Iceland has announced it is boycotting next year’s Eurovision over Israel’s participation in the competition, saying taking part would “neither be a source of joy nor peace”.

The announcement from Iceland‘s RUV follows withdrawals by broadcasters from the Netherlands, Spain, Ireland and Slovenia.

In a statement, RUV said participation of Israeli national broadcaster KAN had “created disunity” among members of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which organises Eurovision, and the general public.

Israel‘s place in the contest was confirmed at the EBU’s general assembly last week.

The past two events have attracted protests and fan boycotts over Israel’s inclusion amid the country’s military action in Gaza. This year, there were also allegations that voting had been manipulated in favour of their contestant.

After growing criticism, members were asked to vote in a secret ballot last week on whether they were happy with tougher new rules introduced in November, or whether they wanted a second vote on participation for 2026.

The majority agreed the changes were enough, although Sky News understands 11 countries were against accepting these without a further vote.

Dutch broadcaster AVROTROS, Spain’s RTVE, Ireland’s RTE and Slovenia’s RTV immediately issued statements announcing their withdrawal.

Becoming the fifth broadcaster to pull out, RUV made the announcement following a board meeting. It said that while the new rules address many of the concerns it has raised, it believes there are “still doubts” about whether the changes are enough.

Has issue damaged Eurovision?

“RUV has repeadly raised concerns that various Icelandic stakeholders, such as artist associations and the general public, were opposed to participation in the contest,” the statement said. “Furthermore, RUV had requested the EBU to exclude KAN from the contest in accordance to precedents.

“It is a complex matter which has already damaged the contest’s reputation and EBU, emphasising the necessity of a solution for all concerned parties.”

Austria, which will host next year’s show, last week said it was pleased to see Israel allowed to participate. Roland Weissmann, director-general for Austrian broadcaster ORF, said the contest was a “competition for broadcasters, not governments”.

KAN chief executive Golan Yochpaz has said attempts to remove them from the contest could “only be understood as a cultural boycott”.

What have other broadcasters said?

The BBC, which broadcasts Eurovision in the UK, also said it supported the decision.

Earlier on Wednesday, Poland’s TVP confirmed its participation.

In a statement, the broadcaster said it was aware of the scale of the tension surrounding the competition and understood the emotions and concerns raised.

“However, we believe that Eurovision still has a chance to once again become a space filled with music. And only music,” a TVP statement said.

Read more from Sky News:
The teens hoping to outsmart Australia’s social media ban
GCHQ releases Christmas puzzle – can you solve it?

Despite some pressure from the cultural union in Belgium for a boycott, broadcaster RTBF also confirmed its participation last week.

But the walkouts cast a shadow over what is meant to be a celebration of the unifying power of music.

Countries have pulled out or been banned in previous years – most notably Russia in 2022, just days after the invasion of Ukraine – but this is perhap’s Eurovision’s biggest political crisis.

Noa Kirel, who represented Israel in 2023, told Sky News in an interview in October that while the situation now is “very different” from when she took part in May of that year, she believes it should not be about politics and must “focus on the music”.

Today was the deadline for broadcasters to confirm participation. A final list of competing nations will be published early next week, the EBU said.

In response to RUV’s decision, Eurovision director Martin Green said: “We respect the decision of all broadcasters who have chosen not to participate in next year’s Eurovision Song Contest and hope to welcome them back soon…

“We look forward to welcoming around 35 broadcasters and their artists to Vienna next May.”

A huge takeover that would rock the entertainment industry looks imminent, with Netflix and Paramount fighting over Warner Bros Discovery (WBD).

Streaming giant Netflix announced it had agreed a $72bn (£54bn) deal for WBD’s film and TV studios on 5 December, only for Paramount to sweep in with a $108.4bn (£81bn) bid several days later.

The takeover saga isn’t far removed from a Hollywood plot; with multi-billionaires negotiating in boardrooms, politicians on all sides expressing their fears for the public and the US president looming large, expected to play a significant role.

“Whichever way this deal goes, it will certainly be one of the biggest media deals in history. It will shake up the established TV and film norms and will have global implications,” Sky News’ US correspondent Martha Kelner said on the Trump 100 podcast.

So what do we know about the bids, why are they controversial – and how is Donald Trump involved?

Why is Warner Bros up for sale?

WBD’s board first announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October after a summer of hushed speculation.

Back in June, WBD announced its plan to split into two companies: one for its TV, film studios, and HBO Max streaming services, and one for the Discovery element of the business, primarily comprising legacy TV channels that air cartoons, news, and sports.

It came amid the cable industry’s continued struggles at the hands of streaming services, and CEO David Zaslav suggested splitting into two companies would give WBD’s brands the “sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today’s evolving media landscape”.

The company’s long-term strategic initiatives have also been stifled by its estimated $35bn of debt. This wasn’t helped by the WarnerMedia and Discovery merger in 2022, which led to it becoming Warner Bros Discovery.

What we know about the bids

The $72bn bid from Netflix is for the first division of the business, which would give it the rights to worldwide hits like the Harry Potter and Game of Thrones franchises – and Warner Bros’ extensive back catalogue of movies.

If the deal were to happen, it would not be finalised until the split is complete, and Discovery Global, including channels like CNN, will not form part of the merger.

Paramount’s $108.4bn offer is what’s known as a hostile bid. This means it went directly to shareholders with a cash offer for the entirety of the company, asking them to reject the deal with Netflix.

This deal would involve rival US news channels CBS and CNN being brought under the same parent company.

Netflix’s cash and stock deal is valued at $27.75 (£20.80) per Warner share, giving it a total enterprise value of $82.7bn (£62bn), including debt.

But Paramount says its deal will pay $30 (£22.50) cash per share, representing $18bn (£13.5bn) more in cash than its rivals are offering.

Paramount claims to have tried several times to bid for WBD through its board, but said it launched the hostile bid after hearing of Netflix’s offer because the board had “never engaged meaningfully”.

Why are politicians and experts concerned?

The US government will have a big say on who ultimately buys WBD, as Paramount and Netflix will likely face the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division, a federal agency which scrutinises business deals to ensure fair competition.

Republicans and Democrats have voiced concerns over the potential monopolisation of streaming and the impact it would have on cinemas if Netflix – already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share – were to take over WBD.

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren said the deal “would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market – threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk”.

Similarly, Representative Pramila Jayapal, who co-chairs the House Monopoly Busters Caucus, called the deal a “nightmare,” adding: “It would mean more price hikes, ads, and cookie-cutter content, less creative control for artists, and lower pay for workers.”

Read more:
Netflix could yet get its way in Trump’s America

Netflix’s business model of prioritising streaming over cinemas has caused consternation in Hollywood.

The screen actors union SAG-AFTRA said the merger “raises many serious questions” for actors, while the Directors Guild of America said it also had “concerns”.

Experts suggest there’s less of a concern with the Paramount deal when it comes to a streaming monopoly, because its Paramount+ service is smaller and has less of an international footprint than Netflix.

How is Trump relevant?

After Netflix announced its bid, the president said of its path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision.”

And while Mr Trump himself will not be directly involved, he appointed those in the DOJ Antitrust Division, and they have the authority to block or challenge takeovers.

However, his potential influence isn’t sitting well with some experts due to his ties with key players on the Paramount side.

Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire (and world’s second-richest man) Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.

Additionally, Affinity Partners, an investment firm run by Mr Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, would be investing in the deal.

Also participating would be funds controlled by the governments of three unnamed Persian Gulf countries, widely reported as Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar – countries the Trump family company has struck deals with this year.

Critics of the Trump’s administration has accused it of being transactional, with the president known to hold grudges over those who are critical of him, however, Mr Trump told reporters on 8 December that he has not spoken with Mr Kushner about WBD, adding that neither Netflix nor Paramount “are friends of mine”.

John Mayo, an antitrust expert at Georgetown University, suggested the scrutiny by the Antitrust Division would be serious whichever offer is approved by shareholders, and that he thinks experts there will keep partisanship out of their decisions despite the politically charged atmosphere.

What happens next?

WBD must now advise shareholders whether Paramount’s offer constitutes a superior offer by 22 December.

If the company decides that Paramount’s offer is superior, Netflix would have the opportunity to match or beat it.

WBD would have to pay Netflix a termination fee of $2.8bn (£2.10bn) if it decides to scrap the deal.

Shareholders have until 8 January 2026 to vote on Paramount’s offer.

Sophie Kinsella, the author of the Shopaholic series of novels, has died aged 55, her family have said.

The writer, whose real name was Madeleine Sophie Wickham, revealed last year she had been diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer in 2022.

A statement posted to her Instagram account read: “We are heartbroken to announce the passing this morning of our beloved Sophie (aka Maddy, aka Mummy). She died peacefully, with her final days filled with her true loves: family and music and warmth and Christmas and joy.

“We can’t imagine what life will be like without her radiance and love of life.

“Despite her illness, which she bore with unimaginable courage, Sophie counted herself truly blessed – to have such wonderful family and friends, and to have had the extraordinary success of her writing career. She took nothing for granted and was forever grateful for the love she received.

“She will be missed so much our hearts are breaking.”

Kinsella’s novels have sold more than 45 million copies in more than 60 countries, and have been translated into more than 40 languages.

In April 2024, she revealed she had been diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer in 2022.

In a post on social media, Kinsella said she had been receiving chemotherapy and radiotherapy at London‘s University College Hospital, and had undergone “successful” surgery.

She said she “wanted for a long time to share with you a health update and I’ve been waiting for the strength to do so”.

“At the end of 2022 I was diagnosed with glioblastoma, a form of aggressive brain cancer,” she said.

“I did not share this before because I wanted to make sure that my children were able to hear and process the news in privacy and adapt to our ‘new normal’.

“At the moment all is stable and I am feeling generally very well, though I get very tired and my memory is even worse than it was before!

“I am so grateful to my family and close friends who have been an incredible support to me, and to the wonderful doctors and nurses who have treated me.”

Kinsella’s most recent book is What Does it Feel Like?, published in October 2024 and which “is fiction, but it is my most autobiographical work to date”, the author wrote on her website.

Read more:
‘Unacceptable’ prostate supplement adverts banned
David Cameron reveals he has been treated for prostate cancer

Other books by the London-born author include The Burnout, released in October 2023, Can You Keep A Secret? and The Undomestic Goddess.

The first two novels in her hit eight-book Shopaholic series, The Secret Dreamworld Of A Shopaholic and Shopaholic Abroad, were adapted into the 2009 film Confessions Of A Shopaholic, starring Isla Fisher.

She is survived by her children, four sons and a daughter, and her husband Henry Wickham.

Bill Scott-Kerr, publisher at Transworld, the publishing home of Kinsella for the past 30 years, said: “She has been such an unshakeable pillar of our publishing at Transworld for so many years that the thought of a year without a Sophie Kinsella to publish is inconceivable.”

He added: “Maddy leaves behind a glorious and indelible legacy: a unique voice, an unquenchable spirit, a goodness of intent and a body of work that will continue to inspire us to reach higher and be better, just like so many of her characters.

“On a personal level Maddy was the embodiment of joy, an extraordinarily clever, funny, sassy, impish, kind and generous collaborator who brought light into our lives. She was as part of this company as anyone, and we will all truly miss her.”