Weekend Box: Sudan Under Fire, Fox Tries to Outfox Courts & more
Welcome to The Weekend Box, Audley’s weekly round-up of interesting or obscure political, business and cultural news from around the world.
SUDAN UNDER FIRE
All is not well in Sudan, a country that has been beset by conflict and instability since becoming independent in 1956. So, what has triggered the latest wave of violence? Four years ago, Omar al-Bashir’s 30 years of autocratic rule ended with his forced removal by the Sudanese army. He was then replaced by a transitional government of military and civilian groups. However, in 2021, hopes for a civilian-led democracy were quashed with a military takeover led by Gen Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the de facto leader and army chief, and Lt Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, the vice-president who controls the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and is known as Hemeti. Both generals have been accused by human rights campaigners for their roles in the 2003 war in Darfur, which saw 300,000 people and displaced another 2.7 million and has been described as the first genocide of the 21st Century.
This began as a marriage of convenience, but fast forward to today and these two military strongmen are at war, with deadly consequences. Some argue that this fracture was triggered by Burhan’s plans to absorb the RSF into the regular armed forces, a move that would threaten Hemeti’s independent power base. Others say that this has been a long-time coming, due to the RSF looking to control more of the country’s economic assets, notably its gold mines. As a result of the clash, the death toll is 300 and climbing according to the WHO with the US-brokered ceasefire on Tuesday failing to hold. This comes at the same time as the G7 this week and so far, we have seen attempts between Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (who have significant influence in Sudan), and the US to try and de-escalate the situation. While both military generals present themselves as democrats, with promises of transition to civilian rule, violence wages on. It is unclear whether international pressure will lead to results and with no side showing any intention to relinquish power, Sudan’s hope of democracy remains a hope.
Image credit/Adam Fagen on Flickr
FOX TRIES TO OUTFOX COURTS
Just as the defamation trial between Dominion Voting Systems and Fox News was getting interesting, a last-minute settlement has disappointed many who anticipated in-depth exposure of lying and conspiracy by Fox’s anchors and executives. For $787.5m, Fox News has avoided the public scrutiny of the courtroom and, because the settlement did not require any retraction or apology, has been able to avoid acknowledging that it knowingly broadcast lies about the 2020 Presidential election being ‘stolen’.
Fox has said nothing on air and its post-settlement statement only acknowledged “the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false,” adding: “This settlement reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards.” This certainly raised some eyebrows.
Fox’s settlement strategy perpetuates the conundrum that first got it into trouble. Its partisan, neo-Republican ‘entertainment as news’ formula has built a primetime audience of some 2.2m, twice that of closest cable news competitor MSNBC. Yet it has done so by indulging conspiracy theories, distinguishing itself from the ‘mainstream media’ by repeating claims that have been discounted by other outlets committed to a shared set of facts. As one commentator put it, Fox is riding the tiger it has created.
Among 7,021 trial exhibits were reams of emails revealing how, as Fox bosses realised viewers were drifting to other networks peddling voting conspiracies, pressure was placed on producers and presenters to run those conspiracies. Indeed, one former producer, Abby Grossberg, who claims that having been pressured to run such stories she was then ‘coached’ and ‘intimidated’ into giving misleading testimony in the Dominion lawsuit.
Further challenges lie ahead. Another automated voting company, Smartmatic, is filing a defamation lawsuit that, at $2.7Bn, dwarfs Dominion’s $1.6bn claim. Smartmatic’s directors claim they are determined to go to court. Fox Corp’s shareholders have demanded company records that may precede lawsuits making directors liable for costs. If more pay-outs are just ‘the cost of doing business’, at what cost?
SHOW BUSINESS OR NO BUSINESS?
In an era of television that is epic in cost as well as scope, famed Fleabag creator Phoebe Waller-Bridge has unexpectedly been placed at the centre of a controversy as it emerged this week that Amazon Studios have paid her $60mn with no new programmes to show for it so far.
Waller-Bridge signed a $20mn-per-year creative exclusivity deal with Amazon in late 2019 following the conclusion of her hit series, putting the rights to her next sure-to-be hit in their hands. While she has been involved in numerous other projects since, the lack of a Fleabag follow-up for Amazon has caused ire within the studio, where accusations are being made that the deal exists for name recognition alone.
While we cannot speculate on Waller-Bridge’s side of the deal, the controversy is revealing of the strange relationships between studios post-streaming ‘boom’ and the creators they work with.
Waller-Bridge is far from the only creative who has recently inked a lucrative creative deal with little to show for it. A reported $100mn deal between Netflix and the Sussexes has so far borne little fruit. Warner Brothers Discovery, which is planning its own streaming platform so the merger of long-time industry titans can compete with Netflix, has been burned to the tune of $750mn by unproductive deals with South Park’s creators and J. J. Abrams’ production company Bad Robot.
With extraordinary amounts thrown around for the rights to big names while jobs are cut, programmes routinely pulled, and new projects cancelled before they even air, the question arises: is competition between studios getting in the way of their mission to put out high-quality content? Netflix this week reported $8.18bn revenues for Q1, failing to meet investor expectations, as overall satisfaction with the programming on offer is declining.
If they want to turn things around, perhaps they can focus on getting the most out of their deals with creatives and set a positive example for the industry.
A WEE PROBLEM FOR THAMES WATER
Gas and electricity are not the only utilities under pressure in Britain. The UK’s water providers are in at the deep end for similar reasons to energy companies: the need to tackle climate change and historic underinvestment.
Earlier this week Thames Water’s strategy and regulatory affairs director urged behaviour change to reduce water usage. Cathryn Ross suggested we should refrain from flushing after urinating and abide by the adage “if it’s yellow, let it mellow”. She added that taking shorter showers and not using hosepipes were equally important. Ross’ comments were jumped on by social media users who pointed to Thames Water’s questionable record on stopping leaks together with the company’s repeated failures to stop sewage contamination. Perhaps Thames Water should sort its own behaviour before lecturing others, they said.
Earlier in April, environment secretary Thérèse Coffey was attacked by Labour and the Lib Dems for what they described as an unambitious plan to tackle sewage-dumping, filled with policy re-announcements rather than a new strategy. Coffey stated that solutions would be hard to come by unless consumers are willing to accept much higher bills.
Much like with energy, a lack of strategic planning by the public and private sectors has left Britain’s clean water supply in a perilous position. For instance, no new reservoirs have been built in the UK since 1991. Ross’ water-saving suggestions may have attracted ire, but her substantive point is no different to the energy efficiency campaign run by the government in the winter just passed. Water is, after all, nature’s driving force, so we can expect it to create much more debate about public policy, corporate strategy, and consumer behaviour.
Image Credit/ Garry Knight
GRENFELL: ART FOR WHOSE SAKE?
Can you copyright a tragedy? Can you copyright an individual experience in a wider traumatic event? Such are the fundamental questions being prompted by the stage and TV adaptations centred on the Grenfell Fire, currently in pre-production. It was reported this week that some survivors of the tragedy in June 2017 have objected to these adaptations, accusing producers of insensitivity; in the words of one leaseholder on the Estate, “for us it’s repetitive and triggering.” The timing has also proved controversial for some, with some local residents arguing it is far too soon; one argued it should be 20 years until TV series should be produced, when all the facts are better known.
This issue stirs some fundamental questions about the role of art and artists. What is the balance between artistry and authenticity, or as survivors put it to the Guardian, stealing an identity or experience? The National Theatre production is based on verbatim, first-hand accounts from survivors of the tragedy, written by Gillian Slovo who spent years working with the local community after the fire. Likewise, the BBC adaptation has close collaboration with a number of survivors and their families, with producers attending every day of the public inquiry. Both productions have taken the view that it is their job, faced with a tragedy of this magnitude with such significant public, policy and political ramifications, to amplify victims’ voices and ensure their stories are not forgotten, nor their experiences ignored. Supportive voices, including Spectator literary editor Sam Leith, have argued that events such as Grenfell are firmly in the purview of drama and dramatists and that survivors of tragedies do not have a veto over how stories of events are told.
There is an undercurrent of mistrust in the responses of many survivors. It is little wonder that trust in public institutions, even those such as the National Theatre and BBC, is in short supply amongst many of the ever Grenfell community. 400 days of evidence in the official Inquiry exposed huge failings amongst a multitude of public bodies, as well as lies and cover-ups. Not least by the local council and housing management organisation, who repeatedly failed to listen to residents’ concerns. And yet, while there are numerous investigations, part two of the inquiry will take months to be published and criminal charges have yet to be brought. Outside of any dramatisations, justice for victims and their families is far from being secured.
And that’s it for this week. I hope you found something of interest that you might want to delve into further. If so, please get in touch at cwilkins@audleyadvisors.com.
For now, that’s The Weekend Box officially closed.