Published
2 years agoon
By
admin“We’ve taught young people that any of their missteps or any of their heterodox opinions are grounds to tear them down. That’s no way to grow up.”
That was journalist Rikki Schlott speaking before a sold-out crowd on Monday night at a live taping of The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie podcast in New York City. Schlott, 23, teamed up with Greg Lukianoff to co-write The Canceling of the American Mind .
Lukianoff, 49, is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and co-author with Jonathan Haidt of the bestselling The Coddling of the American Mind (2018) . Schlott is a fellow at FIRE, a New York Post columnist, and a co-host of the Lost Debate podcast .
Cancel culture, they argue, constitutes a serious threat to free speech and open inquiry in academia and the workplace, and is best understood as a battle for power, status, and dominance.
Watch the video of the full event, and find a condensed transcript below.
Reason: What’s the elevator pitch for this book? Why is it relevant now?
Rikki Schlott: Well, I think it’s twofold. On the first front, people are still saying that cancel culture does not exist, which is absolutely crazy and defies all statistics fundamentally. But also, cancel culture is not just about the people that are torn down, it’s about the epistemic crisis that it creates and the devastation of the body of common knowledge that we all share, and also the undermining of trust between people.
And for me as a young person, the undermining of being able to grow up and have the freedom to fumble and make mistakes as well. So I think it’s important on a ton of different levels.
Reason: What is the working definition of cancel culture?
Greg Lukianoff: Basically, we’re trying to give the historical era that we’re in a name. I’m a First Amendment lawyer. I’m big on the history of freedom of speech. And a lot of what we call mass censorship events have names. So Alien Sedition 1798, the Red Scare One in the 1920s, Red Scare Two, also known as McCarthyism, the Comic Book Scare, etc.
So basically we’re proposing more or less that this be a historical definition of a unique and weird period where there’s been a lot of people losing their jobs because of their opinion. That’s really one of the things we’re trying to show, is that this is on par with any of these previous moments of mass censorship, and actually exceeds them in terms of the numbers of professors fired.
Reason: Can you elaborate more on the number of firings you are referring to?
Lukianoff: So real quick through the stats. Our definition is: the uptick of campaigns beginning around 2014 to get people fired, de-platformed, expelled, and the culture of fear that resulted from that. And I think it’s always important to root numbers in comparisons.
When I started at FIRE, I actually landed in Philadelphia at 9:10 in the morning on 9/11. All of my first cases were involving people who said jerky or insensitive things about the attacks or people who said, “Let’s go get those terrorists.” So it was a bad period for academic freedom. There was a moral panic, and it actually followed the normal M.O. of mass censorship events in history. There was a national security crisis. That’s usually the way it goesit’s either a national security crisis or a large-scale war that you have these mass censorship events. And 17 professors were targeted for being canceled, as we would say, which basically means punished for their speech. There were more students as well, but we were pretty small at the time, so we know that we probably only know a fraction of the students who got in trouble. Three professors were fired. That’s really, really bad historically. All three of those professors, by the way, were justified under things that weren’t related to speech.
For the cancel culture era, we’re talking over 1,000 attempts to get professors fired or punished in some way. About two-thirds of them resulted in someone being punished. About one-fifth of them, so about 200, resulted in them losing their jobs. During McCarthyism, the number of people who lost their jobs due to being a communist is about 63. They count other people who lost their opinions in this massive study that they did right towards the end of McCarthyism, and there were about 90 fired for their opinion overall, which is usually rounded up to 100.
We now think that they’re probably somewhere between 100 and 150 fired from 2014 to mid-last year, July. We know this is a crazy undercount as well. According to our survey, one in six professors say that they’ve either been threatened with investigation or investigated for their academic freedom. That means the numbers are absolutely colossal. Students, about 9 percent of them, say that they’ve actually faced sanctions for their speech. That’s an insanely huge number. And about one-third of professors say that they’ve been told to avoid controversial research. So we know that we’re only seeing a portion of it.
Reason: The first case study in your book is at Hamline University. Can you remind us what happened there and why it exemplifies cancel culture?
Schlott: There was a professor named Erica Lpez Prater who decided to show an image of the prophet Muhammad in one of her courses, which is considered sacrilegious by some people who follow Islam. And so she said in her syllabus that that was going to be in a class. She told people that you could get an excuse from class if it’s untenable for you to see that. She warned them multiple times ahead of time. She gave ample warning in every way, shape, and form, and also just told everyone that, “The only reason I’m showing you this is because there are some sects of Islam that do not find this offensive. This is a piece of art that was commissioned by a Muslim king.”
She ended up being squeezed out of her job for doing that because one student did show up to that class and decided afterward that she was offended. And the president of the university came out and said, “This is beyond freedom of speech, this is just offensive.” And it was a perfect example of cancel culture just defying common sense, defying just pluralism and democracy on a very fundamental level. And so that’s why we decided to call this one out as our opener because pretty much everyone condemned it in the end. It was unbelievable. And Hamline did have to reverse course.
Reason: The happy ending there is that the university president kind of got pushed out. What was the reaction of other academics?
Lukianoff: This was a positive case in the sense that people really came to her defense. The idea that she wasn’t rehired in the face of it is really stunning. Penn America was involved, of course, FIRE was involved, the American Association of University Professors came out and condemned it. So it was a moment of some amount of unanimity, but it somehow wasn’t enough at the same time.
Reason: What role do psychotherapists play in cancel culture?
Lukianoff: This is near and dear to my heart because my experience with Coddling of the American Mind started with me being hospitalized for depression back in the Belmont Center in Philadelphia back in 2007. The idea that you would actually have psychotherapists who think they should intervene if you have wrongthink in your mind when you’re talking one-on-one with them is about as horrifying as I can imagine. It’s no exaggeration to say I’m not sure I’d still be here if I actually had a psychotherapist who corrected me.
As far as a chapter that we could easily expand into its own book, and maybe we should, the psychotherapy stuff scares the living hell out of us. I know we talked to a number of practitioners. In terms of what I’ve heard from the existing clinical psychology programs is that they will pain over the nightmare scenario of, “What if it turns out the person I’m treating is a Trump supporter or a Republican?” And of course, the answer is, “Then you treat them compassionately,” not, “You have to drop out.”
Reason: Rikki, you were coming of age in the era that you guys are writing about. Have you experienced th mindset of “If you are a bad person, you have bad ideas”?
Schlott: Well, for me personally, I was in high school in the lead-up to the 2016 election and we just had a scourge of cancel culture explode even though we were still teenagers. I, at the time, was more worried about boys and acne than Trump, but I saw that en masse scale for the first time. It was really frightening to me. And frankly, as a result, I self-censored for a while, and by the time I got to NYU, I knew I was in an ideological minority as a right-leaning libertarian here in New York City. I actually started hiding books under my bed when I moved in because I was a new freshman and trying to make friends. Thomas Sowell and Jordan Peterson were under the bedbanished.
I think it’s so important to realize that there is a crisis of authenticity with young people who are growing up, who were supposed to explore different ideas and be an anarchist one day and a communist the next day and figure it out in the end, but we’ve taught young people that any of their missteps or any of their heterodox opinions are grounds to tear them down. That’s no way to grow up. You cannot be a young person and grow up in a graceless society.
I think it’s important to realize that there are a whole host of young people who did not come from this squeaky wheel, the tyranny of the minority group of people who do show up in institutions and scare the life out of everyone. But the fact of the matter is, whether it’s young people or American people at large, 80 percent of Americans think political correctness has gone too far. The vast majority of people do not want to live in a world where they’re tripping over tripwires at every turn or censoring their speech or biting their tongue for fear that someone will give them the worst possible interpretation of what they said. This is a tyranny of the minority, and courage is contagious, and there is strength in numbers, and I think that we really can fight back with that knowledge
Reason: Can you explain what the Woodward Report was?
Lukianoff: It was so terrific, and Yale specifically disavowed it in court. The Woodward Report was this wonderful report that came out in the 1970s. It was a stirring defense of the importance of freedom of speech, even for speech that we find deeply offensive. It was supposed to be kind of one of the things that really set Yale apart, and they haven’t been living up to it for a long time. But one thing that was kind of sobering to see is them actually going to court in a case where actually it was more of an attack on the right, that they were in a litigation against this one professor, and they specifically disowned the Woodward Report, basically saying in court that, “That’s just puffery. We didn’t really mean any of that.”
Reason: What is the right wing version of cancel culture?
Schlott: Yeah, actually, it surprises most people to hear that about a third of attempts to get professors censored or fired are coming from the right and are attacks on professors to the left of the students. That tends to happen less in the really shiny institutions that garner the headlines and more at smaller schools, but it’s still meaningful.
There’s intergroup cancel culture in a way that I think is really frightening on the right. We talk about David French, for example, who’s maligned for having some different views about Trump and conservatism. I think, especially in the post-MAGA era, there’s a reflexive response to anyone who might be critical of Trump or to doubt Trump to cancel them or to squeeze them out. We talk about Megyn Kelly as an example of that, who gave me my first job in media, and was squeezed out from the right and then from the lefta demonstration of how one person who is or at the time was in pretty much the center right area could be canceled by both sides.
Reason: Where does right-wing cancel culture come from?
Schlott: I mean, I would say as someone who is right-leaning, and who grew up in a context where I now realize I wrongfully associated illiberalism with liberalism just because of the context of the years that I grew up in. I’ve realized that the left completely left freedom of speech, which used to be a fundamental principle of theirs, up for grabs. And anyone could grab that mantle and say, “Here’s the restorative, pluralistic democratic vision to move forward.” But instead, I think that we’ve seen quite a lot of people on the right just fight illiberalism with illiberalism and fists with fists in a way that is just so infuriating.
Reason: How has cancel culture erupted in the last few weeks in response to the war between Israel and Hamas? Do you think that Harvard students should lose their jobs over their opinions on Israelis and Palestinians?
Lukianoff: It is still cancel culture. I mean just the fact that it’s cancel culture that many people agree with doesn’t make it not cancel culture and I don’t like blacklists. I like to actually deal with people individually, find out what they really think about something, and give the benefit of the doubt.
Now to be clear, do companies have the legal right to hire who they want? Yes, and I oppose laws actually saying that they have to hire, but I do want people to take a deep breath, take some distance and say to themselves, “What if we live in a country where every company was also not just a widget shop, but also a political shop, and the boss’s politics decided who got to keep their job?” And it’s not that fanciful because that’s what it started to look like in 2020 and 2021 where people were getting fired for just having mildly critical Black Lives Matter statements. So I want people to consider what the world would look like if essentially you have a First Amendment, but you can’t have a job if you actually honestly say your political opinion.
I will give one caveat though to the Harvard students. I think that a big part of the problem we have as a country is that we too reflexively hire elite college graduates. I think this creates serious problems. I think you should try to find out when you’re hiring from elite college campuses by asking, “Okay, no, I understand you have a view that I find abhorrent. Can you work with people who disagree with you?”
Reason: Universities love to shoot their mouths off about all kinds of things. In your perfect universe, would universities never talk about anything other than higher education? Is the problem that they’re making too many statements, or that they are not making the right statements, or that they’re just hypocritical?
Lukianoff: In my perfect universe, every university would adopt a 1967 University of Chicago C Report, which is a very strong admonition not to take political positions. We are not the speakers, we are the forum for the speakers and the thinkers, which I think is the right attitude to have about higher education.
Reason: What can we do about cancel culture?
Schlott: Yeah, this is the conclusion of our book where we really make the case that we all need to buy into this free speech culture. That the only way we can supplant cancel culture is by going back to the old idioms that so many Americans were raised with, like, “to each their own.” This is a free country, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. Because I think we’ve underestimated just how far we’ve drifted away from that. Parents have not realized that they need to be aggressively mindful in instilling those values into a generation of young people who’ve been taught the absolute opposite, whether it was in K-12 or on college campuses, that words can wound and always trust your feelings, and that you can insulate yourself. You need safe spaces and trigger warnings.
We all need to buy-in to fight back against this tyranny of the minority of people who want to tear other people down to exercise cheap ad hominem attacks and dodge actual meaningful conversation. Because that’s the only way, if we actually want to move forward in a diverse and pluralistic society, we need to be able to have civil conversation and dialogue about the touchiest and most contentious issues. And unles we actually, mindfully fight back against cancel culture, we are just going to slump down into dangerous and illiberal tendencies.
This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. Video Editor: Adam Czarnecki

You may like
Politics
Sir Keir Starmer could be ousted as PM within months, two senior Labour MPs tell Sky News
Published
1 hour agoon
July 3, 2025By
admin
Two senior Labour MPs have suggested the prime minister may have to go within months if the government continues to perform poorly.
Sky News’ deputy political editor Sam Coates said his sources – a member of the government and a prominent politician – have “put Sir Keir Starmer on notice”.
Both warned that, if Labour performs badly in next May’s elections across Wales, Scotland and London, it could mark the end of his time in Downing Street.
Coates added: “The level of unhappiness and despair in parts of the Labour Party is so striking that right now, on the first anniversary, I am hearing from ministers in government that Starmer might have to go in months.”
Reform UK is surging in the polls in Wales, while Labour faces a threat from left-wing parties such as the Greens in London.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:16
Why was the chancellor crying at PMQs?
It comes as the prime minister made it clear that Rachel Reeves has his “complete support” as chancellor and remains integral to his project, Sky News’s political editor Beth Rigby understands.
She looked visibly upset during Prime Minister’s Questions, with a spokesperson claiming she had been affected by a “personal matter”.
A day earlier, Sir Keir’s controversial welfare bill was passed despite a sizeable rebellion from Labour MPs, with major U-turns meaning a new £5bn black hole has appeared in the country’s finances.
One senior figure told Rigby that the pair were as “as close politically” as any chancellor and prime minister have ever been.
“She is going absolutely nowhere,” they added.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:58
Welfare vote ‘a blow to the prime minister’
Ms Reeves’s tears sent markets spiralling, with the value of the pound and long-term government bonds falling sharply.
Later in the day Sir Keir, said Ms Reeves will be chancellor for a “very long time to come”.
The prime minister said it was “absolutely wrong” to suggest her tearful appearance in the Commons related to the welfare U-turn.
“It’s got nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with what’s happened this week. It was a personal matter for her,” he said while speaking to the BBC’s podcast Political Thinking with Nick Robinson.
“I’m not going to intrude on her privacy by talking to you about that. It is a personal matter.”
Read more from Sky News:
Just 25% of public think Starmer will win next election
Analysis: Emotional Reeves a reminder of tough decisions ahead
Asked if she will remain in post, he said: “She will be chancellor by the time this is broadcast, she will be chancellor for a very long time to come, because this project that we’ve been working on to change the Labour party, to win the election, change the country, that is a project which the chancellor and I’ve been working on together.”
He said Ms Reeves has done a “fantastic job” and added: “She and I work together, we think together. In the past, there have been examples – I won’t give any specific – of chancellors and prime ministers who weren’t in lockstep. We’re in lockstep.”

Sir Keir Starmer will set out his 10-year vision for the NHS in what the government says is “one of the most seismic shifts” in the health service’s history.
He will pledge three main facets of the plan: moving care into the community, digitising the NHS, and a focus on sickness prevention.
The prime minister will announce neighbourhood health services will be rolled out across England to improve access to the NHS and to shift care out of overstrained hospitals.
PM ‘might have to go in months’ – politics latest
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:30
What will the NHS 10-year health plan focus on?
Sir Keir has already promised thousands more GPs will be trained, and to end the 8am “scramble” for an appointment.
He also previously said his government will bring the NHS into the digital age, with “groundbreaking” new tools to support GPs rolled out over the next two years – including AI to take notes, draft letters and enter data.
And he will promise new contracts that will encourage and allow GP practices to cover a wider geographical area, so small practices will get more support.
Unite, one of the UK’s largest healthcare unions, welcomed the plan cautiously but said staff need to be the focus to ensure people are better looked after.
Read more:
Hundreds of NHS quangos to be axed
How pilot scheme from Brazil is helping NHS
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:04
Do you want AI listening in on chats with your doctor?
‘Reform or die’
Sir Keir said: “The NHS should be there for everyone, whenever they need it.
“But we inherited a health system in crisis, addicted to a sticking plaster approach, and unable to face up to the challenges we face now, let alone in the future.
“That ends now. Because it’s reform or die.”
He said the government’s plan “will fundamentally rewire and futureproof our NHS, so that it puts care on people’s doorsteps, harnesses game-changing tech and prevents illness in the first place”.
The PM said it would not be an “overnight fix”, but claimed Labour are “already turning the tide on years of decline”, pointing towards more than four million extra appointments, 1,900 more GPs, and waiting lists at a two-year low.
“But there’s more to come,” he promised. “This government is giving patients easier, quicker and more convenient care, wherever they live.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:05
Why has Starmer axed NHS England?
Neighbourhood health services
The newly announced neighbourhood health services will provide “pioneering teams” in local communities, so patients can more conveniently access a full range of healthcare services close to home.
Local areas will be encouraged to trial innovative schemes like community outreach door-to-door to detect early signs of illness and reduce pressure on GPs and A&E.
The aim is to eventually have new health centres open 12 hours a day, six days a week to offer GP services as well as diagnostics, post-operative care and rehab.
They will also offer services like debt advice, employment support, stop smoking help or weight management.
More NHS dentists
Dentists will also be part of the plan, with dental care professionals part of the neighbourhood teams.
Dental “therapists” will carry out check-ups, treatments and referrals, while dental nurses could give education and advice to parents or work with schools and community groups.
Newly qualified dentists will be required to practice in the NHS for a minimum period, which they have said will be three years.
World
Rise in Gaza deaths linked to aid distributions by controversial group
Published
1 hour agoon
July 3, 2025By
admin
Sky News analysis shows that aid distributions by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) are associated with a significant increase in deaths.
Warning: This article contains descriptions of people being killed and images of blood on a hospital floor.
The US and Israeli-backed group has been primarily responsible for aid distribution since Israel lifted its 11-week blockade of the Gaza Strip last month.
The GHF distributes aid from four militarised Secure Distribution Sites (SDSs) – three of which are in the far south of the Gaza Strip. Under the previous system, the UN had distributed aid through hundreds of sites across the territory.
According to Gaza’s health ministry, 600 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid from GHF sites, which charities and the UN have branded “death traps”.
This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.
The UN put the figure at 410, but has not updated this number since 24 June. Both the UN and health ministry source their figures from hospitals near the aid sites.
Speaking to Sky News, GHF chief Johnnie Moore disputed that these deaths were connected with his organisation’s operations.
“Almost anything that happens in the Gaza Strip is going to take place in proximity to something,” he said.
“Our effort is actually working despite a disinformation campaign, that is very deliberate and meant to shut down our efforts.
“We just want to feed Gazans. That’s the only thing that we want to do.”
However, new analysis by Sky’s Data & Forensics Unit shows that deaths in Gaza have spiked during days with more GHF distributions.
On days when GHF conducts just two distributions or fewer, health officials report an average of 48 deaths and 189 injuries across the Gaza Strip.
On days with five or six GHF distributions, authorities have reported almost three times as many casualties.
Out of 77 distributions at GHF sites between 5 June and 1 July, Sky News found that 23 ended in reports of bloodshed (30%).
At one site, SDS4 in the central Gaza Strip, as many as half of all distributions were followed by reports of fatal shootings.
Sky News spoke to one woman who had been attending SDS4 for 10 days straight.
“I witnessed death first-hand – bodies lay bleeding on the ground all around me,” says Huda.
“This is not right. Food should be delivered to UN warehouses, and this entire operation must be shut down.”

Huda told Sky News that she has been trying to obtain aid from SDS4, in the central Gaza Strip, for the past 10 days
Huda says that the crowds are forced to dodge bombs and bullets “just to get a bag of rice or pasta”.
“You may come back, you may not,” she says. “I was injured by shrapnel in my leg. Despite that, I go back, because we really have nothing in our tent.”
One of the deadliest incidents at SDS4 took place in the early hours of 24 June.
According to eyewitnesses, Israeli forces opened fire as people advanced towards aid trucks carrying food to the site, which was due to open.
“It was a massacre,” said Ahmed Halawa. He said that tanks and drones fired at people “even as we were fleeing”. At least 31 people were killed, according to medics at two nearby hospitals.
Footage from that morning shows the floor of one of the hospitals, al Awda, covered in blood.
The IDF says it is reviewing the incident.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
15:58
Doctor’s final moments revealed
Issues of crowd control
Unnamed soldiers who served near the aid sites told Israeli newspaper Haaretz that they were instructed to use gunfire as a method of crowd control.
An IDF spokesperson told Sky News that it “strongly rejected” the accusations that its forces were instructed to deliberately shoot at civilians.
“To be clear, IDF directives prohibit deliberate attacks on civilians,” the spokesperson said, adding that the incidents are “being examined by the relevant IDF authorities”.
Eyewitness testimony and footage posted to social media suggest that crowd control is a frequent problem at the sites.
The video below, uploaded on 12 June, shows a crowd rushing into SDS1, in Gaza’s far southwest. What sounds like explosions are audible in the background.
Footage from the same site, uploaded on 15 June, shows Palestinians searching for food among hundreds of aid parcels scattered across the ground.
This content is provided by Instagram, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Instagram cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Instagram cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Instagram cookies for this session only.
Sam Rose, the director of UNRWA operations in Gaza, describes the distribution process as a “free-for-all”.
“What they’re doing is they’re loading up the boxes on the ground and then people just rush in,” he says.
Sky News has found that the sites typically run out of food within just nine minutes. In a quarter of cases (23%), the food is finished by the time the site was due to officially open.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
27:55
Doctors on the frontline
Confusing communications
Sky News analysis suggests that the issue may be being compounded by poor communications from GHF.
Between 19 June and 1 July, 86% of distributions were announced with less than 30 minutes’ notice. One in five distributions was not announced at all prior to the site opening.
The GHF instructs Palestinians to take particular routes to the aid centres, and to wait at specified locations until the official opening times.
The map for SDS1 instructs Palestinians to take a narrow agricultural lane that no longer exists, while the maps for SDS2 and SDS3 give waiting points that are deep inside IDF-designated combat zones.
The maps do not make the boundaries of combat zones clear or specify when it is safe for Palestinians to enter them.
This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.
The same is true for SDS4, the only distribution site outside Gaza’s far south. Its waiting point is located 1.2 miles (2km) inside an IDF combat zone.
The official map also provides no access route from the northern half of Gaza, including Gaza City, across the heavily militarised Netzarim corridor.
This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.
“They don’t know what they’re doing,” says UNRWA’s Sam Rose.
“They don’t have anyone working on these operations who has any experience of operating, of administering food distributions because anyone who did have that experience wouldn’t want to be part of it because this isn’t how you treat people.”
Once the sites are officially open, Palestinians are allowed to travel the rest of the way.
The distance from waiting point to aid site is typically over a kilometre, making it difficult for Palestinians to reach the aid site before the food runs out.
The shortest distance is at SDS4 – 689m. At a pace of 4km per hour, this would take around 10 minutes to cover.
But of the 18 distributions at this site which were announced in advance, just two lasted longer than 10 minutes before the food ran out.
“We don’t have time to pick anything up,” says Huda, who has been visiting SDS4 for the past 10 days.
In all that time, she says, all she had managed to take was a small bag of rice.
“I got it from the floor,” she says. “We didn’t get anything else.”
More than 200 charities and non-governmental organisations have called for the closure of GHF and the reinstatement of previous, UN-led mechanisms of aid distribution.
In a joint statement issued on 1 July, some of the world’s largest humanitarian groups accused the GHF of violating international humanitarian principles. They said the scheme was forcing two million people into overcrowded, militarised zones where they face daily gunfire.
Additional reporting by OSINT producers Sam Doak and Lina-Serene.
The Data and Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.
Trending
-
Sports3 years ago
‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year ago
Story injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years ago
Game 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years ago
MLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years ago
Japan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years ago
Button battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years ago
Game-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike