Portugal protests expulsion of reporters from Guinea-Bissau before election
The Foreign Ministry said in a statement it had "immediately summoned the ambassador of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau in Lisbon for explanations and clarifications" for a meeting that will take place on Saturday.
"The Portuguese government strongly condemns the decision of the government of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau to order the removal of Lusa, RTP Africa, and RDP Africa from that country and their respective termination of broadcasts," it said, calling the move "highly reprehensible and unjustifiable".
No explanations for the move were provided by either Guinea-Bissau, which announced the expulsion in a government decree earlier on Friday, or Portugal. The representatives of the media outlets have until August 19 to leave the country.
Guinea-Bissau's President Umaro Sissoco Embalo said in March he would run for a second term, backtracking on earlier promises to step down and stoking tensions over postponed elections, with his opponents saying that his term expired in February.
A dispute over when Embalo's presidential term, which began in 2020, should end has heightened tensions that risk unrest in the former Portuguese colony with a history of military coups.
On August 7, Embalo, a former army general, appointed by decree a new prime minister, Braima Camara - the third premier since Embalo took office in 2020 - replacing Rui Duarte de Barros.
In March, a political mission of the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS), deployed to help reach a consensus on how to conduct the election, said it had to leave "following threats by H.E. Umaro Sissoco Embalo to expel it".
The presidential and legislative elections are scheduled to be held on November 23.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
French embassy employee arrested in Mali on "unfounded" accusations, says French foreign office
PARIS, Aug 16 (Reuters) - A French man arrested in Mali is a member of the French embassy in the capital Bamako and accusations against him are "unfounded", the French foreign office said in a statement to Reuters on Saturday. The embassy worker, named as Yann Vezilier by the Malian government in a statement on Thursday, was arrested in recent weeks alongside two generals and other military personnel and accused of participating in an alleged plot to destabilise the West African nation. "Dialogue is underway to clear up any misunderstanding," the ministry statement said. It added that his arrest was in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. France's once close relationship with its former colonies in West Africa's Sahel region has soured in recent years since a series of military coups overthrew governments in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Mirror and Express targeted for takeover that would sack a third of journalists
The Mirror and Express newspapers are being targeted for a cost-cutting takeover that would result in more than 850 journalists losing their jobs. Documents seen by The Telegraph show that veteran newspaper executive David Montgomery is reviving a swoop on Reach that would allow the 76-year-old to wield the axe in a programme of 'radical' cost-cutting at the publisher. The £400m plan, dubbed 'Project Glass', includes a proposal to slash more than 850 journalists – more than a third of Reach's editorial workforce of 2,300 – and 100 employees in printing and production. In an unfinished draft of a presentation to investors backers, Mr Montgomery signals plans to lean more heavily on artificial intelligence instead, via 'automated content gathering'. Further cuts would be implemented in back office functions including HR and finance, while Reach's commercial headcount would be increased by 40 roles. Other plans outlined in Project Glass include 'sweating' the group's declining print newspaper titles, restructuring and ring-fencing its costly pension deficit, and embarking on an acquisition spree of other news brands. Another mooted £100m acquisition target is Yell, the digital marketing and online directory business that was formed out of the Yellow Pages in 1996. It comes less than three years after Mr Montgomery, long ago nicknamed 'Rommel' by journalists on the grounds that 'Montgomery was on our side', mounted an unsuccessful takeover bid for Reach, which owns a stable of regional titles including the Manchester Evening News and Liverpool Echo. That approach came via National World, the local newspaper group he led at the time. However, the veteran executive was ousted from National World this year after being defeated in a power struggle with Malcolm Denmark, the Irish newspaper tycoon and racehorse owner. Mr Denmark, who was National World's largest shareholder, has now taken it private. Alongside that row, Mr Montgomery mounted an unsuccessful bid for The Telegraph. He was in discussions with Todd Boehly, the chairman of Chelsea Football Club, over a complex transaction that would have used National World as a vehicle for the deal. Mr Boehly has experience as an entertainment industry publisher via his shareholding in the company behind The Hollywood Reporter and Rolling Stone. Mr Montgomery's presentation claims the backers of his Telegraph bid are ready to help bankroll a takeover of Reach with £250m of equity, alongside £150m of debt. Eldridge Industries, Mr Boehly's investment firm, was contacted for comment. Mr Montgomery may also seek to use his own cash following the £65m buyout of National World, which owns The Scotsman and The Yorkshire Post. He held a stake of 7pc, putting him in line for around £4.5m. His latest comeback bid comes at a torrid time for Reach, which has been left chasing dwindling advertising revenues amid a sluggish transition to the digital age. The company last month said it would begin trialling a paywall across its titles amid fears new Google AI tools will dent reader numbers. Reach has slashed hundreds of jobs in recent years in successive rounds of job cuts that have bruised staff morale. It has also faced criticism for its 'clickbait' stories and the deluge of adverts flooding its websites. The company's share price has declined by more than a third this year, leaving its market value at around £220m – a fraction of its £5bn peak in 2005. In the documents, Mr Montgomery criticises Reach's 'underperforming business', saying the circulation of its print newspapers – which still account for more than half of overall revenues – was dropping at a faster rate than those of rivals such as the Daily Mail. He also takes aim at Reach bosses, saying the company's 'pattern of decline has not been met with a tactical or creative response' and that acquisitions and pension top-ups worth more than £1bn over the last decade have 'all been squandered by lack of any organic plan'. Jim Mullen, the former gambling executive who oversaw more than 800 job cuts during his tenure, stepped down as chief executive of Reach earlier this year. He was replaced by Piers North, a former journalist who joined the company in 2014. Mr Montgomery claims his programme of heavy cost-cutting would save £65m per year and help increase profits by 50pc. He outlined plans to boost revenue by transforming Reach into a new digital marketing services giant – a move that he says would generate £200m in new revenues in four years. The strategy also includes a plan to expand Reach's events offering, based on the Pride of Britain brand, and generate half a million subscribers paying £5.99 a month by the end of 2027. Mr Montgomery began his career as a journalist and rose to become the editor of the News of the World before leading Mirror Group Newspapers. He established a foothold in UK regional newspapers in 2012 with the establishment of Local World, which he sold to Reach – then known as Trinity Mirror – three years later. Mr Montgomery then formed National World after snapping up titles from collapsed publisher JPI Media.
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- The Guardian
We are gen Z – and AI is our future. Will that be good or bad?
Sumaiya Motara Freelance journalist based in Preston, where she works in broadcasting and local democracy reporting An older family member recently showed me a video on Facebook. I pressed play and saw Donald Trump accusing India of violating the ceasefire agreement with Pakistan. If it weren't so out of character, I would have been fooled too. After cross-referencing the video with news sources, it became clear to me that Trump had been a victim of AI false imaging. I explained this but my family member refused to believe me, insisting that it was real because it looked real. If I hadn't been there to dissuade them, they would have forwarded it to 30 people. On another occasion, a video surfaced on my TikTok homepage. It showed male migrants climbing off a boat, vlogging their arrival in the UK. 'This dangerous journey, we survived it,' says one. 'Now to the five-star Marriott hotel.' This video racked up almost 380,000 views in one month. The 22 videos posted from 9 to 13 June on this account, named migrantvlog, showed these men thanking Labour for 'free' buffets, feeling 'blessed' after being given £2,000 e-bikes for Deliveroo deliveries and burning the union flag. Even if a man's arm didn't disappear midway through a video or a plate vanish into thin air, I could tell the content was AI-generated because of the blurred background and strange, simulation-like characters. But could the thousands of other people watching? Unfortunately, it seemed not many of them could. Racist and anti-immigration posts dominated the comment section. I worry about this blurring of fact and fiction, and I see this unchecked capability of AI as incredibly dangerous. The Online Safety Act focuses on state-sponsored disinformation. But what happens when ordinary people spread videos like wildfire, believing them to be true? Last summer's riots were fuelled by inflammatory AI visuals, with only sources such as Full Fact working to cut through the noise. I fear for less media-literate people who succumb to AI-generated falsehoods, and the heat this adds to the pan. Rukanah Mogra Leicester-based journalist working in sports media and digital communications with Harborough Town FC The first time I dared use AI in my work, it was to help with a match report. I was on a tight deadline, tired, and my opening paragraph wasn't working. I fed some notes into an AI tool, and surprisingly it suggested a headline and intro that actually clicked. It saved me time and got me unstuck – a relief when the clock was ticking. But AI isn't a magic wand. It can clean up clunky sentences and help cut down wordiness but it can't chase sources, capture atmosphere or know when a story needs to shift direction. Those instinctive calls are still up to me. What's made AI especially useful is that it feels like a judgment-free editor. As a young freelance journalist, I don't always have access to regular editorial support. Sharing an early draft with a real-life editor can feel exposing, especially when you're still finding your voice. But ChatGPT doesn't judge. It lets me experiment, refine awkward phrasing and build confidence before I hit send. That said, I'm cautious. In journalism it's easy to lean on tools that promise speed. But if AI starts shaping how stories are told – or worse, which stories are told – we risk losing the creativity, challenge and friction that make reporting meaningful. For now AI is an assistant. But it's still up to us to set the direction. Author's note: I wrote the initial draft for the above piece myself, drawing on real experiences and my personal views. Then I used ChatGPT to help tighten the flow, suggest clearer phrasing and polish the style. I prompted the AI with requests such as: 'Rewrite this in a natural, eloquent Guardian-style voice.' While AI gave me useful suggestions and saved time, the core ideas, voice and structure remain mine. Frances Briggs Manchester-based science website editor AI is powerful. It's an impressive technological advancement and I'd be burying my head in the sand if I believed otherwise. But I'm worried. I'm worried my job won't exist in five years and I'm worried about its environmental impact. Attempting to understand the actual impact of AI is difficult; the key players are keeping their statistics close to their chests. What I can see is that things are pretty bad. A recent research paper has spat out some ugly numbers. (It joins other papers that reveal a similar story.) The team considered just one case study: OpenAI's ChatGPT-4o model. Its annual energy consumption is about the same as that of 35,000 residential households. That's approximately 450,000 KWh-1. Or 325 universities. Or 50 US inpatient hospitals. That's not all. There's also the cooling of these supercomputer's super-processors. Social media is swarming with terrifying numbers about the data-processing centres that power AI, and they're not far off. It takes approximately 2,500 Olympic-sized swimming pools of water to cool ChatGPT-4o's processing units, according to the latest estimates. AI agents such as the free products Perplexity or Claude don't actually seem to be consuming that much electricity. At most, the total global energy consumed yearly by AI is still less than 1%. But at the same time, data-processing centres in Ireland consumed 22% of the total electricity used by the whole country last year, more than urban housing. For context, there are 80 data-processing centres in Ireland. At present, there are more than 6,000 data-processing centres in the US alone. With the almost exponential uptake in AI since 2018, these numbers are likely to be completely different within a year. In spite of all these scary statistics, I have to hope that things are not as worrying as they seem. Researchers are already working to meet demands as they explore more effective, economic processing units using nanoscale materials and more. And when you compare the first language-learning models from seven years ago to those created today, they have iterated well beyond their previous inefficiencies. Energy-hungry processing centres will get less greedy – experts are just trying to figure out how. Saranka Maheswaran London-based student who pursues journalism alongside her studies 'You need to get out there, meet lots of people, and date, date, date!' is the cliche I hear most often when speaking to people about being in my 20s. After a few questionable dates and lots of juicy gossip sessions with friends, a new fear emerged. What if they're using AI to message me? Overly formal responses, or conversation starters that sounded just a bit too perfect, were what first made me question messages I'd received. I am not completely against AI, and don't think opposing it entirely is going to stop its development. But I do fear for our ability to make genuine connections with people. Pre-existing insecurities about how you speak, write or present yourself make a generation with AI to hand an easy prey. It may begin with a simple prompt, asking ChatGPT to make a message sound more friendly, but it can also grow into a menacing relationship in which you become reliant on the technology and lose confidence in your own voice. The 2025 iteration of the annual Singles in America study, produced in collaboration with the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, found that one in four singles in the US have used AI in dating. Perhaps I am over cynical. But to those who are not so sure of how their personalities are coming across when dating or how they may be perceived in a message, they should have faith that if it is meant to be it will be – and if AI has a little too much say in how you communicate, you may just lose yourself. Iman Khan Final-year student at the University of Cambridge, specialising in social anthropology The advancement of AI in education has made me question the idea of any claimed impartiality or neutrality of knowledge. The age of AI brings with it the need to scrutinise any information that comes our way. This is truer than ever in our universities, where teaching and learning are increasingly assisted by AI. We cannot now isolate AI from education, but we must be ready to scrutinise the mechanisms and narratives that underpin the technology itself and shape its use. One of my first encounters with AI in education was a request to ChatGPT to suggest reading resources for my course. I had assumed that the tool would play the role of an advanced search engine. But I quickly saw how ChatGPT's tendency to hallucinate – to present false or misleading information as fact – makes it both a producer and disseminator of information, true or false. I originally saw this as only a small barrier to the great possibilities of AI, not least because I knew it would improve over time. However, it has also become increasingly clear to me that ChatGPT, Gemini and other AI chatbots contribute to the spread of false information. AI has rendered the relationship between humans and technology precarious. There is research to be done on the potential implications of AI for all the social sciences. We need to investigate how it is integrated into how we learn and how we live. I'd like to be involved in researching how we adapt to AI's role as not only a tool but as an active and contributing participant in society. Nimrah Tariq London-based graduate specialising in architecture In my first years at university, we were discouraged from utilising AI for our architecture essays and models, only using it to proofread our work. However, in my final year, it was introduced a lot more into our process for rendering and enhancing design work. Our studio tutor gave us a mini-seminar on how to create AI prompts so that we could have detailed descriptions to put into architectural websites such as Visoid. This allowed us to put any models or drawings that we created into an AI prompt, asking it to create a concept design that suited our proposal. It gave my original ideas more complexity and a wide range of designs to play around with. While this was useful during the conceptual phase of our work, if the prompts were not accurate the AI would fail to deliver, so we learned how to be more strategic. I specifically used it after rendering my work as a final touch to create seamless final images. During my first and second year, AI didn't have as much impact on the design process of my work; I mainly used existing buildings for design inspiration. However, AI introduced new forms of innovation, which accelerated the speed with which we can push the boundaries of our work. It also made the creative process more experimental, opening up a new way of designing and visualising. Now I have finished my degree, I'm intrigued to see how much more architecture can grow through using AI. Initially, I believed AI wasn't the most creative way to design; now, I see it as a tool to improve our designs. It cannot replace human creativity, but it can enhance it. Architectural practices always ask job applicants for skills in software that uses AI, and you can already see how it is being incorporated in designs and projects. It has always been important to keep up to date with the latest technological advancements in architecture – and AI has reaffirmed this. The panel was compiled by Sumaiya Motara and Saranka Maheswaran, interns on the Guardian's positive action scheme
