trust

Governments have become remarkably efficient at producing information. During crises, official statements, emergency regulations and public updates appear almost instantly. Yet recent global emergencies have exposed a fundamental paradox: more information does not necessarily create greater public trust.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated this with exceptional clarity. Around the world, governments introduced unprecedented public-health measures, revised policies at remarkable speed and communicated with citizens almost continuously. Despite these efforts, public responses varied dramatically. Accurate information competed with rumours, institutional confidence fluctuated and misinformation often spread faster than official corrections.

The challenge extended well beyond the pandemic. Whether societies face natural disasters, armed conflicts, cyberattacks or public-health emergencies, governments confront the same question: how can accurate information become trusted information?

Most discussions of crisis communication focus on governments and public institutions. Established frameworks such as the CDC’s Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) model and Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) have shaped modern practice by emphasising transparency, consistency and timely communication.

These principles remain indispensable.

Yet they share an important assumption-that once reliable information is produced, effective communication naturally follows.

Recent experience suggests otherwise.

Between governments and citizens lies an often-overlooked stage of communication. Official information rarely reaches the public directly. Instead, journalists, editors, producers and broadcasters interpret complex events, provide context and translate institutional language into messages ordinary audiences can understand.

This intermediary role becomes especially important during uncertainty.

People rarely judge information on facts alone. They also respond to clarity, consistency and the credibility of those delivering the message. Two governments may release nearly identical information yet receive very different public reactions because the communication itself inspires different levels of confidence.

Television illustrated this particularly well during the COVID-19 pandemic. While social media accelerated both verified information and misinformation, television remained one of the most trusted sources of crisis reporting because journalists explained changing regulations, interpreted complex developments and provided continuity during uncertain periods.

In such moments, credibility becomes inseparable from presentation.

This raises a broader question. If governments are responsible for making decisions, who ensures those decisions are understood?

Despite its practical importance, that question has received surprisingly little attention.

One researcher exploring this overlooked dimension of crisis communication is Kazakh journalist Kydyr-Zhan Mukhatayev. His work examines what happens after official information reaches television audiences.

Using Kazakhstan’s experience during the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, Mukhatayev argues that broadcasters should not be viewed as passive channels transmitting government messages. Through editorial judgement, presentation and audience engagement, they actively influence how information is interpreted, trusted and ultimately acted upon.

When Information Isn’t Enough

A Case Study with Broader Implications

Mukhatayev explores this relationship through two complementary studies based on Kazakhstan’s broadcasting experience during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The first examines the professional role of television journalists during prolonged uncertainty. Rather than focusing exclusively on government communication, it considers how broadcasters themselves contributed to public understanding through responsible reporting, editorial judgement and effective communication.

The second expands the discussion beyond the pandemic, presenting crisis broadcasting as an interconnected system in which institutional credibility, journalism, visual communication and audience psychology continuously influence one another.

Although grounded in Kazakhstan’s experience, the questions raised extend far beyond one country. They suggest that successful crisis communication depends not only on what governments say but also on how professional media transform official information into messages citizens are prepared to understand, trust and follow.

How Trust Is Actually Built

Mukhatayev’s research brings these elements together into a single analytical perspective. Rather than viewing broadcasting as a channel for delivering official information, it presents television journalism as an active component of crisis management capable of strengthening-or undermining-public confidence.

Beyond COVID-19

The Next Crisis Will Test More Than Governments

Islamabad, Pakistan – A wooden panelled bookshelf behind him, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran, aimed at extending their ceasefire by creating a pathway towards long-term peace.

Sharif then held up the document for the cameras. That was June 17, the high point of a frenzied diplomatic effort led by Pakistan spanning weeks, which had culminated in the MoU that Sharif signed as a mediator.

Yet less than four weeks later, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has, in just the past few days, issued two statements expressing “deep concern” over renewed US-Iran hostilities, with the MoU Islamabad had helped pull together seemingly in shreds.

On Monday morning, the US launched the latest in a series of attacks on Iran, which responded by firing missiles and drones at multiple Gulf and Arab nations that it blamed for hosting US military bases.

Hours later, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei told reporters that mediators, including Pakistan, Qatar and Oman, remained engaged and were continuing their efforts, even as he warned that Iran would continue responding to what it viewed as US non-compliance with the MoU.

So far, those efforts have failed to slow down the fighting, even as Pakistan has pressed on with diplomatic outreach.

On Sunday, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar spoke by phone with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, telling him that dialogue and diplomacy remained “the only viable path” to resolving the crisis.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also spoke to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Friday, warning that “hard-earned” peace gains were at risk, while Dar held a separate call on Saturday with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud.

To many analysts, one question, above all, now stares at Pakistan and other mediators like Qatar: With the deep distrust between the US and Iran only further expanding following the new bout of fighting, can Islamabad or any other capital once again bring Washington and Tehran back to the negotiating table?

Repeated breakdowns

The renewed fighting marks at least the third occasion since the US-Iran ceasefire signed on April 8 appeared to have collapsed.

Days after that truce was agreed on, the breakdown of the first round of Islamabad talks led to the US imposing a naval blockade on Iranian ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The US and Iran both attacked ships in the days that followed.

Then, after the MoU was signed on June 17, Iran attacked several ships that it claimed were passing through the Strait of Hormuz without its permission, prompting another escalation with Washington.

But the Iranian tanker strikes last week appear to have raised tensions to new heights.

US attacks on Iran since then have hit at least 10 provinces, killing a soldier, several fishermen in the southern province of Hormozgan, and a firefighter in Sistan and Baluchestan, according to Iranian authorities.

A railway bridge on a trade corridor linking Iran with Central Asia and China was also struck, along with a bridge near Mashhad used by mourners travelling to former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s funeral.

The renewed hostilities have also pulled Qatar, a fellow mediator alongside Pakistan, more directly into the conflict. On Sunday, Iranian missiles and drones hit the Gulf state, with debris from interceptions injuring three people, including a child, according to Qatar’s Ministry of Interior.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has accused Washington of violating “nearly all parts” of the June agreement within 25 days of its signing, citing attacks on transport infrastructure and fishing vessels.

Baghaei said on Monday that Iran had “acted in good faith” throughout, but that “each time the other party has failed to meet its obligations, we did not uphold ours, and we will continue to act in this manner.”

Since the war began on February 28, Islamabad has played the role of mediator.

It hosted talks in April, the first time in four decades that US and Iranian officials sat in a room together.

Its army chief and interior minister have travelled to Tehran several times. In late March, Pakistan also helped secure a Chinese-backed peace framework alongside its own diplomatic efforts.

In June, it helped produce the MoU signed by Pezeshkian and US President Donald Trump, along with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, which was then discussed at the Burgenstock summit in Switzerland.

Yet analysts say Pakistan lacks the means to enforce the agreements it helps broker.

Javad Heiran-Nia, director of the Persian Gulf Studies Group at the Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran, said the MoU was never intended to resolve the underlying dispute.

“The MoU deferred key and substantive issues to future negotiations and functioned primarily as a tactical instrument to halt hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping,” he told Al Jazeera.

Iran, he said, sees control of the waterway as “a strategic asset; not merely a coercive lever, but a deterrent tool”, and appears “prepared to accept the risk of war to preserve this strategic advantage”.

Mediators, he added, lack the instruments to resolve the dispute “unless a shift in the balance of power between Iran and the United States emerges as a result of limited military engagements”, pointing to a potential US naval blockade as one of the few developments that could alter the strategic calculus.

Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum in Doha, said Pakistan’s room for manoeuvre had narrowed as both sides hardened their positions over the strait.

“Pakistan is in a situation where it is highly dependent on both parties, as it always has been, but right now, Iran is bent on establishing its control over the Strait of Hormuz,” she told Al Jazeera.

According to Thafer, there is little Pakistan can do to de-escalate while both Washington and Tehran remain in “an escalatory phase”.

“Once they feel they have reached a point where the balance tips in favour of one side or the other, then perhaps they will return to the negotiating table,” she added.

But Qamar Cheema, head of the Islamabad-based Sanober Institute, pushed back on the idea that Pakistan is operating without real tools.

He pointed to US Vice President JD Vance’s recent remarks, where he credited Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir’s role in the process, as evidence that Islamabad’s military-diplomatic channel carries real weight in Washington.

Access itself, he argued, is the instrument.

“Pakistan enjoys trust, and that’s why both sides pick up the phone and call Pakistani leadership any time to remove a stumbling block,” Cheema told Al Jazeera.

Crowded diplomacy, narrowing options

But Pakistan has not been the only diplomatic channel, and according to Heiran-Nia, the dispute over the strait was never really Islamabad’s to mediate.

“Iran had previously removed the Strait of Hormuz issue from Pakistan’s mediation agenda, as the matter was essentially bilateral between Tehran and Muscat,” he said.

Tehran, he explained, did not want the issue to be “defined within a broader negotiation package under Pakistani auspices, which would have afforded Washington room for political manoeuvre”.

Direct Iran-Oman talks followed, but “US military pressure and economic sanctions threats against Oman have placed Muscat under considerable strain, preventing meaningful progress,” according to the Tehran-based analyst.

Meanwhile, he cautioned that Sunday’s attacks on Qatar “could have adverse effects on Qatar’s mediatory role”, although Doha “does not currently appear inclined to withdraw”, adding that “Iran should not assume that Doha’s patience is limitless.”

Mustafa Hyder Sayed, executive director of the Pakistan-China Institute in Islamabad, described the GCC states as caught in an uncomfortable position.

“The GCC countries are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They want a functional relationship with Iran while not openly declining the use of their bases and territory by the United States, because they understand they cannot choose their neighbours,” he told Al Jazeera.

Meanwhile, Israel, which is not a party to the MoU, has continued military operations in Lebanon, which Tehran cites as an ongoing violation of the agreement.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Saturday that southern Lebanon “would become Gaza”, raising the prospect of further regional escalation.

Who blinks first?

Despite a week of escalating attacks, the core dispute remains unchanged.

Washington and Tehran remain divided over the same issue that stalled negotiations even before the latest round of fighting: Who controls passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and under what conditions?

Iran insists the MoU gave it authority over transit through the waterway. The US disputes that.

On Monday, Trump announced that the US was reinstating a naval blockade of Iranian ships and would charge a 20 percent tariff on all other ships trying to pass through the strait.

Yet, earlier, a possible compromise had briefly emerged.

Heiran-Nia said the parties explored a formula under which commercial vessels would coordinate passage with both Iran and a designated Arab Gulf state, allowing “both parties [to] claim a degree of victory”.

The talks stalled before reaching a conclusion, however, interrupted by the funeral of Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who was killed on the first day of the war in joint US-Israeli air strikes.

The conflict has since moved in the opposite direction, with military action aimed at shifting the balance of power rather than reviving negotiations.

“The prevailing trajectory now is the continuation of military strikes in an effort to shift the balance of power. Yet, there remains a risk that strategic calculations on either side could spiral beyond control,” Heiran-Nia said.

Thafer believes that, despite the violence, neither side has formally abandoned the MoU.

“Iran is framing this current round of escalation as a violation of the MoU rather than a reason to exit it, which means there could still be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said.

In her assessment, both sides bear responsibility for violating the agreement, from Iran’s attacks on shipping to Washington’s revocation of Iran’s oil sale licence and the military attacks. Yet the agreement remains, at least formally, in place.

Its future, she said, depends on which side ultimately gives ground over the strait. Iran retains what Thafer described as a “snapback capability” to disrupt shipping whenever it chooses.

“It is, militarily, very difficult to fully neutralise that Iranian capability. We will have to wait and see where the leverage finally sits,” she said.

Cheema, for his part, argued that Iran’s own conduct, more than any mediator’s diplomacy, is what will decide how this settles.

“Iranian authorities seem ambitious and aggressive, and are looking to take risks to project power, which makes it less likely that any agreement will reach a final conclusion. That means interventions from mediators will keep coming.”

Reporting from Sacramento — Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom on Thursday announced he will place his ownership interest in the collection of wineries, hotels, restaurants and other investments that made him a millionaire into a blind trust, a step he said “goes beyond anything required by law.”

Since his election in November, Newsom has been weighing how to handle his array of assets in the hospitality business, collectively known as the PlumpJack Group, a multimillion-dollar business enterprise that grew from a wine shop he opened in San Francisco in 1992. Those holdings have the potential to create ethical conflicts between Newsom’s job as California’s chief executive and his business interests.

“Governor-elect Gavin Newsom is announcing today that he will be the first governor in the history of California to release his tax returns every year, just as he has done as a candidate,” Newsom’s spokesman Nathan Click said in a statement. “Newsom will also disclose his personal and business holdings each year on his statement of economic interest and separate himself from the PlumpJack Group wine and hospitality businesses that he has built.’’

Bob Stern, coauthor of California’s 1974 Political Reform Act that dictates the state’s conflict-of-interest laws, praised Newsom’s decision.

“That’s as much as anybody could ask him to do, except for selling all the properties, which I wouldn’t recommend him doing,” Stern said Thursday.

Stern added, however, that placing those assets in a blind trust does not remove the potential that Newsom could face a possible conflict of interest as governor. Under the law, Newsom is required to disclose all assets in the blind trust until those assets are sold, Stern said.

Newsom is in the process of transferring title to and control of the businesses into the blind trust, Click said. Newsom selected family friend Shyla Hendrickson, an attorney and certified public accountant with more than two decades of experience in the investment management business, as trustee, he said.

Under the terms of the blind trust, Hendrickson will have total authority over the assets, Click said, including the power to sell off Newsom’s business ownership without consulting him. She also is barred from discussing those decisions with Newsom.

Picking a family friend to serve as trustee is allowable under state law, Stern said, adding that the fact that Newsom’s sister, Hilary Newsom Callan, serves as president of the PlumpJack Group is “not a problem” under the law.

State law does not require Newsom to divest from PlumpJack Group or release the names of his business associates. And Newsom can legally sign bills or take executive action beneficial to his companies if those decisions affect all Californians or a significant segment of the population in the same way they affect him.

Newsom has yet to announce any details about the financial interests of his wife, documentary filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom, whose foundation could also raise questions for the incoming governor.

Siebel Newsom’s foundation, the Representation Project, which helps fund her documentaries along with education programs and community outreach “to challenge limiting gender stereotypes and shift norms,” has in the past received financial support from Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and AT&T. PG&E and its foundation reported donating $100,000 to the Representation Project in 2017, $85,000 in 2016 and $10,000 in 2015, according to federal tax records and a list of PG&E’s charitable donations on the utility’s website.

As president of the foundation, Siebel Newsom received a salary of $150,000 in 2016, according to the most recent publicly available disclosures filed with the Internal Revenue Service. The foundation also reported paying Girls Club Entertainment, Siebel Newsom’s production company, $150,000 that same year. Newsom’s spokesman said the board of directors of the Representation Project is in the process of determining her future role with the foundation.

In 2018, PG&E also donated $58,400 to Gavin Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign and $150,000 to Citizens Supporting Gavin Newsom for Governor 2018, an independent expenditure committee that backed his candidacy.

Next year, the California Legislature is likely to consider a bill to provide financial relief for any utility whose equipment was involved in a wildfire in 2018. PG&E could face billions in potential liability costs for the deadly Camp fire near Chico, which killed at least 86 people and destroyed thousands of homes.

If approved by lawmakers, the bill would land on Newsom’s desk.

This isn’t the first time Newsom has had to address the intersection of his political and business lives. After he was elected mayor of San Francisco in 2003, Newsom sold his interests in the PlumpJack Group businesses in San Francisco to his longtime friend and business partner, oil heir Gordon Getty, for $1.7 million, according to a financial disclosure filed with the city. But Newsom held on to his investments outside the city limits, including in Napa Valley wineries and a hotel and gift shop at the Squaw Valley ski resort near Lake Tahoe.

“The mayor chose to take this unprecedented action because he feels it is in the best interest of San Francisco for its chief executive not to own businesses that operate in the city,” Newsom’s then-press secretary, Peter Ragone, told the San Francisco Chronicle in April 2004.

As governor, Newsom could face an array of potential ethical dilemmas as long as his assets in the PlumpJack Group remain in the trust.

For example, a corporation could conceivably try to curry favor with the new governor by renting out a bank of rooms at the PlumpJack Squaw Valley Inn or by throwing lavish parties at the Forgery bar in San Francisco, both among Newsom’s holdings. In those scenarios, the spending would likely not have to be disclosed.

Newsom has held campaign events at his restaurants and other businesses for years. His gubernatorial campaign spent more than $83,000 at his businesses from 2015 through election day, campaign finance records show.

In 2014, the California Democratic Party held a fundraiser at Newsom’s CADE Estate Winery in Napa Valley, paying the business $4,229. Just after Newsom was elected mayor of San Francisco in 2003, two Bay Area labor groups spent more than $1,000 at PlumpJack Wines, Newsom’s wine store.

Newsom has vowed to issue an executive order prohibiting state executive branch agencies from doing business with PlumpJack entities. He will also divest from all common stock that he owns in publicly traded companies. According to his latest financial disclosure, Newsom held stock in Intel Corp. and Merck & Co. worth $4,000 to $20,000 in total.

Napa Valley wineries have brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars in income for Newsom annually, according to financial disclosure records and business filings with the secretary of state’s office. Three wineries in the PlumpJack Group founded by Newsom and Getty generated nearly $800,000 in just one year for Newsom, according to his 2015 federal tax returns. Newsom and Getty — who are connected through Getty’s friendship with Newsom’s late father, who once managed Getty’s family trust — share multiple business interests.

Under state law, Newsom will not have to declare a conflict of interest when making a decision — whether to sign legislation or approve an administrative action — unless it “explicitly” affects one of his companies or investments, according to state Fair Political Practices Commission regulations.

For example, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) is sponsoring a bill that would allow bars in San Francisco, Los Angeles and seven other cities to serve alcohol until 4 a.m. The legislation passed this year but was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown. If the bill passes again in the new legislative session, Newsom’s restaurants and bars would benefit financially if he signs it. But he still would be able to so without declaring a conflict of interest because the rules would apply to all restaurants and bars in those cities, not just his.

“He’s certainly allowed to sign bills dealing with wineries or dealing with restaurants,” Stern said.

In this 2004 photo, then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, left, Gordon Getty and then-Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown enjoy a pre-dinner glass of wine during an event at Newsom’s PlumpJack Winery in Oakville.

(Eric Risberg / Associated Press)

Although Newsom might be one of the wealthiest governors ever to serve in California, the issues posed by his assets aren’t new to the office, Stern said.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sold off stock and many other investments, placing the proceeds in a blind trust, although he had also disclosed investments outside the trust, including his Hollywood entertainment firm, Oak Productions.

While in office, Schwarzenegger was criticized for accepting a consulting job for a publisher of health and bodybuilding magazines — Muscle & Fitness and Flex — because a significant portion of the publications’ revenue came from advertising by makers of nutritional supplements. Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have created a list of banned substances for interscholastic sports and barred supplement manufacturers from sponsoring school events.

Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist and former communications director for Schwarzenegger, said it was difficult to wall off some of Schwarzenegger’s business interests because they were tied to the “personal brand” of the Hollywood action star and former champion bodybuilder.

The best option in those cases is asking full disclosure from public officials, he said.

“I don’t think [Schwarzenegger’s situation] is unique. I think it’s just a matter of scrutiny and watching it,” Stutzman said.

“In Newsom’s case, if he can’t sell PlumpJack or other things he owns, he’s not going to be blind,” said retired attorney Colleen McAndrews, a former member of the state Fair Political Practices Commission who advised Schwarzenegger on setting up a blind trust when be became governor.

Coverage of California politics »

Local government politicians are most affected by the state’s conflict-of-interest law because cities and counties approve regulations, permits, land use restrictions and other items that could affect a single business or part of town. It would be rare to see a conflict arise under state law for the governor, however, because most of the action taken by the state’s chief executive affects all Californians equally, McAndrews said.

“You don’t have to recuse if a decision affects the public the same way it affects you,” she said.

Rick Scott, the wealthiest governor in Florida history who in November was elected to the U.S. Senate, came under intense scrutiny after he placed his assets in a blind trust. Multiple Florida news outlets reported that Scott’s blind trust made identical investments in a separate, private account for his wife, raising questions about just how “blind” the governor was to the trust.

GateHouse newspapers reported this year that the couple’s financial holdings in the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences, which makes drugs to combat hepatitis C, had grown substantially. Florida’s Medicaid program has spent millions on those drugs, the report found.

Jamie Court, president of the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog, said that regardless of what the incoming governor decides to do regarding his assets, Newsom should provide full disclosure of all his financial interests.

“I think the governor has to be very open about his business relations, even beyond what the law calls for,” Court said. “If he hides anything, believe me, we will find out later and it won’t be good.”

Times staff writer Maloy Moore contributed to this report.

phil.willon@latimes.com

Twitter: @philwillon

Problems with after-death care came to light after the parents of Harriet Hawkins, who was stillborn at NUH in 2016, discovered her body had been allowed to decompose so badly that it had to be triple-bagged for her funeral.

A subsequent investigation found 17 areas of concern and prompted an examination by the independent maternity review into the after-death care provided to 16 other babies and one mother.

They found that one early gestation baby had been disposed of as clinical waste, the wrong baby had been passed to funeral directors and a mother who died had deteriorated so badly that her family were advised not to see her prior to her funeral.

“The Review found evidence of recurring examples of failure to protect the dignity of the deceased… including inadequate arrangements for undertaking paediatric post-mortems,” Ockenden said in her report.

The problems prompted the Human Tissue Authority (HTA), which regulates mortuary care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to examine the trust’s services.

In an unannounced inspection, external, which was carried out in March 2026 but only published this week, it found three critical, six major and one minor shortfalls against its standards at the two hospitals run by the trust, the QMC and City Hospital.

The HTA found lack of freezer space at both Nottingham hospitals meant some bodies had been put in a refrigerated area instead.

Eight of the bodies were showing “advanced deterioration” because they had not been transferred to a freezer in time.

Instead of being conducted in a post-mortem suite, some baby post-mortem examinations were carried out in a lab that was inadequately ventilated, with support staff who had not been trained in mortuary care, the HTA found.

An accompanying audit found just more than half of the 145 recorded incidents that should have been escalated to the regulator were not.

It was the summer of 1949 when a 22-year-old, newly hired Milwaukee photojournalist was assigned to take portraits of an unknown 23-year-old actor passing through town on a publicity tour. John Ahlhauser spent 30 minutes capturing seven photos of the up-and-coming starlet. One was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Ahlhauser took the other six home.

That unknown actor was Marilyn Monroe (although her legal name was still Norma Jeane Mortenson).

To celebrate Monroe’s 100th birthday on June 1, five photos from the shoot are being auctioned off through proxy bidding until Tuesday morning, when the live auction will occur. The photos were shot as part of a promotion for Monroe’s brief role in the Marx brothers’ final feature together, “Love Happy.” According to Ahlhauser’s daughter, Mame O’Meara, these pictures represent an unguarded and unedited version of the celebrity.

“When we took it to ‘Antiques Roadshow’ — which it did not get on at that moment — they said these are before she got her nose job, before she went platinum, and that she had developed a look in her eye in January of 1950 that really kept you out of her personal space,” O’Meara said. “They describe these seven little pictures as windows into her soul.”

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran one photo in 1949 and a second image was used in Gloria Steinem’s 1988 book, “Marilyn: Norma Jeane.” In 2011, all of Ahlhauser’s work was placed in a trust, including his photos of Monroe.

Monroe’s estate was controlled by Anna Strasberg, the second wife of Monroe’s acting coach and close friend, Lee Strasberg, since his death in 1982. O’Meara explained that the family waited to release Ahlahauser’s photos of Monroe because of the “contention” over Anna Strasberg’s ownership of Monroe’s image. Strasberg died in 2024.

“Strasberg was fighting in court for all of the images of Marilyn, and we put these in a trust and actually worked to keep them quiet at that time,” O’Meara explained.

When Ahlhauser died in March 2016, O’Meara and her five siblings inherited hundreds of their father’s yellow Kodak photo boxes. Inside the boxes were his photos of Monroe, organized with the “sleeve dated and with the assignment on the outside.”

“I wanted to touch absolutely everything in the boxes,” O’Meara said. “[My siblings] were both gracious, and none of them wanted to, and so I have had the privilege the last six years of going through every print he ever made, and I’m just working on the negatives now.”

However, O’Meara and her siblings aren’t entirely ready to let go of Monroe yet. While they’ll be auctioning off five of the photos, they’re planning to keep two.

“We’re selling these five, and people can take the copyright and put them on coffee mugs, or make an AI movie, or whatever they want to do with them,” O’Meara said, laughing. “We’ll just keep the two really nice ones that he was so proud of. We’ll keep those in his collection, and we can sell prints if we feel like it.”

While Ahlhauser’s photo of Monroe may become his most iconic image, the session didn’t feel like a particularly notable event in his career. It wasn’t as impactful as when he photographed the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago or civil rights marches in 1960s Mississippi. But for O’Meara, that’s where the beauty of these photos lies.

“They are both really nobodies; they’re both people doing a job,” O’Meara said. “And yet, when I look at those pictures, I think they both had to really allow themselves to let the camera find the vulnerability, and that to me is the art in it.”

For Ross Stripling, baseball was something of an accidental career.

He walked onto the team at Texas A&M, majoring in business finance, planning to stick around campus long enough to earn a master’s degree. After his junior year, he turned down a six-figure bonus offered by the Colorado Rockies. After his senior year, he accepted a six-figure bonus to sign with the Dodgers, only to blow out his elbow after one season in the minor leagues.

He was 24. He was at peace. He called home.

“I think the right thing to do is to say I did this baseball thing and go start my life,” he told his father.

If you’re a Dodgers fan, you know the rest of his baseball story: In his major league debut, Stripling was five outs from a no-hitter when Dodgers manager Dave Roberts yanked him. In his nine years in the major leagues, including five with the Dodgers, he pitched in the All-Star Game and the World Series, and he once pitched with his “Chicken Strip” nickname on the back of his game jersey.

His father knew best. Instead of giving up on baseball when he needed Tommy John surgery, his father encouraged Stripling to use the yearlong rehabilitation process as a way to explore what a future without baseball might look like. His grandfather set him up with an internship at an investment firm.

Five years ago, Stripling and his mentor from that firm founded their own financial services company, called Skyward Financial. Now, 21 months after Stripling threw his last pitch in the major leagues, he is throwing a new one: Hey, young athletes coming into a lot of money, I’ve lived in that world, and I’ll show you how to protect your money and build toward generational wealth.

“It’s not me trying to become the next Wolf of Wall Street,” Stripling said. “This is genuine. I want to help kids and their families out in a space that has gotten out of hand in a hurry.”

Matthew Houston, the mentor, said Stripling blew away the brokers when he interviewed for that internship.

“He brings with him, like, a two-inch folder stuffed with handwritten stock reports he had written on minor league bus trips,” Houston said. “He handed us a couple of them, and they were legit Wall Street reports, him doing analysis of stocks. We were falling out of our chair.”

Stripling soon earned his broker’s license. Over the past decade, Houston estimated, he and Stripling might have traded messages about markets and clients “25 to 50 times a day.” One night, Houston watched Stripling pitch on television. Not long after the game ended, he heard the ping of a text message.

“I had just seen him on TV, and it’s like, ‘What do you think about Celgene and Gilead in the biotech sector?’” Houston said. “My mind was blown.”

You don’t need to have played in the major leagues to realize how much money athletes make. Major brokerages want a piece of that money. Some even use former athletes to recruit current ones.

Marc Isenberg, the former director of financial education for Morgan Stanley’s sports and entertainment group and author of the “Money Players” guide for young athletes, wished Stripling well but said he would face significant competition from firms with bigger names and greater resources.

“It’s oversaturated,” Isenberg said. “Almost every single Wall Street firm, to compete for athletes and entertainers, has a sports and entertainment group.”

And it’s not just the behemoths. Stripling checked with a basketball agent, who said he represents 24 college players that each have a different money manager.

There is nothing revolutionary about Stripling’s message: limit the flashy spending now in favor of prudent savings and investment, so you can grow your money through and beyond your career.

Stripling believes he can win by concentrating on young athletes, the ones suddenly showered in six- or seven-figure payments from draft bonuses, college revenue sharing payments, and name, image and likeness deals.

“I’ve seen the first-rounders come in and blow money on cars and houses and gambling,” Stripling said, “and I’ve seen the first-rounders like (former Dodgers shortstop Corey) Seager, who probably hasn’t spent a dime of his signing bonus.”

In a presentation for young athletes — and for the pro teams and college athletic departments that might invite him to speak — Stripling’s firm uses his story of a baseball prospect that got a $900,000 up-front payment and spent the $500,000 after taxes on a red Lamborghini. If the prospect had invested that $500,000 over 30 years into a fund that tracked the S&P 500, he would have made $8.6 million.

“That was the dumbest decision I’ve ever seen anyone make,” Stripling said.

“I have these stories from being in the locker room. I hope that, as a player, my story resonates more than a guy from Goldman Sachs saying, ‘Yeah, we’ve got a couple good ETFs.’”

Stripling would love the chance to speak at one of the Dodgers’ morning meetings in spring training, where players hear briefings about everything from safety and security to social media.

“I’d like to learn more about it, but I’d be open to putting him in front of the guys,” Roberts said. “I definitely trust him.”

In the meantime, Stripling has a federal record. All brokers do. One form requires brokers to list their employers and job descriptions over the last 10 years. Among all the wealth strategists and financial advisors and registered representatives, Stripling’s form is the one with the job history that starts with this line: “LA Dodgers, Pitcher.”

April 26 (UPI) — The Trump administration asked the National Trust for Historic Preservation on Sunday to end its legal challenge to President Donald Trump‘s ballroom following Saturday’s arrest at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, saying its lawsuit “puts the lives of the president, his family and staff at grave risk.”

“Enough is enough. Your client should voluntarily dismiss this frivolous lawsuit today in light of last night’s assassination attempt on President Trump,” Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said in a letter to the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s lawyers.

Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of Torrance, Calif., was arrested Saturday night at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner hosted at the Washington Hilton Hotel with Trump, his family, members of his Cabinet and many others in attendance.

U.S. Secret Service agents apprehended the suspect — armed with a shotgun, a handgun and knives — who allegedly rushed a Secret Service checkpoint in the hotel’s lobby, authorities said.

Law enforcement and the suspect exchanged gunfire, resulting in an agent sustaining an injury when shot in the bullet-resistant vest. The injured agent and the suspect, who was not struck by gunfire, were transported to a local hospital for treatment.

Trump has been locked in a monthslong legal battle with the preservation organization over his plans to construct a $400 million donor-paid ballroom where the East Wing of the White House once stood.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation argues that the Trump administration needs congressional approval for the project and its financing mechanism, while the Justice Department argues the project is legally authorized and that, now that construction has begun, completing it is necessary for the security and the safety of the president.

A federal judge has sided with the preservation organization, ruling that Trump needs congressional approval for the plan to proceed. After the judge earlier this month permitted only below-ground construction for security purposes, the D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay allowing the project to continue while the government’s appeal proceeds, with oral arguments scheduled for June 5.

Calls of support from the White House and Republicans have increased following Saturday’s incident, with Trump stating in a press conference that night, “We need the ballroom.”

In his letter on Sunday, Shumate said the ballroom would mean the president would no longer need to leave the White House to attend large gatherings.

He said the National Trust for Historic Preservation has until 9 a.m. Monday to dismiss the lawsuit or the Justice Department will move to dismiss the case “in light of last night’s extraordinary events” and state that the preservation organization opposes the motion.

UPI has asked the National Trust for Historic Preservation for comment.