
Determined not to let his murder silence him, friends of Dom Phillips finish his book on the Amazon
Three years ago this Thursday, British journalist Dom Phillips set out on the long journey home after a research trip deep into the Amazon rainforest for a book he was writing. He
never made it back
to his wife Alê.
Instead he was brutally murdered alongside his travelling companion, Brazilian indigenist Bruno Pereira. They were shot dead by a gang of illegal fishermen who viewed Bruno's efforts to help local indigenous communities protect their territory as a direct threat to their criminal livelihood.
Dom had wanted to write about the conflict and the efforts to resolve it, which Bruno understood would have to include providing realistic alternatives to those whose living depended on illegal fishing. But in 2022 such a nuanced approach was lost in the rising lawlessness that gripped the Amazon during the far-right administration of
Jair Bolsonaro
, a government that declared the forest open to plunder by gutting its own agencies responsible for its protection.
Instead Bruno was shot dead and Dom with him, most likely so there would be no witness to the crime. In the 12 days between the two being reported missing and the grim discovery of their bodies, burnt and hastily buried in a shallow grave, their friends had mobilised to pressure authorities into intensifying the initially underwhelming search effort.
READ MORE
This campaign provided a focus to Dom's colleagues, many of us caught between desperately hoping for news that he had emerged from the forest with another dramatic Amazonian adventure to tell but increasingly dreading the worst as the days passed.
When word finally came that the bodies had been found, there was at least some consolation that Alê and Bruno's wife Bia could bring their husbands home, even if just for their funerals, rather than be left stranded in a limbo of uncertainty at their disappearance.
Journalist Dom Phillips talks to two indigenous men in Aldeia Maloca Papiú, Roraima State, Brazil, in November 2019. Photograph: Joao Laet/AFP via Getty Images
But among Dom's journalist friends as well as the shock and anger, there was also a determination, borne out of the initial mobilisation during those first agonising 12 days, that his murder would not silence him.
Discussions turned to the possibility of completing How to Save the Amazon, the book he had not been given the chance of finishing himself. Alê quickly entrusted the project to a small editorial group of Dom's colleagues. She arrived from their home in Salvador for the funeral in Rio de Janeiro with a suitcase full of his electronic devices and his notebooks (which in classic reporter style were borderline illegible).
[
Dom Phillips obituary: British journalist whose killing highlighted the plight of the Amazon
Opens in new window
]
These she handed over to Andrew Fishman, president of the investigative website the Intercept Brasil, who was a close friend of Dom's and an important sounding board as he developed his initial idea for the book.
Reviewing the material, the group's initial task was to work out how much of the book Dom had completed and then what still needed to be done, and more importantly how and by who. Once the word spread that the project would continue, the editorial group was inundated with offers of help.
This reflected the deep affection for Dom as a friend, and he was a great friend to many of us. It was also a demonstration of professional respect for someone who at the time of his death was recognised as one of the best foreign journalists working in Brazil.
Alessandra Sampaio, widow of British journalist Dom Phillips, left, and Beatriz Matos, widow of Indigenous expert Bruno Pereira talk to indigenous people at Atalaia do Norte. Photograph: Fabiano Maisonnave/AP
This meant the book would achieve the aim of our editorial group's co-ordinator Jonathan Watts, Dom's old friend from their days as correspondents based in Rio together and now the Guardian newspaper's global environment editor who lives much of the year in the Amazon.
Jon wanted the book to be an act of solidarity with a colleague murdered because of his commitment to reporting from the remote front lines of a conflict that has profound consequences for our entire planet. Now, in time for the third anniversary of the murders, How to Save the Amazon is published, its original subtitle, Ask the People Who Know, poignantly changed to, A Journalist's Deadly Quest for Answers.
[
The Dom Phillips I knew: A sensitive and selfless soul with a gift for lifelong friendships
Opens in new window
]
This is a necessary reflection of the cruel circumstances that meant others had to take on the task of finishing the book. But Dom's original subtitle remains hugely relevant. It informs the spirit of the book, which was Dom's modus operandi as a journalist: get out there, find the people who know, and ask the questions.
(And with Dom it could be so many questions, until he was sure he understood what you were talking about and, more importantly, was convinced you did too.) It is also an optimistic book. The crisis in the Amazon can at times seem overwhelming.
But Dom's insight was an important one: that the solutions to it are already being implemented, just the people in the rainforest making a positive difference need to be heard, their voices and insights amplified. His book, now out in the world, helps in that effort. It is a worthy legacy for a much-missed friend and colleague.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Irish Examiner
10 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Devil in the detail as Trump's 'revenge tax' playing with fire
It has been billed as US president Donald Trump's 'revenge tax': a provision in his 'big, beautiful bill' granting power to retaliate against countries that impose special digital service taxes on large US technology companies like Amazon and Alphabet. Under the sweeping tax reforms announced by Mr Trump last month, the US Congress would empower his administration to impose tax hikes on foreign residents and companies that do business in the US. The US Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to decide on taxes and spending. Section 899 would allow the US Treasury Department to label foreign tech taxes "unfair" and place the country in question on a list of "discriminatory foreign countries." Some other foreign taxes also would be subject to scrutiny. Once on the list, a country's individuals and its companies that operate in the US could face stiffer tax rates that could increase each year, up to 20 percentage points. The US House of Representatives has approved the tax and spending bill that includes the possibility of imposing a progressive tax burden of up to 20% on foreign investors' passive income, such as dividends and royalties. Section 899 now rests with the US Senate. According to law firm Davis Polk, nations that could be considered "discriminatory foreign countries" include many that are part of the European Union, as well as India, Brazil, Australia, and the UK. "If foreign countries want to come in the United States and tax US businesses, then those foreign-based businesses ought to be taxed as well," said Representative Ron Estes, a Kansas Republican who helped craft the provision. Some 17 countries in Europe and others around the world impose or have announced such taxes on US tech products like Meta's Instagram. Mr Trump has been pressing foreign countries to lower barriers to US commerce. The Section 899 provision could raise $116bn (€101bn) over the next decade, according to the US Joint Committee on Taxation. But some experts warned that an unintended consequence of retaliatory taxes could be less foreign investment in the US. "We see this legislation as creating the scope for the US administration to transform a trade war into a capital war if it so wishes," George Saravelos, head of FX research at Deutsche Bank, said in a note, adding the new tax could have an adverse impact on demand for US Treasuries. If passed by the Senate, the rising tax rate on foreigners' investments would come at a time global investors have started to question so-called "US exceptionalism": its unique ability to outperform other financial markets, due to a growing fiscal deficit and a new trade policy based on tariffs. The US currency is down roughly 8% this year against a basket of other major currencies and is on track for its worst year since 2017. Last week, the dollar got some respite, rising 0.3% after trade talks with the EU got back on track and a US trade court blocked the bulk of Mr Trump's tariffs on the grounds that he overstepped his authority. An appeals court reinstated the duties a day later, and Trump's administration said it had other avenues to implement them if it loses in court, but many analysts said it showed there were still checks in place on the president's power. Fiscal worries have also given rise to a broad "sell America" theme that has seen dollar assets from stocks to US Treasury bonds dropping in recent months. Those concerns come into sharp focus as the Senate starts considering the administration's tax cut and spending bill, estimated to add $3.8tn (€3.3tn) to the federal government's $36.2tn (€31.7tn) in debt over the next decade. The fate of section 899 of the bill could be crucial, according to Barclays analysts. "S899 would give the US free rein to tax companies and investors from countries deemed to have 'unfair foreign taxes' (and) could be seen as a tax on the US capital account at a time when investor nervousness towards US assets has grown," they said in a research report. International companies with subsidiaries in the US, which employ 8.4m workers, fear the higher tax burden could make it more difficult to operate in the world's biggest economy. In a recent statement, the Global Business Alliance, which represents foreign companies in the US, said a tax hike would threaten investments in the country. Financial services firm Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH) said in a recent note the new tax rate was "playing with fire". "It would deter foreign investment in US assets at a time when the country faces increasing reliance on foreign capital to finance its ballooning debt," said Elias Haddad, BBH's senior markets strategist. "Clearly, this is not good for the dollar." Reuters


Irish Times
15 hours ago
- Irish Times
Gerry Adams defamation verdict won't have a chilling effect on journalism - and here's why
The defamation case between Gerry Adams and the BBC has many points of interest, legally and politically, but its implications for journalism have been vastly overstated. The former Sinn Féin president won in Dublin's High Court last week because the BBC broadcast a serious allegation against him in a programme that cited only one anonymous source, with no corroboration. Every news organisation would aspire to do better than this under almost all circumstances. Part of the BBC's defence is that it should still have been able to broadcast the claim, aired by its Northern Ireland investigation strand Spotlight in 2016, as a matter of public interest. There are often cases where it is impossible to name sources or publish corroborating evidence. To do so might place people in danger, expose them to prosecution or breach essential promises of confidentiality. READ MORE Irish defamation law allows for a public-interest defence, but this has yet to be used successfully. The BBC is not alone in fearing the law is not working as intended. [ If Gerry Adams wanted to put manners on the BBC, why not do it in Belfast? Opens in new window ] Even in a matter of public interest, however, a news organisation should still demonstrate a serious allegation is more than one person's claim. The BBC said in court it had corroboration from five other confidential sources, but it had not mentioned this in programme, to be fair to Adams. The court was unimpressed by this argument, and little wonder. The BBC's final defence was that there must be freedom to report on figures of historical importance and losing to Adams could create a chill factor over investigations into the Troubles. It asked the jury to make no award of damages, even if it found Spotlight's claim to be untrue. The best insight into how the BBC handles a mistake comes not from the insinuations of Gerry Adams but from Terry Wogan, a truly great Irishman, who after every crisis would quip: 'Deputy heads must head roll' Yet the judge had been clear throughout that the case was not about the Troubles. The jury was instructed to decide if Adams had rehabilitated his reputation sufficiently as a 'peacemaker' after the Belfast Agreement for a 2016 allegation about a 2006 murder to damage his reputation. The jury found it had, although its €100,000 award was on the lower end of what might have been expected. Many Troubles victims will be dismayed to hear Adams described as a peacemaker, but his Troubles reputation remains where it belongs. Speaking outside court after the verdict, Adams said taking the case was 'about putting manners on the British Broadcasting Corporation'. Seamus Dooley, secretary of the National Union of Journalists , condemned this comment as 'chilling', as well as 'unfair and unreasonable', given Spotlight's 40-year record of 'amazing investigative journalism'. An Amnesty report this week found Northern Ireland is the most dangerous place in the UK to be a journalist. Public figures have a responsibility not to make matters worse. However, Adams's remark will not have made much difference to anyone: it was a familiar sort of jibe, to be enjoyed by a harmless republican audience. Only loyalists and dissident republicans pose a physical threat to the media. Adams added he suspected the BBC had come under 'direct political interference' to continue a case it could have settled years earlier with an apology. It is only slightly facetious to suggest that Sinn Féin has already benefited enough from murky British dealings. What political motivation could there be to press on with a plainly weak case that was almost certain to work out in Adams's favour? The obvious explanation is by far the most likely: the BBC pressed on because it is an intractable bureaucracy with no respect for public money. Adams might be familiar with the concept of an organisation that struggles to back down. There has been a recent, relevant demonstration of this culture within BBC Northern Ireland. In 2023, it reached a confidential settlement in an alleged bullying case with a Spotlight producer, Lena Ferguson. She received an award and costs with no admission of liability. The BBC then issued a statement congratulating itself. 'We didn't want to be in a lengthy dispute with Lena and are happy that we can all now move forward,' it said. Yet the case had dragged out for four years, involving allegations dating back 20 years from Ferguson and others. The problem became serious enough to be raised in the House of Commons. Many people in the media in Belfast feared Spotlight had become dysfunctional, with implications for the quality of its journalism. They were appalled by the BBC's legal obstinacy towards Ferguson but hardly surprised. The best insight into how the BBC handles a mistake comes not from the insinuations of Gerry Adams but from Terry Wogan, a truly great Irishman, who after every crisis would quip: 'Deputy heads must roll.' We may be years away from even that stage of this fiasco.


RTÉ News
a day ago
- RTÉ News
US labour unions fight to contain AI disruption
As artificial intelligence threatens to upend entire sectors of the economy, American labour unions are scrambling to protect workers, demand corporate transparency, and rally political support - an uphill battle in a rapidly changing world. "As laborers, the ability to withhold our labour is one of our only tools to improve our lives," explained Aaron Novik, a key organizer with Amazon's ALU union. "What happens when that disappears [to AI]? It's a real existential issue," he added. Automation has already transformed most industries since the 1960s, typically reducing workforce numbers in the process. But the emergence of advanced 'physical AI' promises a new generation of intelligent robots that won't be limited to repetitive tasks - potentially displacing far more blue-collar workers than ever before. The threat extends beyond manufacturing. The CEO of Anthropic, which created Claude as a competitor to ChatGPT, warned last week that generative AI could eliminate half of all low-skilled white-collar jobs, potentially driving unemployment rates up to 10-20%. "The potential displacement of workers and elimination of jobs is a significant concern not just for our members, but for the public in general," said Peter Finn of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, America's largest union. The Teamsters have focused their efforts on passing legislation limiting the spread of automation, but face significant political obstacles. California's governor has twice vetoed bills that would ban autonomous trucks from public roads, despite intense lobbying from the state's hundreds of thousands of union members. Colorado's governor followed suit last week, and similar battles are playing out in Indiana, Maryland, and other states. At the federal level, the landscape shifted dramatically with the change in the White House. Under former president Joe Biden, the Department of Labor issued guidelines encouraging companies to be transparent about AI use, involve workers in strategic decisions, and support employees whose jobs face elimination. But US President Donald Trump canceled the protections within hours of taking office in January. "Now it's clear. They want to fully open up AI without the safeguards that are necessary to ensure workers' rights and protections at work," said HeeWon Brindle-Khym of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU), which represents workers in the retail sector. Meanwhile, companies are racing to implement AI technologies, often with poor results. "By fear of missing out on innovations, there's been a real push (to release AI products)," observed Dan Reynolds of the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The CWA has taken a proactive approach, publishing a comprehensive guide for members that urges negotiators to include AI provisions in all collective bargaining agreements. The union is also developing educational toolkits to help workers understand and negotiate around AI implementation. A handful of unions have successfully negotiated AI protections into their contracts. Notable examples include agreements with media company Ziff Davis (which owns Mashable) and video game publisher ZeniMax Studios, a Microsoft subsidiary. The most significant victories belong to two powerful unions: the International Longshoremen's Association, representing dock workers, secured a moratorium on full automation of certain port operations, while the Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) won guarantees that actors must be consulted and compensated whenever their AI likeness is created. These successes remain exceptional, however. The American labour movement, as a whole, lacks the bargaining power enjoyed by those highly strategic or publicly visible sectors, said Brindle-Khym. "Smaller contract-by-contract improvements are a long, slow process," she added. Despite frequent accusations by corporate interests, the unions say their goal is not to halt technological progress entirely. "Workers are usually not seeking to stop the march of technology," noted Virginia Doellgast, a Cornell University professor specializing in labour relations. "They just want to have some control."