Podcasts about Isma

Do you know who can help you with a business permit, a rental problem or family support? Through the stories of Fedele, Carol and Abeer, learn how Australia's three levels of government work. Find out what local, state or territory, and federal governments are responsible for and where to turn for help. - Taf min jista' jgħinek b'permess ta' negozju, problema ta' kiri jew appoġġ għall-familja? Permezz tal-istejjer ta' Fedele, Carol u Abeer, tgħallem kif jaħdmu t-tliet livelli ta' gvern tal-Awstralja. Skopri għal xiex huma responsabbli l-gvernijiet lokali, statali jew territorjali, u federali u fejn tista' tirrikorri għall-għajnuna.How Australia Works is an SBS podcast that uses real stories and clear explanations to help you understand how government work in Australia, how laws are made and changed, and how you can have a say. Listen to the series and find shorter versions in 60 languages on the How Australia Works main page. - Kif Taħdem l-Awstralja huwa podcast tal-SBS li juża stejjer veri u spjegazzjonijiet ċari biex jgħinek tifhem kif jaħdem il-gvern fl-Awstralja, kif isiru u jinbidlu l-liġijiet, u kif tista' tgħid kif taħsibha int. Isma' s-serje u sib verżjonijiet iqsar f'60 lingwa fuq il-paġna ewlenija ta' How Australia Works .

¡Feliz Día Internacional del Podcast!

Le nouveau podcast football du FC Copains

Isma Juárez viene para explicar en qué ha fallado el programa esta semana, y tiene claro que no se ha hablado de lo que verdaderamente importa: el mundo se ha acabado. Cuando llegue el apocalipsis, solo quedarán en el mundo los preparacionistas, las peores personas según Isma. Para responder al cómico está Ignacio Ortega, instructor jefe de la Escuela Española de Supervivencia.

Le nouveau podcast football du FC Copains

Listen to Zooming In at The UnPopulist in your favorite podcast app: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeBerny Belvedere: Renée DiResta, thanks for joining us on Zooming In, our flagship podcast here at The UnPopulist. You've been on before a couple of times. You've done podcasts with us, you've spoken at LibCon—in fact, during our first LibCon, LibCon 2024, your book generated intense interest. It seemed to be the book of the summer. You remember that?Renée DiResta: I do, thanks so much.Belvedere: It felt like at every other session, some panelist would say something like, “and to explore this further, I really recommend Renée DiResta's new book, which is just wonderful.” Right? I don't know why I did that in a nerd voice. Your endorsers are wonderful people.But Renée, welcome again. I want to dive right in. You have a new report out. It's put out by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It was written by you and two co-authors, Rachel Kleinfeld and Margot Treadwell. That's a powerful lineup. We've run Rachel's work in our pages before and it's top notch. The report is fantastic. It did not disappoint. For anyone interested in how the broader world of news and opinion discourse works today, it's immediately one of the most useful resources to pick up. And it's especially useful for practitioners, for people who work in the space, like we do.But to help with some scene setting, can you tell us about the report in broad brushstrokes? We'll then narrow in from there.DiResta: So I think about this as report part two. Last year, in September, almost one year to the day, we put out a provocation saying: “institutions need to change how they communicate in order to compete in the new media environment.” And we wrote a framing on why that was, on how social media was no longer this niche thing that those people over there did. If you wanted to reach the public, this is where people are—and you have to reach them where they are and in a manner that they find appealing. The way that you communicate is just different now.That attracted a lot of attention and it got us a ton of inbound, particularly from philanthropy, because we were also telling philanthropists you have to change how you think about outputs and outcomes that matter. For a lot of academics and others, participation in the public conversation is, if not discouraged, it's not really encouraged. It doesn't move the needle for your tenure committee, that sort of thing. How could philanthropists shift the thinking on why communicating to the public actually was critical? We got a ton of inbound on it and the question we got most often was: “How?”This report is the how. The basic premise is that most Americans now get their information and form their opinions through creators, podcasts, Substacks, group chats. Most traditional institutions have only minimal engagement or presence in those spaces. So that ecosystem runs on a very different model of legitimacy. People are following people, not institutions. They're following people that they find appealing or relatable. Somebody coming to you from their kitchen. Credentials and institutional polish actually can read as almost a sort of distance now.Those are the elites saying that stuff from over there, whereas this person is just talking to me in their kitchen. They're real.We write about how fact-based institutions have often thought about this shift to social as a repackaging job. “All right, how do I take my massive PDF”—and, by the way, this report is a massive PDF—“how do I take that and put out a couple screenshots on social media or generate a reel?” They see it more as engaging when you have something to release, when you have just put something out. So it's very self-serving. They're not using social media as a communicator in an ongoing conversation where they're having a back and forth with their audience. They're using it as a broadcast tool and they're reformulating the thing that they wanted to broadcast into a format that nominally works but is missing that dialogue.So our guide argues that it's a strategy problem—and that CEOs and boards have to own this. They have to think about it, not as the thing that happens after you've done your work, but as an active part of your ongoing relationship to the public. We framed the report as a series of questions to guide that thinking. We did a bunch of case studies, really spanning the communication ecosystem we have. How Jon Haidt turned some of his work into a movement. We have how Turning Point became a juggernaut. We have some of the Mamdani campaign stuff. Not endorsing any position there—but saying, “here's some interesting stuff that you can learn from how this group strategically chose to engage the public through these means.”Belvedere: I thought the guide did a really great job of bringing in real world examples. You also brought up David French and the reception he received. His case is a fascinating one because of what it represents and what it says about the subcommunity that he had that parting of the ways with, and the way they gate-kept him from continued access to it.But I want to pick up on something that you mentioned in passing just now in your broad overview. There's a line in the report that really struck me as I was reading it. As you put it, credentials and institutional polish—the CV virtues—now read as distance and disconnect rather than authority, which is what it used to read as. Do you think that's a permanent rewiring of how trust just works now?DiResta: It's an interesting question. Trust and authoritativeness are distinct. You trust your neighbor without necessarily thinking they're an authority. You just find them a trustworthy person. You would give them your keys. They can feed your dog, that sort of thing. And it doesn't matter what they do or what their professional credentials are. What matters is just that you have a relationship. You feel that this person is somebody who would support you if you need it, that they're going to level with you. They're going to tell you the truth, even if you might not want to hear it.That's the idea of trust as something that is deeper than expertise. Sure, it goes hand in hand with it at times. We would like it to be tightly coupled. We want people to trust experts, but the idea of relatability instead is: “Why would this person who seems just like me lie to me? Why would they deceive me? What do they get out of it?” Whereas people sincerely believe that elite institutions are working to serve their own agenda, and that is often seen as being at odds with the average, everyday person. You see this in politics when people ask, “Why is this politician talking about this thing, performing this action, when I just care about putting food on the table for my family?” You see that gap in what lands and resonates with people versus what people in elite or institutional positions want to talk about.Sometimes this is a disconnect that gets lamented in liberal spaces, particularly as, “well, if only they listened, they would understand that my policy proposal for this thing does help them 10 degrees and five years later.” But in the immediate here and now, it's that question of: Do I trust the person who's speaking to me? Do they seem just like me?I had this experience when I was a new mom. I was one of the first in my friend group to have kids. I didn't know what to do. I was living across the country from my family and didn't have much support. So I turned to the internet, right? Who are the people who are going to help me understand what I'm supposed to do with this baby? How do I make him sleep? How do I make him eat? How do I not screw this up? I think it's a very personal experience that a lot of people have where that sense that reading a PDF on an institutional website is not the same thing as somebody sitting there with you taking the time. There's a phrase that I think it was Jeff Jarvis who once said to me in conversation: “the media talks to the public and the influencers talk with them.”I think that's the best framing I've heard for that. Content creators understand how to talk with their audiences, where even people who may have better information, more expertise, authoritative content, are not necessarily communicating that in a way that feels real and connects to a sense that this person is telling me the truth.Belvedere: I'm wondering what's the right read on this broad question of trust that we're all grappling with. Take, for example, the aftershocks from a specific high profile instance of trust collapse—something like Covid. I think Covid's a really instructive episode in many different ways. There's been a lot of revisionism about it. What was different about Covid compared to other past trying moments in society is that Covid became politicized in a particular way by an extremely potent right-wing discourse-shaping machine. That's not going to stop being in place.“A lot of institutions are taught to stay on message at all times—if you hand your message to somebody else, you lose control of it. But you can't tell them what to say. They're going to say what they want to say. They might get it wrong. But counterintuitively, I think that actually generates more dialogue, more attention, and provides you with a way to accomplish something you might not be good at yourself. Your CEO might not actually be the best face to talk about this thing—the 20 year old you hired, who is much more comfortable with this, is actually the person who should be out there engaging, putting out the message, or working with a creator or creator lab and essentially briefing them.” — Renée DiRestaSo my overriding fear is that Covid is not an outlier. And that anything in society like Covid that requires elite management, whether it's the dissemination of information, policies that help curb some of the worst effects of not abiding by certain standards, all of that is going to run up against an information machine architecturally designed to demagogue that issue, to create a trust collapse, to point out any little mistakes and amplify them as though they're an example of the elites just completely botching everything. Is there any hope that that wanes?DiResta: That's a very interesting question—let me give you a couple of answers.Two things were true about Covid. I was writing about this in The Atlantic during the pandemic: the institutional communicators really dropped the ball—in my opinion, but I think that's been quite backed up at this point. I remember writing that it would be nice to see the CDC's website look more like Wikipedia, where you can see the change log, the public can understand in this fast moving situation—you can go back and read the edit history, you can see who made the change, you can understand how consensus forms in a scientific community. Because there's such a time lag, right? They are waiting until they are absolutely, 100% sure before they say something. In that time, the people are still looking for information, and they're going to get it from whoever is willing to give it to them. On social media, there's an incentive structure: if you're first, you get rewarded; if you're sensational, you get rewarded. If you're right? That doesn't really matter. Maybe you'll get a Community Note, maybe a fact check, but that's not really the point. The point is: Are you first, are you relatable, do you seem authentic, can your stuff go viral? It's a very different communication style and game.So the first thing that was true is that the institutions dropped the ball in comms during Covid communications. And I was writing about it as it happened, because my job was to study social media rumors and narratives around the vaccine. I was like: “Come on, guys! You gotta get in the game here! You're not going to content-moderate this out of existence—that's just not how it works. You're going to turn this into forbidden knowledge.” We did everything we possibly could to try to systematically change that. And the people who did respond were the first-person speakers who began to emerge: physicians. You saw doctors working shifts at Bellevue doing live updates about the morgue trucks—those were the people who managed to break through, because they had the credentials, but they were also able to say very directly to the public: this is the truth, this is what you need to know, Covid is real, even as the institutions weren't doing that.But the second thing that's true is that, as you note, the failures, flaws, and missteps get immediately weaponized. That turns into: “you can't trust those people, they didn't tell you the truth then, never forget what they did to us.” That rhetoric isn't really about finding truth, or understanding a novel pathogen, or whether a vaccine works—remember, this was the first time one had ever been rolled out in an emergency setting. It turns into: “here's why you can never trust those people, and you can only trust me.”That got reinforced through litigation. They lost all their court cases, but they still sued people who tried to deal with the falsehoods and misleading content, and any effort to label it or fact-check it got reframed as censorship. It was really wild to see what that machine juggernaut managed to do to reinforce that only it was going to tell its base the truth, and they couldn't trust anything on the outside. That's the kind of rhetoric you usually see from cults—“you can't trust anybody but me.” It's a very different style of communication, and I found it personally alarming to see it happen in the context of a pandemic, because it has serious downstream consequences.Belvedere: Yeah, and I mean, think about the way you just described that—an informational cult kind of environment, scaled up to half the country, or at least to a large share of people getting their news from less-than-ideal sources. I think it's going to continue to be a problem.DiResta: Let me follow up on that quickly. I spent about [six months] watching the vaccine rollout—February through August of 2021, as Operation Warp Speed rolled out. I watched what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other long-standing—just to be clear, long-standing—anti-vaccine activists did. These weren't people who simply didn't like the Covid shot; no, these were people who had been telling you vaccines cause autism, dating back to the 1990s. I watched them capitalize on this in the most incredible ways. They were absolutely transparent about it—they were like, “this is our chance to undermine confidence in the entire vaccine enterprise.” And that is exactly what they did. They didn't hide the ball—they were live-streaming taking about it. “This is our chance to tell the public that all of these things are poison.” And now we have kids dying of measles.That's the downstream effect of this: they managed to connect that distrust to other things. They didn't just create distrust around one incident or fact; they created the idea that nobody in the medical establishment has your best interests at heart. That's what they managed to achieve as a result of Covid.Belvedere: I want to stay on this, because I think we're all trying to figure out the right posture here. You bring up Joe Rogan and his effect on psychedelics policy: a lot of people know him through segments where he talks through his drug trips, or a guest's. Or, another example: online creators helping speed up the end of USAID. And there are other cases. But these are cases where influence and factual accuracy are completely decoupled. For organizations whose whole value proposition is getting reality right, being accurate—a lot of people in these spaces ask a question that is one neighborhood down but the same city: “Where's the liberal answer to Joe Rogan?” We've been asking that question since the post-mortem on 2024, and even before. A lot of our institutions feel saddled by the sense that in order to compete on reach, in this new marketplace of ideas, we can't really compete on accuracy's terms.Roger Ailes created Fox News in the '90s. It wasn't [presented] as a dominant player—it was a countervailing force: “the media is captured, so we're going to bring balance back.” “Fair and balanced”—that whole thing; a whole alternative institution positioned against the media itself. So [this side] has had an insurgent mindset from the start—Rush Limbaugh and others. I've brought this up a lot. Even the Ailes project, Fox News, it had institutional trappings, institutional clothing, but it really had this insurgent energy, whatever it said about itself early on. That posture was able to scale beautifully once podcasting, YouTube, and the internet more broadly made these tools available. It was disintermediation. People like Ben Shapiro with The Daily Wire, Charlie Kirk, really ran with the ball a lot better in these spaces, it seemed like. It never felt like liberals had their own Ailes moment, because it felt like they were fine with The New York Times and The Atlantic.Is the real gap here about talent, effort, and ability, or just needing to catch up after playing behind for so long? Or is it more that this is a different language, that [that side] can easily and naturally slot into, and for us it has to be more performative, a little contrived—like a theater kid having to learn how to act?DiResta: It's funny—there's so much in what you're saying there. First, when you can position yourself oppositionally—“we're the underdog, we're David, they're Goliath”—that's an archetype, a story everybody knows, that people immediately understand where you're positioning yourself. “They are all telling you the same thing”; “that is a monolith, that's the state propaganda machine manufacturing consent, we're the plucky little outlet trying to break through.” And then, of course, they maintain that outsider branding and status even as their audience becomes massive—quite a lot larger, in fact, than some of that so-called establishment media.You see this with a phrase that comes out of QAnon: “we are the media now.” What they're saying is: “we can break through, we can make stuff trend, we can make stuff go viral, we can take our (in the context of QAnon, I think it's fair to say) crackpot ideas and put them out there, get them seen, get them part of the discourse, and then people have to pay attention to us.” That's where “we are the media now” comes from. It was popularized by Elon, because he picked up that phrase and it is so much in the ether on X—I don't even know if he understands the provenance. But “we are the media now” becomes the idea that we're the opposition now, and all that legacy stuff—including Fox, mind you, which is legacy too—is old. You actually see the schisms now, especially since they're in power everywhere on the right: influencers going to war with Fox News.“I once had someone screenshot every social media post where I'd used a curse word and send it to my dean. And I was like: “I said all of that. That's 100% real.” This is the internet, after all. Would I use that language in a talk? Probably not. I'm from New York, so sometimes I do. But if you're constantly second-guessing, clarifying, checking yourself … and you do need to be correct, because in some cases your credentials are on the line when you're speaking about the thing you're actually presenting. But your delivery can afford to be a bit more flexible, a bit more relaxed.” — Renée DiRestaVenkatesh Rao wrote about this in “The Internet of Beefs”—one of the most astute assessments of how social media works, in my opinion. If you have conflict, that's fantastic: it benefits both parties, gets both parties attention, and there's no incentive to actually win the conflict, because the conflict itself is like a soap opera—it just keeps going. That's where you start to see right-wing influencers say, “Fox News is establishment, Bush-era media, and we'll tell you the truth—on social, on our platforms, on our streams, on our podcasts.” That's where you start to see that shift.There's also something Rachel and I wrote about in the first report: institutional and academic speakers are media-trained for a very different world, where you get a three- to five-minute segment. If you've never done TV before, they tell you roughly what you'll be asked, you prepare your talking points in advance because you have so little time, you deliver the soundbite, and the segment's over. That's completely different from what I experienced doing Rogan in 2019—a two-and-a-half-hour conversation with no prep. I'm going to be there and you either know your stuff or you don't. His audience either likes me or it doesn't. Half of them hated me!And that's fine—it is what it is. I showed up for a reason. There's a completely different vernacular, style, and approach when you're having a two-hour conversation with somebody, where you're going to listen to what they have to say, and you're responding back much more as a human than as a person who's there to digest for the public, in a three-minute hit, what you said in that report over there or what happened in the world and why you, the expert, with your credentials and your chyron should think about it. It's a completely different experience.So does it go back to the old way? I don't think it does—I haven't thought that for the better part of 10 years now. I started writing about the anti-vaccine movement in 2015, as a mom, saying: “I have got to say something about this.” What became MAHA is now a political movement that sits in power at HHS. What they understood was that empathy and relatability, the feeling that they are talking with you, matters so much more than a PDF or an academic paper that sits behind a paywall that nobody can read without an academic library license. That's not going back to normal. So the question that's motivated me and Rachel is: How do you teach people who do have the knowledge and the skill set to compete differently?Belvedere: On that note, on liberals' broad failure to penetrate a lot of these spaces, these subcommunities, these niche places where people gather … think about all the subcultures we have in the United States—there are plenty that liberals are just really poor at reaching, or at having any presence within at all.DiResta: I'm an independent. My complaint is about how liberals communicate versus how conservatives communicate. I spend a lot of time in both ecosystems, in person, and I try to engage with the media apparatus on the right too, partly because they make up conspiracy theories about me, so I feel like I have to. But there's a difference in how carefully you have to think through what you're about to say—what performance are you putting on in that moment? Conservatives use the word “based”—you're talking in a way that's almost intentionally provocative at times, and sometimes it goes way off the rails; sometimes it's not good at all. But there's a sense that when you're hearing from the liberal establishment, you're hearing qualifiers—everything is qualified.This is something I used to talk about when making content: on Instagram Reels, you've got three seconds to hook your audience. If you start with a qualifier about how what you're saying doesn't necessarily apply to all people, in all places, at all times, you're done—that took three seconds, that's it, we're done. So the question is: How do you get comfortable either owning an opinion unapologetically, or framing it in a way where you're just like, “yeah, whatever, somebody on the internet is always going to yell at me, I don't care, I'm going to say the thing anyway”? That's a limitation I just don't see in conservative spaces.Again, that means things can go way off the rails, and some of it is genuinely not good. But the flip side is that [liberal content] can sound stilted, practiced, polished. And the incentive structure is scary for the participant—for the academic who decides to try being more casual in their presentation. I once had someone screenshot every social media post where I'd used a curse word and send it to my dean. And I was like: “I said all of that. That's 100% real.” This is the internet, after all. Would I use that language in a talk? Probably not. I'm from New York, so sometimes I do. But if you're constantly second-guessing, clarifying, checking yourself … and you do need to be correct, because in some cases your credentials are on the line when you're speaking about the thing you're actually presenting. But your delivery can afford to be a bit more flexible, a bit more relaxed.What I've loved over the last few years since Covid is watching public health experts and epidemiologists start presenting as themselves: “here I am, I've got this expertise, and I'm also going to tell you about my kids, or this dress I bought, or this thing I did.” It makes them more relatable, more human—because they are, in fact, relatable and human. It's not an artifice. But they understand that doing this actually helps establish their credibility, more than just the credential. So if me saying a curse word on Twitter … normal people curse on Twitter.Belvedere: And not to be too cynical about it, but this is something intuitively understood by people on the wrong side of things. Trump will have a word randomly capitalized as a marker of his style, and without it, the message would feel too polished—even though, grammatically, it would be correct.One reaction people sometimes have to a discussion like this is: “all you're talking about is communication, this is social media stuff, it's more fluff than substance.” I think that couldn't be more wrong, because if we care about the issues we're writing about, if we want action taken on them …DiResta: Yes! It is a persuasive process.Belvedere: … if we want people to care about authoritarianism or corruption in government, raising the salience of those issues becomes really important. If we're collectively bad at it, if we don't have the “juice” that the other side does, our issues stay dormant, untouched, unlistened to, uncared about, while the other side's issues will be front and center, driving the conversation. You talk about issue salience needing to travel across networks before it becomes a thing. Could you unpack that? You've got multiple creators, adjacent communities … help us understand how that works.DiResta: So, often times, when you open your social media feed—whatever ranked platform you use, which is almost all of them—you're seeing what the platform has decided is important for you, and that's not the same as what's important to the person sitting next to you on the train. So you innately think a lot of people care about something, or are talking about something, when it turns out—take X as an example: you log in, there's a “trends” feature, and it'll surface a trend when there are maybe 200 posts about something. That's not a trend in any national sense; it's basically the platform tweaking a small number of people who'll respond to it. They see it and think, “there are 2,000 posts about this, I care a lot about that thing, I'm going to add my voice, retweet it, reshare it”—and if a sufficient number of people do that, it gets bigger, and eventually it shows up on something like a mass-movement leaderboard.I spent five years at the Stanford Internet Observatory taking a network-science approach to this. Let me give a specific example—we can stick with the pandemic, because I think it's quite important as a case study. I don't know how many people remember the Plandemic video. It featured Judy Mikovits, a woman with serious credential issues and at least one retracted paper, who'd had a series of dramatic career incidents that led to her being put into the autism-conference crankosphere. She was releasing a book and doing a lot of book promo, but she was never especially polished doing those direct engagements herself. The director, Mikki Willis, made the video—kept her on task, shot it very strategically. It's about 20 minutes long, and it argues that the pandemic is being used to keep people from “healing microbes on the beach,” and that's why they are locking down beaches, and so on—a very conspiratorial film.Now Mikovits had been saying these things on prior podcasts for a while, but it stayed confined; it got almost no reach outside the anti-vaccine networks, where that kind of content is normal and expected. What was different about Plandemic is that because of the polish, the packaging, the formatting, and Willis's own reach and network, it hopped out of the anti-vaccine ecosystem and started landing everywhere. We had a tool called CrowdTangle that let us pull where URLs were winding up and being shared, and the Plandemic link was showing up in the Corgi Club, the Beach Club, local school-board groups—everywhere. We could only see public data, so I'd imagine that's just the tip of the iceberg.The public really found it compelling. Reading the comments as part of that analysis, people were saying things like: “she seems so authoritative, she has this personal beef with Anthony Fauci, who I've also been hearing is untrustworthy; they are keeping us locked down in our houses, why is that happening?” It really landed and resonated. That's an actual moment where normally this speakers and those topics stay confined to a very specific niche part of the internet, with this video, they managed to absolutely blew out of the water. Here is how it works when you take something and you frame somebody in the right way, you make them seem relatable and resonant and you edit the content in a very compelling, exciting, and mysterious way. This is how you create a mass conversation about something. Ordinarily this person would have stayed confined to her niche, but in that particular moment, with that particular piece of content, they nailed it.Belvedere: I asked about that because on our side, we're trying to do some of the same work you're outlining. ISMA puts out LibCon and The UnPopulist—The UnPopulist is our flagship publication, LibCon is the conference series that we put out. The UnPopulist has buy-in from figures across the ideological spectrum; and the whole model of ISMA is to build a coalition—a realignment of liberal versus illiberal—and for us to be on that liberal side, spanning classical liberals, center-left, and center-right: people who are single-issue defectors, who have enough qualms with the authoritarianism we're seeing that they come over to our side. At our last LibCon, we had C-SPAN in the same room as a bunch of streamers broadcasting. It was an interesting mix, and that's the sort of work we're trying to do. As I said earlier, though, it's not necessarily the language that's easy for a lot of liberals to speak—it takes intentional partnerships, looking through different content forms, finding where a good ally or partner can be found.“These weren't people who simply didn't like the Covid shot; no, these were people who had been telling you vaccines cause autism, dating back to the 1990s. I watched them capitalize on this in the most incredible ways. They were absolutely transparent about it—they were like, ‘this is our chance to undermine confidence in the entire vaccine enterprise.' And that is exactly what they did. They didn't hide the ball—they were live-streaming taking about it. ‘This is our chance to tell the public that all of these things are poison.' And now we have kids dying of measles. That's the downstream effect of this: they managed to connect that distrust to other things. They didn't just create distrust around one incident or fact; they created the idea that nobody in the medical establishment has your best interests at heart. That's what they managed to achieve as a result of Covid.” — Renée DiRestaIt used to be that an organization could get away with just publishing a headline, an article image, and letting the feed auto-populate. Now every platform, the whole online space, requires more thoughtfulness, more intentionality, more strategic thinking. At the risk of asking for a One Neat Trick: is there one thing that, if a capacity developed overnight, would be a game changer for us on this path that we want to take—to be better communicators, to help the issues we care about get that amplification and resonance?DiResta: I think it is that co-creation and that incorporation of people who are innately good and talented at this. I was at LibCon this year with Whick and Soypill, two of the streamers who were there, because the first night of the conference happened to be the night Trump gave that speech about the election being rigged by China. As it happens, I have a lot of experience looking at Chinese influence operations around the 2020 election, so I'd been on Whick's stream before, and he asked if I wanted to come on. I said let's do it, and we broke it down live for the audience—here's what Trump's saying, here's a Georgetown professor who can help explain it—but done conversationally. It's funny, because you still carry that credential with you; you're still saying, “here's how I know this stuff.” And, of course, later on I'm going to write about this for Lawfare, I'm going to write about it on my Substack, I'm going to put it out as personal content. But in this moment the most impactful thing I think I can do is discuss it live with people who are watching it in a community, trying to make sense of it together. That's something streamers in particular are very good at—they bring people together to watch jointly.I don't know how many people have watched a Destiny stream, or, on the other side of the spectrum, a Hasan Piker stream, but it's the same appeal: people who are in a community, like-minded, enjoying that back-and-forth, not only listening to the streamer but participating in the community itself. It reminds me of being in New York in my 20s, gathering at someone's house to watch TV together on a Sunday night—that feeling of experiencing something together, reacting to it together. When you watch a news broadcast by yourself, it's not like that. When you're watching a stream, there's as much back-and-forth and community-building happening among the audience as there is between the audience and the influencer or streamer. That creates a feeling of belonging and participation, and when you want to ask people to take political action, there's a feeling that we're all in this together, we all want to see this thing accomplished. You see this when you watch political streamers across the spectrum doing fundraisers and things like that—“how can we galvanize and generate momentum?”This isn't limited to partisan politics—you can do the same with issue-based advocacy as well.One of the reasons institutions [struggle here] is a fear of relinquishing control. A lot of institutions are taught to stay on message at all times—if you hand your message to somebody else, you lose control of it. But you can't tell them what to say. They're going to say what they want to say. They might get it wrong. But counterintuitively, I think that actually generates more dialogue, more attention, and provides you with a way to accomplish something you might not be good at yourself. Your CEO might not actually be the best face to talk about this thing—the 20 year old you hired, who is much more comfortable with this, is actually the person who should be out there engaging, putting out the message, or working with a creator or creator lab and essentially briefing them like you would brief media: “here's your embargoed copy of my report, I'd love it if you talked about it, no pressure, no requirements, this is just me providing you with information about something we've done that I think your audience might care about—and then wherever it goes, goes.”Belvedere: And as you note in the report, this is already the cultural air a lot of these younger staffers breathe—they have to code-switch to seem more “professional,” to be someone who …DiResta: … doesn't curse on Twitter.Belvedere: Exactly. But that also gives them the advantage of understanding the discourse, the environment, the information landscape, far more natively. So they can put a message that the CEO might want in a way that will have more effectiveness.I want to bring up two of the case studies I found fascinating—David French and Zohran Mamdani. David French was trying to bring a [pluralist], depoliticized message into a very hostile, ideologically policed, polarized evangelical base. Zohran Mamdani, now the mayor of New York, built his campaign almost entirely on vibes, aesthetics, joy—messaging, sure, but messaging that met people where they were and responded to what they actually needed. One of those approaches got crushed by the gatekeepers; the other was able to bypass them. It's not that one was effective and the other wasn't—David French ran up against a buzzsaw that no Christian thinker, however winsome or articulate, probably would have fared well against. Mamdani certainly was very skilled in how he approached his campaign and carried it out. In these two profiles, is there a lesson there about why one got crushed and the other persevered?DiResta: It's very interesting, and I've thought about this a lot. So, first, some of it is: How heavy a hold does the establishment party have on the space you're speaking into? Are you entering fresh ground? Mamdani, of course, ran against an egregiously terrible establishment candidate. I mean, it was one of those “is this really the best we've got to offer?”Mamdani's politics weren't mine, but I'm from New York—I lived there for 30 years, still have a house and family in Brooklyn—and I watched that race, and I just thought … every time I saw Mamdani content in my feed, and there was a lot of it, because I'm still plugged into New York, I was like, “this is so inspiring. This is a person where that love of the city comes through.” I remember he did a thing with a bodega cat. I had a bodega cat, and it was amazing! In a way, the politics and the policy was almost secondary to the feeling that you were watching something genuine.The candidate he was running against—well, there were two, of course, including Curtis Sliwa, who really nailed it on the “genuine” front. I mean, my God, that man gave interviews that left my jaw on the floor—where he's like, “here's how they're trying to pay me to drop out of the race, let's talk about that.” It's a very New York political moment.Belvedere: Zero filter.DiResta: Oh, no filter. I mean, Cuomo doesn't lack a filter either. I'm New York Italian too—you know that. Someone should send him to his dean!It was wild watching that race and seeing what landed with the public. There was such a sense of “God, we need something new! We just need something new”—and that landed, I think, in a way, more than anything else, regardless of your opinions on specific policies. It was the way in which he turned people who found him personally appealing into organizers—fans became organizers. That's really the story of the Mamdani campaign. With French, by contrast, top-down control still held much more strongly. I don't think many New Yorkers love the Democratic Party establishment enough to say, “we really need to listen to what they tell us”—if anything, an official endorsement had become a bit of a negative signal by that point. That's at least how I experienced New York politics.Mamdani was also an unknown quantity, French was much more of a known quantity, so he had this experience of gatekeepers who used character assassination to attack, not so much his ideas as his person—finding things he'd said or done previously and using them to attack him personally and make it costly to associate with him and his ideas by extension. Once an establishment is well-networked enough to mount that kind of opposition, it's much harder to win. French was moving into a hostile, contested, polarized space. Mamdani, by contrast, faced an establishment, in his case the more centrist wing of the Democratic Party, that simply didn't have the social media clout or networks to make its attacks land. It was a very different dynamic.That's why we put French in a section of the report about figuring out what kind of space you're actually trying to participate in. Are you putting forward a policy or a vision that's going to be actively and adversarially rebuffed by very entrenched, well-networked forces? Or are you moving into a much fresher space—a new issue, a new take, less contested ground—where you are potentially going to run a very different kind of strategy?Belvedere: I think that's a great point. Trump is a good example in the political space—the GOP establishment was set against him initially. They had money behind other candidates, Jeb Bush chief among them, and had a war chest that was insane backing Jeb Bush. And that was … nothing in the end. It didn't amount to anything. All the work French had done in the past, caring about the Bill of Rights, about a constitutionally constrained vision of limited government—the intellectual energy the Republican Party used to draw on more heavily—had given way to something else. David went a different direction than a lot of evangelicals did, and there are enough of them to effectively block him now.Whereas Mamdani, I think, was able to bypass a lot of that resistance because there was more overlap with what a standard Democratic candidate might have offered—a lot of the same campaign substance, just a different approach on some issues. There were enough people who weren't already set against him. That's unlike the evangelical space, where mentioning French's name is practically like saying “Voldemort.” Which is sad, because on a lot of issues, especially theological tenets, there's still broad alignment between them.This is something that your report presses people to internalize: the idea that who you're speaking to matters, and how you're speaking to them matters. That's a lesson a lot of liberals still need to work out. There's a lot of trial and error right now, a lot of figuring out how to be effective in this new information landscape. But the report is genuinely helpful. I imagine a lot of people will read it and think: “okay, everything I thought I knew about what it takes to project credibility has been turned on its head, and I need to account for that or risk being left behind.” That's what makes it such an important read.DiResta: Thank you. We really tried to make it as tangible as possible—which is why it's long. We went back and forth at the end about whether to release different versions for different audiences: a philanthropist version, a C-suite version, a version for op-ed writers. In the end we put it all out as one document—you can always Control-F to find what's most relevant to you, there's an index, and AI can digest it too.But, in all seriousness, though, there has to be a shift. You mentioned Trump. His energy came from the internet. He was so good at tapping into … because he was almost a meme candidate at first; people didn't quite believe he'd be a serious thing. This was right around the time … I bring up Gamergate not for its specifics, but because it was a moment when people started realizing the internet could actually affect the real world. The Arab Spring was another one of those moments—realizing that people's voices online could genuinely accomplish things.“When you have this sclerotic sense that nothing happens in the United States, that no one is listening to you, that no change happens, that nothing you want to see in the world will ever be realized, that's an intoxicating moment. ‘Damn, we are the media now'—that phrase is literally about empowerment, the sense that someone powerful is listening to you and making something happen. That's the complete opposite of the faceless institution where you leave a comment in a form and never hear back, where nothing ever changes, your taxes don't change, your cost of living doesn't change. That's what Mamdani tapped into as well: ‘we are actually going to change things, we are going to do things, the world is going to be different starting day one, and here's how it's going to happen.' Whatever you think of the man's politics, he nailed that sense of empowerment—'this is a movement, and you're part of it.'” — Renée DiRestaYou mentioned my book. I'll give a shameless plug here—but only because the paperback just came out and it has a new epilogue. If you bought the Kindle version, go refresh it, because the new epilogue gets into exactly this. What was the appeal of DOGE? It was that the government was going to be transformed—that's great, it's a huge incentive for people who cared about that. Even liberals were like, “Maybe it's time to shake some stuff up.” But what DOGE did for the public, particularly Trump's base and Elon's base, was this: they'd tweet out some grant they found ridiculous, often with no real idea what it actually did, and Elon would respond with something like “killed,” “nuked,” “through the wood chipper,” about USAID.Belvedere: And a lot of those actually got Community-Noted on themselves—people pointing out that he was egregiously misreading the grant. They got fact-checked by their own system.DiResta: They did—but it didn't actually matter, because what mattered to the people participating was: “I said a thing, somebody powerful listened to me, and then a change happened.” When you have this sclerotic sense that nothing happens in the United States, that no one is listening to you, that no change happens, that nothing you want to see in the world will ever be realized, that's an intoxicating moment. “Damn, we are the media now”—that phrase is literally about empowerment, the sense that someone powerful is listening to you and making something happen. That's the complete opposite of the faceless institution where you leave a comment in a form and never hear back, where nothing ever changes, your taxes don't change, your cost of living doesn't change.That's what Mamdani tapped into as well: “we are actually going to change things, we are going to do things, the world is going to be different starting day one, and here's how it's going to happen.” Whatever you think of the man's politics, he nailed that sense of empowerment—“this is a movement, and you're part of it.” That's the same thing Trump tapped into online back in 2015: “we're going to change things, this is your movement, and I'm going to accomplish this for you.” Which can go off in some weird ways, when you look at exclusionary populism and authoritarianism, which you guys at ISMA focus so much on.I want to mention one more thing. In San Francisco, we recalled the school board: a very local, niche race that ended up becoming a story of national attention, for the same reason—people saying, “we've got to change something, what can we do?” The groups that grew out of that were advancing a very liberal policy—this was not the far-left, not the far-right doing it: “we'd like eighth-grade algebra back, we'd like schools reopened.” This is late 2021. “It would be nice for my kid not to have three years of no school.”It was an unapologetically liberal politics that was powering that, and it was unapologetic in how it framed itself, how it spoke, how it used social media. And I thought, “Okay, now maybe liberals will see”—again, not Democrats, but liberals, people who believe in the core liberal values—“people will start to see that there's real power in direct, unapologetic appeals.” And it is my sincere hope that we start to see that in a movement that rises to push back against the excesses of MAHA and things like that.[In the new edition of my book], the new epilogue is really about how these dynamics play out once a group is actually in power—because a lot of people think of social media as a tool of insurgency, and once you're in power, that's supposedly the end of it. What's been interesting watching Trump and DOGE is that they've kept that cycle going: people still believe they're having an impact, shaping policy.We saw a version of this with Obama, who was a very digital candidate—he rose to power on a lot of popular digital support, did interviews with content creators, that kind of thing. There were creators in the White House—my friend Destin Sandlin, who runs Smarter Every Day, did an interview with Obama. There was a sense that the administration was beginning to engage with new media, but there was still a divide: the new media was media, engaging with the president on certain terms, at certain times, in certain venues. What you're seeing from this administration is they're literally the press corps, seated front and center. Some of them are even working as special government employees, which is wild—and there are some real ethical issues there. But there's still a sense that the online movement, that source of validation that propelled someone to a win, is actively in there, working with them on governance and policy.Is that a mirage, to some extent? Yes—there's a veneer of them wanting to do something anyway and using online narratives to justify it. And I'd argue that once an influencer becomes a special government employee, they're no longer independent—they're speaking as an agent of the government at that point. But setting that aside, you really do see the way those boundaries are shifting, and that sense of personal participation is what keeps this particular populist movement feeling valuable to its participants.Belvedere: I remember when Madison Cawthorn infamously hired only comms people rather than policy people, and a lot of people in conservative-adjacent spaces saw that as the start of a new era. The model is no longer Paul Ryan-ing your way through, nor is it about governing—Cawthorn was actively, explicitly building a kind of image-only candidacy, seeing how far that element alone could carry him. It didn't carry him very far; a few things tripped him up, like, hilariously, a visit to Hitler's home. But he was building toward being a comms-only operation as the only thing that matters now. When Trump did the whole Alligator Alcatraz stunt, that's the same understanding at work—it's an ongoing comms exercise, you have to keep the performative aspect going, because the campaign never really stops.We're out of time. Thank you so much, Renée.Thanks for checking out The UnPopulist! Subscribe to support our project.© The UnPopulist, 2026Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X.We welcome your reactions and replies. Please adhere to our comments policy. Get full access to The UnPopulist at www.theunpopulist.net/subscribe

Isma Juárez viene a ponerle las pilas a Javier del Pino con su nueva sección. El cómico, después de escuchar atentamente lo que se habla durante el programa, criticará todas las cosas que no le terminan de convencer. 

Axelle de Kerangal reçoit Amélie Ismaïli et Brivaël Le Pogam pour analyser les opérations d'influence étrangères, les risques de manipulation informationnelle et le rôle croissant de l'intelligence artificielle à l'approche de la présidentielle de 2027.

Elversberg stunned Bayer Leverkusen in their first-ever Bundesliga match, while Bayern München's five-goal victory delivered an ominous warning to the rest of the league.Markus Fjørtofts reviews every major story from the opening weekend of the 2026/27 Bundesliga season.Four seasons after competing in Germany's fourth tier, Elversberg marked their Bundesliga debut with a remarkable 3–2 victory over Leverkusen. Lukas Petkov scored the club's first top-flight goal before Cole Campbell and David Mokwa helped establish an extraordinary 3–0 lead.On the same afternoon, former Elversberg striker Younes Ebnoutalib scored a hat-trick for Eintracht Frankfurt. Ebnoutalib was playing Regionalliga football in 2024 before Elversberg reportedly signed him for approximately €50,000—and Frankfurt later paid a reported €8 million plus bonuses for him.Elsewhere, Bayern beat Stuttgart 5-1 despite Jamal Musiala being unavailable and Harry Kane recording neither a goal nor an assist. Joshua Kimmich and substitute Ismaël Saibari each provided two assists as Bayern demonstrated the frightening depth of their attacking options.Let us know your player and performance of the round in the comments.Subscribe for weekly Bundesliga analysis and German football stories from The Fussball Channel.⬇️ Don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe for more English-language news, analysis, and interviews from across German football.

Il fête ses 70 ans ce dimanche. Depuis près d'un demi-siècle, Ismaël Lô fait voyager sa musique bien au-delà du Sénégal, avec des chansons comme « Tajabone » ou « Jammu Africa ». Il revient avec nous sur son parcours, ses chansons et cette envie de continuer à créer. Il répondait aux questions de Clothilde Hazard. RFI : Ismaël Lô, vous fêtez vos 70 ans ce dimanche, quand vous regardez votre carrière, aujourd'hui, une carrière de près de 50 ans. Quel sentiment avez-vous ? Ismaël Lô : Un sentiment de satisfaction et de rendre grâce aussi à Allah qui m'a donné cette possibilité d'exister, de continuer à aimer ce que je fais, c'est à dire évoluer dans le domaine de la musique. Est ce qu'il y a un souvenir qui vous revient en premier quand vous regardez votre parcours ? Ce qui me vient en premier, c'est mon premier passage à la télévision, le premier jour, j'avais un trac fou. J'étais au studio de la RTS avec Maguette Wade, un animateur de la télévision sénégalaise et l'émission s'appelait Télé Variétés, c'était mon premier passage à la télévision. J'étais juste passé en tant qu'artiste et j'avais très peur à l'époque de passer à la télévision. C'est la musique qui est venue à moi. Parce que, au départ, moi je me fixais comme objectif d'avoir une carrière similaire à mon père qui était un douanier. Je pensais que je serai médecin ou quelque chose dans ce genre. Et finalement, je me suis donné à la musique. Et au début de votre carrière internationale, quand vous êtes allé à la rencontre du public en dehors du Sénégal, qu'avez-vous avez ressenti vous en souvenez-vous ? Là, je me plonge vraiment, vraiment très loin à ma première sortie en France, en Europe. J'avais la volonté de rencontrer des gens, de voir le voisin de palier, dire bonjour. Mais ce n'était pas la même culture. Et ça m'a bouleversé, parce que les gens couraient de gauche à droite. C'était limite, ton voisin tu lui dis bonjour, il ne te répond même pas. En France, on court beaucoup. Et donc j'ai commencé à apprendre à vivre différemment, me dire que si je ne connais pas quelqu'un, je ne lui dis pas bonjour. J'ai tout de suite eu envie de retourner chez moi, parce que là-bas, il y a l'hospitalité, les gens sont ouverts, il y a de l'ambiance. J'ai composé une chanson qui signifiait « j'ai envie de retourner chez moi », Xalat. Et sur la naissance de ce tube mondial Tajabone. Avez-vous une anecdote ? Tajabone, c'est le début de l'année musulmane. Je me rappelle quand nous étions petits, dans le quartier, c'était la fête. Après le couscous, le dîner le soir, on se déguisait. En général, si je me rappelle bien, les hommes se déguisaient en femme, les femmes en homme. Ce sont des choses qui m'ont marqué et donc qui m'ont poussé à écrire une chanson sur ce jour mémorable. Mais aujourd'hui, ce titre me fascine et me dépasse. Parce que la chanson Tajabone est mondialement connue. Y-a-t-il d'autres morceaux dont vous êtes fier avec le recul ? Je suis fier de toutes mes chansons. C'est comme si vous me demandiez si je suis plus fier de tel ou tel enfant. Mes compositions sont comme mes enfants. Et donc c'est vrai qu'il y a des enfants qui ont plus de chance que d'autres, mais ça reste quand même mes enfants. Tajabone est sortie du lot, Dibi Dibi Rek est sortie du lot, Diamond Africa est sortie du lot. Comment l'expliquez-vous qu'elles soient sorties du lot ? Mais c'est ça, c'est divin. Je ne peux pas l'expliquer. C'est difficile à expliquer parce que quand tu écris, tu écris pour toi d'abord et pour le public après, c'est un partage. Vous avez aussi souvent utilisé vos chansons pour parler de paix, de tolérance, de justice et de l'Afrique. Pensez-vous que vous avez réussi à faire passer un message ou à faire bouger des choses. Mais bien sûr, c'est ça mon idéal, c'est ça qui me pousse à écrire. Aujourd'hui, si tu écris, il faut écrire quelque chose avec du sens, qui peut amener les gens à être tolérants, à vivre d'amour et de partage, pas de haine, et que les armes se taisent pour que les enfants puissent grandir dans le bonheur et dans la joie. La chanson contribue à l'apaisement des cœurs, à sensibiliser. Ça vient naturellement. À partir de ce moment-là, tu peaufines, tu réarranges, tu dis non, c'est mieux de dire ça. Ma passion pour la musique est spontanée. Et à 70 ans. Quels sont vos projets aujourd'hui ? Je ne sais pas. En tout cas, vous insistez sur mes 70 ans. Quand on me dit que j'ai 70 ans, je dis ah bon, j'ai 70 ans. Dans ma tête, j'ai 35 ans ou 25 ans. Je continue à écrire de nouvelles chansons. J'ai toujours cet amour, cette envie de continuer à écrire de nouvelles chansons, écrire et de sortir un nouvel album, Inch'Allah. Dans combien de temps on pourra écouter votre album ? Inch'Allah bientôt. Moi je dis toujours bientôt.

In the world's shortest ever transfer "saga" Crystal Palace have rebuffed Liverpool's late transfer window advances for Ismaïla Sarr. Pajak reacts! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Chloe is here reacting to Fabrizio Romano breaking the news that Liverpool have made a £50m bid for Crystal Palace's Ismaïla Sarr. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eyþór Atli Olsen var aftur með okkur í dag en hann sagði sögur af sér og Ágústu. Helgi sagði frá því þegar hann datt fyrst í það árið 1993. Hjálmar sagði frá Hróaskeldu 1995. Strákarnir ræddu brúðkaup og jarðafarir.IG: helgijean & hjalmarorn110Takk fyrir að hlusta - og munið að subscribe´a!

Welcome to Zooming In at The UnPopulist. “Populism” is one of those words that gets used constantly, but it's rarely pinned down. Everyone agrees we're living in a populist era, but almost no one agrees on what that means or how you'd measure it. For the past two years, ISMA, the Institute for the Study of Modern Authoritarianism, publisher of The UnPopulist, has been trying to do exactly that: a national survey built around specific, testable definitions of populist attitudes, first fielded on the eve of the 2024 election, and now repeated in June of 2026.The second round results just came back, and the headline finding is a bit of a surprise. Trump's hardcore populist base has shrunk by about a third.To walk through what the survey found and what it tells us, ISMA policy fellow and The UnPopulist's senior editor, Andy Craig, is joined by the man who designed and ran it, Tom Shull, editor at large of The UnPopulist and ISMA's director of survey research.Thanks for checking out The UnPopulist! Subscribe to support our project.© The UnPopulist, 2026Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X. Get full access to The UnPopulist at www.theunpopulist.net/subscribe

Comment on se relève après avoir tout perdu, un restaurant, un rêve, pour finalement le reconstruire ailleurs, autrement ?On reçoit cette semaine dans le podcast Ismaïl Guerre-Genton, chef du restaurant Maison Akène dans le Pas-de-Calais à Ardres.Il raconte sa cuisine, façonnée par son terroir, par la rencontre avec Inès, sa femme, et par la naissance de leur fille, puis retour à son enfance dans le Nord, où rien ou presque ne le destinait à la cuisine. Puis une intuition lorsqu'il travaille en plonge. Suivent les grandes maisons qui l'ont formé, Guy Lassausaie, Paul Bocuse, Michel Bras, Emmanuel Renaut, Julien Gatillon et enfin Christian Têtedoie à Lyon, où se noue une amitié fondatrice.Il revient ensuite sur la construction du duo avec Inès, pensé dans l'équité, sur Empreinte, leur premier restaurant, ouvert sur un coup de tête après des mois de recherche infructueuse. Quatre années d'obsession pour l'étoile Michelin, le surinvestissement, le Covid, jusqu'à devoir tout arrêter, sans filet.De cette remise à zéro naît Maison Akène, dans une ancienne bâtisse du XVIIe siècle à Ardres dans le Pas-de-Calais. Ismaïl raconte l'ouverture, la patience nécessaire pour s'installer comme restaurant de destination et la sérénité enfin retrouvée.Pour en savoir plus sur le restaurant d'Ismaïl à deux pas de Calais, c'est par ici.

On reçoit cette semaine dans le podcast Ismaïl Guerre-Genton, chef du restaurant Maison Akène dans le Pas-de-Calais à Ardres.Dans cette troisième et dernière partie, Ismaïl raconte la construction du duo avec Inès, pensé dès le départ dans l'équité plutôt que dans le schéma traditionnel du chef et de « la femme de l'ombre ». Il revient sur Empreinte, leur premier restaurant, né d'un coup de tête après des mois de recherche infructueuse et d'un entretien d'embauche qui les pousse finalement à se lancer.Quatre années où l'obsession d'une étoile Michelin prend le pas sur tout, un cercle vicieux de surinvestissement, le Covid, l'endettement, jusqu'à un moment de vraie détresse professionnelle. Ismaïl et Inès finissent par tout arrêter, vendre la maison, le restaurant, sans filet ni projet futur.De cette remise à zéro naît leur deuxième restaurant Maison Akène, à Ardres, dans une ancienne bâtisse du XVIIe siècle. Ismaïl raconte l'ouverture, la patience nécessaire pour s'installer, l'entrée au guide Michelin et une forme de sérénité durement retrouvée.Pour en savoir plus sur le restaurant d'Ismaïl à deux pas de Calais, c'est par ici.

On reçoit cette semaine dans le podcast Ismaïl Guerre-Genton, chef du restaurant Maison Akène dans le Pas-de-Calais à Ardres.Dans cette deuxième partie, Ismaïl retrace ses années de formation, entre stages marquants et premières maisons. D'abord Guy Lassausaie, deux étoiles à taille humaine, puis Paul Bocuse, la rigueur, les codes et un souvenir resté gravé : Zidane croisé en cuisine.Viennent ensuite les trois mentors qui l'ont vraiment façonné. Michel Bras d'abord, deux saisons tournées vers la cueillette et le respect du rythme de travail. Puis Emmanuel Renaut : l'intensité à son maximum, la troisième étoile en ligne de mire et la rencontre avec Inès, sa compagne. Enfin Julien Gatillon, pour l'ouverture du 1920 à Megève, où la proximité et la confiance du chef le font enfin se sentir considéré.Il raconte ensuite l'épisode le plus formateur, une saison en Corse où il se retrouve seul à monter un restaurant étoilé sans chef ni équipe.Pour en savoir plus sur le restaurant d'Ismaïl à deux pas de Calais, c'est par ici.

On reçoit cette semaine dans le podcast Ismaïl Guerre-Genton, chef du restaurant Maison Akène dans le Pas-de-Calais à Ardres.Dans cette première partie, il raconte sa cuisine actuelle, façonnée par son terroir, par la rencontre avec Inès, sa femme, qui s'occupe de la salle et bien plus encore et par la naissance de leur fille il y a trois ans, qui a profondément recentré son écriture culinaire. Il revient aussi sur son ancien restaurant, Empreinte, où il a fait l'erreur de ne pas suffisamment prendre compte les retours de sa clientèle. Il évoque le chemin parcouru depuis vers une cuisine plus à l'écoute, plus généreuse et un management repensé autour de la bienveillance.Puis retour aux origines, dans un petit village du Nord où rien ne le destinait à la cuisine. Les repas de famille du dimanche, un grand-père hôtelier, un père boucher reconverti, une adolescence tournée vers le football et des études de kinésithérapie. Puis après plusieurs échecs, une expérience de plongeur, une saison dans les Hautes-Alpes puis une intuition : ce sera la cuisine. Direction l'Institut Paul Bocuse, à Lyon, où l'histoire commence vraiment à se dessiner.Pour en savoir plus sur le restaurant d'Ismaïl à deux pas de Calais, c'est par ici.

durée : 00:20:28 - Les interviews d'Inter - par : Céline Asselot - "En France, sur les pas des personnages de roman", de Marie-Clémence Régnier et Ismaël Jude (éditons Autrement) est un livre qui propose de découvrir les différentes régions françaises en suivant les traces de personnages de roman. - invités : Ismaël Jude Romancier et docteur en littérature , Marie-Clémence Régnier Maîtresse de conférences à l'université d'Artois, en délégation à l'Institut universitaire de France Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:32:10 - Les Nuits de France Culture - par : Albane Penaranda - Dans la région du Maestrazgo, une figure légendaire de la lutte antifranquiste hante la mémoire collective, La Pastora, à qui le réalisateur Ismaël Cobo a consacré un documentaire. En 2004, cet épisode de la série sur la mémoire des vaincus de la Guerre d'Espagne nous raconte son histoire. - équipe : Mathias Le Gargasson, Antoine Dhulster, Rafik Zénine, Vincent Abouchar, Emily Vallat, Hassane M'Béchour, INA Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:10:12 - Une histoire et... Oli - Ismaël Jude est écrivain. Il a publié quatre romans aux éditions Verticales, dont récemment : "Une vie de jasmin", et deux atlas aux éditions Autrement À Paris et En France dans la série "Sur les pas des personnages de romans". Il raconte ici l'histoire de deux ponettes pas comme les autres. - équipe : Ismaël Jude, Etienne Quesnel Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

Welcome back to World Cup Daily #31. Day 21 is officially wrapped! Today, Shaq and Homer reunite to break down a breathtaking Round-of-32 Monday slate where tournament favorites were pushed to the absolute brink of elimination.We break down the tactical escape acts, late-game collapses, and system rants unfiltered.

« Le syndrome de la dernière minute » : le quotidien Aujourd'hui à Ouagadougou a trouvé la juste expression… Aujourd'hui qui estime que « le football africain a besoin de réfléchir sur son ADN mental ! » En effet, pourquoi toutes ces défaites concédées en fin de match ? Mercredi soir, relate le journal, « la RD Congo a fait douter l'Angleterre pendant près de 90 minutes. Malheureusement, la pression anglaise a fini par payer. À un quart d'heure du terme, Harry Kane a remis les deux équipes à égalité, avant de crucifier les Congolais en inscrivant le but de la victoire à la 86ᵉ minute. » À lire aussiCoupe du monde 2026: la RD Congo craque sur le fil contre l'Angleterre, qualifiée en 8es de finale Et un peu plus tard dans la soirée, le Sénégal est « passé du rêve au cauchemar » : les Lions de la Téranga face à la Belgique menaient 2 à 0 juste avant la fin de la rencontre. Et tout a basculé… « Cruelle désillusion », soupire WalfQuotidien à Dakar. « Les Lions ont périclité en l'espace de 5 minutes. » Deux buts coup sur coup et un penalty concédé dans les prolongations. WalfQuotidien qui s'en prend au sélectionneur Pape Thiaw qui aurait mal géré les remplacements en fin de rencontre. Commentaire du site Seneplus : « Ce renversement spectaculaire laisse un goût amer au Sénégal, qui aura longtemps livré l'une de ses prestations les plus abouties du tournoi. Portés par un Sadio Mané inspiré, un Habib Diarra omniprésent et un Ismaïla Sarr décisif, les Lions ont toutefois payé au prix fort leur incapacité à gérer les dernières minutes d'une rencontre qu'ils semblaient pourtant contrôler. » À lire aussiCoupe du monde 2026: une fin de match catastrophe et le Sénégal gâche son rêve de 8es contre la Belgique La gestion des fins de matches Et malheureusement constate Afrik-foot, « l'effondrement du Sénégal n'est que le dernier chapitre d'une tendance de plus en plus douloureuse qui hante le continent depuis le début de ces 16es de finale du Mondial. Tout a commencé avec l'Afrique du Sud, rappelle le site sportif, qui a tenu le Canada en échec pendant presque toute la rencontre avant de concéder un but déchirant dans les arrêts de jeu. La Côte d'Ivoire semblait en bonne voie pour forcer la prolongation face à la Norvège après avoir égalisé à la 74ᵉ minute, avant de céder sur un but décisif à quatre minutes du terme. Ce n'est pas une question de talent, pointe Afrik-foot : le Sénégal, la Côte d'Ivoire, l'Afrique du Sud et la RD Congo ont toutes prouvé qu'elles étaient capables de rivaliser avec l'élite européenne sur de longues périodes. Le problème se situe dans la gestion des dernières minutes, là où la concentration, la sérénité et la maîtrise tactique font souvent la différence entre ceux qui passent et ceux qui s'interrogent sur ce qui aurait pu être. Dans cette Coupe du monde, ces petits détails ont systématiquement joué en défaveur des grandes nations africaines, et la sortie douloureuse du Sénégal pourrait bien être l'exemple le plus cruel de tous. La seule exception, relève enfin Afrik-foot, étant le Maroc, qui est au contraire parvenu à arracher l'égalisation dans le temps additionnel contre les Pays-Bas. » À lire aussiCoupe du monde 2026: le Maroc élimine les Pays-Bas aux tirs au but après un match fou Égypte, Algérie, Ghana, Cap-Vert et Maroc… Désormais, constate WakatSéra, « il ne reste plus à l'Afrique qu'à reporter tous ses espoirs sur les Pharaons égyptiens, les Fennecs algériens, ou encore les Black Stars ghanéens. Et pourquoi pas sur les Requins bleus cap-verdiens qui, sans complexe, défieront les Argentins et Lionel Messi, champions du monde en titre. » Et puis il y a donc le Maroc ! Après leur victoire spectaculaire contre les Pays-Bas, les Lions de l'Atlas rencontreront samedi le Canada. « Une affiche piégeuse plus qu'écrasante, estime le site marocain leDesk. Sur le papier, le Maroc part favori, et l'histoire récente le conforte : en phase de poules au Qatar, en 2022, les Lions de l'Atlas avaient déjà battu le Canada (2-1) avant de filer jusqu'en demi-finale. » Mais, attention, prévient le site marocain, « les Canadiens abordent ce 8ᵉ de finale libérés de toute pression. Deuxièmes du groupe B, nul contre la Bosnie, large victoire 6-0 sur le Qatar, défaite face à la Suisse, ils avancent sans attentes, ce qui les rend potentiellement plus dangereux qu'au premier regard. » À lire aussiCoupe du monde 2026: menée durant une heure, l'Égypte bat la Nouvelle-Zélande et entrevoit les seizièmes

Brent Gunning and Daniele Franceschi welcome Sportsnet Blue Jays analyst Madison Shipman to discuss Vladimir Guerrero Jr.'s swing issues and his performance at the plate. They explore whether his struggles stem from his process, his lineup position, or broader team issues, and if there's hope in his hard contact. They also touch on George Springer's progress and the team's difficulties with runners in scoring position. Afterward, they chat with former Canadian national team player David Edgar (23:57) about the Canadian soccer team's impressive momentum. They discuss Canada's tournament performance, Alphonso Davies' injury status, the combination of Cyle Larin and Jonathan David, Ismaël Koné's absence, and the lack of a home game in the knockout round. They conclude by identifying players under pressure for the upcoming game. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Sports & Media or any affiliate.

In this episode, Professor Sahar Aziz is in conversation with award winning journalist Isma'il Kuskush about the complex origins, multiple domestic and foreign actors, and human rights crisis of Sudan's war. The ongoing power struggle between rival military elites is rooted in decades of militarization, failed democratic transition, and unresolved ethnic conflict. Its humanitarian consequences—mass displacement, famine risk, and widespread atrocities—have elevated it into one of the most severe human rights crises globally.The current war in Sudan began in April 2023, when fighting erupted between two factions of the country's security forces: the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The immediate trigger was a dispute over integrating the RSF into the national army as part of a planned transition to civilian rule after years of military dominance. A critical turning point occurred in 2019, when longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir was overthrown. A fragile civilian–military transition followed, but in October 2021, the SAF and RSF jointly staged a coup that derailed democratic reforms. Tensions between the two leaders then escalated into open conflict as both sought control over the state, economic resources (especially gold), and the future political system.The devastating war in Sudan has produced what many international organizations describe as the world's largest humanitarian crisis. Millions of civilians have been displaced, and basic infrastructure—healthcare, food distribution, and education—has collapsed in many regions.BiographyIsma'il Kushkush is a Sudanese-American journalist who was based in Khartoum, Sudan, for eight years, where he contributed to The New York Times, CNN, Voice of America and Al Jazeera English. For two three-month periods in 2014 and again in 2015, he was acting bureau chief for The New York Times in East Africa based in Nairobi. He has covered political, economic, social and cultural stories from Sudan, South Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia, Burundi, Sweden and the United States. He has also worked as a fixer, translator and interpreter. Kushkush grew up in the United States, Sudan, Syria and Kuwait. He received a master of arts degree in journalism from Columbia Journalism School in New York with a focus on politics and global affairs. He is a fluent Arabic-speaker.Recommended ReadingsIsma'il Kushkush,Leaving Khartoum(The New York Review 2025)Isma'il Kuskkush,Sudan's Journalists Risk Everything to Cover a War the World Ignores(Neiman Reports 2026)Isma'il Kushkush,Sudan's Uprising, Bashir's Fall, and My Father's Passing(The New Yorker 2019)#Sudan #HumanRights #Khartoum #CivilWar #UAE #EgyptSupport the showSupport the Center for Security, Race and Rights by following us and making a donation:Donate: https://give.rutgersfoundation.org/csrr-support/20046.html Subscribe to our Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEbUfYcWGZapBNYvCObiCpp3qtxgH_jFy Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rucsrr Follow us on Instagram: https://instagram.com/rutgerscsrr Follow us on Threads: https://threads.com/rutgerscsrr Follow us on Facebook: https://facebook.com/rucsrr Follow us on TikTok: https://tiktok.com/rucsrr 

Lionel Messi made history for Argentina, Algeria kept its World Cup hopes alive and France booked its place in the knockout rounds on Day 12 of the tournament. David Gass, Jordan Angeli and Matt Doyle break down all the action before turning their attention to Day 13, where Cristiano Ronaldo and Portugal face mounting pressure, England takes on Ghana, Colombia meets DR Congo and Croatia looks to bounce back against Panama.0:00 Intro1:53 3 Big Things13:18 Messi Makes History Against Austria18:46 Algeria Still Alive24:37 Weather Delays, France Advances31:30 Haaland, Norway Hold Off Senegal40:50 North American Update: Canada's Ismaël Koné46:25 Ronaldo and Portugal Face Uzbekistan52:36 Colombia Showdown with DR Congo1:01:30 England Battles Ghana1:03:24 Croatia Looks to Bounce Back Against Panama

Welcome back to FUT IN REVIEW | World Cup Daily #22. The sleep deprivation is officially hitting hard, but Day 12 delivered an absolute blockbuster slate. Today, John and Graeme (sporting his signature blue microphone) break down an unforgettable round of matches that completely re-wrote the football record books.We break down all the matches, rants, and referee controversies unfiltered:The Goalscoring Pinnacle: After missing an early 9th-minute penalty, Lionel Messi responds like the ultimate GOAT, scoring a spectacular brace to lead Argentina to a 2-0 victory over Austria. With 18 career World Cup goals, he officially passes Miroslav Klose to become the all-time leading scorer in men's World Cup history. We analyze his real-time spatial genius, his rapid reaction to rebounds, and debate whether referees are showing unconscious bias toward Argentina.The 4-Hour Lightning Storm: France picks Iraq apart in a 3-0 masterclass, but the real drama was the massive weather delay. We look at how elite players stay physically and mentally switched on during chaotic storm rules, slam Iraq's surprisingly open tactics, and praise Kylian Mbappé for scoring a lethal strike to tie Miroslav Klose's record of 16 World Cup goals at just 27 years old! Plus, can anyone stop Michael Olise's insane outside-of-the-boot passes?High-Flying Norway: Erling Haaland bags another clinical brace as Norway edges out Senegal in an awesome 3-2 thriller. We bow down to Martin Ødegaard's surgical, pinpoint assists, track Marcus Pedersen's unexpected opener, and look at Ismaïla Sarr keeping Senegal dangerous on the counter.Algeria's Battle: Riyad Mahrez returns to the lineup but fails to perform, prompting a massive call for Bayer Leverkusen's breakout star to take the reigns. Algeria secures a tight 2-1 football fight over debutants Jordan.The Goalkeeping Technique Crisis: Graeme and John deep-dive into a technical breakdown of modern goalkeeping. We analyze Édouard Mendy's lacking footwork and why elite stoppers like Thibaut Courtois take that crucial extra sidestep before diving.Going to bed at 4:30 AM and waking up at 7:00 AM to cover every single speelronde is destroying us! If you want to support the crew one-time only without a subscription, buy the boys a coffee lifeline here:

Christian Polanco and Alexis Guerreros are joined by former USMNT defender Jimmy Conrad to preview the United States' crucial World Cup clash with Australia. The crew breaks down the keys to the match, debates whether Christian Pulisic should risk playing with his calf injury and discusses who could step in if the captain is unavailable. They also analyze what tactical approach Australia is likely to take against Mauricio Pochettino's side and what the Americans must do to secure another three points. Next, The Cooligans recap a dramatic day for CONCACAF nations. Canada routed Qatar 6-0 to put themselves in position for a deep tournament run, but celebrations were muted after the horrific injury suffered by Ismaël Koné. Meanwhile, Mexico grinded out a 1-0 victory over South Korea, but Christian and Alexis explain why El Tri still have plenty of work to do despite sitting in a favorable position. To wrap up the show, the guys preview a massive weekend of World Cup action. Can Sweden continue their impressive run against the Netherlands? Will Germany avoid an upset against Ivory Coast? Can Spain bounce back against Saudi Arabia? And after stunning the world with a draw against Spain, can Cape Verde pull off another miracle against Uruguay? The Cooligans break down all the biggest storylines heading into another exciting weekend at the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Timestamps: (0:00) — USMNT vs Australia breakdown with Jimmy Conrad (22:45) - Canada thump Qatar (29:30) - Mexico prevail against South Korea (40:15) - World Cup weekend preview Subscribe to The Cooligans on your favorite podcast app:

Canada making history with an absolute 6-0 goal fest, Mexico becoming the first team to officially qualify for the knockouts, and Switzerland turning it up with 5 goals in 16 minutes. Day 8 delivered pure, unpredictable chaos!Welcome back to FUT IN REVIEW | World Cup Daily #18. The group stage is flying by, and today Shaq is joined by the ultimate double-act, John and James Tolando, to break down a wild four-match slate featuring massive triumphs and the tournament's first heartbreaking injury.We break down all the matches, rants, and tactical talking points unfiltered:The Canadian Dream: 94 years of trying, and Canada finally secures their first-ever World Cup win in absolute style. We praise Jonathan David's historic hat-trick, analyze Qatar's complete meltdown with two red cards, and address the serious stretcher injury to Ismaël Koné.El Tri Marches On: Mexico punches their ticket to the round of 16 after a tense 1-0 win over South Korea at home. We discuss Kim Seung-gyu's costly goalkeeping blunder, Luis Romo's clinical capitalization, and why South Korea is still very much in the mix.The Swiss Blitz: 73 minutes of a compact, frustrating deadlock, and then boom! Switzerland detonates with 5 goals in just 16 minutes to dismantle Bosnia. We shout out Ruben Vargas's game-changing impact and discuss the red card that triggered Bosnia's total collapse.Bottlers of Prague: Czechia throws away a lead for the second game in a row, drawing 1-1 with South Africa after a clumsy late penalty. We put the spotlight on Patrik Schick's out-of-form performance and missed sitters.Blockbuster Previews: We look ahead to a massive Day 9, including the USA taking on Australia (Go the Socceroos!), a crucial Scotland vs. Morocco clash, and Brazil needing a massive statement response against Haiti.☕ Buy Me A Coffee: Recording around the clock takes a toll! Want to support the crew one-time only without a subscription? Buy the boys a coffee lifeline here: buymeacoffee.com/futinreview

Israel and Hezbollah agree to a ceasefire following deadly overnight clashes. Billionaire Frank Stronach convicted of sexual assault in Toronto trial. CBC visual investigation tracks B.C.-made sniper rifles to violent militias in Sudan, Libya, and Yemen. Labour's Andy Burnham wins key by-election, clearing path to challenge U.K. PM Keir Starmer. Two men jailed in UK for arson plot targeting properties linked to Keir Starmer. New federal law allows cabinet to overrule science and greenlight banned pesticides. Coach Jesse Marsch says Canada's historic World Cup win is marred by Ismaël Koné's "gruesome" leg injury.

Ailish Forfar and Justin Cuthbert kick things off with James Sharman following Canada's historic win over Qatar! They discuss the injury to Ismaël Koné, what to expect against Switzerland, how Canada will cope with Koné's injury, and much more. Then, Ailish And Justin go through the biggest storylines around sports in the Friday Free For All. They discuss the Leafs acquiring Darren Raddysh in a sign-and-trade with Tampa Bay, what the future has in store for Morgan Rielly, the Jays blowout loss today, the Marlies chances of capturing the Calder Cup tonight in Game 5, and much more.   The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Sports & Media or any affiliate.

Ben Ennis and Brent Gunning kick off Friday morning by delivering the news that arrived late last night about the Maple Leafs being close to a sign-and-trade to acquire Darren Raddysh! The boys then pivot to Canada's historic 6-0 victory over Qatar last night at BC Place. They reflect on what the victory means for the program, Jonathan David's hat trick performance, and Cyle Larin's goal to open the scoring once again. They also touch on Moïse Bombito's return to the pitch and Alphonso Davies' status heading into their next game against Switzerland, before discussing Ismaël Koné's injury and the impact of his absence. After the break, the guys recap the Blue Jays' series sweep of the Red Sox including Vladimir Guerrero Jr.'s much-needed home run and Trey Yesavage pitching into the eight inning. Ben and Brent wrap up this hour with a look at the opening round of the US Open at Shinnecock Hills. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Sports & Media or any affiliates.

Welkom bij aflevering acht van FC Afkicken Komt Z’n Nest Uit! De ochtendshow waarin Lars van Velsum, Mart ten Have en Sieb Uenk je in dertig minuten bijpraten over het laatste WK-nieuws! Met vandaag de monsterzege van Canada op Qatar, dat Ismaël Koné op vervelende wijze zag uitvallen. Ook Zwitserland deelde een flink pak slag uit aan Bosnië en Herzegovina, dat met 4-1 onderuit ging. Ook bespreken we het gelijkspel tussen Tsjechië en Zuid-Afrika en de overwinning van Mexico op Zuid-Korea, waardoor de Mexicanen als eerste land een ronde verder gaan in het toernooi! We discussiëren over het middenveld van Nederland, hebben een zeer actuele quiz en er wordt weer voorspeld. Speel mee in de YouTube-comments en maak kans op een Old Amsterdam-experience rondom Nederland - Zweden! Namens Lars, Mart en Sieb: Veel luisterplezier! (00:00) Intro (04:20) Belletje met Gilles Mbiye-Beya (12:20) Het middenveld van het Nederlands elftal/AD (24:52) Quiz (26:52) Rondje om de wereld (30:39) Programma (32:09) Voorspellingen Matt Sleeps Deze maand hebben ze bij Matt de hoogste kortingen ooit, tot wel 50%! Ga naar mattsleeps.com/fcadaily en krijg daar met de code FCA ook nog eens extra verrassingskorting bovenop. De nieuwste aflevering van The Skybox Check je hier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBtZXNWwyAc&t=1084s Check voor de beste en mooiste verhalen vanuit Noord-Amerika ad.nl/sport/ of sluit een abonnement af! De analyse van Maarten Wijffels: https://www.ad.nl/wk-voetbal/nationale-discussie-over-wissels-ronald-koeman-bij-oranje-twee-belangrijke-lessen-voor-rest-van-het-toernooi~a60dc077/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It was the game that fans of the CanMNT had long dreamed about, as Canada picked up their first-ever World Cup win, doing so in STYLE in a thumping 6-0 win over Qatar in Vancouver. Jonathan David finally had his statement World Cup performance with an impressive hat trick, Cyle Larin had a big goal to stay in red-hot form, and Nathan Saliba announced his breakout to the world. Unfortunately for Canada, however, not all went well, as Ismaël Koné was stretchered off with a horrific leg break, one that will prematurely end his tournament and keep him out of action for several months. Brendan Dunlop and Alex Gangué-Ruzic dive into all of the KEY storylines and Ben Steiner checks in with an update from BC Place, in a very special post-game episode of NFP. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Father's Day plans, Canada toys with Qatar, devastating injury to Ismaël Koné, and TSN's Frankie Corrado.

Soccer analyst Gord Smith on how the win over Qatar will help against the Swiss, Jonathan David answering his critics, and the tackle that broke Ismaël Koné's leg.

Le 16 février 1699, à 8h30, Abdallah Benaicha, envoyé du puissant sultan Moulay Ismail, arrive aux pieds de l'escalier des ambassadeurs du château de Versailles, aujourd'hui disparu. Il a rendez-vous avec le roi Louis XIV pour une audience extraordinaire. "Secrets d'Histoire" est un podcast d'Initial Studio, adapté de l'émission de télévision éponyme produite par la Société Européenne de Production ©2024 SEP / France Télévisions. Cet épisode a été écrit et réalisé par Antoine de Meaux.Un podcast présenté par Stéphane Bern. Avec la voix d'Isabelle Benhadj.Vous pouvez retrouver Secrets d'Histoire sur France 3 ou en replay sur France.tv, et suivre l'émission sur Instagram et Facebook.Crédits du podcastProduction exécutive du podcast : Initial StudioProduction éditoriale : Sarah Koskievic et Mandy Lebourg, assistées de Marine Boudalier Montage : Johanna Lalonde Hébergé par Audion. Visitez https://www.audion.fm/fr/privacy-policy pour plus d'informations.

Dans le Maroc alaouite, le jeune prince Moulay Ismail est l'un des hommes clés du royaume. Son frère Moulay Rachid a fait de lui le gouverneur de la ville de Fès, un poste stratégique."Secrets d'Histoire" est un podcast d'Initial Studio, adapté de l'émission de télévision éponyme produite par la Société Européenne de Production ©2024 SEP / France Télévisions. Cet épisode a été écrit et réalisé par Antoine de Meaux.Un podcast présenté par Stéphane Bern. Avec la voix d'Isabelle Benhadj.Vous pouvez retrouver Secrets d'Histoire sur France 3 ou en replay sur France.tv, et suivre l'émission sur Instagram et Facebook.Crédits du podcastProduction exécutive du podcast : Initial StudioProduction éditoriale : Sarah Koskievic et Mandy Lebourg, assistées de Marine Boudalier Montage : Johanna Lalonde Hébergé par Audion. Visitez https://www.audion.fm/fr/privacy-policy pour plus d'informations.

Moulay Ismaïl, sultan du Maroc au XVIIe siècle, incarne un souverain impitoyable et visionnaire, déterminé à affirmer sa domination. Fondateur de la dynastie alaouite, il mène un règne de fer, marqué par une centralisation du pouvoir et la construction d'une armée redoutée. Son autorité s'étend sur tout le royaume, mais c'est sa politique de terreur et de contrôle qui forge sa légende. À la fois conquérant et bâtisseur, Moulay Ismaïl laisse une empreinte durable sur l'histoire du Maroc, où sa quête de pouvoir absolu et ses méthodes autoritaires le rendent aussi craint et respecté."Secrets d'Histoire" est un podcast d'Initial Studio, adapté de l'émission de télévision éponyme produite par la Société Européenne de Production ©2024 SEP / France Télévisions. Cet épisode a été écrit et réalisé par Antoine de Meaux.Un podcast présenté par Stéphane Bern. Avec la voix d'Isabelle Benhadj.Vous pouvez retrouver Secrets d'Histoire sur France 3 ou en replay sur France.tv, et suivre l'émission sur Instagram et Facebook.Crédits du podcastProduction exécutive du podcast : Initial StudioProduction éditoriale : Sarah Koskievic et Mandy Lebourg, assistées de Marine Boudalier Montage : Johanna Lalonde Hébergé par Audion. Visitez https://www.audion.fm/fr/privacy-policy pour plus d'informations.

¡Vota por Nerdmigos en los Latin Podcast Awards 2026!

Isma Juárez sale a la calle a buscar las mejores camisetas del Papa. Analizamos con José Rufino los mejores productos del merchandising de León XIV. Ángela Quintas nos habla de obleas, las religiosas y las que no lo son, y Fabián Martín nos explica los entresijos de la producción de este dulce. 

Isma Juárez sale a la calle a buscar las mejores camisetas del Papa. Analizamos con José Rufino los mejores productos del merchandising de León XIV. Ángela Quintas nos habla de obleas, las religiosas y las que no lo son, y Fabián Martín nos explica los entresijos de la producción de este dulce. 

Lots of racing consumed from the couch this weekend, everything from the NWMT at Riverhead to the CARS Tour in Washington state. NASCAR in Nashville and a hell of a ISMA race at Oswego. Support the show

What makes people pay a lot of attention to some wars and crises, but not others? And what does that attention actually do for the people in those situations? We're looking at Sudan, which has entered its fourth year of a civil war this week. But, unlike in Gaza, the violence and famine there has struggled to break through headlines in the U.S. We talk to Sudanese journalist Isma'il Kushkush, political scientist Scott Strauss, Sudan expert Alexander de Waal, and political scientist Mai Hassan.To manage podcast ad preferences, review the links below:See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy