how to do a good whip speech

The public speaking workshop part 3: How to write a whip-smart speech

Posted by Susannah Taylor on November 17, 2020

In the third part of our public speaking workshop (Part 1 was ‘ Getting your mindset right ‘ and Part 2 was Pro Tips for Knockout Speech ) we’ve asked the experts for all of the tips, tricks and teachings you need for a writing a speech or presentation.

You’re due to give a speech, whether at a wedding, work meeting or Zoom conference, and as if your pre-public speaking nerves weren’t enough you’re sat in front of a blank doc with writer’s block. Sound familiar?

It may be reassuring to know that the world’s most articulate wordsmiths can struggle with this exact same keyboard paralysis when it comes to putting a speech down on paper. Speaking aloud has a different rhythm to reading words on a page and it can be all too easy to lose your audience by way of meandering anecdotes, knotty language or complicated graphs and tables that distract from the point that you’re trying to put across (making no mention of recent PowerPoint fails at UK government press briefings).

Delivering an Obama (or Kamala) level speech may indeed be an art and there’s a reason why public speakers often hire a crack team of speechwriters to spin their initial ideas and concepts into public speaking gold. Luckily you don’t need to enlist a scribe to craft a speech that’s memorable for all of the right reasons – learn the surprisingly simple speech writing secrets of those in the know and you’ll have your audience eating out of the palm of your hand. Or at the very least, listening, which really isn’t something to be taken for granted according to the experts.

Knowledge is power

Phil Waknell, co-founder of communication and presentation agency Ideas On Stage , suggests getting out of your own head as the starting point for writing a speech:

“Tailor your speech to your audience: it’s theirs, not yours. Speak to them specifically and personally, using relevant examples and stories where possible.

“If you make it clear that this isn’t the same speech you would give – or have given many times – to other audiences, they will listen more attentively and appreciate the effort that you’ve made to adapt to them.”

In essence, everyone likes to feel special, even in a virtual room of avatars. Understanding your audience, where they’re coming from and what makes them tick will play to your advantage before you’ve even begun typing.

What’s the story?

This may seem like an extremely basic starting point, but establishing the story that you’re trying to tell (or sell) from the outset is key to the eventual success of a speech. Phil explains why consistent, engaging narratives are so important:

“People forget facts and general statements, but our minds light up when we hear real, concrete stories, meaning that we listen intently and remember so much more of the detail in the stories, and therefore the speech.”

We’re not suggesting that you go in with a ‘book at bedtime’ approach, but painting a vivid picture to illustrate your point will capture your audience’s attention and imagination while improving their retention of your speech in the long term. Phil advises focusing on the “emotional journey” of a speech rather than reeling off information or stringing together logical arguments. While the latter approach works well for a written essay, even the most formal of speeches needs to centre on emotional and attention-grabbing ‘hooks. That said, ensure that your register is appropriate for the occasion…

Set the tone

Before you fall into TED Talk induced overwhelm, retired paediatrician, university lecturer and now wildlife photographer Dr Mark Hunter underlines that there are fewer ‘types’ of speech than you might imagine:

“There are three main goals when giving a speech – to entertain, to teach/inform or to persuade. There’s limited crossover between these types and even ceremonial speeches adhere to this categorisation, for example the aim of a wedding speech is to entertain while a eulogy is an education about the life of the deceased.”

With this in mind, Mark emphasises that it’s vital to establish why you’re making a speech and briefly explain your credentials for doing so to the audience too:

“Introduce yourself (it’s rude not to), explain where you’re taking the audience and justify your talk before delivering the main substance. Then end with a summary, conclusion or punchline that’ll resonate long after you’ve left the stage or pressed ‘Leave Meeting’.”

As for that punchline, Mark has a pointer on comedy:

“Tread carefully when it comes to humour. If you’re going there, make sure that any jokes are genuinely funny (road test them on a close, captive audience beforehand) and that you know your audience well. Don’t let humour distract from a serious talk.”

That’s not to say that a phenomenal finale is off the cards…

‘Sandwich’ your speech

Creating a striking entrance and exit is the distinguishing feature of a rousing speech. Just as an audience’s attention is held rapt by a suspenseful, intriguing or heartfelt story, so a powerful catchphrase or statement will live on in your audience’s memory. Malala Yousafza i’s 2013 address to the UN highlighting every child’s right to education is one such compelling close (“one child, one teacher, one pen and one book can change the world”) while Greta Thunberg ’s searing opener at the 2019 UN Climate Change Summit (“this is all wrong; I shouldn’t be up here”) had the world and its leaders hanging onto her every word from the off.

Phil affirms that how you bookend your speech makes all the difference between an attentive audience and an AWOL one:

“Aim to provoke an emotional reaction within the first 30 seconds. Grab their attention and make the audience realise that they will actively enjoy your speech as well as gain or learn something from it. Make them smile, make them laugh (if that’s appropriate), make them raise their eyebrows – just don’t make them bored.”

Go analogue

From there, Phil advocates taking a step back from Microsoft Office:

“When you’re writing a speech, don’t just reel it off verbatim in Word or PowerPoint. Begin with sticky notes or notecards and write down one salient idea per card. Assemble your ideas into a storyline that will reset the audience’s attention every few minutes.”

Mark adds that the average audience’s attention span peaks at between 15-20 minutes, so don’t try to stuff in too much – stick to three main points, max. He advises keeping props minimal (if you’re using them) and if you’re presenting slides opt for clear fonts written large and in monochrome, ideally with headings that ‘fly’ in to prevent your audience from reading ahead. Mark also urges you to construct your speech in a way that will work if tech or add-ons fail you. You don’t want to be held hostage by dodgy wifi.

Finally, if you’re still up a speech-writing creek without a paddle, heed the ultimate public speaking wisdom of former US president Franklin D. Roosevelt:

“Be sincere; be brief; be seated.”

If you like this article then you will LOVE the rest of our Personal Growth section where you can find articles on everything from ‘How to Feng Shui your Office’ to ‘How to keep relationships intact despite differing political views.’

← Older Post Newer Post →

Personal Growth

How to Feng Shui your home office

Feng Shui Master Priya Sher explains how to maximise your home office for success

Human trafficking: How to spot it and what you can do to help

There are a reported 40.3 million adults and children trafficked in the world today. Here’s why we need to act.

Lesson 7.4: Asian Parliamentary Format - Whip Speakers

Asian Parliamentary Format - Whip Speakers

Brief Notes on this Lecture

Whip speakers are the last constructive speakers in the Asian Parliamentary format. Constructive speakers are those who build up arguments and clash points in the debate. Although whip speakers don't usually present new arguments (the Opposition Whip speaker is forbidden from doing this and it's too late in the debate for any new arguments to make a huge impact anyway) they can present new rebuttals, examples, analysis and defense of arguments that have already been made. They do this by doing the following

A) Briefly summarize and defend your case

· It's important at the start of the speech to spend a minute or less to emphasize the points made by your team. This reminds the audience what the contribution of your team is and gives you a context from which to make your rebutalls and analysis. It will be easier to compare the other team's arguments to yours if you briefly summarize them first.

B) Summarize and prioritize the most important arguments or issues in the debate.

· There will be many arguments and rebuttals flying around in the debate. You need to identify the main themes or major arguments that are dominating the debate or that you feel are important. This part is really important, you cannot talk about everything that has been said so you will have to choose. Choosing ideas that are not important will make the rest of your speech redundant. Be objective when deciding what the clash points are and be fair to the other team.

C) Rebut and analyze the arguments or issues and say why your team has done better on all of them, most of them or on the most important ones

· This is the largest part of your speech. Once you have identified the major issues, go through and rebut all of them. Compare them to arguments your team has made and show why yours are better.

Don't present new arguments, but you can present new analysis, new examples, new rebuttals and give support for arguments that your teammates have already made in the debate

Watch a lecture video

Transcript of Lecture Speech

Hello hello, welcome back! It's time to talk about the 3rd speakers on both teams. And I'm also going to talk about these two guys, or girls together because their roles are very similar to each other. There are some differences, but they are very similar. So I'm gong to talk about the Government Whip (GW) and the Opposition Whip (OW) collectively.

It's important to realize (as whip) you are coming at the end of the debate, so at this part of the debate, 4 speakers or 5 speakers if you are opposition whip, would have already spoken before you. There are going to be many arguments and rebuttals and claims and counter claims and accusations and examples and analysis and all these different things. So your job in principle is to sort out this mess, is to balance these things and to tell the judges and the teams, why you have done better. More than tell them, show them why you have done better.

There are essentially 3 parts to your speech. Firstly, as a good whip you must briefly summarize and defend your case Secondly summarize and prioritize the issues and ideas in the debate, and then thirdly, analyze and rebut these issues. Let's look at them.

Firstly briefly summarize your case and your position. This helps give the judges or the audience a little bit of clarity. When you get up (to make your speech), this is the first thing (you should do) and you shouldn't take very long. If you are speaking for 7 minutes, this should be about a minute or less. You (can) say "now this is what we have done, these are our 3 arguments (or) these are our 4 arguments and these arguments are still strong and still doing well". You are giving them a brief overview of what your team has presented in this debate.

The second thing you do and this is one of the most important things, you summarize and prioritize the issues and ideas in the debate. You identifying what you think are the most important points in the debate. These are things that maybe will be questions in the minds of the audience. Things on which the debate might turn, might hinge. For example on the topic that we would ban smoking in the university campus, one of the issues may be how much harm is there from people smoking on campus. Is the harm very very real? (This is) Because the government team will try to create a lot of harm to a lot of people and the opposition team will try to reduce this harm, and say that it's really not that much harm. Or an issue could be about rights - how do we balance the rights of smokers and the rights of non-smokers? So as a whip speaker, I want to identify these things. I want to say, or you want to say, there are two issues in this debate, or there are 3 issues in the debate. Firstly the issue of harm, secondly the issue of rights, and thirdly what is the role of a university. Sometimes these can be characterized based on the arguments of the other team. Perhaps the 3 arguments they have presented, those are going to be the important issues in the debate.

Sometimes these (issues) are also presented as questions. Do people have the right to smoke? Or which is more important? And so on and so forth - you get the idea. Basically what you have to do is identify what the most important issues in the debate are. This should also not take very long.

The third thing you should do is you should rebut and analyze those issues. Now (for example) "I've identified 3 important issues, I've said the first important issue in this debate is what is the harm of second hand smoke, secondly how do we balance the rights of smokers and non-smokers (and thirdly what is the role of universities)...and in the 3rd part of my speech i should rebut and analyze those things. So since I said what is harm, I will give you reasons why the harm is very real or the harm can be reduced..", and then secondly when I talk about the rights, I will show you why our argumentation on rights is better than their argumentation of rights.

To do these things I can provide new rebuttals to arguments, I can provide new examples, I can also provide new analysis to rebuttals. What i cannot do, what I should not do as a whip speaker is provide new arguments. A new argument is an idea that has not happened in the debate before and is not a rebuttal. So if no one on my team so far has talked about, let's say cost, the economic perspective has never come up in this debate before. Then as the whip speaker I shouldn't bring that idea up. The rules of Asian Parliamentary technically allow the government whip (to bring new arguments) but specifically forbid the opposition whip from doing this. But I think it's good strategy for neither of the whip speakers to bring new arguments. You can bring a new rebuttal, so if you want to rebut the second speakers speech and third speakers speech by providing economic analysis, you can do that. A lot of it is how you make your points.

To recap, the whip speaker speaks at the end, so your job is to summarize and to clarify issues, to attract points that are still hanging, to show why your team is doing better. To that effect you should do three things; start by providing a brief summary of the arguments of your team and your case, and defend them. Then prioritize and analyze the issues of the debate - identify which you think are the most important issues in this debate. Thirdly - and this will be the bulk of your speech, analyze and rebut those issues. Tell the audience and the judges why your team did better, why the position of your team is much better for those issues, and rebut and analyze. Remember, no new arguments, but new examples and new rebuttals are okay

Good luck whip!

Whip Speeches

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

• All Insights
• Top-Rated Articles
• How-to Guides
• For Parents

Explained: The BP Debate Format

BP Debate Format, also known as British Parliamentary Debate Format , is one of the more complicated formats of Parliamentary Debate. For this reason, it is often tackled by debaters after they have mastered other formats of debating, such as World Schools Debate format or Public Forum Debate format. In this article, we will look at some of the key features of BP Debate format, and what makes BP Debate format different from other formats. In BP Debate format, there are four teams , with two debaters on each team . After the 15 minutes of prep time, each team has a specific role in the debate. The Opening Government team (or OG) have the job of starting a BP debate, giving a definition of key terms, and introducing the arguments of the Government side. This definition is important, since otherwise the teams will spend a long time arguing about what the definition of the topic may be. After the Opening Government, the Opening Opposition (or OO) will refute the main points of the OG, challenge the definition if necessary, and then present their own arguments. What makes the BP debate format unique is what comes next. After the first two teams have finished, the Closing Government and Closing Opposition will take over. Closing Government (CG) have the job of extending the arguments of Opening Government, developing them in new directions or coming up with new analysis, new examples, new refutation and more. Similarly, the role of Closing Opposition (CO) is to extend on the arguments of Opening Opposition, and provide new points to move the debate on. The final speaker of each Closing team in BP debate format is called the Whip Speaker. The job of the Whip is to summarise the main points of the debate and explain to the judge why their team has won the debate. Being a Whip isn’t easy, since you have to listen very carefully to what has happened in the debate and then summarise it accurately, while weighing your arguments against all three other teams. A good Whip is highly sought after for BP debate format! During speeches in BP debate format, debaters can offer Points of Information to their opponents. A point of information can be used as a question, or to refute the opponent. Unlike other formats of debate such as WSDC format or Public Forum Debate format, in BP debate there is no reply or summary speech. Those are some of the key elements of BP Debate format. One of the most popular debate formats in the world, it is hard to master and provides for endlessly complex, exciting debates. If you get the chance to debate in BP debate format , it is highly recommended!

Related Insights

Bp debate topics - what are they & how to prepare, free online learning event yes please., rebutting arguments - a skill every debater should master.

• 5 Prep Tips for BP
• Top Speech Introductions
• Public Speaking and Debate Competitions
• Incorporating Humor
• Logical Fallacies
• How-To: Prepare for Debate Tournaments
• How-To: Judge a Debate
• How-To: Win a BP Debate
• How-To: Win An Argument
• How-To: Improve at Home
• Team China Wins World Championship
• Ariel Wins Tournament
• Jaxon Speaks Up
• Tina Improves

• Date 2022-07-25

General Definition: The final speech for each side in a British Parliamentary debate.

• Public Forum: Not used in PF, where the final speech is called “ Final Focus “.
• World Schools Debate: Not a common phrase in WSD, where the final speech is typically called “ Reply “.
• British Parliamentary: In BP, whip speeches consist of a high-level overview of the round and summarization of key points of clash between all teams with an emphasis on the novelty and importance of your partner’s extension argument. Ideally, whip speeches are organized around two to three thematic questions, such as “which side best helps the vulnerable”.
• Canadian National Debate Format: Not used in CNDF, where the final speech is called “ Summary “.

Previous post

Weighing Mechanism

You may also like.

Debate as a tool for social advocacy

Fostering Diversity and Inclusivity in Debate Spaces

Debate Ethics in the Digital Age: Navigating Online Discourse and Civility

Debate 101: 3rd Speaker

Third speakers are probably the most responsive speakers in the entire debate.

• Post author By bdazzle
• Post date June 24, 2021
• 2 Comments on Debate 101: 3rd Speaker

Third speakers are probably the most responsive speakers in the entire debate. According to the rules of parliamentary debating, third speakers are  not allowed  to have  new matter  in their speech—that is, new arguments that change the direction of your side’s case. Hence, the third speaker’s job mainly revolves around responding to the other side, as well as  weighing up  what your team has said.

Third speakers are also called Whips, either Government Whip or Opposition Whip. (I’m not actually sure why they’re called that, but think of it as the final substantive speech to ‘whip’ or make a final attack on your opponent).

A typical speech would involve at least two Clashes.

Clash is a term for clashing assertions from both teams. Think about it as one ‘theme’ that the debate has revolved around (most debates will have more than one clash). This ‘theme’ can revolve around a specific actor, a specific benefit or a specific aspect of the debate (principle and practical).

For example: THW abolish the death penalty

• Team GOV’s assertion: Why the death penalty is morally abhorrent
• Team GOV’s assertion: Why the death penalty doesn’t solve crime (and instead wastes resources)
• Team OPP’s assertion: Why the death penalty is principally legitimate
• Team OPP’s assertion: Why the death penalty is an effective deterrent to solve crime

With the two assertions from each team, we can then formulate two clashes:

• Is the death penalty justified (principle)?
• Does the death penalty solve crime?

A decent amount of time should be dedicated to each clash. As with other aspects of debating, there’s no fixed way to do a clash, but here’s a simple structure if you’re just starting off.

• Respond to your opponent.  Why are their arguments not true? Were there gaps in logic?
• Review your case . What did your first two speakers bring? What were your opponents’ responses and why were they insufficient?
• Weigh   your material . Why were your benefits more important? Were they larger in magnitude?

Repeat the process! Find more about responses and weighing.

What do I do during casebuild?

• Help out your teammates! You have a bit of time until your speech, so don’t be afraid to be a bit more flexible  during  the debate.
• Try to think of things that your opponent might say. This can help you create pre-made rebuttals, which make your job during the debate much easier.

That concludes the guide for third speakers! Sounds fun, right? If you’re interested in delving deeper to a third speaker’s role, you can find more here. Happy debating!

2 replies on “Debate 101: 3rd Speaker”

hi Dazzle, i think it’s pretty clear method coming from you, but i just want to know more about the assertion tamplate for making more than one clashes, since i don’t bring too much clashes so far during my practice as a whip, and how your respponses for often using tamplates during your casebuild or during the debate? let me know, thanks in advance!

Hello! Thank you for your question. In terms of how to make assertions / what to clash about, I suggest paying attention and noting down consistently what the key issues in the debates are. It would help if you could identify what both sides are trying to prove. For example, each side might bring rebuttals as to why the motion is good for a certain group of people (e.g. minority groups, consumers, etc.), so you can make a clash dedicated entirely for this group. 2-3 clashes per speech is usually ideal.

I’m not too sure what you mean in the second part of your question, but I don’t usually have a set template for rebuttals. Usually it will just be a variation of saying “this is not true because ..”. It matters less what the “type” or “template” of the rebuttal is, and your reasoning behind the rebuttal probably matters more. Sometimes in case building, if my first speaker’s case is already set and clear, I will think of possible things the opponent will say and note down potential rebuttals. Hope that was helpful, and feel free to ask any other questions!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

NEWS ALERT: House passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program

LISTEN: What a leading official on Baltimore Key Bridge recovery says about plan to open another channel and when that may happen

House passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after days of upheaval over changes

The Associated Press

April 12, 2024, 2:31 PM

• Share This:
• share on facebook
• share on threads
• share on linkedin
• share on email

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Friday to reauthorize and reform a key U.S. government surveillance tool following a dramatic showdown on the floor over whether the FBI should be restricted from using the program to search for Americans’ data.

The bill was approved on a bipartisan basis, 273-147, though it will still have to clear the Senate to become law. The surveillance program is set to expire on April 19 unless Congress acts.

Passage of the bill represented a much-needed victory for Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who has been wrangling with conservative critics of the legislation for months. A group of 19 Republicans revolted to block the bill from coming to the floor earlier in the week, forcing Johnson to make late changes to secure their support.

The legislation approved Friday would extend the surveillance program for two years, rather than the full five-year authorization first proposed. Johnson hoped that the shorter timeline would sway GOP critics by pushing any future debate on the issue to the presidency of Donald Trump if he were to win back the White House in November.

Still, the legislation teetered precariously Friday morning as lawmakers voted on an amendment — vociferously opposed by Johnson, the White House and sponsors of the legislation — that would have prohibited the warrantless surveillance of Americans.

One of his top critics, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said that Johnson’s vote against the warrant requirement was another strike against him.

“Basically, what’s the difference in Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi and Speaker Johnson and there’s not one,” the Georgia lawmaker said.

The amendment ultimately failed by the narrowest of margins, in a 212-212 tie. Supporters breathed a sigh of relief as the vote was gaveled to a close.

The vote on the amendment cut across party lines, uniting progressives and conservatives who agree on little else, but have long been skeptical of the government’s surveillance powers.

And opponents of the legislation weren’t giving up. In a surprise move after the vote was closed on the overall bill, a Republican made a procedural motion preventing the legislation from being sent to the Senate. An additional vote will be needed next week.

The legislation approved Friday would permit the U.S. government to collect, without a warrant, the communications of non-Americans located outside the country to gather foreign intelligence. The reauthorization is currently tied to a series of reforms aimed at satisfying critics who complained of civil liberties violations against Americans.

But far-right opponents have complained that those changes did not go far enough. The vocal detractors are some of Johnson’s harshest critics, members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, who have railed against the speaker the last several months for reaching across the aisle to carry out the basic functions of the government.

To further appease some of those critics, Johnson also plans to bring forward next week a separate proposal that would close a loophole that allows U.S. officials to collect data on Americans from big tech companies without a warrant.

Though the program is technically set to expire next Friday, the Biden administration has said it expects its authority to collect intelligence to remain operational for at least another year, thanks to an opinion earlier this month from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which receives surveillance applications. But officials say that court approval shouldn’t be a substitute for congressional authorization, especially since communications companies could cease cooperation with the government.

First authorized in 2008, the spy tool has been renewed several times since then as U.S. officials see it as crucial in disrupting terror attacks, cyber intrusions and foreign espionage. It has also produced intelligence that the U.S. has relied on for specific operations.

But the administration’s efforts to secure reauthorization of the program have repeatedly encountered fierce, and bipartisan, pushback, with Democrats like Sen. Ron Wyden who have long championed civil liberties aligning with Republican supporters of former President Donald Trump, who in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday stated incorrectly that Section 702 had been used to spy on his presidential campaign.

“Kill FISA,” Trump wrote in all capital letters. “It was illegally used against me, and many others. They spied on my campaign.” A former adviser to his 2016 presidential campaign was targeted for surveillance over potential ties to Russia under a different section of the law.

A specific area of concern for lawmakers is the FBI’s use of the vast intelligence repository to search for information about Americans and others in the U.S. Though the surveillance program only targets non-Americans in other countries, it also collects communications of Americans when they are in contact with those targeted foreigners.

In the past year, U.S. officials have revealed a series of abuses and mistakes by FBI analysts in improperly querying the intelligence repository for information about Americans or others in the U.S., including about a member of Congress and participants in the racial justice protests of 2020 and the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Those violations have led to demands for the FBI to have a warrant before conducting database queries on Americans, which FBI director Chris Wray has warned would effectively gut the program’s effectiveness and would also be legally unnecessary given that the information in the database has already been lawfully collected.

“While it is imperative that we ensure this critical authority of 702 does not lapse, we also must not undercut the effectiveness of this essential tool with a warrant requirement or some similar restriction, paralyzing our ability to tackle fast-moving threats,” Wray said in a speech Tuesday.

Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

Related News

The return of horse-drawn caissons to Arlington National Cemetery is delayed for at least months

Many say Biden and Trump did more harm than good, but for different reasons, AP-NORC poll shows

Biden says US support for Philippines, Japan defense ‘ironclad’ amid growing China provocations

Recommended.

Maryland gym shooting: Man in critical condition after shots fired at LA Fitness

Army Corps of Engineers official on front line of Baltimore Key Bridge recovery says, 'It’s not a hope — it’s a plan’

Rainy days bring coastal flood warning for DC's Wharf, Northern Va. ahead of sunnier weekend

Related categories:.

U.N. climate chief says two years to save the planet

• Medium Text

• U.N. demands stronger climate plans from G20
• Calls for jump in funds for developing countries
• Warns climate is 'slipping down cabinet agendas'

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

Reporting by Simon Jessop, Kate Abnett Editing by Ros Russell

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Kate Abnett covers EU climate and energy policy in Brussels, reporting on Europe’s green transition and how climate change is affecting people and ecosystems across the EU. Other areas of coverage include international climate diplomacy. Before joining Reuters, Kate covered emissions and energy markets for Argus Media in London. She is part of the teams whose reporting on Europe’s energy crisis won two Reuters journalist of the year awards in 2022.

Simon leads a team tracking how the financial system and companies more broadly are responding to the challenges posed by climate change, nature loss and other environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues including diversity and inclusion.

Johnson Controls said on Friday its subsidiary Tyco Fire Products had agreed to a $750 million settlement with some U.S. public water systems that claimed toxic "forever chemicals" in firefighting foam made by the company had contaminated their water supplies.

World Chevron

Canada to lease government land in plan to add millions of homes

Canada plans to ease a housing shortage by leasing public land to developers for construction of affordable houses under a plan unveiled by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Friday that aims to build nearly 3.9 million houses by 2031.

Peru's Congress approved a controversial proposal on Thursday that will allow savers to tap pension accounts that the country's financial regulator estimated could force fund administrators to sell some $7 billion in assets.

Germany warned its citizens to leave Iran, saying that there was a risk both of a sudden escalation in Tehran's existing tensions with Israel and that Germans might be at risk of arbitrary arrest in the country.

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• April 12, 2024   •   34:23 How One Family Lost $900,000 in a Timeshare Scam
• April 11, 2024   •   28:39 The Staggering Success of Trump’s Trial Delay Tactics
• April 10, 2024   •   22:49 Trump’s Abortion Dilemma
• April 9, 2024   •   30:48 How Tesla Planted the Seeds for Its Own Potential Downfall
• April 8, 2024   •   30:28 The Eclipse Chaser
• April 7, 2024 The Sunday Read: ‘What Deathbed Visions Teach Us About Living’
• April 5, 2024   •   29:11 An Engineering Experiment to Cool the Earth
• April 4, 2024   •   32:37 Israel’s Deadly Airstrike on the World Central Kitchen
• April 3, 2024   •   27:42 The Accidental Tax Cutter in Chief
• April 2, 2024   •   29:32 Kids Are Missing School at an Alarming Rate
• April 1, 2024   •   36:14 Ronna McDaniel, TV News and the Trump Problem
• March 29, 2024   •   48:42 Hamas Took Her, and Still Has Her Husband

How One Family Lost $900,000 in a Timeshare Scam

A mexican drug cartel is targeting seniors and their timeshares..

Hosted by Katrin Bennhold

Produced by Asthaa Chaturvedi and Will Reid

With Clare Toeniskoetter and Lynsea Garrison

Edited by Brendan Klinkenberg and Michael Benoist

Original music by Marion Lozano ,  Rowan Niemisto ,  Dan Powell ,  Pat McCusker and Will Reid

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music

Warning: this episode contains descriptions of violence.

A massive scam targeting older Americans who own timeshare properties has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars sent to Mexico.

Maria Abi-Habib, an investigative correspondent for The Times, tells the story of a victim who lost everything, and of the criminal group making the scam calls — Jalisco New Generation, one of Mexico’s most violent cartels.

On today’s episode

Maria Abi-Habib , an investigative correspondent for The New York Times based in Mexico City.

Background reading

How a brutal Mexican drug cartel came to target seniors and their timeshares .

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Katrin Bennhold is the Berlin bureau chief. A former Nieman fellow at Harvard University, she previously reported from London and Paris, covering a range of topics from the rise of populism to gender. More about Katrin Bennhold

Advertisement

Whip Speeches

Transcript whip speeches.