Is Pope Francis ‘betraying’ China’s Catholics?

Earlier this year the global video sharing platform You Tube dominated TV viewership in the United States, knocking Disney off the top spot and leaving major media names like Netflix, Paramount, Amazon and Fox in its wake. In a first for the streaming platform, the time people spent watching YouTube on television accounted for 10.4 percent of total TV in the month of July. In terms of its world reach, the platform is now available in more than one hundred countries and pulls in nearly three billion users every month, the majority of which are between 25 and 34 years old, that’s younger than the core audience for traditional television. Launched in 2005, YouTube has since expanded and diversified, but it’s niche area for dominating the market is still in user generated content and the advertising income it draws in provides the platform with its main source of revenue, leaving the traditional TV market in its wake.So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking ‘Is YouTube’s disruption of TV now complete?’ Contributors: Mark Bergen, Reporter with Bloomberg Technology, Author of ‘Like, Comment, Subscribe: Inside YouTube’s Chaotic Rise to World Domination’, London, UK.Chris Stokel-Walker, Journalist, Author of ‘YouTubers: How YouTube Shook Up TV and Created a New Generation of Stars’, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Rahul Telang, Professor of Information Systems, Carnegie Mellon University, Co-Author of ‘Streaming, Sharing, Stealing: Big Data and the Future of Entertainment’, Pennsylvania, USA Dr. Marlen Komorowski, Professor for European Media Markets, Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Senior Research Fellow, Cardiff University, Wales, UK Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Kirsteen Knight Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Cameron Ward Production Co-ordinator: Tim FernleyImage: Silhouettes of laptop and mobile device users are seen next to a screen projection of the YouTube logoCredit: Reuters/Dado Ruvić

The International Space Station will be decommissioned in 2030 and crash down into the Pacific Ocean, ending more than three decades of international cooperation. Launched in the wake of the Cold War, the ISS is seen as a triumph of global diplomacy between the US, Russia and other nations. Its demise will mark the end of an era.Nasa has awarded contracts to commercial companies to develop potential successors to the ISS, and maintain a U.S. presence in low earth orbit. Meanwhile Russia and India have said they plan to launch their own individual stations, and China has already got its own space station, Tiangong. As the era of the International Space Station nears its end, this week on The Inquiry, we’re asking ‘What will happen after the International Space Station?’ Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Matt Toulson Researcher: Kirsteen Knight Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Operator: Ben HoughtonContributors: Jennifer Levasseur, Museum Curator at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum, Washington D.C., USMark McCaughrean, former Senior Advisor for Science & Exploration at the European Space Agency and astronomer at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg, GermanyMai'a Cross, Professor of political science at Northeastern University, and director for the Center for International Affairs and World Cultures, Massachusetts, USWendy Whitman Cobb, Professor of strategy and security studies at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Alabama, USCREDIT: State of the Union address, 1984; Courtesy Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

This year wildfires in Canada have caused devastation to the country’s treasured town of Jasper. The wildfires have ravaged the landscape, destroyed communities and displaced hundreds of thousands of people.The causes are many, and fires are a natural occurrence. But humans, and the climate, are making them worse. As the number and intensity of fires increase, the methods used to both prevent and fight them may need to change.How can Canada fight its wildfires?Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Louise Clarke Researcher: Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty Editor: Tara McDermott Technical producer: Cameron WardContributors: Mike Flannagan, Professor of wildland fire at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, British Columbia Liz Goldman, World Resources Institute John Keeley, senior research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and an adjunct professor at the University of California in Los Angeles Cordy Tymstra, former wildfire science coordinator for the Alberta Wildfire Management Branch(Image: Getty/ Anadolu)

Ukraine’s President Zelensky recently presented his ‘Victory Plan’ to end the war in Ukraine to both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, the two candidates competing to be the next President of the United States of America. President Zelensky’s view is that if his plan is supported by Ukraine’s allies, then the war could be ended by next year. But both US Presidential candidates, whilst in agreement that the war has to stop, have expressed a very different approach to how they would work towards that. And there are concerns from Ukraine that there will be a significant decrease in getting support in the future, regardless of who will be sitting in the White House. The United States is the top donor to Ukraine in terms of military, financial and humanitarian aid, but if their support did wane, it would mean Ukraine would have to become much more reliant on European backing. Whilst Europe has pledged much in terms of military support, it has yet to deliver everything it has promised. And there is the issue of Europe’s political will and financial backing to fulfil its pledge. In light of this President Zelensky is hoping Europe too will be convinced by his ‘Victory Plan’ and perhaps act as an insurance plan to keep the US focus on this war. So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking ‘How might the next US President affect the war in Ukraine?’ Contributors: Mariia Zolkina, Head of Regional Security and Conflict Studies, Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, Kyiv, Ukraine Mary Anne Marsh, Democratic Strategist and Political Analyst, Boston, USA Matthew Kroenig, Vice President and Senior Director, Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Washington DC, USA Matthew Savill, Director of Military Sciences, Royal United Services Institute, London, UK Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Ben Houghton Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jacqui Johnson(Image: BBC file photo)

A court room in the US State of Nevada provided the setting for the recent hearing between media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his children, over who will inherit his empire on the 93 year old’s death. The succession battle, worthy of the TV drama Succession, which was partly inspired by the Murdoch dynasty, was played out behind closed doors and it’s unlikely that the decision, when it comes, will be made available to the public. Murdoch’s News Corp owns hundreds of newspapers and media outlets around the world. It includes the right-leaning Fox News in the US, which gave Donald Trump a major platform in the run-up to the 2016 Presidential election, as well as widely read newspapers like the Sun in the UK. Speculation over who is most likely to take control of the multi-billion dollar business currently centres around the eldest son Lachlan Murdoch, the sibling most closely aligned to his father in terms of their vision for the future. But at this point the outcome all depends on whether legally such a takeover can happen. So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking ‘What’s the succession plan for Murdoch’s empire?’ Contributors: Walter Marsh, Journalist and Author of Young Rupert: The Making of the Murdoch Empire, South Australia David Folkenflik, Media Correspondent NPR News, Author of Murdoch’s World: The Last of the Old Media Empires, USA Reid Weisbord, Distinguished Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School, Visiting Professor, Columbia University, USA Alice Enders, Chief Economist, Enders Analysis, UK Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producers: Louise Clarke and Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jacqui Johnson (Image: Reuters/Mike Segar)

With Lebanon, Gaza, and Israel all under fire and a death count running into tens of thousands, the Middle East has never been in a more dangerous position.The United States has been a big diplomatic influence on attempts at peace negotiations in the Middle East. The last major attempt at peace negotiations was in the spring of 2024 when the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken visited the region to try and broker a ceasefire. But despite the efforts of not just the US, but Egypt, Qatar and Europe, there has been no agreement to cease hostilities.What would bring all the different parties to the negotiating table? And is there any country or organisation credible enough that will be listened to by all parties?This episode of The Inquiry asks: Can anyone broker peace in the Middle East? Contributors: Hugh Lovatt, Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations Bilal Y Saab, Head of the US-Middle East Practice and an Advisor in the Scientific and Academic Council of TRENDS Research and Advisory Professor Christopher Phillips, Professor of International Relations at Queen Mary University of London Dr Burcu Ozcelik, Senior Research Fellow in Middle East security at The Royal United Services InstitutePresenter: Victoria Uwonkunda Producer: Louise Clarke Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical producer: James Bradshaw Production support: Jacqui Johnson(Image: Getty/FADEL ITANI)

In September Greek Tourism Minister Olga Kefalogianni announced the introduction of special fees for passengers disembarking from cruise ships at Mykonos, Santorini and some other ports. The fees are part of a broader strategy to manage the resurgence of mass tourism post-covid, reducing some of the negative impacts such as pressure on water supplies, waste management and overcrowding, while spreading the economic benefits more fairly across society. Greece is not alone in considering how to alleviate the tensions arising when exceptional numbers of tourists arrive during peak holiday times. Venice has limited the size of tour groups, charging visitors a daily entry fee and the mayor of Barcelona has pledged to eliminate short-term tourist lets in the city within five years, to ease housing pressures. With revenues from international tourism reaching USD 1.8 trillion last year according to the United Nations World Tourism Organisation, many governments and experts are thinking carefully about how to strike a balance between the economic boost, the tourist experience and the welfare of local communities. Can tourists be enticed away from those Instagram hot spots and what potential solutions could Greece employ to deal with overtourism? Contributors Katerina Kikilia, Head of Tourism Management, University of West Attica, Athens Sandra Carvão, Director of Market Intelligence, Policies, and Competitiveness, UN World Travel Organisation Kumi Kato, Professor in Tourism Studies, Wakayama University, Japan Cevat Tosun, Eisenhower chair and professor of Tourism Studies and management at George Washington University School of BusinessPresenter: Charmaine Cozier Production: Diane Richardson and Matt Toulson Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jacqui Johnson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Toby James (Image: Oia, Thira, Greece / Getty Images: Fernando Vazquez Miras)

Just over three years ago the Taliban seized Kabul and stormed to power in Afghanistan. They soon declared a new government which is still not recognised by any other country. The Taliban claim they have made improvements to the country. War is over and, they say, there is more peace and security than before they came to power.But millions of people are struggling to survive in the country, there is a restrictive rule of law that is imposed by a very hierarchical government structure and half the population need aid. This week on The Inquiry we’re asking ‘How are the Taliban governing Afghanistan?’Presenter: Emily Wither Producers: Louise Clarke and Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producers: Nicky Edwards and Cameron WardContributors: Dr Weeda Mehran, co-director for Advanced Internationalist studies at Exeter University Graeme Smith, senior analyst for the International Crisis Group Dr Orzala Nemet, research associate at ODI Overseas Development Institute Javid Ahmad, non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington DC(Photo by WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP via Getty Images)

At the beginning of September, the far-right party Alternative for Germany or AfD, won an election in the eastern state of Thuringia. The result marked the far right’s first win, in a state parliament election, since World War Two. In the more populous neighbouring state of Saxony the party came in a close second. Whilst in both states the party has been officially classed as ‘right-wing extremist’, the results nonetheless, signify a sharp rebuke from the voting public towards Germany’s established political forces, including the ruling coalition. The Afd was founded in 2013 as an anti-euro party to challenge the government. It entered the German parliament for the first time in 2017 and now it’s focus has shifted to immigration and Islam. As the country faces federal elections next year, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz has urged mainstream parties to block the AfD from governing in Thuringia by maintaining a so-called firewall against it. But in terms of the voting public, the polls currently suggest the party could also take the most votes in Brandenburg state’s election coming up. So, on this week’s Inquiry we’re asking, Can Germany’s far right win the country?Contributors: Thomas König, Professor Dr. of Political Science, European Politics, University of Mannheim, Germany Dr. Michelle Lynn Kahn, Associate Professor, Modern European History, University of Richmond, VA, USA Christina Zuber, Professor Dr. of German Politics, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Germany Jörn Fleck, Senior Director of the Europe Centre, The Atlantic Council, Washington DC, USA Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jacqui JohnsonImage Credit: CLEMENS BILAN/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock

In August this year, a US court in Washington DC ruled that Google acted illegally to crush its competition and maintain a monopoly on online search and related advertising. This is just one of a number of lawsuits that have been filed against the big tech companies, as US antitrust authorities attempt to strengthen competition in the industry. Now Google is facing another legal case in Virginia, USA, over its advertising technology. Whilst in Europe it has been fined billions in monopoly cases. Google themselves dispute they are a ‘monopolist’ and presented evidence in the US court case in August to show that they face ‘fierce competition from a broad range of competitors’. The court did find Google’s search to be ‘superior’ to its competitors. And Google’s executives say consumers stick with them because they find Google ‘helpful’. Google is everywhere in our online lives and it handles billions of search queries every day, so on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking ‘Can we trust Google?’Contributors: David Vise, Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist and Author of ‘The Google Story’, New York, USA Professor Douglas Melamed, Visiting Fellow, Stanford Law School, Washington, DC. USA Jonathan Stray, Senior Scientist, UC Berkeley Center for Human-Compatible AI, California, USA Cristina Caffarra, Independent Expert Economist, Honorary Professor, UCL, London, UK Presenter: David Baker Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jacqui JohnsonImage Credit: Reuters/Steve Marcus