So no acknowledgement of the fact that your questions are answered even before the paywall? The conferences (and organizers thereof) listed also include International Society for Research on Aggression (ISRA), the International Conference on Comparative Cognition, and then the article goes on to add
"The International Association of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has cancelled its conference, originally planned for August 2025 in Nashville, Tennessee, because cuts to federal funding meant it was “no longer financially viable”. The 2026 Cities on Volcanoes conference in Bend, Oregon, has been postponed to 2030 or 2032. The International X-ray Absorption Society cancelled its upcoming 19th conference in Chicago, Illinois, which was scheduled for July this year. “
Your argument that there is an agenda is not compelling.
Yes there are a couple of examples closer to the bottom. I admit to getting stuck in the fluff.
FWIW e.g. the IACBT conference was cancelled more than 2 months ago. 2026 Cities on Volcanoes (COV13) was cancelled almost 3 months ago. Having that information would also have been helpful.
EDIT: I misread the cancellation date of the COV event, it was last month and not 3 months ago. I still want to know and it wasn't mentioned.
I spent quite a bit of time trying to look for more data to see if something makes me change my mind. I looked at how many conferences are happening in the US. I looked at the agenda to see how many foreign speakers participated. I tried to use AI to help me spot trends.
So far I'm still ok with my initial judgement that the story serves an agenda and is not real news. Or if it's news then it's low quality/poor journalistic excuse for news. Real news should give the facts, it should give the relevant background, it should do so in a way that attempts to be as unbiased as possible, not push a view point, and it should provide enough information that intelligent readers can make up their minds based on evidence. The opposite of news is coming in with an agenda or a thesis and then cherry picking things to support your viewpoint while not providing any information that can serve to falsify your viewpoint.
Maybe if I saw the article in its entirety I'd change my mind, but I doubt it. It seems the journal has an editorial position/agenda here and is seeking to drive that forward. The journal has run many "news" articles on these topics which this article prominently links to:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00859-w "‘Anxiety is palpable’: detention of researchers at US border spurs travel worries" (also worth noting that afaik those "detentions" didn't happen, people were refused entry)
This also doesn't mean that the assertion is false. I don't have enough data to say one way or the other. It is possible that many people are worried to travel to the US. Maybe they're Nature readers. So it is possible that many conferences are cancelled and moved and that is significant. But this is still a political opinion piece and not a news story.
> From the article would you say the author is a supporter of US Republicans and Trump or not?
Having a stance is not disqualifying, or else there wouldn't be anyone left to do journalism. "Agenda" has uselessly become code for "I don't like what I'm reading."
Analysis has always been a part of journalism, that's not a new or subtle point, nothing is new about this, I don't understand where this sentiment would come from other than being offended by the words you're seeing.
Everyone has some sort of stance. There's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is masquerading as "news" while pushing your world view. Creating a narrative and manipulating the reader's emotion is not reporting news. If you have a position as a journalist the honest thing is also to disclose that position.
News should be objective or as objective as possible. This is what happened. Report on that. This article could have been rewritten along those lines/principles:
- Report/lead with what actually happened. (these conferences/these dates/information about the conferences/their decisions)
- You can interview the organizers and quote them.
- Ideally you give a broader context (e.g. yearly we have 10k meetings/conferences and these 4 have been cancelled) even if it doesn't support your narrative because that's what an educated reader needs to have to be able to form their own opionions.
An analysis is not "news". If you're analyzing some trends then make clear that's what you're doing. An opinion is also not news.
NOWCAM 2025 meeting was held in Victoria, BC, Canada, from May 8–10 on the UVic campus. I can't even find a reference to it being moved. I mean maybe it was.
