
Edinburgh International Book Festival: Lindsey Hilsum and Edward Wong
Hilsum had stepped in to replace the historian and author Anne Applebaum, who had to withdraw due to ill health. In her opening remarks, the director of the Book Festival Jenny Niven informed the audience that Applebaum 'was in good hands, getting good treatment'. Niven thanked Hilsum for 'stepping into the breach' at short notice (so short that there were no copies of Hilsum's book to be signed).
A very good substitute
Both speakers had extensive experience of reporting on conflicts, and of commentating on world events. Acclaimed journalist Lindsey Hilsum is best known as International Editor for Channel 4 News. Her books include In Extremis: The Life and Death of the War Correspondent Marie Colvin and, more recently, I Brought the War with Me: Stories and Poems from the Front Line. Wong is Diplomatic Correspondent for the New York Times, focuusing particularly on American foreign policy and its impact. He's the author of At the Edge of Empire.
Both have reported from countries undergoing turmoil, such as Iraq, Rwanda and Ukraine. Wong also brought to the discussion and in-depth understanding of China, which he had explored in relation to his parents. Hilsum apologized 'for not being an Anne Applebaum', but was able to bring plenty to the discussion. A very good substitute.
The conversation was chaired by the investigative journalist James West, executive editor of Mother Jones, the American progressive magazine. The dialogue between the three was engaging and well-informed, with a large degree of consensus between the speakers, though not total unanimity on all themes.
USA – WTF
West began by summarizing the introduction he had prepared as simply 'USA – WTF'. The changing character of the United States and its role within the international order was the dominant theme of the discussion, with the figure of Trump looming over every topic.
They began by looking at the recent meeting in Alaska between Putin and Trump. Hilsum felt that Trump had 'bought Putin's line', that the 'root cause' of the conflict was not Russia's invasion. In short, tacit acceptance of Putin's narrative that Ukraine isn't really a proper country, but just 'a little Russia, populated by little Russians'. In recent trips to Ukraine, she had sensed optimism declining, with many 'fearing betrayal' by Trump.
Wong felt that, in the main, Trump was a fairly 'transparent' figure who generally means what he says. This included his undoubted admiration for some autocrats, and a desire to join that club as they decided the fate of the world. Wong felt that Trump's anti-China rhetoric should be taken with a pinch of salt and that, at root, he was prepared to be 'transactional' with Xi Jinping. This was what lay behind Trump's turning his back on the international institutions that grew out of World War Two.
In their discussion of Gaza, the speakers felt that the US was no longer performing its role of acting as a controlling influence on the Israeli government. There was, according to Wong, little sense of the USA 'reigning in Israel'. Wong outlined that foreign policy in the US was being controlled by a very tight circle, 'almost like a medieval court', with loyalty and ideological purity valued over all else. In contrast to the first Trump term, there were fewer moderate voices being heard by the President.
More generally, there was a sense of a return to the dominance of great powers with separate 'spheres of interest'. Hilsum talked of parallels with the Yalta conference at the end of the Second World War, in which Europe was divided up. There was some sense of a return to some elements of the imperial era, but 'in a post imperial World'. This disjuncture lay behind much of the international tension at present, with the old world order breaking up but a new one yet to be established.
Sucking attention
Both Hilsum and Wong have spent a lot of time covering genocides, this was another major theme of the discussion. There was a sense for both that some major crises, such as in Sudan, were not getting the attention they deserved. This was partly because 'Trump sucks attention'.
Though Applebaum was not present, one of her major themes (as outlined in books such as The Twilight of Democracy) was covered. This was, Wong outlined, the sense that we are seeing, in established democracies, elements of 'escalating authoritarianism' or, at the very least, some 'backsliding'. There was plenty of evidence of 'erosion of norms' and people in various sectors 'bowing down to threats'. There were, in the US, signs of governmental power eroding institutions which normally kept the state in check.
Ideological purity
However, Wong was quick to add that the US is still some distance away from properly authoritarian States such as Russia or China, where the entire system was dominated by the government, building on many decades of authoritarianism.
What particularly worried Wong here was increasing evidence of an increasingly ideological aspect to the United States. He cited examples of 'party cells' embedded within key institutions trying to make sure that they operated in accord with Trumpian values. This raised the question of how resilient the US was and also what role the media and journalism could play. Is the media capable of keeping Trump in check?
Media literacy
Hilsum felt that the teaching of 'media literacy' was greatly needed. As she noted, people are increasingly getting their news from very different sources, not the large established media organizations which dominated until fairly recently. She was aware that the media organisations she and Wong were most associated with (Channel 4 and the New York Times), were no longer as influential as they once were. As the media environment evolved, how can good quality, verified news and comment be maintained?
For Hilsum, being able to distinguish between high quality news and comment and material filled with conspiracy theories was critical in maintaining healthy democracies. She was aware that she was speaking to an audience who had grown up on the BBC and serious newspapers, but this was changing. Younger generations were consuming media differently, she noted. She paused and looked around at the rather 'mature' audience, asking rhetorically 'if there is anyone under 30 here'. There was an 'atomisation of information', with many only consuming media by those they shared an ideological viewpoint with. This was all adding to polarised politics.
In awe
They ended by looking at the role played by journalists on the ground in conflict zones, with reference to the recent deaths of Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza. Hilsum was 'in awe' of the Gazan journalists still working there. She and Wong noted that those most in danger were local journalists, who were often considered fair game by combatants. Marie Colvin, who was killed in Syria, was an exception to this. Wong talked movingly about the local teams he had worked alongside in Iraq.
Pretty gloomy
The questions from the audience were sharp and succinct. That's not always the case at Book Festival events, when there's a tendency for audience members to make mini speeches and not ask actual questions. The final questioner noted that the conversation had been 'pretty gloomy', so asked whether there were things the panellists felt optimistic about.
Hilsum felt that while the withdrawal of some international aid agencies from parts of Africa was regrettable, she did feel that it was helping countries move away from a 'patronising idea of aid'. Instead, things were being organised by those from the countries affected, not western saviours.
Wong felt that despite the drift to authoritarianism (including in countries such as Hungary and the US), 'the brand of democracy' was 'still strong'. Most countries wanted to be part of the democratic club, even if they often paid lip service to some aspects of it.
Hilsum ended by praising the 'intellectual and creative ferment' in Edinburgh in August. That for her, was a reason to be hopeful. Praising the audience is always likel to go down well!
Like this:
Like
Related
Hashtags

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


New Statesman
30 minutes ago
- New Statesman
War triangle
Yesterday, Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in Washington, flanked by seven European leaders, in order to meet with Donald Trump and push forward talks to end the war in Ukraine. This came just three days after Trump's carefully choreographed meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Could this be the beginning of the end for the drawn out conflict? And can Trump be trusted? Megan Gibson is joined by Katie Stallard. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related


BBC News
30 minutes ago
- BBC News
James Dobson, influential American evangelical leader, dies aged 89
Dr James Dobson, a prominent and influential evangelical leader who advised four US presidents, has died aged 89. Dobson was a fixture in conservative US politics for decades and most recently served on Donald Trump's advisory board for evangelical ministry he founded, Focus on the Family, is one of the largest in the world, with a presence in nearly 100 well as Trump, Dobson advised three other Republican presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, and George W Bush. Born in Louisiana in 1936, Dobson founded Focus on the Family in 1977, with the stated mission of affirming "the God-ordained institution of the family". His radio programme was eventually broadcast by 4,000 radio stations across North America. He published his first of more than 70 books - Dare To Discipline, which advocated for strict parental authority and corporal punishment - while working as an associate clinical professor of paediatrics at the University of California School of Bauer of the Dr James Dobson Family Institute described the organisation's founder as a "pioneer" and "a man of deep conviction whose voice shaped the way generations view faith, family and culture".While he never ran for public office, Dobson was considered extremely influential in conservative political circles in the founded the Family Research Council in 1981, a think-tank that advocates for socially conservative causes, and coordinated state-level lobbying organisations across the country. In 1982, he was appointed to a national advisory committee on youth justice by then-President Ronald Reagan. Dobson later acted as an adviser during both Bush presidencies, and endorsed Donald Trump in the 2020 election, as well as offering him vocal support during impeachment views lead to several controversies over his 2014, he was accused of hijacking a National Day of Prayer event by calling Barack Obama "the abortion president" - prompting former California congresswoman Janice Hahn to storm out of the event. Dobson was also considered a hard-liner on LGBTQ+ issues, and in 1973 resigned from the American Psychological Association after it removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. In 2010, his Family Research Council was formally designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for what it described as "anti-gay propaganda throughout its history", a charge the group vehemently denied. He was often dismissive of his critics, writing in a 2019 newsletter that "left-wing activists typically hate committed Christians". "It begins with resentment for everything we stand for," he wrote. "They despise this belief system because it threatens their godless worldview." In 2022, Dobson claimed a victory after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, which gave women in the US a constitutional right to abortion across the country. "At last, the tide has changed, and the legality of abortion has been given to the people to decide - where it belonged in the first place," he said at the time.


Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Trump's kitchen meltdown: President wags finger at Putin in Nixon copycat stunt
Donald Trump posted the image after Moscow unleashed one of its heaviest bombardments of Ukraine, in what critics say was a bid to show himself standing firm against Russia's strongman Donald Trump has sparked controversy after posting a provocative photo of himself pointing his finger at Vladimir Putin - echoing the infamous 1959 'Kitchen Debate' between Richard Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev. The US President dropped the image online today just hours after Moscow unleashed one of its heaviest bombardments of Ukraine since the war began, in what critics say was a calculated bid to show himself standing firm against Russia 's strongman. Trump's copycat pose, mirroring Nixon's clash with Khrushchev in a mock-up American kitchen during the Cold War, is being billed by allies as a symbol of defiance. But insiders claim it is also the latest sign of his growing fury at Putin's refusal to end the carnage. One well-placed source told the Mirror: 'There is no secret that Trump has become increasingly angered by Putin's lack of action. He says one thing, but then immediately carries out further attacks on Ukraine, showing he has no interest in stopping the killing. Putin is beginning to make Trump look weak, and it's wearing on the President. He's already threatened much greater sanctions against Russia if peace is not forthcoming and it's clear Trump feels time is running out.' The original 'Kitchen Debate' took place during the American National Exhibition in Moscow, when then–Vice President Nixon and Soviet Premier Khrushchev went toe-to-toe in front of cameras. What began as a row over washing machines and televisions quickly descended into a fiery exchange about capitalism versus communism and became one of the defining images of the Cold War. Now Trump is trying to cast himself in the same mould, pointing the finger at Putin as Nixon once did at Khrushchev, inviting comparisons between his standoff with Moscow and America's ideological battle with the Soviet Union. The timing of the stunt, however, raised eyebrows. Russia's overnight blitz of Ukrainian cities left dozens dead and injured, further escalating a war already grinding into its third year. Against that backdrop, Trump's photo-op was seized upon by supporters as proof of American resolve and derided by critics as a cheap gimmick. 'Trump thinks he's Nixon squaring up to Khrushchev,' one social media user wrote online. 'In reality, he's cosplaying statesmanship while bombs fall on civilians.' The Internet was split. MAGA supporters hailed the image as a show of leadership, with one supporter posting: 'This is America standing tall. Trump is showing Putin he won't be pushed around.' Others were scathing, branding it ' Instagram diplomacy' and 'a stunt that trivialises a brutal war.' Historians and foreign policy experts were equally divided. Some said the symbolism was clever, drawing on an iconic Cold War moment to remind the world of America's strength. Others warned it was simplistic, dangerous even, reducing a complex modern conflict to a recycled photo-op. 'It's a flashy gesture,' said one analyst. 'But Ukraine isn't 1959 Moscow, and Putin isn't Khrushchev. The stakes today are far higher and a finger-pointing picture won't bring the bombs to a halt.' Still, Trump's move has ensured he is once again at the centre of the Ukraine debate, positioning himself as the man prepared to stare down Putin.