reality

Katie Price has failed to speak out upon the release of her daughter Princess’ reality show and not publicly reacted to the premiere or shown any support for the new venture

Katie Price has publicly ignored her daughter Princess Andre’s reality show upon its premiere. The Page 3 legend, 47, is mother to Junior, 20, and Princess, 18, with ex-husband Peter Andre and her second child has launched a media career in her own right with her brand new ITV2 show.

In the build-up to the launch of the programme, which aired its first episode on Sunday night, Katie is thought to have missed a planned morning meet-up with Princess Andre on her 18th birthday to party abroad instead and has reportedly been accused of ‘inserting herself’ into Princess’s success as her daughter embarks on a fledgling showbiz career. It’s also been claimed that she has tried to ‘overshadow the launch’ of the show, and all of this has prompted rumours of a rift between the mother and daughter duo.

And as the show hit screens towards the end of the weekend, Katie did not take to social media at all to acknowledge the airing of the programme in any way. It comes after Katie Price worries fans with appearance in family photo after explaining weight loss.

READ MORE: Katie Price accused of ‘last act of desperation’ hours before Princess Andre’s showREAD MORE: Katie Price unveils brand new face after MORE surgery hours before Princess’ show airs

Katie’s last posts in the hours before the show went out featured her showing fans a new jacket from her collection with JYY London and encouraging them to buy it by inserting a link. Meanwhile, Princess’ dad Peter, who shot to fame in the 1990s with the release of his hit single Mysterious Girl and was married to Katie for four years following their appearance on I’m A Celebrity…Get Me Out Of Here!, appeared heavily in the first episode.

Despite her apparent silence, Katie did actually make a surprise appearance in the episode as a voice note that she had sent Princess was heard playing. Princess had to asked her mother about what she was like as a child and Katie replied: “Who was the naughtiest child? Well, you was a mummy’s girl so you used to push me more and probably get away with things so I’d say you was more naughty actually. You are still very much like me but different if that makes sense, you are more sensible. So yeah, the answer to your question is that I think you were naughty. You naughty girl! before Princess admitted in a confessional: “Me and my mum are so close. We’re more like best friends, we’ll tell each other anything.”

Just days ago, Katie confirmed on her eponymous podcast that she would not be watching the show, as she said: “I won’t be watching the show. And I won’t be promoting the show because I don’t need it rubbed in my face of everyone playing happy families but disregarding me as the other parent.

“I support Princess in everything she does, but I think it’s really wrong for her at her age to be put in this situation because she’s going to have to do press and they will ask… they are going to be asked what’s all this about your mum and why isn’t your mum and why isn’t your mum in it.”

The mum-of-five previously said she was banned from her daughter’s 18th birthday party and that her former management team – who look after ex-husband Peter Andre and Princess – did not want her on the show as they considered her “trash”.

Speaking on her podcast, Katie claimed: “Princess was like ‘I’m having a party’. And I wasn’t invited because it was for ‘filming’.” She added: “The fact is there’s stuff my daughter is doing and I’m not allowed to be seen at any of it.” But insiders claimed her version of events was far from the truth.

They said the 18-year-old had arranged to see her mum on the morning of her birthday in June in London – but Katie failed to appear. A source said: “It was all in the diary but then Katie claimed she couldn’t make it as she was abroad. It was disappointing. “For Katie to then say she was banned from the afternoon’s filmed party when she was the no-show in the morning is just beyond belief.”

Insiders are perplexed by Katie’s attempts to “repeatedly insert herself into her daughter’s career”. The model herself claimed: “I have not been allowed to go on any photoshoots, signings or Superdrug openings or anything like that. I’m not welcome.”

But the source said: “Why is she making this all about her? What sort of person on the eve of her daughter’s show, starts throwing all these grenades and believes she knows what’s best, and should be given equal billing? Pete keeps quiet about the whole situation with Katie and just wants to support his children.”

Some question whether Katie could be jealous of her daughter’s success. The source said: “Princess’s career is flourishing.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads

Urgency surrounds the future of the two-state solution as Israel ramps up its control of historic Palestinian territory. And even though several countries have moved to recognise a Palestinian state, many observers say it’s too late. Soraya Lennie breaks it down.

Rob Furber, whose new book The Gambler tell his weird, wacky and wonderful betting exploits over the last two decades, discovered he had a talent for special bets after correctly guessing the winner of Strictly Come Dancing – but had no idea what was to come.

Rob Furber was one of millions sitting anxiously on their edge of their sofas on December 17, 2005, to find out who had won the third series of Strictly Come Dancing.

The struggling freelance writer wasn’t particularly a fan of ballroom, weekend TV or the recent surge in reality shows. But tonight he was particularly invested – because of the £20 bet he’d placed.

Weeks earlier, Rob had become convinced that rank outsider, Darren ‘Dazzler’ Gough, would win the show – not because the former cricketer could dance, but because he would appeal to the Strictly audience demographic at the time. And when Bruce Forsyth revealed the results of the final public vote, Rob’s 25-1 punt earned him a £500 win. It comes after a woman claimed ‘I regret marrying an older man, one part of our history has given me the ick’.

READ MORE: Brits told to never put one banned item in garden bins as you could face punishmentREAD MORE: ‘My friend is naming her baby after a fish – she can’t see how ugly it is’

He recalls: “I punched the air with delight. It had been the only bet I’d made in the entire series. It was a lightbulb moment. I realised I could probably make more money betting on reality TV shows than I scratching around for freelance work or doing the odd shift.”

So began a nail-biting, exhilarating and unexpectedly romantic journey through the strange world of ‘special’ betting, which Rob describes in his new book, The Gambler.

He would go on to gamble on everything from Eurovision and royal baby names to even when a panda in Edinburgh Zoo would give birth.

Perhaps his riskiest bet of all, though, wasn’t made in a bookmakers, but a gamble on love that took him all the way to a remote part of Russia, still not entirely sure that the woman he’d met online wasn’t an elaborate scam by a kidnapping gang.

When, months after his Gough win, he correctly bet that Chantelle Houghton would win Celebrity Big Brother, earning him close to £1,500 profit, then successfully plumped for Matt Willis to win I’m a Celebrity, Rob realised he had a special gift.

When Strictly came around again, he once again picked out the winner, another test cricketer, Mark Ramprakash, even before the series had even started.

This time he gambled £250 on odds of 16/1, taking home a tidy £4,000 when Ramps was handed the glitter ball.

READ MORE: Stage school star Sylvia Young’s savage reprimand to young Rita Ora over rule-break

Rob says it was a series of happy coincidences that turned him into a successful full-time gambler.

“I’d grown up near Newmarket, so flat racing was in my blood and I wasn’t averse to having a bet,” he says. “I was in my mid-20s, working in London on business titles, but I wasn’t enjoying it. I found the 9-5 of office life soul crushing, so decided to embark on a freelance life instead. I was a lot happier.”

Being at home also meant he could watch more television. “The early Noughties saw the advent of reality TV. I was watching the competitions and thinking, ‘I can work this out’.

“My media background helped. Just reading between the lines, knowing what the shows are trying to achieve and the power of the edit, as well as the profile of the audience who were voting, I was getting good at predicting who would end up winning.”

Rob began to spend hours researching reality show contestants and how they might be received by particular audiences.

One of Rob’s biggest jackpots was betting on Tara Palmer-Tomkinson to win Celebrity Fame Academy. He says: “Shaun Williamson, who played Barry from Eastenders, was odds on favourite. But while he could let out a song, I didn’t think he could pull heartstrings like Tara. She didn’t have a great voice, but it was really emotive watching her sing Coldplay songs at the piano.

“That’s where the skill likes, knowing what the audience is going to invest in. Those special ingredients. I found that I could identify them and know who was going to make a connection.”

He also predicted well before everyone else Jedward’s success on The X Factor.

“I knew what Simon Cowell was doing. He was being disparaging of Jedward knowing more people would vote for them to spite him. He wanted them to stay on the show.

“But the bookies were slow to catch on and always priced them very short, every week thinking they were able to get booted out.”

From TV, Rob discovered the world of ‘specials’ – novelty bets that bookies offer on everything from the Nobel Peace Prize and politics to Miss Universe and Royal baby names.

One big win was when he correctly predicted the opening and closing songs Coldplay were going to perform in the 2016 Super Bowl half-time show – and this time it wasn’t guesswork

He says: “A fellow special sleuth infiltrated some of the Coldplay online fan sites, and got the setlist from someone on there. We found out they were going to open with Yellow and end with Up&Up. When you get something like this is is absolutely gold-plated information. It ended up netting me around £1,500.”

Eurovision is a huge part of Rob’s year. He says: “It’s the biggest betting event of them all. It starts around Christmas, with the first country qualifiers. It’s five months of relentless study, every day you’ve got to be all over the news and tune in to all the qualifiers.

“One of my best wins was coming across Portugal’s Salvador Sobral, even before he was picked as the country’s entry. I found his song spellbinding. It was getting odds of 110-1 on Betfair at the time, but he went on to win. Another five-figure profit secured.”

But Rob’s biggest bet of all was when he realised that his new career in betting was leaving him a virtual recluse at home, and facing the possibility of never finding a lifelong partner – so decided to join a dating site for Western men interested in Eastern European women.

Some were clearly sophisticated scams, which made Rob’s decision to go and meet one woman, Anya, in a provincial part of Russia, even riskier.

Rob says: “This was something with more jeopardy than anything else I’d bet on so far, with an unpredictability I couldn’t control or outsmart.

“I applied my gambler’s mindset and thought, nothing ventured, nothing gained, let’s go for it. What’s the worst that could happen?”

Like many of his other wacky bets, this one paid off too, turning into a rollercoaster love affair that ended happily ever after.

Now happily married, Rob and Anya’s against-the-odds, long-distance romance ended up being the most enthralling story of his book, The Gambler.

“I’d like to think the book is an irreverent and laugh-out-loud funny look at risk, romance and what happens when you bet on love,” Rob says. “I hope it comes across as an authentic and honest portrayal and challenges the reader to think about what they are prepared to gamble on in life, and what matters most.”

• The Gambler by Rob Furber, published by Mirror Books (£9.99), is on sale now from Amazon and all good bookshops.

HISTORY fans should keep their phones close for a special TV series that will air with extra augmented reality tonight.

7 Wonders of the Ancient World will transport viewers with a simple QR code each episode to scan for virtual and immersive experiences delivered by Snapchat.

1

People will be able to “explore” world-famous ancient sites across the Mediterranean and Middle East from the comfort of their living room.

This includes the Great Pyramid of Giza, the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and the Statue of Zeus at Olympia.

The show is hosted by renowned historian Bettany Hughes.

“The past is a living place, a place that’s relevant to all of us,” she said.

“Using this meticulously researched augmented reality allows viewers at home to explore right inside these ancient wonders.

“It’s an immersive experience that we hope will bring the past to life for millions.”

The three-part series launches on 5 tonight at 6.30pm.

Having extended most of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and added even more tax breaks, Congress is once again punting on the central fiscal question of our time: What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for?

Yes, the Big Beautiful Bill avoided a massive tax increase and includes pro-growth reforms. It also adds to the debt — by how much is debatable — and that’s before we get to the budgetary reckoning of Social Security and Medicare’s impending insolvency. Against that backdrop, it’s infuriating to see a $9-billion rescission package — one drop in the deficit bucket — met with cries of bloody murder.

The same can be said of the apocalyptic discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill’s reduction in Medicaid spending. In spite of the cuts, the program is projected to grow drastically over the next 10 years. In fact, the reforms barely scratch the surface considering its enormous growth under President Biden.

Maybe we wouldn’t keep operating this way — pretending like minor trims are major reforms while refusing to tackle demographic and entitlement time bombs ticking beneath our feet — if we stayed focused on the question of what, considering the cost, we’re willing to pay for.

Otherwise, it’s too easy to continue committing a generational injustice toward our children and grandchildren. That’s because all the benefits and subsidies that we’re unwilling to pay for will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation or both. That’s morally and economically reprehensible.

Admitting we have a problem is hard. Fixing it is even harder, especially when politicians obscure costs and fail to recognize the following realities.

First, growing the economy can, of course, be part of the solution. It creates more and better opportunities, raising incomes and tax revenue without raising tax rates — the rising tide that can lift many fiscal boats. But when we’re this far underwater, short of a miracle produced by an energy and artificial intelligence revolution, growth alone simply won’t be enough.

Raising taxes on the rich will fall short, too. Despite another round of loud calls to do so, like those now emanating from the New York City mayoral campaign, remember: The federal tax code is already highly progressive.

Here’s something else that should be common knowledge: Higher tax rates do not automatically translate to more tax revenue. Not even close. Federal revenues have consistently hovered around 17% to 18% of GDP for more than 50 years — through periods of high tax rates, low tax rates and every combination of deductions, exemptions and credits in between.

This remarkable stability is no fluke. It reflects a basic reality of human behavior: When tax rates go up, people don’t simply continue what they’ve been doing and hand over more money. They work less, take compensation in non-taxable forms, delay selling assets, move to lower-tax jurisdictions or increase tax-avoidance strategies.

Meanwhile, higher rates reduce incentives to invest, hire, and create or expand businesses, slowing growth and undermining the very revenue gains legislators expect. It’s why economic literature shows that fiscal-adjustment packages made mostly of tax increases usually fail to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Real-world responses mean that higher tax rates rarely generate what static models predict as we bear the costs of less work, less innovation and less productivity leading to fewer opportunities for everyone, rich or poor.

If the underlying structure of the system doesn’t change, no amount of rate fiddling will sustainably result in more than 17-18% in tax collections.

Political dynamics guarantee further disappointment. When Congress raises taxes on one group, it often turns around and cuts taxes elsewhere to offset the backlash. Then, when the government does manage to collect extra revenue — through windfall-profits taxes, inflation causing taxpayers to creep into higher brackets, or a booming economy — that money rarely goes toward deficit reduction. It gets spent, and then some.

It’s long past time to shift the conversation away from whether tax cuts should be “paid for.” Instead, ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have.

I suspect that most people aren’t willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does, and that more would feel this way if they understood our tax-collection limitations. That points toward the need to cut spending on, among other things, corporate welfare, economically distorting subsidies, flashy infrastructure gimmicks, and Social Security and Medicare.

Until we align Congress’ promises with what we’re willing and able to fund, we’ll continue down this dangerous path of illusion, denial, and intergenerational theft — as we cope with economic decline.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.

Bonnie Blue insists she is happy but there is a cost to her fame and she does not live a normal life

Bonnie Blue has made millions from porn, inviting multiple fans to have sex with her and posting film of what some people would call orgies, but she calls “events”, online.

Her biggest event was in January, when she had sex with 1,057 men in 12 hours, the inspiration for the title of a new Channel 4 documentary, 1,000 Men and Me: The Bonnie Blue Story.

At a screening of the documentary, Bonnie insisted she was “very happy” with her life. But her notoriety, and her boasts of sex with married men, who, she says, should not feel guilty about cheating on their wives, come at a price.

In the film, Bonnie, a 26-year-old former NHS recruitment worker from Derbyshire, whose real name is Tia Billinger, says: “The last time I went out by myself was probably about six months ago. Now it is not that safe.

“I get 100s of death threats a day, so it is not that safe when I walk around.

“I say, ‘It is going to happen at some point, someone will come and give me stick’ and fair play to her, at least they are getting up off their sofa. My worst one is acid, if someone did acid, and I could see some spiteful girl doing that.”

READ MORE: ‘I saw real Bonnie Blue behind closed doors – there’s one dark truth people don’t see’

Bonnie has split from her husband and her closest friends seem to be Josh, who posts her videos, and a stylist. She says: “My sort of circles got smaller, but my team are also my best friends.”

Director Victoria Silver followed Bonnie for six months, gathering footage of her having sex, and was at her January marathon for a couple of hours.

At the documentary screening, Bonnie expressed surprise at the amount of explicit footage used. Asked if she was expecting complaints, Victoria said: “If I was making a film about a musician or some kind of other performer their work would be in there. I think it is important to see what she does.”

And Bonnie is clearly proud of her work. Of her sex marathon, she says: “I love the fact that I was able to experience that day with over 1,000 subscribers, fans, people that spent time out of the day to come meet me.

“But, yeah, I also need money to be able to take time out of my days to be able to do that, to hold these events. These events aren’t cheap by the time you pay for staff, security, the venue.”

But she says she has earned more than £1million in some months, and the documentary shows the increasingly extreme lengths she will go to for clicks and views.

In one stunt, she creates a school classroom for a sex show, with other, younger, contributors taking part after being sent invites.

The director’s voiceover says they are not paid but “appearing in their socials with Bonnie is payment enough”.

At the shoot in Birmingham, one girl called Codie says: “She got quite big quite fast, so it will be nice to see how she does things. No, I am not being paid today, it’d just be that I get tagged and then hopefully get followers and subs from that and then roll on to my page.”

She admits she does not normally do anything “adventurous” on her OnlyFans page and that this is the first time she has taken part in filmed group sex. She adds that making sex films is better than having to do an office job.

Another contributor, Leah, says: “I got a DM to see if I wanted to take part. As soon as I heard Bonnie Blue’s name I was intrigued because she’s everywhere at the minute.”

Leah says this is the first time she has been with other people in a room having sex and she is “definitely” nervous.

But Bonnie does not seem bothered or concerned by the fact the girls look a bit shy and intimidated. Bonnie says: “The fact they are so nervous works in my favour, because their reactions will be more realistic. Or if they feel intimidated, obviously, I want them to say, but sometimes sex is intimidating, so it’s going to be good.”

Another scene shows Bonnie at home with mum Sarah, who speaks with pride about how her daughter was a great dancer as a child.

She also seems proud of her career as a porn star. She says: “Would it be something that I chose for her to do, no. I was really, really shocked, but now would I want her to do anything else? No, not at all. It’s her choice.”

Sarah and other relatives have given up their jobs to be on Bonnie’s payroll.

Sarah says: “People I know always liked us both, but think it’s OK to make nasty comments.

“Most of the time I just laugh. I’m like, ‘If you could earn a million pounds in a month, your morals would soon change, and you’d get your bits out’. I don’t care what people say.”

Bonnie says: “My family started to put up with hate, I get that, but I also get the life I live and the money. So it’s like I also want them to receive some of the rewards.”

The documentary ends as Bonnie is about to head to Romania to meet influencer Andrew Tate, who is facing rape and human trafficking charges, which he denies, and is a self proclaimed misogynist. Bonnie says: “He’s probably just as controversial as I am. Whether people love him or hate him, he’s a marketing genius.”

Director Victoria asks her: “You talk about female empowerment, but how do you square that with aligning yourself with the most misogynistic male on the internet?”

Bonnie says: “Piers Morgan interviews serial killers all the time. It’s not messed up his brand. He [Tate] has been labelled multiple things by the media, and so have I. We’re probably the two most misunderstood people out there at the moment.”

Channel 4 defended the documentary, telling the Mirror: “The explicit content is editorially justified and provides essential context.”

And at the screening, commissioning editor Tim Hancock said: “We are very proud to do films like this.”

* 1000 Men and Me: The Bonnie Blue Story, Channel 4, Tuesday, 10pm.

Sharon Osbourne said Ozzy, her husband of 43 years, died “surrounded by love” on Tuesday following a journey with Parkinson’s disease, which affectsthe central nervous system

A fiery throwback clip of Sharon Osbourne protecting her husband Ozzy is going viral following the rock icon’s death.

Fans have praised Sharon’s loyalty as, in the clip, the mum of three hits back at Megan Hauserman, then a contestant on Rock of Love: Charm School, who had insulted Ozzy. Megan had said: “The only thing you’ve managed to do as a celebrity is to watch your husband’s brain turn into a vegetable.”

But Sharon turned to the audience and said: “I feel so sorry for her,” before standing up, calmly taking a sip from her cup — and then hurling the rest of the drink in Megan’s face. The explosive exchange happened during the 2008 series of Sharon’s show, which saw contestants compete to develop proper etiquette in order to win $100,000 (£73,000).

Megan, a model and actress, was eliminated in episode four of her series, shortly after the showdown with Sharon, then aged 56 and a household name in the music and TV industries in the US and the UK. She told her audience: “They can f*** with me… I don’t give a sh** — but not my family.”

READ MORE: Ozzy Osbourne insider lifts the lid on why ‘we just fell in love with’ the family

Security scrambled on the stage as tensions escalated on the VH1 programme. Following the feisty confrontation, Megan sued Sharon for battery and distress, while Sharon countersued, saying the reality star had assumed the risk and broken their TV agreement by suing. The case quietly settled in 2011 for an undisclosed six-figure sum.

Since then, Megan, 43, has starred in her own short-lived, infamous dating show: Megan Wants a Millionaire. It was axed during the first – and last – season with just three episodes airing in 2009.

Social media users took aim at Megan this week as the Rock of Love: Charm School clip re-emerged online. They also lauded Sharon’s loyalty, with one user stating: “The way she loved Ozzy is something not common… She really, REALLY loved her husband.” Another posted: “Ozzy was so blessed to have someone as loving as she was.”

A further fan posted: “Ozzy was the king of metal, but she was the queen. Never attack royalty.” Another comment reads: “GO Sharon. She doesn’t play when it comes to her man.”

And music manager Sharon, 72, expressed her heartbreak at Ozzy’s passing this week. The TV personality, who has been a judge on The X Factor, said in a family statement: “It is with more sadness than mere words can convey that we have to report that our beloved Ozzy Osbourne has passed away this morning. He was with his family and surrounded by love. We ask everyone to respect our family privacy at this time.”

She married Ozzy in Hawaii, US, in July 1982 and went on to have three children; Jack, Kelly, Aimee, with the music legend. The family’s light-hearted reality TV series, The Osbournes, was a huge hit and ran for three seasons between 2002 and 2005. Ozzy died on Tuesday “surrounded by love” following a battle with Parkinson’s disease.

On Sunday, our thoughtful and reserved president reposted on his Truth Social site a video generated by artificial intelligence that falsely showed former President Obama being arrested and imprisoned.

There are those among you who think this is high humor; those among you who who find it as tiresome as it is offensive; and those among you blissfully unaware of the mental morass that is Truth Social.

Whatever camp you fall into, the video crosses all demographics by being expected — just another crazy Trump stunt in a repetitive cycle of division and diversion so frequent it makes Groundhog Day seem fresh. Epstein who?

But there are three reasons why this particular video — not made by the president but amplified to thousands — is worth noting, and maybe even worth fearing.

First, it is flat-out racist. In it, Obama is ripped out of a chair in the Oval Office and forced onto his knees, almost bowing, to a laughing Trump. That imagery isn’t hard to interpret: America’s most esteemed Black man — who recently warned we are on the brink of losing democracy — forced into submission before our leader.

The video comes as Trump claims that Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence, has uncovered a “treasonous conspiracy in 2016” in which top Obama officials colluded with Russia to disrupt the election. Democrats say the claim is erroneous at best.

If you are inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, right before this scene of Obama forced to kneel, a meme of Pepe the Frog — an iconic image of the far-right and white supremacy — flashes on the screen.

Not subtle. But also, not the first time racism has come straight from the White House. On Monday, the Rev. Amos Brown, pastor of San Francisco’s Third Baptist Church and a student of Martin Luther King Jr., reminded me that not too long ago, then-President Woodrow Wilson screened the pro-KKK film “The Birth of a Nation” at the executive mansion. It was the first film screening ever held there, and its anti-Black viewpoint sparked controversy and protests.

That was due in no small part to a truth that Hollywood knows well — fiction has great power to sway minds. Brown sees direct similarities in how Wilson amplified fictional anti-Blackness then, and how Trump is doing so now, both for political gain.

“Mr. Trump should realize that Obama hasn’t done anything to him. But just the idea, the thought of a Black person being human, is a threat to him and his supporters,” Brown told me.

Brown said he’s praying for the president to “stop this bigotry” and see the error of his ways. I’ll pray the great gods give the reverend good luck on that.

But, on the earthly plane, Brown said that “the more things change, the more they remain the same.”

Trump courted the Black vote and has his supporters among people of all colors and ethnicities, but he’s also played on racist tropes for political success, from stoking fear around the Central Park Five, now known as the Exonerated Five, decades ago to stoking fear around Black immigrants eating cats and dogs in Ohio during the recent election. It’s an old playbook, because it works.

Reposting the image of Obama on his knees is scary because it’s a harsh reminder that racism is no longer an undercurrent in our society, if it ever was. It’s a motivator and a power to be openly wielded — just the way Wilson did back in 1915.

But the differences in media from back in the day to now are what should raise our second fear around this video. A fictional film is one thing. An AI-generated video that for many people seems to depict reality is a whole new level of, well, reality.

The fear of deepfakes in politics is not new. It’s a global problem, and in fairness, this isn’t the first time (by far) Trump or other politicians have used deepfakes.

Trump last year reposted an image of Taylor Swift endorsing him (which never happened). Also last year, during the election and the height of the Elon Musk-Trump bromance, the billionaire posted a fake photo of political challenger Kamala Harris dressed in what looked like a communist military uniform.

Trump himself has not been immune. In 2023, Eliot Higgins, the founder of the investigative outlet Bellingcat, said he was toying with an AI tool and created images of Trump being arrested, never thinking it would go viral (especially since one image gave Trump three legs).

Of course it did, and millions of people looked at these fake pictures, at least some assuming they were real.

The list of deepfake political examples is long and ominous. Which brings us to the third reason Trump’s latest use of one is unsettling.

He clearly sees the effectiveness of manipulating race and reality to increase his own power and further his own agenda.

Obama on his knees strikes a chord all too close to the image of Latino Sen. Alex Padilla being taken to the floor by federal authorities a few weeks ago during a news conference. It bears chilling resemblance to the thousands of images flooding us daily of immigrants being taken down and detained by immigration officers in often violent fashion.

Videos like this one of Obama are the normalizing, the mockery, the celebration of the erosion of civil rights and violence we are currently seeing being aimed at Black, brown and vulnerable Americans.

There is nothing innocent or unplanned about these kinds of videos. They are a political weapon being used for a purpose.

Because when repetition dulls our shock of them, how long before we are no longer shocked by real images of real arrests?

Ari Aster’s “Eddington” is such a superb social satire about contemporary America that I want to bury it in the desert for 20 years. More distance will make it easier to laugh.

It’s a modern western set in New Mexico — Aster’s home state — where trash blows like tumbleweeds as Sheriff Joe Cross (Joaquin Phoenix) stalks across the street to confront Eddington’s mayor, Ted Garcia (Pedro Pascal), whom he is campaigning to unseat. It’s May of 2020, that hot and twitchy early stretch of the COVID pandemic when reality seemed to disintegrate, and Joe is ticked off about the new mask mandate. He has asthma, and he can’t understand anyone who has their mouth covered.

Joe and Ted have old bad blood between them that’s flowed down from Joe’s fragile wife Louise, a.k.a. Rabbit (Emma Stone), a stunted woman-child who stubbornly paints creepy dolls, and his mother-in-law Dawn (Deirdre O’Connell), a raving conspiracist who believes the Titanic sinking was no accident. Dawn is jazzed to decode the cause of this global shutdown; there’s comfort in believing everything happens for a reason. Her mania proves contagious.

Bad things are happening in Eddington and have been for decades, not just broken shop windows. Joe wears a white hat and clearly considers himself the story’s hero, although he’s not up to the job. If you squint real hard, you can see his perspective that he’s a champion for the underdog. Joe gets his guts in a twist when a maskless elder is kicked out of the local grocery store as the other shoppers applaud. “Public shaming,” Joe spits.

“There’s no COVID in Eddington,” Joe claims in his candidacy announcement video, urging his fellow citizens that “we need to free our hearts.” His earnestness is comic and sweet and dangerous. You can hear every fact he’s leaving out. His rival’s commercials promote a fantastical utopia where Ted is playing piano on the sidewalk and elbow-bumping more Black people in 15 seconds than we see in the rest of the movie. Ted also swears that permitting a tech behemoth named SolidGoldMagikarp to build a controversial giant data center on the outskirts of the county won’t suck precious resources — it’ll transform this nowheresville into a hub for jobs. Elections are a measure of public opinion: Which fibber would you trust?

Danger is coming and like in “High Noon,” this uneasy town will tear itself apart before it arrives. Aster is so good at scrupulously capturing the tiny, fearful COVID behaviors we’ve done our best to forget that it’s a shame (and a relief) that the script isn’t really about the epidemic. Another disease has infected Eddington: Social media has made everyone brain sick.

The film is teeming with viral headlines — serious, frivolous or false — jumbled together on computer screens screaming for attention in the same all-caps font. (Remember the collective decision that no one had the bandwidth to care about murder hornets?) Influencers and phonies and maybe even the occasional real journalist prattle on in the backgrounds of scenes telling people what to think and do, often making things worse. Joe loves his wife dearly. We see him privately watching a YouTuber explain how he can convince droopy Louise to have children. Alas, he spends his nights in their marital bed chastely doomscrolling.

Every character in “Eddington” is lonely and looking for connection. One person’s humiliating nadir comes during a painful tracking shot at an outdoor party where they’re shunned like they have the plague. Phones dominate their interactions: The camera is always there in somebody’s hand, live streaming or recording, flattening life into a reality show and every conversation into a performance.

The script expands to include Joe’s deputies, aggro Guy (Luke Grimes) and Bitcoin-obsessed Michael (Micheal Ward), plus a cop from the neighboring tribal reservation, Officer Butterfly Jimenez (William Belleau) and a handful of bored, identity-seeking teens. They’ll all wind up at odds even though they’re united by the shared need to be correct, to have purpose, to belong. When George Floyd is killed six states away, these young do-gooders rush into the streets, excited to have a reason to get together and yell. The protesters aren’t insincere about the cause. But it’s head-scrambling to watch blonde Sarah (Amélie Hoeferle) lecture her ex-boyfriend Michael, who is Black and a cop, about how he should feel. Meanwhile Brian (Cameron Mann), who is white and one of the most fascinating characters to track, is so desperate for Sarah’s attention that he delivers a hilarious slogan-addled meltdown: “My job is to sit down and listen! As soon as I finish this speech! Which I have no right to make!”

The words come fast and furious and flummoxing. Aster has crowded more pointed zingers and visual gags into each scene than our eyes can take in. His dialogue is laden with vile innuendos — “deep state,” “sexual predator,” “antifa” — and can feel like getting pummeled. When a smooth-talking guru named Vernon (Austin Butler) slithers into the plot, he regales Joe’s family with an incredulous tale of persecution that, as he admits, “sounds insane just to hear coming out of my mouth.” Well, yeah. Aster wants us to feel exhausted sorting fact from fiction.

The verbal barrage builds to a scene in which Joe and Dawn sputter nonsense at each other in a cross-talking non-conversation where both sound like they’re high on cocaine. They are, quite literally, internet junkies.

This is the bleakest of black humor. There’s even an actual dumpster fire. Aster’s breakout debut, “Hereditary,” gave him an overnight pedigree as the princeling of highbrow horror films about trauma. But really, he’s a cringe comedian who exaggerates his anxieties like a tragic clown. Even in “Midsommar,” Aster’s most coherent film, his star Florence Pugh doesn’t merely cry — she howls like she could swallow the earth. It wouldn’t be surprising to hear that when Aster catches himself getting maudlin, he forces himself to actively wallow in self-pity until it feels like a joke. Making the tragic ridiculous is a useful tool. (I once got through a breakup by watching “The Notebook” on repeat.)

With “Beau Is Afraid,” Aster’s previous film with Phoenix, focusing that approach on one man felt too punishing. “Eddington” is hysterical group therapy. I suspect that Aster knows that if we read a news article about a guy like Joe, we wouldn’t have any sympathy for him at all. Instead, Aster essentially handcuffs us to Joe’s point of view and sends us off on this tangled and bitterly funny adventure, in which rattling snakes spice up a humming, whining score by the Haxan Cloak and Daniel Pemberton.

Not every plot twist works. Joe’s sharpest pivot is so inward and incomprehensible that the film feels compelled to signpost it by having a passing driver yell, “You’re going the wrong way!” By the toxic finale, we’re certain only that Phoenix plays pathetic better than anyone these days. From “Her” to “Joker” to “Napoleon” to “Inherent Vice,” he’s constantly finding new wrinkles in his sad sacks. “Eddington’s” design teams have taken care to fill Joe’s home with dreary clutter and outfit him in sagging jeans. By contrast, Pascal’s wealthier Ted is the strutting embodiment of cowboy chic. He’s even selfishly hoarded toilet paper in his fancy adobe estate.

It’s humanistic when “Eddington” notes that everyone in town is a bit of a sinner. The problem is that they’re all eager to throw stones and point out what the others are doing wrong to get a quick fix of moral superiority. So many yellow cards get stacked up against everyone that you come to accept that we’re all flawed, but most of us are doing our best.

Joe isn’t going to make Eddington great again. He never has a handle on any of the conspiracies, and when he grabs a machine gun, he’s got no aim. Aster’s feistiest move is that he refuses to reveal the truth. When you step back at the end to take in the full landscape, you can put most of the story together. (Watch “Eddington” once, talk it out over margaritas and then watch it again.) Aster makes the viewer say their theories out loud afterwards, and when you do, you sound just as unhinged as everyone else in the movie. I dig that kind of culpability: a film that doesn’t point sanctimonious fingers but insists we’re all to blame.

But there are winners and losers and winners who feel like losers and schemers who get away with their misdeeds scot-free. Five years after the events of this movie, we’re still standing in the ashes of the aggrieved. But at least if we’re cackling at ourselves together in the theater, we’re less alone.

President Ronald Reagan’s aides became accustomed to figuring out things for themselves, for he managed by indirection when he managed at all. Aides who had worked for more directive presidents found this disconcerting.

“He made no demands, and gave almost no instructions,” said Martin Anderson, a veteran of the Nixon Administration. Anderson thought Reagan’s management style odd but rationalized that it was “a small thing, an eccentricity that was dwarfed by his multiple, stunning qualities.”

And yet Anderson was bothered more by this “small thing” than he let on in his useful book “Revolution,” or maybe even more than he realized. It was Anderson who told me that when he returned to the campaign in 1980, after a long absence, he was not quite sure if Reagan realized he had ever been away. Others less self-secure than Anderson or less convinced of Reagan’s greatness were bothered even more by the way their leader distanced himself.

By keeping his emotional distance from the lives and struggles of his subordinates, Reagan was less affected by what happened to them than were presidents with closer relationships. It did not matter all that much to him who was in the supporting cast. Actors came and went in Washington as they had done in Hollywood and Sacramento, without altering his purposes or changing his conception of himself. Reagan remained serene in the center of his universe, awaiting his next performance.

While his distancing of himself from others may have been useful or even necessary for Reagan, it took a heavy toll among the entourage. Principal members of the Reagan team were misled by his manner or misled themselves into an expectation of friendship. They competed to be Reagan’s favorite person.

“Here he was, enormously successful in things that he had done, very confident, comfortable with himself, and a very likable man,” said White House aide Robert B. Sims. “And he had these other people who were mature adults, most of them successful in their own right–the George Shultzes, the Caspar Weinbergers, the Bill Clarks–who had done things on their own and been successful, but Reagan was always up there at a level above these advisers and they all seemed to want to get his favor.” Reagan did not consciously play these subordinates off against one another, as Franklin D. Roosevelt might have done. Instead, he bestowed approval in a general sense on all “the fellas” or “the boys,” as he was wont to describe his inner circle, while withholding his approval from any one of them in particular.

Republican congressional leaders found Reagan uninterested in political strategy, although he was always willing to place a call to a wavering congressman if provided with the script of what he ought to say.

What animated Reagan was a public performance. He knew how to edit a script and measure an audience. He also knew that the screenplay of his presidency, however complicated it became on the margins, was rooted in the fundamental themes of lower taxes, deregulation and “peace through strength” that he had expounded in the anti-government speech he had given in 1964 for Republican presidential candidate Barry M. Goldwater.

The Speech was his bible, and Reagan never tired of giving it. Its themes and Reagan’s approach to government were, as his friend William F. Buckley put it, “inherently anti-statist.”

But on other issues, especially when the discussion was over his head, Reagan’s participation was usually limited to jokes and cinematic illustrations. This is not surprising, as Reagan spent more time at the movies during his presidency than at anything else.

He went to Camp David on 183 weekends, usually watching two films on each of these trips. He saw movies in the White House family theater, on television in the family quarters and in the villas and lavish guest quarters accorded presidents when they travel.

On the afternoon before the 1983 economic summit of the world’s industrialized democracies in colonial Williamsburg, White House Chief of Staff James A. Baker III stopped off at Providence Hall, where the Reagans were staying, bringing with him a thick briefing book on the upcoming meetings. Baker, then on his way to a tennis game, had carefully checked through the book to see that it contained everything Reagan needed to know without going into too much detail. He was concerned about Reagan’s performance at the summit, which had attracted hundreds of journalists from around the world and been advertised in advance by the White House as an Administration triumph.

But when Baker returned to Providence Hall the next morning, he found the briefing book unopened on the table where he had deposited it. He knew immediately that Reagan hadn’t even glanced at it, and he couldn’t believe it. In an hour Reagan would be presiding over the first meeting of the economic summit, the only one held in the United States during his presidency. Uncharacteristically, Baker asked Reagan why he hadn’t cracked the briefing book, “Well, Jim, ‘The Sound of Music’ was on last night,” Reagan said calmly.

Nonetheless, Reagan’s charm and cue cards carried him through the summit without incident. By the third year of his presidency the leaders of the democracies were also growing accustomed to Reagan’s anecdotes and to his cheerful sermons about the wonders of the market system and lower taxes. They were awed at what they saw as his hold on the American people.

In the halcyon days of his presidency, Reagan seemed to have no need of briefing books. And even on those occasions when he read them, he was more apt to find solutions in the movies he watched religiously each weekend.

Sometimes the movies and the briefing books pointed in the same direction. By mid-1983, the U.S. and Soviet governments were beginning to emerge from the mutual acrimony that prevailed between them since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in Christmas week of 1979. Guided by Reagan’s impulses and George P. Shultz’s diplomacy, the U.S. government was beginning to explore what would ultimately become, after the ascension of Mikhail S. Gorbachev, a more optimistic and productive era in U.S.-Soviet relations.

But arms-control enthusiasts on Capitol Hill were skeptical about Reagan’s intentions toward the nation he had called “the evil empire.” The Administration had been able to persuade a swing group of moderate Democrats to join with Republicans in supporting limited deployment of the MX missile only after Reagan pledged that he would also diligently pursue arms-control opportunities.

On the first weekend in June, 1983, while Democratic support for the MX remained much in question, Reagan went to Camp David with a briefcase full of option papers on arms control. He made a few personal phone calls, scanned the material in the folders and put them aside. After dinner, Reagan was in the mood for a movie, as he usually was on Saturday night. The film that evening was “War Games,” in which Matthew Broderick stars as a teen-age computer whiz who accidentally accesses the North American Aerospace Defense Command–NORAD–and almost launches World War III. It was an entertaining anti-war film with a clear message, intoned in the movie by an advanced computer: The only way to win the “game” of thermonuclear war is not to play it.

Two days later, Reagan met at the White House with several Democratic congressmen who had backed the MX in exchange for the President’s arms-control commitment. He began the meeting by reading from cue cards tailored to congressional concerns. “I just can’t believe that if the Soviets think long and hard about the arms race, they won’t be interested in getting a sensible agreement,” Reagan said.

Then he put the cue cards aside and his face lit up. He asked the congressmen if any of them had seen “War Games,” and when no one volunteered an answer launched into an animated account of the plot. The congressmen were fascinated with Reagan’s change of mood and his obvious interest in the film. He said, “I don’t understand these computers very well, but this young man obviously did. He had tied into NORAD!”

Helen George swaps the world of showbiz for literal shark-infested waters in ITV’s new reality show, while Channel 4’s The Couple Next Door returns with a steamy new story

Call the Midwife star Helen George is just one of the celebs who’ll be coming face-to-face with one of the sea’s deadliest beasts in ITV’s new reality show Shark! Celebrty Infested Waters tonight.

Proving just how far celebrities will go to stay on the telly, this new reality format sends seven famous faces into shark-filled waters near the Bahamas. 50 years after Jaws became a phenomenon at the cinema, the likes of actor Lenny Henry, comedian Ross Noble and McFly’s Dougie Poynter have signed up for a stomach-churning sequence of dives, where they will encounter various species of shark, getting more perilous each time.

Although Countdown’s Rachel Riley is excited for the challenge, most of the celebs look like they want to fire their agents, with Call the Midwife star Helen George declaring she’s terrified of the sea, and Motherland actor Lucy Punch hilariously dismissing the apex predators as ‘savage tubes of teeth.’

There’s a sobering start to the experience, as they meet their guides, including Paul, a former Aussie serviceman who lost his hand and leg to a ten-foot bull shark in a training exercise, but now campaigns for shark conservation.

Acutely aware of the dangers they face, they prepare for their first dive, but with Helen and Lenny both struggling with traumatic childhood memories of swimming pools, just getting underwater is a challenge. Soon, they’re stepping into a cage suspended in the ocean, surrounded by bull sharks, whose every move makes them shake. And it’s only going to get scarier from here. The experts hope the celebs will go home with a new respect – and even affection – for the villains of the sea, but that feels rather optimistic at this point…

Shark! Celebrity Infested Waters begins tonight at 9pm on ITV1 and ITVX.

The Best of the Rest

Michael Mosley: Secrets Of The Superagers, Channel 4, 8pm

If throwing yourself out of a plane is the secret to a better memory, some of us would prefer to just be forgetful… In this eye-opening series, the late Dr Michael Mosley meets inspiring people, who are bucking the trends of ageing. 70-year old Dane is a keen skydiver, whose mind is impressively sharp.

Indeed, the science shows that his time at high altitude has helped promote blood flow to his brain, giving him higher cognitive function. You don’t have to be a daredevil to age well though, as Michael explores the theory that learning new things can ward off dementia. Small children’s brains expand as they pick up new skills, so a group of volunteers test the theory that mastering new hobbies simultaneously can stop your brain shrinking.

After a year of learning Spanish and taking art classes, the stunning results of this experiment will have you googling evening classes in your area.

The Couple Next Door, Channel 4, 9pm

This steamy relationship drama returns to the same posh cul de sac, but with a new couple at the heart of the story. Surgeon Charlotte (The Split’s Anabel Scholey) and anaesthetist Jacob (Nashville’s Sam Palladio) work at the same hospital, and their marriage is a happy one. That is until enigmatic new nurse Mia turns up for her first shift.

Immediately overstepping the mark with her colleagues, she makes quite the impression. Later, Charlotte is stunned when Mia moves into the house next door, and she can’t stop thinking about her. How can she afford a huge family home on her own, on a nurse’s salary, and why is she so keen to make friends with resident creep, Alan (Hugh Dennis)?

Meanwhile, Charlotte’s ex, Leo, is back on the scene, as family circumstances force him to return to the hospital. Jacob is unsettled by his return, and turns down a tantalising prospect of promotion to avoid him.

EastEnders, BBC1, 7.30pm

Lauren is surprised to see Oscar again. After shock revelations, she learns where he has been all this time, and begrudgingly agrees to let him stay with her. It’s a decision she may soon regret…

Lexi asks Nigel about his wedding day. Jay is saddened that Nigel is no longer in touch with Julie, and starts looking for her online. Phil warns Jay not to interfere, but he won’t listen.

Linda tells Kat that it’s time for her to sell The Vic?

Emmerdale, ITV, 7.30pm

Kim is blissfully unaware that Dr Crowley is planning to take her to the cleaners. But Joe knows exactly what he’s up to, and arranges to confront him.

Charity desperately wants to help Sarah and tries to persuade Vic to offer to be her surrogate. Vic seems uncomfortable, despite Charity’s pleas. Charity and Cain are on the same page as they keep all options open.

It’s a big day for Lewis as he launches his new menu at the café.

Coronation Street, ITV, 8pm

Mick is growing restless in his cell, worrying about his kids. As he forms a plan, Brody looks for Joanie and Shanice, but Joanie is at Weatherfield High for a taster day. Mick breaks out of prison and heads straight to the school, not knowing that Sally has picked Joanie up early. He follows them back to the Street, with Kit in pursuit.

Meanwhile, Kevin plays for time, telling Tyrone he’ll come clean to Abi about his health after their weekend away.

Join The Mirror’s WhatsApp Community or follow us on Google News , Flipboard , Apple News, TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads – or visit The Mirror homepage.