry Jackson waits in line; he’s wearing black overalls and swaying side to side, eager to advance.

Customer Terry Jackson at the Saturday Morning Fish Market.

“It’s definitely worth waking up a little late — or a little early, you could say,” he says. “The quality of the fish is good, plus the pricing.”

His fish of choice? “Tuna, my new favorite is tuna!” he says, proudly raising a plastic bag full of bright red filets.

Briskly pacing across the market floor are team members Mike and George Stahl, a father-son duo both wearing orange aprons and gloves.

Mike got into the seafood business about two decades ago. At the time, he lived in Florida and often purchased products from J Deluca Fish Co. By 2018, he’d moved his family out to California and started working at the market.

He says his favorite part is the variety of duties. “No two days are the same,” he says. “One day I could be selling a couple containers of squid, the next day I could be meeting face to face with someone at a conference on the other side of the country.”

Staff member George Stahl helps a patron.

He brought in his son George during the pandemic. As George explains, “We were bored and didn’t have anything to do at home so my dad said, ‘Why don’t you come down and put some boots on and start working?’”

George has become somewhat of a micro-celebrity around the market, frequently appearing in its Instagram posts. However, his time with the company might be temporary — he’s currently in school and plans to be a physical therapist at some point.

While the market is riding a wave of success, John doesn’t gloss over the grim outlook of the fishing and seafood industry as a whole. He says the industry has taken a hit over the years, between restrictions, overfishing and changing regulations.

“It’s a dying business,” John says, bleakly. “There’s very few seiners down here because it’s very difficult to make a living [fishing].

But for now, they’re able to survive. They watch as customers walk out of the market into the wee hours of the morning, proudly grasping their bags of the day’s freshest catch.

“A lot of things have gone the opposite direction,” John says. “But we’re still here.”

The fish market’s blue neon sign shines through the night.

Class action could be first in Australia to blame social media for harming its users.

Meta and its social media platforms Facebook and Instagram are facing a class action lawsuit in Australia over allegations that addictive design features are harming children and teenagers.

The lawsuit, filed by MinterEllison in the Australian Federal Court, seeks to recover compensation for current and former users of Facebook and Instagram who claim they were exposed to harmful content or developed an addiction to social media as a result of using those platforms, the law firm said in a statement released on Thursday.

“This proceeding raises important questions about the design and operation of social media platforms and their impact on children and teenagers in Australia. Those questions will now be considered through the Federal Court process,” MinterEllison Partner William Nolan said in the statement.

The class action suit was filed on behalf of eight plaintiffs who allege they were harmed by Meta while they were below the age of 18.

In a suppression order on Monday, the court prohibited the reporting of any information that could reveal their identities and the statement of claim.

“We are aware of this claim and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” a Meta spokesperson said.

Litigation Lending Services said it was funding the class action for Australian families who “would have no practical means of pursuing these claims against a global technology giant”.

The lawsuit comes amid rising tensions between Australia and Big Tech after a world-first ban on social media for children below 16 in 2025, and newly proposed rules that could let users switch off algorithm-driven content on their feeds.

Meta agreed in August to pay $18bn to settle with nearly all US states to resolve claims that it designed social media to addict children.

The messages, reported by a Brazilian daily, say the platform recommended Bolsonaro’s profile and his WhatsApp channel.

Employees at Meta have acknowledged in internal communications that the Instagram accounts of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva were negatively affected by restrictions during the country’s election, media reports say.

The messages, reported on Friday by Brazilian daily Folha de S Paulo, also acknowledged the platform recommended the profile of Lula challenger Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, as well as his WhatsApp channel. Folha, the Sao Paulo-based paper, cited messages it had reviewed.

Meta told the Reuters news agency that the technical issues cited in the report were already public and the conversations it referenced related solely to the severity of the issues, not political interference.

“Any suggestion that Meta favors one side is false,” it added in a statement.

Lula, the left-wing incumbent, will face right-wing challenger Bolsonaro in a presidential runoff on October 25, following a stronger-than-expected performance by the senator in the first-round vote earlier this month.

Friday’s report came on the heels of a Brazilian court ruling on Thursday that ordered Meta to immediately adopt measures to provide equal treatment of the two candidates ahead of the runoff.

The ruling by a judge in Brazil’s top electoral court was made shortly after Lula filed a complaint that accused the tech giant – which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp – of using biased algorithms and AI restrictions to favour opposition candidate Bolsonaro ahead of the election.

Justice Marco Aurelio Bellizze ruled that Meta cannot reduce the distribution of political content, restrict searches or remove posts in a way that creates an imbalance between Lula and Bolsonaro. His ruling also orders the company to ensure its artificial intelligence tool applies identical criteria to both candidacies.

Bellizze said in his ruling that Meta must pay a fine of 500,000 reais ($98,700) per day if it fails to comply.

According to Lula’s party, some of his posts appeared without a share button and had reduced reach. Options for reactions, sharing, audio or accelerated speed were also missing.

Just visiting a page or refreshing an app can be enough to fall victim to a malware attack in which your personal data is stolen from a laptop or phone, researchers have found. You are not even required to “click” on anything.

An Israeli spyware firm has been found to be behind the first-known instance of “zero-click” targeted advertising in which fraudsters or spies can steal private data and send it to external servers, with Al Jazeera journalists among the victims.

In June 2025, 45 devices used by Al Jazeera staff – including several who reported on sensitive subjects – were targeted with spyware which installed itself without the need to open or download any files.

An investigation by the Canada-based academic research unit Citizen Lab, prompted by Al Jazeera’s initial internal probe into the issue, discovered that the Israeli company Candiru was behind the attacks.

Analysts say the findings are “incredibly concerning”, as they confirm the existence of a new global security threat. “We knew we were headed in this direction and now it is out in the public,” Remesh Srinivasan, professor of information studies at the University of California in Los Angeles, US, told Al Jazeera.

“This is the next level, because people are being microtargeted,” he said. “This is the point we’ve come to when it comes to surveillance.”

How ‘zero-click’ malware works

Al Jazeera’s in-house technology team first discovered unusual patterns on devices used by some journalists in 2024. Analysis of network logs provided to the Citizen Lab by Al Jazeera in 2025 provided a clear temporal signature of how the attack was executed.

Malicious advertisements were bought by Discover-Tech, an Israeli company presenting itself as a legitimate advertising firm, but which actually operates as a facilitator for mercenary spyware partners.

Its advertisement network identified Al Jazeera staff, then quietly redirected them to an infected server belonging to Candiru. The spyware firm was blacklisted by the US government in 2021, when Citizen Lab found it was responsible for the illegal hacking and surveillance of at least 100 activists, journalists and political activists across 10 countries.

Al Jazeera Media Network has condemned the targeting of its staff members’ devices and called for those responsible to be held accountable.

Cybersecurity analyst and author Eddy Willems said the advertisements used automatically infect devices the moment they pop up on the screen, but there is an important technical nuance. “Executing code inside the browser does not automatically give an attacker full control over the computer,” Willems told Al Jazeera.

“To escape the browser’s isolated environment – the ‘sandbox’ – the attacker may need a second vulnerability,” Willems said, adding that an advanced spyware operation can combine several vulnerabilities.

“The attacker attempts to exploit vulnerabilities to bypass security boundaries. This is precisely what makes this type of attack so dangerous,” the analyst said.

Once the device is infected, the malicious software is designed to collect a wide range of sensitive data, including files, documents, and browser data such as cookies, bookmarks, and saved credentials.

It can also capture keystrokes, take screenshots, record microphone and webcam input, and extract emails and messages from popular communication platforms. To avoid triggering security mechanisms, the spyware often uses encrypted communication channels and breaks up stolen data into smaller chunks sent over time.

Advertising: A new global security threat?

Analysts say Citizen Lab’s findings point to the escalation of an existing threat, which expands the scale and reach of traditional cyberattacks and makes them much harder to detect.

While “zero-click” attacks are not completely new, the findings outline a new technique through which online advertisements are used as a route to infection.

Stephen O’Shaughnessy, a lecturer in cybersecurity at the TU Dublin Blanchardstown campus in Ireland, explained that when a user opens a website or app, an automated auction sells the advertisement space in a fraction of a second. That auction shares data about the victim, including the device ID, IP address, rough location and the app or site they are on.

“Discover-Tech posed as an ordinary advertiser, used that data to find their target and win the auction for that person’s screen,” O’Shaughnessy told Al Jazeera. “Anyone with a phone or browser that shows ads can be reached, without the attacker needing their phone number or email.”

“Because no message or link is involved, there is almost nothing for the victim to notice,” he added.

Discover-Tech appeared on lists of “certified” and “approved” vendors maintained by Google and advertising industry association IAB Europe, and has served advertisements via major networks such as Google, Yandex and Beeswax.

In its report, Citizen Lab said this illustrates the structural flaws in the online advertising system, which essentially failed to detect or prevent the abuse.

Discover-Tech advertisements have popped up on devices used by personnel in national-security-sensitive networks around the world, including those of various ministries of defence, armed forces, national cyber agencies, intergovernmental organisations and media outlets, Citizen Lab found.

The research unit said these advertisements have also appeared on networks used by the United Nations, NATO, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union’s General Secretariat.

‘Almost nobody was watching’

Government networks have also been targeted in at least 24 countries, including the United States, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Russia, Mexico and Israel itself. Networks of media organisations have also been targeted, mainly in Australia, Denmark and Sweden, according to Citizen Lab.

In a separate report, New York-based advertising security firm Confiant said its own investigations had found that some of Discover-Tech’s advertisements also appeared in critical networks used by the Pentagon, the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Criminal Court.

O’Shaughnessy said infection has not been confirmed there – only profiling of users. “But that alone is concerning, he said. “The ad system was built to send code from strangers to billions of screens with pinpoint targeting. Almost nobody was watching it from a security angle.”

The analyst said the risk remains low for most people as these attacks are expensive and aimed at specific targets. “For individuals at high risk, like journalists and officials, the best first defence is to install an ad blocker, switch off their advertising ID through their phone’s privacy settings, keep everything updated, and turn on Lockdown Mode or Android’s Advanced Protection,” he said.

Precautions also need to be taken within the industry and at government level. “To combat this, the ad industry needs to properly vet who’s buying ads,” O’Shaughnessy said, while “regulators need to stop personal data being sprayed out to thousands of unknown bidders in every auction.”

The long-delayed bridge will formally open on Thursday, according to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency.

China and North Korea will officially open the New Yalu River Bridge to traffic on Thursday, China’s state-run Xinhua news agency reports.

China completed its side of the bridge in 2014, hoping to boost trade ties. However, North Korea left its side unfinished for years as relations soured after Beijing supported United Nations sanctions over Pyongyang’s nuclear tests.

The first bridge connecting Russia and North Korea also opened earlier this month.

China-North Korea Relations  

China’s exports to North Korea rose to a six-year high of $2.3bn last year, a 25 percent increase from the previous year. Chinese President Xi Jinping was welcomed in Pyongyang in June for the first time since 2019.

Since 2018, Beijing has tried to repair ties with Pyongyang, which also briefly began improving relations with Washington around the same time.

The China-North Korea relationship was forged during the Korean War. In 1961, the two countries signed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, which remains China’s only formal military alliance.

The treaty contains a mutual defence clause committing either side to assist the other if one comes under armed attack.

Although China was North Korea’s main diplomatic partner and protector for decades, relations strained after Beijing in 2017 supported tightening sanctions on Pyongyang for its nuclear weapons programme.

Analysts say North Korea’s recent growing relationship with Russia may have changed the balance of Pyongyang’s diplomatic dependence, reducing its reliance on Beijing.

North Korea and Russia signed a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty in 2024, including a mutual defence provision. Military and political ties between the two countries have grown considerably stronger, with North Korea deploying thousands of troops to fight in Russia’s war on Ukraine.

United States President Donald Trump also signalled an interest in repairing relations with Pyongyang last month, after his talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un abruptly ended in 2019. In his second term, Trump has floated meeting Kim again, though no official meeting has been set.

North Korea has not yet resumed issuing tourism visas to Chinese citizens, who once made up the bulk of its overseas visitors.

While North Korea’s trade with Russia largely involves military supplies, exchanges with China could arguably involve goods North Korea needs to develop its civilian economy, analysts have said.

Iranian media reported “massive explosions” in the southern Strait of Hormuz, with Fars citing unnamed military sources as Trump says US won’t strike Iran before midterms.

Paramount Skydance has completed its takeover of Warner Bros Discovery, bringing CNN and CBS News under the same corporate ownership, in a deal that has raised concerns about editorial independence and freedom of speech.

The acquisition, worth about $110bn including debt, combines two of Hollywood’s biggest studios after months of legal challenges lodged by state attorneys general and unions.

The new company, Skydance Corporation, brings together HBO, CBS, Nickelodeon, Showtime, Comedy Central, DC Studios and Food Network, alongside streaming services Paramount plus and HBO Max.

But its control of two major US news organisations has drawn particular scrutiny. David Ellison, Skydance’s chairman and chief executive, has promised to preserve their editorial independence, but his father, Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison is a major financial backer of the deal, and has previously donated funds to US President Donald Trump and Israel.

Asked about the takeover on Tuesday, Trump welcomed it. “They’re terrific people, and it’s going to be a great company,” he said.

Why was the merger challenged?

The takeover faced initial opposition from Hollywood workers, politicians and state prosecutors concerned about the mounting concentration of power in an industry already dominated by a handful of companies.

Netflix initially reached an agreement to buy part of Warner Bros Discovery. Paramount then launched a competing bid, prompting a bidding war before Netflix walked away.

A California-led coalition of 12 state attorneys general sued to block the deal, saying that it would reduce competition and raise prices. The Writers Guild of America brought a separate challenge.

Both cases were settled in September when Paramount agreed to commitments relating to film production, support for displaced workers and protections for the news networks, including the creation of a new editorial independence board.

But the settlement did not end opposition to the deal. “This merger will stifle creativity, weaken free speech and cost people their jobs,” actor and activist Mark Ruffalo has said.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren linked the takeover to Trump’s efforts to restrict media access. “As Trump tries to ban CNN from the White House, it would be a massive mistake to cave on the Paramount merger,” she said, referring to the US president’s so-far thwarted attempt last month to bar reporters from several news organisations, including CNN, from accessing the White House.

Can an editorial independence board protect CNN and CBS?

One condition of the settlement requires Skydance to establish a “News Editorial Independence Board” within 180 days of completing the takeover.

The five-member body is to include active or retired journalists with at least 10 years of experience. It is intended to establish editorial principles and address disputes involving the news networks and corporate management.

However, its members will be appointed by, and will report to, Skydance’s board of directors, which Ellison chairs. Two members can belong to the same political party, and there is no requirement to publish its findings.

The condition has left critics with a multitude of questions, including: How can a member of an independent editorial board be a member of a political party? How can there be scrutiny if its findings are not public? How can it be independent if it is appointed by a board of directors, themselves appointed by the CEO of the company?

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, “A Paramount-appointed editorial independence board for CNN and CBS is worthless. The fish rots from the head, and this particular fish is headed by a compromised oligarch with a history of throwing journalists under the bus to advance his business interests.”

Stern also questioned whether government enforcement of the settlement could itself threaten press freedom. “The editorial board creates the same First Amendment problems it’s supposed to solve – the government meddling in the news.”

The First Amendment provides constitutional protection for freedom of speech and the press.

Ellison argues that the two networks will continue to operate independently. “We’re going to make sure that CNN and CBS News are completely editorially independent,” he said on Tuesday.

On Monday, Skydance announced that Mark Thompson would remain CNN’s chairman and editor-in-chief, while Bari Weiss will continue as CBS News’s editor-in-chief, easing previous fears that Weiss would immediately take charge of both networks.

Why are there fears for editorial independence?

The takeover gives the Ellison family control of CNN less than a month before the November 3 US midterm elections, and follows Trump’s repeated attacks on the network as it seeks to hold the US president to account.

Shortly after Paramount launched its bid in December, Trump accused CNN of spreading “poison and lies” and said it was “imperative” that it be sold, while the Trump administration has moved to bar CNN from reporting in certain areas of the White House.

Ellison donated roughly $45m to a political nonprofit group supporting Trump’s election efforts in 2024, while he donated $16.6m to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, a charity supporting Israeli soldiers – its largest single donation at the time.

Earlier this year, the White House criticised CNN’s coverage of the US-Israeli war on Iran, while Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters that “the sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.”

Sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates also hold indirect financial interests in the combined company. They have no voting stakes, although their involvement adds another layer of scrutiny over its funding.

Concerns about the future for editorial integrity, however, intensified after Skydance acquired Paramount in 2025, and layoffs followed, alongside the closure of CBS News Radio and changes to CBS News flagship investigative programme 60 Minutes.

High-profile firings enacted under CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss and Skydance Media CEO David Ellison included correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega, as well as 60 Minutes executive producer Tanya Simon.

The programme’s September season premiere attracted about 21 percent fewer viewers than a year earlier.

In 2025, Paramount also agreed to pay Trump $16m to settle a lawsuit over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

In a June 2 letter, nine advocacy groups, including Reporters Without Borders, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Committee for the First Amendment, warned that CNN could face similar upheaval and firings.

“Bari Weiss’ shameless actions fulfil the Ellisons’ commitment to President Trump to remake CBS to his liking,” they alleged, referring to the firings and changes at 60 Minutes.

“Larry Ellison has reportedly promised to do the same at CNN if allowed to take control through the pending Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger. Not because it makes any business sense, but because they seek to control the public discourse.”

The groups described the proposed takeover as an “existential threat to the free press, independent media, and free speech in this country and beyond”.

Coco Gauff says she suffered racial abuse on social media following an incident in her win over 16-year-old Sun Xinran at the China Open.

The American had been serving at 4-5 in the first set her Chinese opponent thought she had hit a winner.

However, Gauff raised her hand to halt play because of a flickering light in the side panels surrounding the court.

Gauff won the next three points to hold for 5-5 before she closed out the set, and then dropped just one game in the remainder of the contest as she claimed a 7-5 6-1 victory to reach the last 16 in Beijing.

The world number four gave a lengthy explanation of why she stopped the point in a post on X and said it was “an unfortunate situation” but “out of my control”, adding that Sun had understood and accepted her apology.

Gauff then responded to a reply to her original post which included racist language.

“You can dislike me or disagree about what happened without being racist,” Gauff wrote.

“The amount of racist comments/direct messages I’ve received in the last few hours is insane. Lastly, I’m not a cheater or a thief.”

Gauff is far from the first player in the women’s game to suffer social media abuse.

A report in July said female players were subjected to more than 12,000 abusive posts and messages on social media in 2025.

The WTA and World Tennis said “collective action” was required to make “significant progress” in tackling abuse.

Rabat, Morocco – “I was surveilled not because of a specific article. I was investigating land dispossession in Morocco. I then learned I was a Pegasus target,” Omar Radi, a journalist and human rights defender, told Al Jazeera, referring to the mobile surveillance tool developed by Israeli company NSO Group.

The findings emerged in June 2020, when Amnesty International Security Lab examined his phone. Radi, now based in Germany, said he had spent two years, from 2018 to 2020, noticing signs including his phone’s battery draining quickly, its temperature rising and the network slowing down.

The physical surveillance, he said, was barely discreet.

“They came every day to get a daily report from the parking attendants in my street, the shops I used to go to, and my friends,” he said. “I would sometimes turn around and walk towards the people following me to take photographs, but they ran quickly and hid their faces.”

His case is among four detailed in a new Amnesty International report, We Start With the Verdict: Inside Morocco’s Surveillance Machine, produced with 14 media organisations and coordinated by the international network of journalists Forbidden Stories.

The other three are Fouad Abdelmoumni, a veteran activist; Abdessadak El Bouchattaoui, a human rights lawyer; and Hicham Mansouri, a journalist in exile who had been imprisoned in 2015 on charges of adultery and sexual exploitation, which Amnesty describes as trumped-up.

The report draws on interviews with a whistleblower using the pseudonym Safir, a former employee of Morocco’s General Directorate for Territorial Surveillance (DGST). Amnesty said it corroborated key parts of Safir’s testimony with independent sources, technical evidence and interviews with 10 people identified as surveillance targets, including Radi.

“The Amnesty report connected many dots as to what I was living and feeling while I was under tight surveillance,” Radi said.

“It explains the extraordinary aspect of my police interrogations and my trial, where many of my rights weren’t respected, because even the judicial police and the judges were under monitoring,” he added.

Amnesty identifies the DGST as the agency behind the deployment of Pegasus spyware in Morocco and documents what it describes as abuses of the spyware against activists and journalists between 2017 and 2021.

Morocco denies surveillance

Morocco has previously rejected Amnesty’s allegations that its authorities used Pegasus to target journalists, activists and other critics.

In statements issued in 2020 and 2022, Moroccan authorities challenged Amnesty to provide material evidence supporting its claims.

Amnesty said it wrote to Moroccan authorities four weeks before publishing its latest report and invited them to respond, but received no response.

Al Jazeera also sought comment from Moroccan officials but had not received a response at the time of publication.

Moroccan media have also challenged the latest report. Le360 cited arguments that the presence of a phone number in Pegasus targeting records does not, by itself, prove that a device was infected or establish who ordered an alleged attack.

The outlet also argued that Amnesty had not provided the conclusive technical and material evidence Moroccan authorities had demanded.

The report says Morocco’s Pegasus operations were fully active by October 2017, pointing to the case of human rights lawyer El Bouchattaoui, whose number was entered into the system in September 2017 and selected for targeting weeks before he received an infection link by text message.

Amnesty said its analysis of Pegasus records matched 103 Moroccan phone numbers to individuals identified as potential targets between September and December 2017. Of those, 65 were identifiable as civil society members, including 34 human rights defenders, 22 journalists and media workers, five lawyers and four academics.

According to Amnesty, Safir described a surveillance apparatus that combined digital and physical methods. Targeted individuals were secretly filmed and recorded in detention, offices, cars, cafes and even bedrooms, he said.

Phone shops, he added, were coopted to sell targets devices infected with spyware. Neighbours of human rights defenders, he said, were recruited as informants to file daily reports on their movements.

Safir also described the use of remote control systems (RCS) at internet cafes. Field agents would identify which cafe a target was visiting, he said, giving the DGST access to activity on machines it had already infected and allowing an operator to track calls, read messages, access photographs and record audio.

The report says similar tactics were used against activist Abdelmoumni, who was secretly filmed at home with his fiancee in 2021. Abdelmoumni said he believed the footage was captured through a hidden camera in an air-conditioning unit, based on the recording’s angle.

Safir described the episode as a “textbook case” of a DGST surveillance and cleanup operation designed to leave no trace.

Journalists describe pressure and intimidation

Taoufik Bouachrine, one of Morocco’s best-known journalists and host of the Talk on Politics podcast, was not named in Amnesty’s report but described a similar pattern.

“In Morocco, as in all Arab countries, inventive methods are used to silence journalists and deter them from investigative journalism, particularly when it concerns the unlawful exercise of power, financial corruption, and the intertwining of political authority and money,” he told Al Jazeera.

The first method, he said, is fabricating criminal cases against journalists, “often involving allegations of sexual misconduct in a conservative society that amount to a journalist’s moral execution”.

The second, he said, is a smear campaign run through armies of online trolls and operatives who target journalists and their families.

Bouachrine, 57, was arrested in 2018 on charges of rape and human trafficking and sentenced to 15 years in prison. He has denied the charges, saying his prosecution was tied to his journalism.

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found Bouachrine’s detention arbitrary and said he had been subjected to judicial harassment. The European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for his release, along with other journalists tried on similar charges.

He served more than six years before being released under a royal pardon. By then, Akhbar Al-Youm, the newspaper he founded, had already closed. Bouachrine said authorities had cut off its advertising revenue.

“This is another method of destroying investigative journalism,” he added, “turning off the advertising tap and leaving a newspaper to die slowly.”

Mammoth deal has raised questions about corporate consolidation and editorial independence in media.

A United States judge has entered an order giving the green light for the media giant Paramount to complete its $110bn acquisition of entertainment company Warner Bros., despite fears about the long-term impacts of media consolidation.

On Wednesday, US District Court Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin approved a settlement between Paramount, Warner Bros, and a group of 12 states that had sued to block the merger.

In her ruling, Martinez-Olguin described the proposed deal as a “fair, reasonable, and good faith approach to address the competitive harms”.

Analysts have long raised concerns about the acquisition, one of the largest media mergers in history.

The coalition of states that sued to block the deal, led by California, had argued that combining Paramount with Warner Bros would effectively stifle media competition. They estimated that nearly one-third of all theatrical releases and basic cable programming would be consolidated under the merger.

But the states abandoned their lawsuit in favour of a settlement on September 21.

The five-year agreement requires Paramount to abide by theatrical film release quotas, committing to 30 releases per year in the US.

It also mandates that the combined company must keep negotiations with cable providers for Warner-owned channels separate from its deals for Paramount-owned channels.

The settlement approved on Wednesday also includes the creation of a five-member panel meant to safeguard the editorial independence of CNN and CBS, two major news networks.

But sceptics have pointed out that the merger puts a large swath of US media under the control of David Ellison, who leads Paramount.

Under Wednesday’s agreement, Ellison is in charge of appointments to the board that would oversee news independence.

The Paramount CEO is the son of billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison, a strong backer of pro-Israel causes who has close ties to the administration of President Donald Trump.

The founder of the film production company Skydance, David Ellison acquired Paramount last year as part of another controversial merger.

The 2025 Paramount-Skydance deal brought CBS under Ellison’s control. Ahead of the merger, sceptics questioned the abrupt cancellation of the CBS comedy show The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, which had been critical of Trump.

Ellison later installed Bari Weiss, a pro-Israel media figure, as the head of CBS News in a move that also raised questions about diminished independence within major journalism outlets.

Some critics depicted Wednesday’s settlement as a further capitulation to powerful corporate interests.

“Allowing one Trump-aligned, foreign-owned conglomerate to dominate American news and entertainment is a disastrous outcome,” Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in the wake of the settlement’s announcement.

But public officials like California Governor Gavin Newsom had called on his state’s Attorney General Rob Bonta to scrap the 12-state effort to block the deal and to pursue a settlement instead.

Paramount emerged victorious from a bidding war with the streaming giant Netflix in February to win control of Warner Bros’s holdings.

That includes a series of media and entertainment services, including the film studio Warner Bros Pictures, CNN and HBO Max. The Trump administration approved the deal without alterations in June.

Seven Minnesota judges face ethics complaint after speaking publicly about the US president’s immigration crackdown.

The United States Justice Department has filed a misconduct complaint against seven federal judges in Minnesota who spoke publicly about the pressure their courts came under during President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The judges spoke to The New York Times this month about dealing with a flood of cases during Operation Metro Surge, an immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests in the Minneapolis-St Paul area from December to February.

The Justice Department says it crossed an ethical line by talking publicly about the cases.

Attorney General Todd Blanche accused the judges of showing “obvious bias” against the Trump administration and called on them to step aside from any cases involving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

“When we have a situation like we have now, where you have a judge, a couple of judges, just not only violating the canons in our view but also showing bias in what they’re saying, we have no choice but to act,” Blanche told reporters.

The judges say they did nothing wrong. A spokesperson for Minnesota’s federal court system said legal experts had found that the judges were “well within the ethical rules” when they spoke to the newspaper.

The complaint is the latest in a series of clashes between the Trump administration and the judiciary, which has blocked some of the president’s policies and, in several cases, accused government lawyers of failing to follow court orders.

One of the judges named in the complaint, Patrick Schiltz, alleged that the government did not comply with nearly 100 court orders related to immigration enforcement in January alone.

In one ruling, he wrote that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “is not a law unto itself”.

Schiltz was nominated by Republican President George W Bush and previously clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

He later told The New York Times that what happened in Minnesota’s federal courts during the crackdown “created a grave threat to the rule of law”.

Schiltz also pointed to guidance issued by a federal judicial ethics panel in February, saying that judges can speak publicly about issues such as the rule of law and judicial independence.

“That is exactly what I did,” he said.