Jimmy Kimmel has said it was “never my intention to make light of” Charlie Kirk’s death.The Latest News from the UK and Around the World | Sky News
Author: alaskaadmin
A woman infected with an incurable brain disease due to an NHS operation when she was three years old has told Sky News she is “living with a death sentence”.The Latest News from the UK and Around the World | Sky News
NOTN- Residents filled Centennial Hall on Monday to oppose a plan to redevelop Juneau’s Telephone Hill into higher-density housing.
About 30 people testified against the proposal, which calls for replacing 14 existing units with more than 100 new units. Mayor Beth Weldon said the project is part of the city’s effort to expand downtown housing.
The Assembly has appropriated $5.5 million toward the redevelopment, though Weldon said no decisions are final.
“Most of it just comes down to trying to get housing downtown.” said Weldon, “So instead of 14 units, we’re looking for over 100 units, its a leap of faith.”
Opponents who testified criticized the plan’s cost and the displacement of current residents. The city maintains the redevelopment is necessary to address Juneau’s housing shortage.
“We do have a timeline. This is a topic for people, because we are doing evictions, but in the spirit of trying to get more housing downtown.” Weldon said.
According to Mayor Weldon, the Assembly changed the format through resident testimony so that there was more conversation between the city and the individuals who showed up to testify.
AP- After gorging all summer on sockeye salmon, the portliest brown bears on the Alaska Peninsula will battle it out to see who will be named the fattest of them all in the wildly popular online voting contest called Fat Bear Week.
Those casting votes online starting Tuesday will choose between 11 mammoth brown bears and the winner of last week’s competition for cubs, named “128 Junior.” She’s a cub of “Grazer,” the two-time defending Fat Bear Week champion at Katmai National Park and Preserve who is looking for a third title.
The contest, which began in 2014, is meant to showcase the resiliency of the brown bears, who pack on the pounds each fall to survive the harsh winter, mostly by gobbling salmon on the Brooks River in the remote preserve about 300 miles (482 kilometers) southwest of Anchorage by plane. The public can watch the bears on explore.org’s livestream cameras before deciding on their favorite creature.
How to vote for Fat Bear Week
The 12 contestants announced Monday will face off in a single-elimination, bracket-style tournament. All voting is done online at www.fatbearweek.org, with the winner declared Sept. 30.
The first round features eight bears squaring off in four separate contests. The four winners advance to the second round, where they face four bears that received first-round byes.
There are about 2,200 brown bears within Katmai, a 6,562-square-mile (16,997-square-kilometer) park on the Alaska Peninsula, which extends from the state’s southwest corner toward the Aleutian Islands. To be featured in the contest, the bears must frequent the area of the main Brooks Camp.
The contest has some colorful characters
The contestants include a number of colorful characters, from a bear nicknamed “Flotato” for a stomping dance it does, to one that will place its paw over its heart like she is pledging allegiance to the flag while waiting for fish to arrive.
Two of the contestants were once dominate males now adjusting to new realities. One was once at the top of the bear hierarchy but now is the old man of the river. The other is adapting to life with a broken jaw that will never heal properly.
A full list can be found here.
Voting is not all about weight
The brown bears at Katmai are among the largest in the world. Mike Fitz, a naturalist for explore.org who started the Fat Bear Contest at Katmai when he was a ranger there, said that the only bears that are bigger are on nearby Kodiak Island.
A male bear at Katmai weighs about 700 to 900 pounds (318 kg to 408 kg) mid-summer and can bloat to over a 1,000 pounds (454 kg) by September or October, thanks to successful foraging. But even a 1,400-pound (635-kg) male isn’t unusual.
Female bears are about half to two-thirds the size of adult males.
But the contest isn’t always just about how big the bear is, and the past two years prove that point with “Grazer” defeating “Chunk,” one of the biggest bears on Brooks River.
Voters could consider the challenges some contestants have had to overcome, such as female bears who protect their young and produce milk for the cubs while also fattening up for winter themselves.
Abundant salmon equals fat bears
Even though factors other than girth can be considered when voting, this might be the year when weight does play a role.
Brooks Falls is famous for brown bears snagging salmon out of the air as the fish try to jump upstream to get to their spawning ground.
That didn’t happen much this year, as an exceptional salmon run reduced the need for bears to compete for fishing spots at the falls.
“We are kind of expecting really to have some of the fattest bears we’ve ever seen in the event,” Fitz said. In fact, officials refer to one contestant as “cruise ship” because of its sheer plumpness.
Protests are becoming a routine part of public life in the United States. Since 2017, the number of nonviolent demonstrations has almost tripled, according to researchers with the nonprofit Crowd Counting Consortium.
And more people are joining than ever. The Black Lives Matter marches in 2020, after George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis, have been described as the largest nonviolent mobilization in U.S. history. The No Kings protests against Trump administration policies on June 14, 2025, were not far behind, with between 2 million and 4.8 million Americans protesting nationwide
What explains this surge of protest activity?
My research shows that polarization – the extent to which people dislike members of the opposing party – is a key driver. Today political polarization, as reflected by the ratings Americans give to the political parties, continues to be at its highest level since political scientists began using the measure in 1964.
I am an expert on political behavior, and my work analyzes how polarization shapes public life. In a recent article published in the journal Social Forces, I analyzed surveys conducted between 2014 and 2021 that asked Americans whether they had joined protests connected to Black Lives Matter, the climate movement or the tea party, the small-government movement that was active in the early 2010s.
These surveys, which include over 14,000 respondents, make it possible to see what separates people who protest from those who stay home.
The data points to a clear pattern: Anger at the other side motivates protest. People who rated the opposing party more negatively at one point in time were much more likely to take part in demonstrations in the years that followed.
Dislike for the other side spurs action
Importantly, I found that partisan animosity was a strong motivator for taking part in protests, even after taking people’s feelings about the issues into account. In the surveys, respondents were asked detailed questions about their views on the movements’ topics: for example, whether white Americans enjoyed advantages that Black Americans did not, or how serious a problem they thought climate change was and whether it was caused by human activity.
This allowed me to calculate how much protest activity was due to partisan anger and how much was simply a result of policy concerns. The results surprised me.
For the two higher-profile movements – Black Lives Matter and the tea party – partisan animosity mattered for protest a little more than half as much as people’s feelings about racial inequality or government spending, respectively. For climate protests, the effect of partisan anger was even greater. How people felt toward the “other side” mattered 2½ times more for their decision to protest than did concern about climate change.
This finding matters because it shows that polarization is not just about what people think. It also changes how they participate in politics.
What’s known as “affective polarization,” or the tendency for partisans to dislike and distrust each other, has already been shown to affect how people view U.S. political parties and their willingness to be friends across party lines. My study showed that this kind of division also increases people’s real-world engagement with politics.
When partisans feel threatened or angry at the opposing side, they don’t just complain about it. They organize, hit the streets and march.
More division, more marches
The polarized nature of protest also helps explain why some of today’s protests address multiple issues. The No Kings protests in June 2025, for instance, challenged a number of actions, including funding cuts to social programs, ICE deportations and the deployment of troops in Los Angeles.
But the “King” in question was always clear: President Donald Trump. Protesters may not have shared identical or extreme views on every issue, but they were united by their opposition to Trump.
Protest has long been an infrequent activity, but that’s changing. In the 2020 American National Election Study, nearly 1 in 10 Americans said they had joined a protest in the past year, the highest figure recorded on that survey since the question was first asked in 1976.
That level of participation makes protest one of the most visible ways Americans now engage in politics. As polarization remains high, there is every reason to expect it will continue – starting with another nationwide No Kings protest planned for Oct. 18, 2025.
The author has attended public events for social movements mentioned in this article. These experiences did not involve any funding, employment, or formal affiliation, and the analysis presented here is guided by academic standards of objectivity and evidence-based research.
Politics + Society – The Conversation
Following unprecedented threats from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, major affiliate station owners Nexstar and Sinclair Broadcasting pressured Disney’s ABC to pull Jimmy Kimmel’s show off the air over his comments related to Charlie Kirk’s killing.
The suspension is a harbinger of what could happen under a fundamental restructuring of U.S. media that will take place if the proposed Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery merger is approved by the Trump administration.
The deal, first revealed on September 11, 2025, would erase one of the five remaining movie studios and concentrate oversight of two of the country’s most prominent newsrooms – CNN and CBS, both targets of the Trump administration’s ire – under one owner with strong ties to Donald Trump.
Based on research from the Global Media & Internet Concentration Project, our analysis shows that Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery would gain control of more than a quarter of the US$223 billion U.S. media market, along with influence over film, television, streaming and the cloud infrastructure upon which digital media increasingly depends.
The combined entity would acquire nearly half of the cable television market, including HBO and CNN. The merger would nearly double Paramount’s share of the video streaming market, uniting HBO Max, Paramount+ and Discovery.
By combining two major Hollywood film studios, it would also capture nearly one-third of the film production market.
This is exactly the type of merger that U.S. antitrust agencies have historically scrutinized because of concerns that excessive market concentration gives too much power to a few companies.
In media markets, such concerns are pronounced: Concentration threatens media diversity and increases the risk of media bias and ideological manipulation.
A mega-conglomerate like Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery would control a vast share of U.S. viewership. Subject to pressure from or, worse, alignment with the Trump administration, the merged company could promote and protect the administration’s interests.
Donald Trump account, Truth Social
Cloud control
By combining media production and valuable brands such as Harry Potter, DC Comics and Barbie, the merged giant would gain great negotiating power with competing streaming companies, advertisers and distributors. The merged companies could also secure more lucrative streaming deals, better licensing windows and higher per subscriber and ad rates with cable providers.
The 2023 Hollywood writers and actors strikes opposed the exploitative impact of streaming and AI on creative workers’ compensation. The new media giant would wield significant bargaining power over those media workers.
The merger’s potential detrimental impact extends beyond film and television industries.
Paramount is helmed by David Ellison, and the merger is backed by his father, Larry Ellison. Ellison senior owns the world’s fifth-largest cloud provider, Oracle.
Cloud providers are the critical infrastructure for streaming platforms, ferrying digital content from streamers to viewers. As streaming becomes the dominant mode of media consumption, the Ellison family’s control over this infrastructure could give Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery another lever of power over its competitors.
Diversity denied
With potential size and reach to rival Disney and Comcast’s NBC Universal, Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery could become another massive media outlet with right-wing ties.
The proposed deal follows the Trump administration’s $1.1 billion cuts in public media funding. These cuts – affecting PBS, NPR and more than 1,500 affiliated local news stations across the country, all accused by Trump of “partisan bias” – effectively accelerate the ongoing demise of local, independent news.
Concurrently, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Corp. has settled its dynastic succession, ensuring Fox remains a core channel for the American right.
If the merger is approved, Fox Corporation, the conservative Sinclair Broadcasting and Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery would control one-third of all U.S. media.
This consolidation would further cement the partisan media model driving deepening political polarization in the U.S., as public and local news media lose funding. The deal also would undermine already declining media independence, fundamental to holding the powerful – whether corporations or politicians – to account.
Wielding regulation
The Trump administration has not shied away from using antitrust law and communications regulation to exercise political control over media.
Before initiating its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount was acquired by David Ellison’s Skydance Media. Ahead of the government’s merger review, amid regulatory signals it could affect the review process, Paramount-owned CBS paid $16.5 million dollars to Donald Trump to settle a lawsuit Trump filed based on allegations of “deceptive” editing of an interview with his political opponent Kamala Harris. Editing of interviews is a standard editorial practice.
Shortly after, the merger was approved by the FCC with strict political conditions: hiring an ombudsman to oversee CBS’s reporting and eliminating all of the network’s diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
David Ellison accepted these conditions, promising to eliminate all of Paramount’s U.S.-based DEI programs. For the ombudsman role, he hired Kenneth Weinstein, former CEO of the conservative Hudson Institute and ambassador to Japan under the first Trump administration.
Since then, the Paramount CEO also has pursued Bari Weiss, a prominent conservative voice, to guide “the editorial direction” of the CBS news division. Ellison’s moves signal that editorial independence at CBS, and soon perhaps CNN, may be subject to ideological oversight.
Eric Charbonneau/Invision/AP
Meanwhile, Ellison’s father, Larry Ellison, has ties to Donald Trump going back to the first Trump administration. The New York Times in an April 2025 profile said that Ellison “may be closer to Mr. Trump than any mogul this side of” Elon Musk.
The senior Ellison has been playing a key role in negotiations over the future ownership of TikTok. His ties to Trump run deep enough to likely make him one of the main beneficiaries of the TikTok deal currently in negotiation between the United States and China.
Trump has shown an appetite for coercing media companies. For instance, ABC settled a Trump lawsuit in late 2024 with a $15 million donation to the as-yet-unbuilt Trump Library.
By placing two major news outlets in the hands of a family with ties to Trump, the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger would facilitate such control.
What Orbán did – but faster
This is the “Hungarian model” on speed.
Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s authoritarian leader, spent a decade asserting increasing control over that nation’s media.
The Trump administration is poised to accomplish the same in less than a year – and at greater scale.
In addition to helping allies buy a growing share of U.S. media, in his first eight months Trump also has managed to score conciliatory overtures from the nation’s tech billionaires, who fired fact-checkers at major social media platforms, curbed moderation of hateful content and asserted rigid editorial control over the op-ed pages at The Washington Post, one of the country’s most prominent newspapers.
If the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger is approved and Larry Ellison joins Andreessen Horowitz as part of the impending TikTok deal, a movie studio, CBS, CNN, Fox, 185 Sinclair-owned TV stations and a major social media platform will have owners with strong ties to Trump.
We believe the promised benefits of a Paramount-Warner Bros. Disovery merger, including lower streaming prices, pale next to the damage it would do to media diversity and pluralism.
By acquiring greater control over film production, TV and streaming, the merger would dramatically reconfigure the very media institutions that shape U.S. culture and politics.
The Trump administration’s review of this merger may further cement the administration’s political control over the U.S. media.
This story has been updated to reflect developments in the status of Kimmel’s show.
Pawel Popiel receives funding from funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Dwayne Winseck receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Hendrik Theine receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Sydney Forde receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Politics + Society – The Conversation
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Less than one week after ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel amid pressure from the FCC, the network announced today that the comedian’s talk show will return to the airwaves on Tuesday.
The decision comes just one day after President Donald Trump blasted Kimmel as “untalented” during his speech at the memorial for Charlie Kirk.
ABC’s parent company Disney confirmed the news in a statement issued Monday afternoon.
Disney announced Kimmel’s return to the airwaves
“Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country,” the Walt Disney Company said in a press release.
“It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive,” the statement continued.
“We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday.”
The decision is sure to be a controversial one, as many Americans still believe that Kimmel’s joke about Trump’s reaction to the shooting was somehow sufficient cause to prompt a government intervention.
But for the most part, the move was an unpopular one, that led even staunch Trump allies like Ted Cruz to speak out against what he described as a dangerous revocation of First Amendment rights.
The American Civil Liberties Union issued an open letter signed by more than 400 celebrities, in which Disney’s decision was characterized as a “dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation.”
“We the people must never accept government threats to our freedom of speech,” the letter says.
“Efforts by leaders to pressure artists, journalists, and companies with retaliation for their speech strike at the heart of what it means to live in a free country.”
The list of stars who signed the letter included such names as Jennifer Aniston, Jason Bateman, Billy Crystal, Robert De Niro, Jane Fonda, Selena Gomez, Tom Hanks, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Joaquin Phoenix, Ben Stiller, Meryl Streep, and Kerry Washington.
“You can’t go around firing somebody because you’re fearful or trying to suck up to an authoritarian, criminal administration in the Oval Office,” ex-late night host David Letterman remarked, according to NBC News.
Kimmel has yet to address ABC’s decision publicly, but you can be sure he’ll share his thoughts during his opening monologue tomorrow night.
We will have further updates on this developing story as new information becomes available.
Jimmy Kimmel to Return to ABC on Tuesday In Stunning Reversal was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Are Donald Trump and Elon Musk making nice?
Nice may not be the right word. But it’s possible that the larger-than-life personalities are moving towards reconciliation.
During the Charlie Kirk memorial, Trump spoke on stage with a pyrotechnic display. Musk also attended.
Months after their public falling out, they even spoke one-on-one. What did they say?
On Sunday, September 21, thousands of mourners gathered for a memorial of far-right podcaster Charlie Kirk.
Also in attendance were Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
Trump and Musk shook hands and spoke to each other.
Now, a new report may shed light upon their conversation.
NEW: President Trump and Elon Musk were spotted sitting together and chatting during a surprise reunion at Charlie Kirk’s memorial. pic.twitter.com/5asd3mTiJF
— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 21, 2025
According to RadarOnline, a lip reading expert says that the conversation began with shocking normality considering the less-than-normal speakers and their personal histories.
“How are you doing?” Trump reportedly began.
“So Elon, I’ve heard you wanted to chat.”
Musk’s response was to shrug.
“Let’s try and work out how to get back on track,” Donald Trump allegedly told Elon Musk.
The purchaser of Tesla responded to that with a nod.
According to the same report, when Trump his hand, he confessed to Musk: “I’ve missed you.”
“Forgive us our trespasses,” Musk tweeted in the early evening on Sunday. “As we forgive those who trespass against us.”
Some have speculated that he was simply echoing Kirk’s widow, Erika, as she shared a message of forgiveness.
Notably, the idea that past misdeeds can be absolved has been a huge selling point for Christianity for nearly 2,000 years.
However, others wondered if this was Elon Musk referring to forgiving Donald Trump.
The two ill-tempered social media users launched a war of words earlier this year.
Trump suggested that Musk’s companies should receive fewer government subsidies and contracts.
(We do not say this often, but Trump’s suggestion was astute, despite his motives.
There has not been any apparent follow-through, unfortunately)
Trump: He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry pic.twitter.com/GUiW7NBb0y
— Acyn (@Acyn) September 21, 2025
Musk, meanwhile, told the world that the Epstein Files remain under wraps because Trump’s name appears within them.
That was … not necessarily a surprise for many to hear.
But coming from a key ally who spent billions to help install Trump into power, it sent ripples through the conservative world.
Hopefully, these two will be back at odds soon. When Trump and Musk work together, terrible things happen to the rest of America.
Donald Trump & Elon Musk: Reconciling After Charlie Kirk Memorial Despite Bitter Feud? was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 3 minutes
As we previously reported, Sunday’s Charlie Kirk memorial drew an estimated 90,000 mourners to State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.
Several public figures who were close to Kirk took the stage, with some paying tribute to his life and legacy, while others seized the opportunity to score political points.
The guest of honor, of course, was Charlie’s widow, Erika Kirk, who delivered an emotional eulogy to her late husband.
But with 90,000 attendees, numerous celebrities delivering speeches, and literal onstage pyrotechnics, the event had a very different tone than the usual memorial service.
And some social media users believe aspects of the memorial were inappropriate or even offensive.
X users share hot takes on Charlie Kirk memorial
“Critics are calling the #Charlie_Kirk memorial service ‘disingenuous’ & ‘performative,’ pointing to flashy special effects and dramatic lighting,” wrote an account that used the handle World News, adding:
“Some compared it to a WWE event, while others found it a powerful honouring.”
Another user accused Erika of fake crying, writing:
“Erika Kirk’s portrayal of grief is disingenuous. Tears aren’t streaming down from red eyes, and it seems like makeup is still intact.
“While I understand that people grieve differently, it’s important to be honest and not pretend to be in pain.”
“I watched Erika Kirk’s speech last night with an open mind, because regardless of how anyone feels about Charlie Kirk, she has the right to grieve her husband,” another user chimed in, adding:
“It felt rehearsed, strategic, and honestly… promotional. Then I saw the bizarre scene where she was recorded (while wearing a mic), talking to Charlie Kirk in the casket. Which was then uploaded to all her social media accounts, rather than kept as a private moment. All I can say is, the grift never stops.”
Stephen Miller blasts perceived enemies in event’s most incendiary speech
The unusual mix of memorial service and political rally yielded some bizarre moments, including one in which Trump operative Stephen Miller delivered a bizarrely combative speech.
“You have no idea how determined we will be to save this civilization, to save the West, to save this republic, because our children are strong, and our grandchildren will be strong, and our children’s children’s children will be strong,” Miller said, before addressing an unspecified foe:
“And what will you leave behind? Nothing. Nothing to our enemies. You have nothing to give. You have nothing to offer. You have nothing to share but bitterness.”
In one of the event’s most moving moments, Erika said that she forgives her husband’s shooter because that’s what Charlie would have done.
But needless to say, several other speakers did not share her spirit of compassion.
Erika Kirk Mocked For ‘Fake Tears,’ ‘WWE-Style’ Entrance at … was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Farrah Abraham has a bold claim that will shock Teen Mom fans to their cores.
She is alleging that she has “no Botox” and “no filler” at this time.
Farrah is even going so far as to report that she has “nothing” in her lips.
The woman who has done so much to her face and bragged about her “million dollar body” says that she’s all natural, now.
Farrah Abraham is allegedly sporting a filler-free face
While speaking to Us Weekly, Farrah Abraham made some bold claims about her use — or disuse — of cosmetic injectables.
“I actually have no Botox, no filler, nothing in my lips,” she announced.
“My face is just however my face is,” Farrah alleged.
“And my body.” (It seems that Farrah is saying that her body is also however her body is)
By definition, Farrah’s face and body would be however they are. That’s how faces and bodies work.
She also gushed that she has learned to “love who I am at 34.”
That is interesting, as Farrah has always seemed to be her own #1 fan.
Apparently, she finally saw what she looks like (and it was a wake-up call)
For many, many years, Farrah Abraham has announced her various procedures, including controversial treatments like vaginal tightening.
(That one’s controversial primarily because Farrah is a young woman and the therapy is not really designed for someone her age)
However, Farrah explained that she had finally noticed that her face looked “super puffy” on TV. Finally. Finally.
“I actually love who I am at 34, but it has taken such a long way to get here,” Farrah shared.
Sounding like a commercial, she spoke about how it was quite the journey “to just be like, ‘Hey, this is plain Farrah, love that skin you’re in.’”
Farrah continued: “And so, because I was having those allergic reactions to some of the fillers, I’m like, ‘I need, I need to stop this.’”
‘I’m so happy to not be bothered right now’
“It was bothering everything,” Farrah Abraham claimed. “So, I’m happy to not be bothered right now. And breathe, right? Normal, yeah. Thank God.”
She affirmed; “And I needed this, and I think I needed to feel this alone, not with someone around me.”
Farrah said that this was “because, like, my brain gets confused sometimes, of like, you know, happiness with relationships, but it’s actually happiness with self.”
Yes, her brain does get confused sometimes.
At the moment, it sounds like she’s on a track towards not getting cosmetic work done on impulse. We’ll see how long that lasts.
Farrah Abraham Brags She Has ‘No Botox’ & ‘No Filler’ After … was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip