Johansen.se

In late 2019 and early 2020, a series of devastating wildfires, known as the “black summer” bushfire disaster, left Australia reeling: More than 20% of the country’s forests burned.

As a scholar of the psychology of charitable giving, I have long been interested in the unique emotional response that disasters evoke – often generating an urgent and visceral wish to help.

I wanted to understand how and why people respond to a crisis of this magnitude. For the project, I teamed up with three Australian environmental psychology and collective action experts: Matthew Hornsey, Kelly Fielding and Robyn Gulliver.

We found that international media coverage of disasters can help increase donations. Our findings, which were published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Disasters in 2022, are relevant to the situation in Los Angeles, where severe fires destroyed thousands of homes and businesses in January 2025, devastating many communities.

That recovery could take years.

5 key factors affect generosity

All told, Australian donors gave more than US$397 million, or $640 million in Australian dollars, to support the recovery from the black summer bushfire disaster. The international community also rallied: U.S. and U.K. donors contributed an additional US$2.6 million. These donations were used to fund evacuation centers, support groups for victims, and cash grants for repairs and rebuilding, among other things.

When we surveyed 949 Australians about what influenced their donations and analyzed news articles about the disaster, we found that coverage of disasters significantly increased generosity and influenced which charities drew donations. This may be because news articles communicated directly the need for charitable support.

Using this survey data, we identified key factors that influenced how much money, if any, people donated in response to the bushfire disaster appeals. These five were linked with the amounts Australians donated:

• Scale: The sheer scale of the fires.

• Personal impact: Having been personally affected, knowing people who have been affected, or being worried that they will be affected in the future.

• Climate change beliefs: Believing that climate change is impacting the environment.

• News footage: The dramatic footage of the fires they have seen.

• Stories: The stories of those who have been affected.

Three of these factors – scale, news footage and stories – relate to information people were exposed to in media coverage of the disaster. Further, when we asked people how they chose which charities to support, they said that media coverage was more influential than either their friends and family or direct communication from those same charities.

These findings collectively show how media coverage can powerfully influence both how much people give to disaster relief and which nonprofits they choose to support.

Bushfire survivor Ian Livingston and his son Sydney stand in the ruins of their family home, lost to the ‘black summer’ bushfires in May 2020 in Cobargo, Australia.
Brook Mitchell/Getty Images

Setting the agenda

In the next phase of our research, we tried to learn how media coverage affects the public’s generosity.

We downloaded every news article we could find about the disaster over the three-month period that fires raged and analyzed the text of 30,239 news articles using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software.

We looked at which kinds of language and concepts were being used in media coverage, and how frequently they were used compared with their use in everyday written language.

In addition to concepts we expected to see, like emergency, heroes and human loss, we found that the concepts of support and money frequently showed up in coverage. Words like “donations,” “help” and “support” occurred in 74% of news articles. Words having to do with money were even more common: They appeared almost twice as often as they do in ordinary written language.

Our findings suggest that news coverage may have helped to set the agenda for the huge charitable response to Australia’s wildfire disaster because the media told people what they should be thinking about in terms of that disaster. In Australia’s case, it was how they could help.

A consideration for the media

We also believe that it’s likely that news coverage of disasters like this one can serve an agenda-setting function by teaching the public how to think about the crisis.

To the extent that news coverage highlights concepts like support, possibly communicating that donating is a normal response to a crisis, it’s reasonable to expect people to donate more money.

Given that news coverage can influence how much someone donates, as well as which charities they choose to support, nonprofits responding to the Los Angeles fires may wish to encourage media outlets to mention their work in news coverage.

It is likely that being featured in news coverage – especially when calls to action or opportunities to donate are incorporated in an article – would result in more funds being raised for the charity’s response to the disaster. Läs mer…

It’s been five years since the pandemic lockdowns of 2020 disrupted the traditional office workplace. For a while, it seemed COVID-19 killed the office.

Companies are now returning to the office in ever greater numbers. As professors who have researched remote work and collaboration for decades, we have our counterarguments. But there are lessons to be learned from what we are calling an “office-forward” approach, where companies are encouraging employees to work from the office most of the time.

Back to (field) work

We studied an office-forward company headquartered in the Midwest with multiple satellite offices across the U.S. before the pandemic, during lockdown, and as it navigated the return-to-office landscape. We embedded ourselves within the company for just over two years and conducted field observations, focus groups and one-on-one interviews with a total of 56 employees. We were struck by how employees talked about their place of work:

“This is my place. I feel very taken care of here.”

“Every time I come in, I feel welcomed.”

“It is such a welcoming place to come back to work every day.”

These comments speak to the positive culture of this company. But they also hint at something really interesting: Employees may see the office space as a welcoming place to be.

This is significant because research across disciplines — from anthropology to organizational science — has shown that people develop attachment to places, not spaces. Think about a house versus a home. A house is a structure; a home is a place of community.

And so, while the office is not a home, we learned that an office-forward strategy can be successful if employers transform their workspaces into workplaces, or into places of community. Here are three transformation tactics we discovered:

1. Provide space for place

Can the office support community? Can the workspace be a workplace?

Our research shows that employees see the office as a positive place when it meets their needs. The more goals people can accomplish in a space, the more attached they feel to it. As one employee told us: “If you want to work independently, there’s a space for that. If you want to collaborate with others, there are spaces for that. If you want to eat lunch with 50 people, you can do that. Or, if you just want to have, like, a one-on-one, you can do that as well. There is flexibility, just depending upon your mood, and maybe what you need to accomplish that day.”

We think this shows the value of redesigning “spaces” as “places” that meet multiple work-related and human needs.

We also documented the importance of providing a workstation for every employee. It’s simple: Humans are territorial. If you can’t put a picture of your family on your desk, you feel stripped of your humanity. An employee shared: “I know a lot of companies make you bounce around. Sounds terrible to me. Here, I have my little cubicle, and I love that.”

Not to mention the huge inconvenience of having to truck your stuff — even your mug and your mouse — to and from the office every day. Desk-sharing is antithetical to place attachment because it treats people like cogs.

2. Pass the place-making baton to workers

People are the ones who turn spaces into places. To accomplish this, some critical mass of people must use the physical infrastructure together.

The company we studied imagined its office as a social — not just a work — arena. It dreamed up all sorts of engagement opportunities. It hosted breakfasts and lunches, had movie nights, invited food trucks and ice cream vans, threw silent dance parties, and more.

Employees told us they enjoyed both “the informal, organic interactions when I go down to get coffee in the morning” and the “energy I feel when there are events in the office.” Infusing social opportunities of all shapes and sizes into the office means people are making memories in the office together. And this means they are building community.

In this 1996 file photo, Eric Ng leads a parade of co-workers on bikes and roller blades through the cubicles at the offices of Yahoo in Sunnyvale, Calif. The parade was a regular, though impromptu, event.
Meri Simon/MediaNews Group/The Mercury News via Getty Images

But this company went further. It passed the place-making baton. Employees could personalize the space. One team installed a mini-golf course; another painted a mural on an office wall in the center of the building. Employees used the space how and when they wanted to. Some did walking meetings on the treadmills; others played video games after lunch.

Most importantly, employees hosted their own activities in the office. We don’t just mean baby showers and such; we mean inviting the board of a nonprofit for a meeting at the office or inviting a group of students for an office tour. Turning space-users into place-makers means people develop a sense of shared ownership of the space-turned-place. No wonder we kept on hearing possessive language: “There’s a lot of pride in the fact that this is our place” and “This is a building of the people, to put it in a slogan-y way.” The office had become a place of community.

3. Use technology to create community

Technology is an integral part of the post-pandemic workplace. With increased flexibility, employees aren’t in the office all the time, even in companies with in-person policies. Since 2022 a number of companies – some recent examples include Amazon, AT&T, Tesla and others – have implemented strict in-person requirements, suggesting that technology is disruptive to office community. But technology can be a place-maker. It can virtually extend the sense of community from the company office to the home office.

The company we studied ensured that employees continued to feel a connection to the office when working from home during the pandemic. Executives created videos, human resources staff created newsletters and mailed company swag and treats to employees’ homes, and team leaders hosted virtual events and games to keep everyone connected.

Even after the pandemic, the company built Zoom rooms conducive to hybrid team meetings where all employees could feel present. It created branded virtual backgrounds and added branding to their virtual meeting rooms and software systems to remind of the office. It even hired an intern to post updates on company happenings on the company’s social media channels. The result? We heard this: “I feel welcome in this virtual office, too!”

The prize of it all

Place-making works, but it doesn’t work for everyone. In our research, most employees were what we call “place-attached” before the pandemic. But after the pandemic, some had lost their sense of connection to the office and the sense of community they used to feel there. These place-detached employees felt “I’m just there to be there” and “The touchy-feely is not where I get my value from.” We estimate that about 30% of the post-pandemic workforce at this company now feels disconnected from the company culture and the emphasis on being in the office for work.

But considering how many people discovered during the pandemic that they prefer to work from home, 30% is actually quite a low number.

The surprise – for us, at least – was that about 70% of employees in the company we studied remained attached to their office space in 2025. In other words, 7 in 10 continue to find community in the office. Our research unpacks this abstract concept further: What does “finding community” mean? What outcomes does it translate into?

The answer is that place-attached employees experience intrinsic satisfaction from office work. “It’s like going to the gym,” one employee told us. “It’s hard to go, but the energy here is so much higher.”

They feel more embedded in the company’s social fabric: “Grabbing a cup of coffee, just talking to your colleagues, makes you feel connected.”

They feel more productive: “I feed off other people’s energy in the office.”

They feel seen: “We work hard, but we celebrate each other here.”

And the big one — they derive a sense of meaningfulness and purpose: “Getting into work, it’s like someone needs me, I have a place to go, a place of purpose.”

And so, contrary to our own preconceived notions as remote work researchers about the benefits of remote work, we learned that office-forward workplaces need to be a part of the post-pandemic workplace mix. While some employees value work from home, others value working from the office. What we hope employers learn from our research is that for an office-forward approach to work, workspaces must transform into workplaces, or into places of community. Läs mer…

The decision by Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to end its fact-checking program and otherwise reduce content moderation raises the question of what content on those social media platforms will look like going forward.

One worrisome possibility is that the change could open the floodgates to more climate misinformation on Meta’s apps, including misleading or out-of-context claims during disasters.

In 2020, Meta rolled out its Climate Science Information Center on Facebook to respond to climate misinformation. Currently, third-party fact-checkers working with Meta flag false and misleading posts. Meta then decides whether to attach a warning label to them and reduce how much the company’s algorithms promote them.

Meta’s policies have fact-checkers prioritizing “viral false information,” hoaxes and “provably false claims that are timely, trending and consequential.” Meta explicitly states that this excludes opinion content that does not include false claims.

The company will end its agreements with U.S.-based third-party fact-checking organizations in March 2025. The planned changes slated to roll out to U.S. users won’t affect fact-checking content viewed by users outside the U.S.. The tech industry faces greater regulations on combating misinformation in other regions, such as the European Union.

Fact-checking curbs climate misinformation

I study climate change communication. Fact-checks can help correct political misinformation, including on climate change. People’s beliefs, ideology and prior knowledge affect how well fact-checks work. Finding messages that align with the target audience’s values, along with using trusted messengers – like climate-friendly conservative groups when speaking to political conservatives – can help. So, too, does appealing to shared social norms, like limiting harm to future generations.

Heat waves, flooding and fire conditions are becoming more common and catastrophic as the world warms. Extreme weather events often lead to a spike in social media attention to climate change. Social media posting peaks during a crisis but drops off quickly.

Low-quality fake images created using generative artificial intelligence software, so-called AI slop, is adding to confusion online during crises. For example, in the aftermath of back-to-back hurricanes Helene and Milton last fall, fake AI-generated images of a young girl, shivering and holding a puppy in a boat, went viral on the social media platform X. The spread of rumors and misinformation hindered the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster response.

What distinguishes misinformation from disinformation is the intent of the person or group doing the sharing. Misinformation is false or misleading content shared without active intention to mislead. On the other hand, disinformation is misleading or false information shared with the intent to deceive.

Disinformation campaigns are already happening. In the wake of the 2023 Hawaii wildfires, researchers at Recorded Future, Microsoft, NewsGuard and the University of Maryland independently documented an organized propaganda campaign by Chinese operatives targeting U.S. social media users.

To be sure, the spread of misleading information and rumors on social media is not a new problem. However, not all content moderation approaches have the same effect, and platforms are changing how they address misinformation. For example, X replaced its rumor controls that had helped debunk false claims during fast-moving disasters with user-generated labels, Community Notes.

A report found a surge of climate change misinformation on X in the wake of Elon Musk’s acquisition of the social media platform on Oct. 27, 2022.

False claims can go viral rapidly

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg specifically cited X’s Community Notes as an inspiration for his company’s planned changes in content moderation. The trouble is false claims go viral quickly. Recent research has found that the response time of crowd-sourced Community Notes is too slow to stop the diffusion of viral misinformation early in its online life cycle – the point when posts are most widely viewed.

In the case of climate change, misinformation is “sticky.” It is especially hard to dislodge falsehoods from people’s minds once they encounter them repeatedly. Furthermore, climate misinformation undermines public acceptance of established science. Just sharing more facts does not work to combat the spread of false claims about climate change.

Explaining that scientists agree that climate change is happening and is caused by humans burning greenhouse gases can prepare people to avoid misinformation. Psychology research indicates that this “inoculation” approach works to reduce the influence of false claims to the contrary.

That’s why warning people against climate misinformation before it goes viral is crucial for curbing its spread. Doing so is likely to get harder on Meta’s apps.

Social media users as sole debunkers

With the coming changes, you will be the fact-checker on Facebook and other Meta apps. The most effective way to pre-bunk against climate misinformation is to lead with accurate information, then warn briefly about the myth – but only state it once. Follow this with explaining why it is inaccurate and repeat the truth.

During climate change-fueled disasters, people are desperate for accurate and reliable information to make lifesaving decisions. Doing so is already challenging enough, like when the Los Angeles County’s emergency management office erroneously sent an evacuation alert to 10 million people on Jan. 9, 2025.

Crowd-sourced debunking is no match for organized disinformation campaigns in the midst of information vacuums during a crisis. The conditions for the rapid and unchecked spread of misleading, and outright false, content could get worse with Meta’s content moderation policy and algorithmic changes.

The U.S. public by and large wants the industry to moderate false information online. Instead, it seems that big tech companies are leaving fact-checking to their users. Läs mer…

If there is a leader in the aerospace industry, SpaceX is it. The company’s Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon spacecrafts are the current go-to vehicles to deliver astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station.

NASA contracts awarded to SpaceX through 2030 alone are worth nearly US$5 billion and include research and development for the Artemis mission to return astronauts to the Moon.

Over the past decade, SpaceX has also emerged as a key vendor to the U.S. Department of Defense, seen most recently with a $733.5 million contract for projects such as launching defense satellite networks and contributing to other national security space objectives.

As a human geographer, I’m interested in how commercial space and defense companies affect the local communities where they conduct launches and tests.

For instance, I spent over two years in Kazakhstan researching the privatization of the Soviet space program and the beginning of a global commercial space industry.

Elon Musk and SpaceX’s influence

Politically, SpaceX is an enormous boon to the United States.

As a U.S.-based defense supplier and contractor, the company’s technology has helped to nearly end an almost two-decade dependency on the Russian Federation for access to the International Space Station. Its billionaire CEO, Elon Musk, has even expressed plans to colonize Mars.

Musk’s decision to spend $250 billion helping Donald Trump win the 2024 presidential election is expected to lead to more support for SpaceX.

In the new administration, Musk is poised to lead a newly created advisory agency called the Department of Government Efficiency, which could lead to benefits for his business and widen his space ambitions.

Boca Chica, Texas, is home to SpaceX’s flagship assembly and test installation, Starbase. Since 2021, I have been conducting research with environmental groups and multigenerational community members of Latino and Indigenous descent in south Texas who see space exploration as a landscape-altering industry that affects their well-being.

After watching Starbase’s development proceed since 2014, locals there told me that there is much unseen and unsaid about what happens on the ground while an aerospace giant shoots for the stars.

Breaking eggs to make an omelet

Starbase is an industrial installation built by SpaceX to fabricate and test a number of the company’s rocket types.

The area around it is a unique and delicate ecosystem that includes estuaries and coastal grasslands, mud flats and more, where falcons, hawks, ravens, gulls and songbirds live.

Since construction began, SpaceX engineers have had to drain water-logged soils, level them and pour concrete to support ground tracking stations, assembly buildings, engine test stands, a nearly 500-foot (152-meter) launch tower and onsite fuel mixing and storage.

In a lengthy response to local environmental groups’ claims of environmental abuses, the company maintains that it is dedicated to environmental stewardship.

But developing rockets is a dangerous and messy business. Sites chosen for this kind of work are often, though not always, remote and highly secured installations.

Fiery explosions on the ground or in the air aren’t unheard of over the past several years. Rocket tests in Scotland, China and Japan have all ended in accidents.

In April 2023, one of SpaceX’s prototype Starship rockets exploded over the Gulf of Mexico shortly after liftoff.

This is not the only time that a rocket has exploded at places where SpaceX operates.

SpaceX runs a compact though growing operation at Boca Chica that has transformed the area. The hamlet was previously known as Kopernik Shores, and SpaceX purchased nearly all of the approximately 35 ranch homes in the area. Some residents have reported pressure to sell their property for suboptimal prices following rumors that the county would use eminent domain to seize their residences.

I spoke to Rebekah Hinojosa, a local activist and member of the Carrizo-Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, while researching in the area. To many locals, including Hinojosa, it seems like Musk is so well connected that SpaceX is insulated from public criticism.

In a 2018 press conference, Musk said, “We’ve got a lot of land with no one around, and so if it blows up, it’s cool,” referring to a rocket he planned to test at Starbase.

Changes to the landscape

An installation the size of Starbase cannot avoid disturbing the wildlife in the four distinct state and federal wildlife protection areas that surround it.

If you walk through the protected areas you may see shrapnel, segments of rocket chassis and other random debris from any number of explosions – that is, if someone else hasn’t picked them up first.

In December 2022, I visited a luxury campground near Starbase. It displayed various fragments of rocket debris, which they called memorabilia to the new space age, throughout the site.

Within SpaceX, as well as NASA, the explosion of 2023 was celebrated as a crucial step in developing the Starship rocket. The event did produce valuable data on the rocket’s performance – it has done little to tarnish the company’s reputation.

There is tremendous support for SpaceX in Texas. The company has promised to drive high-tech industry jobs into a region ranked among the country’s poorest.

SpaceX has created about 2,100 jobs. However, reporting shows that local and state politicians have seen more personal gains in their real estate holdings and campaign budgets than the region’s economy has overall.

A mural of Elon Musk in Brownsville, Texas.
Robert Kopack

A laboratory near the community

At the end of the day, to develop a rocket, you need a place to test your design.

“Our local beach is the laboratory,” local activist Hinojosa told me.

Resident coalitions of Indigenous, Latino and Chicano people as well as conservation groups are suing the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Federal Aviation Administration and others to combat SpaceX.

These groups argue that SpaceX misled state and federal regulators about Starbase’s operations. They claim SpaceX changed how frequently it planned to launch tests and built new facilities for several rocket types, which rendered the company’s original environmental impact statement for the area inaccurate.

Some key issues these groups are fighting against include a bid to expand Starbase into more protected areas. Another point of contention is the deluge system, which creates thousands of gallons of toxic wastewater to cool launch pads and rocket engines after testing.

While the EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality have notified SpaceX about violations of the Clean Water Act, claimants in a recent lawsuit contend that these agencies have not held the company accountable for breaking the law. The company has denied any wrongdoing and refutes claims of environmental harms.

“As we have built up capacity to launch and developed new sites across the country, we have always been committed to public safety and mitigating impacts to the environment,” a SpaceX statement reads. “The list of measures we take just for operations in Texas is over two hundred items long, including constant monitoring and sampling of the short and long-term health of local flora and fauna. The narrative that we operate free of, or in defiance of, environmental regulation is demonstrably false.”

So, what does the future hold? Many people from conservation agencies, activist groups and Indigenous communities in Texas want the company out. Given the high public support for space exploration in the U.S. and the burgeoning friendship between Musk and Trump, a SpaceX evacuation from the area seems unlikely.

While it may take difficult negotiations that require concessions from each party, I hope that somewhere there is a middle ground on which space exploration and environmental protections can coexist. Läs mer…

“We are living apocalyptically.”

The philosopher Bruno Latour uttered those words in an interview discussing the 2018 California wildfires.

His comments ring all the more true in 2025, as residents of the Los Angeles area grapple with the horror and despair of the deadly wildfires that have razed thousands of homes and businesses and have left at least 25 people dead.

From coast to coast, from hemisphere to hemisphere, once-in-a-lifetime environmental catastrophes are now regular occurrences. Large-scale burning occurs out of season, and fires burn hotter and spread farther than ever before.

Latour has called it “living in the end times”; he points to a need to find different ways to live, as extreme events that were once just the subject of dystopian films simply become a part of everyday life.

My work on how writers emotionally respond to fires shows that literature and reading have a vital role to play.

Works about fire often emphasize recovery and resolution, while also offering a space to work through complex emotions. If these are, as Latour fears, “end times,” literature can help readers learn how to survive, cope and keep hope alive.

A common enemy

With the pace and tone of a thriller, George R. Stewart’s 1948 novel, “Fire,” follows a California forest fire from the moment it ignites until it is extinguished several days later.

‘Fire’ explores kinship as much as the ecological effects of wildfires.
New York Review Books

Stewart’s biographer, Donald M. Scott, described “Fire” as “the first novel about fire ecology,” and the environmental impact of fires is certainly an important part of the work. But “Fire” is also a novel that is deeply interested in how people come together in the face of disaster.

Stewart was so committed to creating a realistic representation of a burning forest that he visited fires with a forest ranger as part of his research for the book. His burning scenes are graphic and engage with the practicalities of firefighting, as well as its human cost.

But the novel also celebrates kinship, with characters forming deep bonds as they work together to beat back the blaze. This sense of a shared experience is vital.

One of the story’s central figures, the veteran forest ranger Bart Bartley, imagines the fire as an enemy, “Evil, malignant, and scheming.” Fire historians Tom Griffiths and Christine Hansen, who have worked with fire-affected communities, affirm Bartley’s depiction, noting how fire “makes its victims feel hunted down and its survivors toyed with.”

Yet in grappling with this “evil” force, Bartley feels “great human love” for those working alongside him.

Renewal and regrowth

Stewart’s work is also striking for its focus on renewal.

After the flames are conquered, the novel’s narrator surveys the damage. At first he sees a landscape that’s “fatally scorched.” But his despondency gives way to a more optimistic interpretation: “In the next few years the still-standing older trees might re-seed the ground beneath them.”

The novel, which also examines events from the perspective of animals, ends with an extraordinary vision of hope:

“Smoke and cloud had vanished. Through the rain-washed air the sun shone brightly, and along the crest of the range the highest peaks were dazzling-white with snow. Moist and clean, the north-west wind from the ocean blew steadily across the long ridges, and from high-swinging cones, opened by the fiery heat, the winged seeds drifted downward to the earth.”

Emphasizing that fire is a natural phenomenon, Stewart focuses on regrowth. He reminds readers that burning has an ecologically important role and that what seems like an apocalyptic present can soon transform into a regenerative future.

Living in the Pyrocene

The historian Stephen J. Pyne has called our fire-prone age the Pyrocene. So it’s no surprise that more writers are weaving wildfires into their stories.

Amitav Ghosh’s novel “Gun Island” features a wildfire in its early chapters. But Ghosh isn’t content to let his fiction speak for itself; his 2016 nonfiction work “The Great Derangement” is an exhortation for contemporary writers to incorporate representations of natural disasters into their work to reflect the way that disaster now impinges upon everyday life.

The Altadena Public Library was destroyed by the Eaton fire in 2025.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The Australian writer and Booker Prize winner Richard Flanagan’s 2020 novel, “The Living Sea of Waking Dreams,” responds to this challenge.

Unlike Stewart’s novel, fire is not front and center of the work, which Flanagan has described as a “rising scream.” When the story, which is set in Australia, begins, bushfires rage, and it seems as if they’ll be central to the plot. However, they simply smolder away in the background – just as they do in real life for many of those who aren’t directly affected by fire. Yet.

The novel’s true focus, it turns out, is on the overwhelming experience of living in a world where natural disaster succeeds natural disaster. It follows the protagonist, Anna, who seeks relief from her mother’s terminal illness by scrolling through social media feeds. She finds herself inundated with endless images of climate emergencies. Her doomscrolling leaves her depressed: “She no longer knew if the fires were already over even though they hadn’t yet really begun.”

Through the glow of her smartphone, Anna sees “Photos of ember blizzards. Smoke so thick you couldn’t see across a road. Four thousand people … gathered on a beach with the firefighters forming a cordon around to protect them.”

In other scenes, she views image after image of animals injured in wildfires. For Anna, “Summer was frightening. Smoke was frightening … Choking was frightening. Today was frightening. Tomorrow was terrifying, if we made it that far.”

However, like Stewart, Flanagan points to hope: Anna eventually connects with another character, Lisa, whose interest in environmental history and Indigenous fire practices offers an alternative to the isolating terror evoked by social media.

Flanagan ends the novel by rejecting both individualism and apocalyptic sensationalism.

The discovery of an endangered chick transforms the story from one of misery to one of hope. Lisa, who finds the tiny bird, suddenly sees the world not as hopelessly burning but as “extraordinarily alive.” When the novel ends, she is “not downcast nor defeated,” but inspired to connect more closely with the land and its inhabitants.

Human stories don’t have to end with disasters. Instead, catastrophes can signal the beginning of something new, and reading about them can highlight regrowth and recovery in the midst of despair.

A Little Free Library in front of an Altadena home razed by the Eaton fire in 2025.
Keith Birmingham/Pasadena Star-News via Getty Images Läs mer…

The thousands of firefighters and other first responders on the front lines of the fires that are raging in the Los Angeles area are at increased risk for anxiety, depression, acute stress and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Amanda Mascarelli, The Conversation U.S.’s senior health and medicine editor, spoke with Ian H. Stanley, a clinical psychologist and emergency medicine researcher, about the early signs of acute stress or PTSD and how you can help if a loved one is experiencing these symptoms.

How does PTSD differ in the short term versus the long term?

Post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, is a mental health condition that develops following exposure to a life-threatening event such as a wildfire, a car accident, physical assault or combat. It involves the development of characteristic symptoms that are brought on or that worsen following the trauma and that persist for at least a month.

The symptoms range from nightmares to reliving the event to feelings of guilt and hopelessness or of hypervigilance, meaning constantly being on guard for future threats. Symptoms may also involve sleep disturbances, as well as avoiding certain triggers or reminders of the event. One other important point is that those symptoms must also involve considerable distress or some level of impairment in someone’s life, such as interrupting relationships, work, school or self-care, for instance.

What are potential early signs of acute stress or PTSD?

In this acute phase, as first responders are working the fires, although it’s incredibly stressful, they are trained to put their heads down and push through really difficult events. That doesn’t mean they won’t be affected by it, but in the immediate phase you might not see a lot of symptoms.

But that doesn’t mean they might not then go on to develop symptoms, such as feelings of sadness, irritability or persistent sleep disturbances. Over the longer term, some may develop post-traumatic stress disorder. So, it’s important that people remain vigilant to their mental health and that of others around them.

The biggest things to look out for are any kind of notable changes. There is a wide range of how people experience and react to trauma, and so there’s no concrete formula. Being vigilant to notable changes in others is critical. For example, is someone eating more or less? Are they sleeping more or less? Are they getting cranky more than they used to? Are they drinking more alcohol? And are they hanging out with friends less? Are they engaging less in activities they used to enjoy? If you notice someone is experiencing these types of changes, reach out to them and offer support.

One of the reasons that PTSD symptoms are so worrisome is that it is one of the few mental health conditions that can be very reliably predictive of suicidal thoughts and behaviors. So it’s really important to catch the signs early to prevent the progression.

Firefighters in the Altadena area of Los Angeles County try to stop the spread of the Eaton fire.
Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images

What about other signs of stress that are different than PTSD?

It’s important to emphasize that it’s normal for people to be sad, angry and anxious following a disaster or other traumatic event.

That said, there is a mental health condition called acute stress disorder that is much like PTSD. Whereas PTSD symptoms need to have existed for at least one month, acute stress disorder can be diagnosed when symptoms last for at least three days and up to one month after a traumatic exposure. In these cases, a person might be experiencing symptoms such as nightmares, persistent negative mood, irritability, sleep disturbances or related conditions.

This diagnosis opens up the opportunity for certain treatments that are reimbursed by insurance and certain pathways for services. Many people with acute stress disorder experience temporary stress responses that do not progress to PTSD; however, about half of individuals with PTSD initially experience acute stress disorder.

Do early symptoms of PTSD always translate to long-term ones?

This is a really important question. When someone’s world as they’ve known it is torn apart and turned upside down – such as in the case with the fires in Southern California – it’s normal to expect changes in the way people think, feel or act. Sadness is normal. Anxiety is normal. Most people who experience these changes get better in a few weeks, and most people do not develop mental health conditions such as PTSD.

There are many different courses that people take with their symptoms. Many people get better with time. Time is a great healer – and so is social support.

But if symptoms persist, reaching out to a mental health professional is critical.

First responders have a higher prevalence of PTSD than the general population. Up to 20% of first responders to natural disasters such as wildfires may go on to develop PTSD.

Importantly, if the firefighter is working in the community in which they live, and they are also affected in their personal life, that’s going to increase their risk.

What treatment options are there for PTSD?

There are very good treatments that work, and PTSD does not have to be a life sentence. Treatment options include medication and psychotherapy. Some people may benefit from mobile health applications, such as “PTSD Coach,” which is freely accessible.

The National Center for PTSD, which is part of the Department of Veterans Affairs, also has helpful resources for family members and loved ones of someone who may be experiencing PTSD. Läs mer…

The year 2025 is a Year of Jubilee: an event held every quarter-century that calls Catholics around the world to embark on a holy journey of faith and repentance.

For some, that journey is a literal pilgrimage; for others, it is an opportunity to embrace humility and nurture hope. The yearlong celebration is filled with events and activities centered on seeking forgiveness.

In early January, Catholic news outlets released a reminder that Catholics are eligible for special indulgences this year. Indulgences are pardons believed to eliminate earthly suffering or time in purgatory – where the Catholic Church teaches that people who have confessed their sins are purified before entering heaven.

Among the traditional religious activities that can earn one an indulgence – such as pilgrimage to holy sites, acts of charity and saying special prayers – Pope Francis introduced a new option: a call to fast from the internet and social media. His official decree suggests individuals abstain “in a spirit of penance, at least for one day of the week from futile distractions (real but also virtual distractions, for example, the use of the media and/or social networks).”

As a scholar who studies how religious groups use and respond to new technologies, I find it notable that the pope frames the internet as a spiritual distraction. This announcement may seem like a departure from the Catholic Church’s previous approach to digital media, especially since not long ago the church embraced online tools to keep congregations connected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This highlights an evolving and complex technological landscape Catholic leaders have had to negotiate over the past century, each time new forms of media emerge. Many clergy see technology as both a valuable resource for the church and a potential harm or interference.

Sacred ‘selfie’

The church has long embraced communication media to advance its mission. In the early 20th century, Pope Pius IX acknowledged that movies could be important tools for teaching about faith and values, even though he decried many films for their “portrayal of sin and vice.” For decades, American Bishop Fulton Sheen embraced radio and television for preaching and even won Emmy Awards for his shows.

As pope from 1978-2005, John Paul II saw the rise of the internet and was quick to see its potential for church communication. In 2002, he announced that the internet should be seen as “a new forum for proclaiming the Gospel” if used “with competence and a clear awareness of its strengths and weaknesses.”

Pope Benedict XVI, who became pontiff in 2005, encouraged the creation of a papal profile on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter. He praised social networks and apps that can enable “reflection and authentic questioning.”

When Francis’ papacy began in 2013, his succinct and candid communication style made him easily quotable, earning him a reputation for being media-savvy and publicly engaged. News reports of his “first selfie,” taken in 2013 with a group of young tourists at St. Peter’s Basilica, also earned him the nickname the “digital pope.”

This photo went viral and presented Francis as fan of social media. That impression was further promoted by his 2014 sermon on the Church’s World Communications Day, when he described the internet as a “gift of God,” enabling the church to evangelize around the world.

Pope Francis connects with crew aboard the International Space Station in 2017. His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, made the first papal phone call to space in 2011.
L’Osservatore Romano/Pool Photo via AP

Like Francis’ other early statements about technology, this sermon emphasized established Catholic teachings on social communication and media, set out after the Second Vatican council. The resulting document, Communio et Progressio, advised clergy that mass media such as TV, radio and newspapers should be seen as tools to promote unity and understanding between people.

From hearts to machines

While Francis has continued to advocate for using digital media in ministry, the tone of his statements over the past decade have grown more cautious and sometimes even critical. In fact, as I have noted in my research, he communicates a much more cautious view of digital media than the two popes before him.

In his 2023 World Social Communications Day message, for example, Francis spoke about the ways social media often promotes and exploits false images and ideas, and he emphasized the need to return to the basics of “speaking with the heart.” Francis presented direct, person-to-person communication as the ideal, while criticizing the negative interactions “we experience especially on social media.”

The following year, Francis spoke pointedly about AI, expressing strong concerns that the current generation of technology must be regulated so that it is not used to spread disinformation or distort the “wisdom of the heart.”

“Such wisdom cannot be sought from machines,” he added, but comes from communication centered on God and human compassion.

Participants in the 16th General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops follow Pope Francis on monitors at the Vatican on Oct. 4, 2023.
AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia

The Jubilee call to Catholics to consider technology abstinence as a mark of spiritual devotion is very much in line with the pope’s move toward becoming more vocal and critical in his views about how technology is affecting society.

To be clear, Francis does not deny that technology can offer benefits in communication and community building for the church. The Vatican has indeed described technology as a “digital door” to the Jubilee. Also in December 2024, officials launched an AI-powered “digital twin” of St. Peter’s Basilica, created through a partnership with Microsoft, for people who cannot make a pilgrimage in person.

Nevertheless, my research shows that Francis is notably more conservative in his views about digital media than can be seen in the messages and initiative of John Paul II and Benedict before him. Through his papacy, Francis has shifted focus from stressing opportunities offered by digital tools to highlighting concerns created by digital environments where many of us spend more and more of our everyday lives. Läs mer…

On January 20 2025 Donald J. Trump will be inaugurated as president of the United States for the second time. In keeping with his norm-busting style, the 47th leader of the free world will be doing something few US politicians have done, retaking the presidency after a four-year hiatus.

A hallmark of the inauguration process is the peaceful transfer of power, something that was under threat at the end of Trump’s previous administration, when the January 6 assault on the Capitol happened. The attack, in which 140 police officers were injured, took place as Congress was confirming the presidential election results just ahead of inauguration.

However, inauguration day has historically consisted of high ritual and a lawful exchange of residents at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (the White House). So, what is the actual practice and purpose of this ceremony which dates back to 1789?

When the Founding Fathers (a set of 18th century figures who spearheaded the US revolution) were shaping the future nation, there was some hesitation over having an individual executive (a president) at all, such was the desire among some to discard the monarchical traditions of the old world.

Others were more comfortable with pomp. In 1789, when George Washington was being sworn in, there was some discussion regarding which title the new leader should take. Vice-president John Adams suggested “His Most Benign Highness” but instead the less elevated “President of the United States” was chosen. This first inauguration set the mould for many traditions that still remain in place. One change came with the 20th constitutional amendment that brought the inauguration forward to 12 noon on January 20 from its original date of March 4.

The most crucial moment of the proceedings involves the swearing-in ceremony when the president takes the oath of office. The words spoken are taken from the constitution and the new leader must pledge to: “faithfully execute the office of the President … and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. The wording here is significant and any leader of integrity and good character will be humbled as they pledge to serve the constitution rather than promote themselves, their family or their wares.

Images of this interaction between the president and the chief justice of the Supreme Court are quickly shared around the world as it is not only Americans who are interested in a smooth transfer of power. Continuity of government in the “indispensable nation” is a matter of great concern all over the world. Should anyone misspeak during the inauguration ceremony, this could create a power vacuum. For instance, in 2009 Chief Justice Roberts said the crucial words in the wrong order and Barack Obama followed suit, and the oath of office was taken a second time the following day to ensure that it was valid.

Didn’t turn up

Not all outgoing presidents have demonstrated grace on departure. John Adams made an early departure from Washington in 1801 to avoid being present for the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson. And Donald Trump was not around for Joe Biden’s 2021 inauguration.

Donald Trump being sworn in the first time.

The inaugural address itself offers the incoming president a moment to foster national unity, as well as mapping out their broad vision for the coming four years. Some speeches are considered better than others. Jefferson demonstrated his understanding that the moment was bigger than the man. Mindful of Adam’s absence, he nonetheless reminded listeners back in 1801 that Americans had more that united than divided them.

More recent speeches of note include President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 cold war era rallying cry that the US would: “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty”. Incoming president Ronald Reagan laid out his governing philosophy in 1981 with the bold statement: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” President Obama’s 2009 address did not have such a memorable line, but he called on the country to celebrate the “meaning of our liberty and our creed” as “a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served in a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath”.

Spiky speeches

Other presidents, however, have taken a more confrontational approach. In 1857, James Buchanan used his speech to complain of the nation’s focus on the anti-slavery debate. Donald Trump’s “American carnage” diatribe on January 20 2017 resulted in a high profile former Republican president saying what others were perhaps thinking. George W Bush declared that it was “some weird shit”.

After the inaugural lunch and parade, a highlight of the January 20 rituals is the series of balls that take place in the capital that evening. The quantity and opulence of these has varied widely depending on who is taking office as well as the political mood of the time. Jimmy Carter insisted on a no-frills model with a US$25 (£19) ticket price-tag in 1977. In the 1990s, the Clintons peaked with 14 balls for their second inauguration. On the allamericanball.com website for Trump’s 2025 celebration, the cheapest ticket is US$250 for what promises to be an evening of “celebration and patriotism”.

To the casual observer, the day may be considered as anything from a waste of taxpayers’ money to a fine display of presidential pageantry and splendour. In truth, the day has depth and meaning. It underscores the legitimacy of the new administration and, in theory at least, provides a moment of national unity. Those that are privileged enough to take the oath of office should revere the weight of responsibility that it brings. Läs mer…

“You’re going to think I’m crazy,” Callum said, looking down at his hands as he wrung them together in his lap. “It’s just that everything feels like a dream. I know I’m not dreaming – I mean – I think I’m really here, but at the same time I’m not sure. Everything feels off somehow.”

A deep sigh. “No one gets what I mean.”

The slim 18-year-old across from me looks defeated, dejected and thoroughly fed up. This is typical in my line of work. Not just because I’m a mental health professional, so I rarely get to meet people who are in the middle of the best time of their lives, but because I specialise in dissociation and depersonalisation.

Callum, sitting in the armchair of my therapy room, meets the diagnostic criteria for depersonalisation disorder: a disorder that is baffling in so many ways.

With its main symptoms being a profound sense of detachment and unreality, the disorder perplexes those who experience it. “It just feels so strange!” exclaimed one client. “It’s like constantly being several beers deep – but much less fun,” explained another.

Common descriptions include being stuck in a bubble, trapped behind a pane of glass, or viewing the world from very far away. People also describe a feeling of unfamiliarity, as if their own thoughts and memories – even their own body – belonged to someone else.

Unsurprising, then, that people experiencing depersonalisation disorder spend many hours ruminating on what could have caused these odd sensations, why they recur, and what they can do to stop them. In my time, I’ve come across more than one person who has even had a brain scan to search for tumours they assume must be causing the problem. It is also fairly common for people to explain that they had a “bad trip” using cannabis and never returned to reality.

Ironically, it is this constant worrying that is thought to be to blame for the persistence of depersonalisation disorder. By always focusing on the strange sensations of the disorder, people accidentally guarantee they will notice even the subtlest sensations. And by fearing them, they further increase their vigilance – and their stress levels.

Because the surprising truth is that the experiences of depersonalisation and derealisation that define depersonalisation disorder are extremely common and entirely normal, especially when under stress.

So why is Callum not the first to tell me that no one will understand his experiences? Why is it so hard to find someone who understands?

The most obvious answer is the lack of language we have for depersonalisation and derealisation experiences. They are subtle, subjective, slippery things that are difficult to accurately pin down with words.

They are also aspects of our own highly personal sense of reality that we rarely have conversations about with others. The first days of the COVID lockdown were probably the only time that discussing the strangeness of daily life became a social norm. (“It feels like we’re living in a movie, doesn’t it?” says a colleague’s disembodied voice over Zoom).

COVID lockdowns became the only time people spoke about the strangeness of everyday life.
PetaPix / Alamy Stock Photo

Not enough awareness or training

The trickier answer, however, is that the vast majority of mental health professionals receive no training about dissociative disorders. As a result, people arriving at mental health services complaining of depersonalisation are sadly highly likely to have their symptoms missed or misunderstood.

This is perhaps why in the UK, it takes an average of eight to 12 years for depersonalisation disorder to be correctly diagnosed. In the meantime, people may undergo (unsuccessful) treatments for depression or anxiety, or have their symptoms dismissed as being “just” part of a different disorder they may also have.

Many get passed between services as clinicians struggle to understand how they can help. Many get discharged without support. Others have told me that they simply give up talking about the problem because they have learned it doesn’t get them anywhere.

Professionals aren’t to blame for this. After all, you don’t know what you don’t know. And, in fact, with increasing discussions about dissociative symptoms on social media, many mental health professionals are realising they have a blind spot and are seeking advice, training and resources. Unreal, the UK charity for Depersonalisation Disorder, received multiple requests for organisation-wide training in the first week of introducing a “request a talk” button on its website.

Researchers are doing their part, too. From producing a referral “cheat sheet” infographic, to uncovering any crossed wires in the communication between young people and NHS professionals, and delving into the physical brain to better understand the disorder – a flurry of work is in progress. Not least, the efforts to develop and improve a tailored talking therapy.

So when I look over at Callum, bowed in his seat, I have a deep empathy with his feeling that the world doesn’t understand what he is going through. But I also hold a very real kernel of hope that things will look brighter for him very soon. Läs mer…

Wolf Man is the next instalment in arguably the oldest franchise in cinema history. Universal Monsters, which evolved through the silent era, features iconic characters like Frankenstein, Dracula, The Mummy and, of course, the Wolf Man.

Based on the 1941 film starring Lon Chaney Jr, this new remake comes from production company Blumhouse and director Leigh Whannell, who have previously partnered on another Universal Monster revival, The Invisible Man in 2020.

Despite being released during the pandemic, The Invisible Man was a critical and commercial success, making over US$140 million (£115m) worldwide on a shoestring budget of US$7 million. Wolf Man, with the same production company, director and low budget, looks to follow The Invisible Man’s footsteps. It promises to be a contemporary, stripped-back retelling of one of Universal’s most iconic characters.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

The Universal Monster movies have not always been considered a franchise. In his book Media Franchising (2013), cultural studies scholar Derek Johnson suggests that, despite “monster concepts [being] multiplied and exchanged across a number of film productions” in the 1930s and beyond, the idea of a film franchise was not apparent in Hollywood at the time. The language of franchising was not deployed even in retail industries until 1959.

Yet by 2017 – a year when eight of the top-10 films were franchise instalments – Universal not only envisaged its stable of monsters as a major potential franchise, but seemed to see the most successful movie franchise of the 21st century, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), as an ideal template.

The Dark Universe franchise

On May 22 2017, Universal unveiled the Dark Universe franchise, which was intended to see many of Universal’s classic monsters return to the big screen. The announcement included a new logo and theme that would play before each film. A-listers such as Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe and Johnny Depp were all signed on to star in future instalments.

The franchise launched in June 2017 with the release of big-budget reboot The Mummy, starring Cruise. But the film’s disastrous box office put paid to the entire endeavour, with no other films released under the Dark Universe banner.

The trailer for Wolf Man.

While a postmortem of the Dark Universe would reveal many different causes of its rapid death, a particularly relevant one is the attempt to replicate a prized asset of the MCU: the focus on character continuity and crossovers.

In his book The Comic Book Film Adaptation: Exploring Modern Hollywood’s Leading Genre (2016), media researcher Liam Burke noted that comic book movie franchises in the mid-2000s had started to emulate their source material – specifically, the comic book crossover “where characters from different books would appear together … a proven method for generating comic book sales”.

Identifying the MCU as the zenith of this strategy, Burke said the key to its success had been “a concerted effort to establish continuity between the various films”. A notable example of this is the character of Nick Fury, played by Samuel L Jackson. Fury is head of the fictional extra-governmental agency Shield, and appears throughout MCU films and television series.

The Dark Universe looked to lift this concept wholesale. The announcement of the franchise explained that it would centre on “Jekyll’s mysterious multi-national org Prodigium that connects all titles in the Dark Universe”. Dr Jekyll (played by Crowe) does appear in The Mummy. But while this character crossover approach has paid dividends in the MCU, Universal’s approach lacked the same novelty.

Russell Crowe’s Jekyll was set to be the arch villain of the Dark Universe.

In my view, this is largely because the Universal monsters had already crossed over and interacted since the 1940s in films such as Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) and House of Dracula (1945). In the 1950s, comedies such as Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) became commonplace when individual monster films had stopped making such an impact at the box office.

A new strategy dawns

These crossover films, as enjoyable as many of them are, often indicated the end or culmination of a cycle of monster films, as opposed to the dawn of a new cinematic universe. As such, Universal’s current strategy – to produce low-budget remakes of the original standalone monster films – seems like a savvy course-correction after the collapse of the Dark Universe.

The announcement of the Dark Universe at the Epic Universe theme park.

In fact, the Universal group’s hopes of a shared universe of monsters are still very much alive. In June last year, it released a video detailing a brand-new land in Epic Universe, its upcoming theme park in Orlando, Florida. The video shows an area of the park entirely given over to rides, cafes, bars and shops all themed around the Universal Monsters. The land’s name? Dark Universe.

Within this land, prominently featured with the other monsters, is the Wolf Man, who headlines his own spinning roller-coaster “Curse of the Werewolf”. With these varying strategies in place to manage its menagerie of monsters, it is clear Universal sees this franchise as a crucial part of its brand identity.

It will hope that Whannell’s Wolf Man continues this momentum, rather than becoming another cursed entry in this storied franchise. Läs mer…