Category: Media Freedom

  • The global response to the killing of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. Video: Al Jazeera

    COMMENTARY: By Gavin Ellis of Knightly Views

    Nothing justifies the killing of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and the wounding of her colleague Ali al-Samoudi during an Israeli raid on Jenin in the Occupied West Bank. Nothing.

    I believe the renowned reporter died at the hands of Israeli armed forces and that she was deliberately targeted because she was a journalist, easily identified by the word PRESS on the flak jacket and helmet that did not protect her from the shot that killed her. Her wounded colleague was identically dressed.

    I am left in no doubt about the culpability of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) on a number of grounds.

    Several eyewitnesses, including an Agence France-Presse photographer and another Al Jazeera staffer, were adamant that there was no shooting from Palestinians near the scene of the killing. Shatha Hanaysha, the Al Jazeera journalist who had been standing next to Abu Akleh against a high wall when firing broke out, stated they were deliberately targeted by Israeli troops.

    Israeli spokesmen who initially laid the blame on Palestinian militants became more equivocal in the face of the eyewitness accounts, although they would go no further than saying she could have been accidentally shot from an armoured vehicle by an Israeli soldier.

    That is about as close to an admission of guilt as the IDF is likely to get.

    However, perhaps the strongest evidence of IDF culpability is the fact that the killing of Abu Akleh is part of a pattern of targeting journalists. Reporters Without Borders — which has called for an independent international investigation of the death that it says is a violation of international conventions that protect journalists — says two Palestinian journalists were killed by Israeli snipers in 2018 and since then more than 140 journalists have been the victims of violations by the Israeli security forces.

    30 journalists killed since 2000
    By its tally, at least 30 journalists have been killed since 2000.

    Of course, those deaths are but one consequence of the IDF’s disproportionate response — in terms of the number of victims — to actions by Palestinian militants over the occupation of the West Bank. Since the present Israeli government took office last year, 76 Palestinians have died at the hands of Israeli forces.

    There has been condemnation of such deaths, particularly when they include a number of children. So the reaction to the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh was sadly predictable. In other circumstances the outcry would dissipate and Israeli forces would continue to carry out their government’s wishes.

    However, three things may make the condemnation louder, longer and more effective.

    First was the fact that, although she was born in Jerusalem, she was a United States citizen. This could well explain the US Administration’s statement condemning the killing and its willingness to back a similarly reproachful UN Security Council resolution.

    The second factor was that, although a Palestinian, Abu Akleh was not a Muslim. She was raised in a Christian Catholic family. It may not be a particularly becoming trait but the ability of the West to identify with a victim affects the way in which it reacts.

    However, it is the third factor that may have the most telling effect on the long-term consequences of her death. I am referring to the desecration of her funeral by baton-wielding armed Israeli police.

    Pallbearers assaulted by police
    The journalist’s coffin was carried in procession from an East Jerusalem hospital to the Cathedral of the Annunciation of the Virgin in the Christian Quarter of the Old City where a service was held before burial in a cemetery on the Mount of Olives. However, shortly after the pallbearers left the hospital the procession — waving Palestinian flags and chanting — was assaulted by police.

    Desecration of Shireen Abu Akleh's funeral by baton-wielding armed Israeli police
    It is the third factor that may have the most telling effect on the long-term consequences of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh’s death … the desecration of her funeral by baton-wielding armed Israeli police. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot APR

    Mourners were hit with batons, stun grenades were detonated, and a phalanx of armed police in riot gear advanced on the coffin. The procession scattered in disarray and, as the pallbearers tried to avoid the police action, the coffin tilted almost vertical and was in danger of falling to the road.

    At that point, an Al Jazeera journalist providing commentary on live coverage of the funeral said an an anguished voice: “Oh my God. Such disrespect for the dead, for those mourning the dead. How is that a security threat? How is that disorderly? Why does it require this kind of reaction, this level of violence on the part of the Israelis?”

    The horrifying scene was captured by international media and shown around the world

    Why did the police act as they did? Apparently because it is illegal to display the Palestinian flag and chant Palestinian slogans. Even after Abu Akleh’s coffin was transferred to a vehicle, police ran alongside to tear Palestinian flag from the windows.

    The message was clear: There was no contrition on the part of Israeli authorities for the death of the Al Jazeera journalist. The justification for the police action was pathetic. There were lame excuses that stones had been thrown at them. In other words, it was business as usual.

    That may not be the way the world sees it. Nor, indeed, the way it may be seen by many ordinary Israelis who would have been affronted by the indignity shown to the remains of a widely respected woman who died doing her job.

    ‘Time for some accountability?’
    Yaakov Katz, the editor of the Jerusalem Post, an English-language Israeli newspaper, said on Twitter: “What’s happening at Abu Akleh’s funeral is terrible. This is a failure on all fronts.” In a later message he asked: “Is it not time for some accountability?”

    The targeting of journalists aims to intimidate and to prevent them from bearing witness, particularly where authorities have something to hide. That is why, for example, we have seen seven journalists killed in Ukraine, 12 of their colleagues injured by gunfire, and multiple reports of clearly identified journalists coming under fire from Russian forces.

    One might have thought the international community — and in particular Israel’s close friend the United States — would have put significant pressure on Tel Aviv to cease such intimidation a year ago after Israeli aircraft bombed the Gaza City building that was home to various media organisations including Al Jazeera and the US wire service Associated Press.

    Israel claimed, without any evidence and contrary to AP’s own knowledge, that the building was being used by Hamas, the Palestinian nationalist organisation.

    Associated Press chief executive Gary Pruitt said after that attack that “the world will know less about what is happening in Gaza because of what happened today”. Aidan White, founder of the Ethical Journalism Network described the bombing as a “catastrophic attempt to shut down media, to silence criticism, and worst of all, to create a cloak of secrecy”.

    That, no doubt, was what Tel Aviv intended.

    Yet there were no recriminations sufficient to change the course Tel Aviv was on. As the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh so tragically illustrates, Israel has continued its policy of intimidation and violence against journalists.

    Sooner or later, it will come to realise that such actions diminish a government in the eyes of the world. The death of Abu Akleh and the indignity shown to her remains have added significantly to the damage to its reputation.

    Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

    The targeting of journalists aims to intimidate and to prevent them from bearing witness, particularly where authorities have something to hide … One of the images of slain journalist Shireen Abu Akleh shown in a “guerilla-projection” by a pro-Palestinian group at Te Papa yesterday to mark the 74th anniversary of the Nakba, the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland in 1948. Image: Stuff screenshot APR
  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    Israel’s fatal shooting of leading Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh as she covered clashes in the West Bank city of Jenin is a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions and UN Security Council Resolution 2222 on the protection of journalists, says the Paris-based media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

    It has called for an independent international investigation into her death as soon as possible.

    Witnesses said Abu Akleh, a Palestinian American, was killed by a shot to the head although she was wearing a bulletproof vest with the word “PRESS” that clearly identified her as a journalist.

    Ali al-Samudi, a Palestinian journalist working as an Al Jazeera producer who was beside her at the time, was also targeted, sustaining a gunshot wound in the back, RSF reported.

    Samudi, who is now in hospital, said in a video: “We were filming. They did not ask us to stop filming or to leave. They fired a shot that hit me and another shot that killed Shireen in cold blood.”

    Following Abu Akleh’s death, Israeli security forces raided her East Jerusalem home as her family was making arrangements for her funeral.

    Her body was transferred to Nablus for an autopsy prior to be taken to Jerusalem, where her funeral took place yesterday in emotional scenes with massive crowds. She was buried beside her parents in Mount Zion.

    Israeli riot police attacked the pallbearers and a hearse carrying her coffin in the peaceful march, and ripped away Palestinian flags. International protests have followed this latest attack.

    Popular in Middle East
    Abu Akleh was very popular in the Middle East and was respected by fellow journalists for her experience in the field.

    Al Jazeera issued a statement accusing the Israeli security forces of “deliberately” targeting Abu Akleh and of killing her “in cold blood.”

    Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh
    Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh … assassinated in “cold blood” in Jenin. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    The Israel Defence Forces announced an investigation into her death, but IDF spokesman Amnon Shefler said Israeli soldiers “would never deliberately target non-combatants”.

    Several witnesses, including an AFP photographer, denied seeing any armed Palestinians at the place where Abu Akleh was killed. Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas said he held the Israeli authorities “fully responsible” for her death.

    “RSF is not satisfied with Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid’s proposal of a joint investigation into this journalist’s death,” said RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire.

    “An independent international investigation must be launched as soon as possible.”

    The shooting of these two Palestinian reporters during an IDF “anti-terrorist operation” in Jenin is the latest of many disturbing cases.

    Two journalists fatally shot
    In the spring of 2018, two Palestinian journalists were fatally shot by Israeli snipers while covering the weekly “Great March of Return” protests near the Israeli border in the Gaza Strip.

    Also in 2018, Ain Media founder Yaser Murtaja was killed on the spot on March 30, while Radio Sawt al Shabab reporter Ahmed Abu Hussein died in hospital on April 25 from the gunshot injury he suffered on April 13.

    According to RSF’s tallies, more than 140 journalists have been the victims of violations by the Israeli security forces on Friday’s marches since 2018, and at least 30 journalists have been killed since 2000.

    Israel is 86th in the RSF 2022 World Press Freedom Index, and Palestine is 170th.

    Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

  • RNZ Pacific

    Fiji has been ranked as the worst place in the Pacific region for journalists in the latest assessment by the global press freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

    In RSF’s 2022 World Press Freedom Index released last week, Fiji was placed 102nd out of 180 countries — receiving an overall score of 56.91 out of 100.

    The country slipped by 47 places compared to its 2021 rankings when it was placed 55 out of 180 nations.

    RSF changed its system of analysis this year to include a breakdown on specific categories such as legal framework and justice system, technological censorship and surveillance, disinformation and propaganda, arbitrary detention and proceedings, independence and pluralism, models and good practices, media sustainability, and violence against journalists, which partially explains Fiji’s sudden fall on the Index.

    The Paris-based media watchdog said “journalists critical of the government are regularly intimidated and even imprisoned by the indestructible Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, in power since the military coup of 2006.”

    Other countries from the region surveyed by the Index included Aotearoa New Zealand, which was ranked 11th, Australia (39th), Samoa (45th), Tonga (49th), and Papua New Guinea (62nd).

    Neighbouring Timor-Leste improved 54 places to 17th.

    RSF said Aotearoa New Zealand, which received an overall score of 83.54, was a “regional model” for press freedom “by having developed safeguards against political and economic influences” for journalists to conduct their work.

    The yearly report was released to coincide with last week’s World Press Freedom Day on May 3.

    Media decree, sedition laws
    It said Fiji operated under the 2010 Media Industry Development Decree, which became law in 2018.

    RSF said in an earlier report that the sedition laws in Fiji, with penalties of up to seven years in prison, were also used to foster a climate of fear and self-censorship.

    “Sedition charges put the lives of three journalists with The Fiji Times, the leading daily, on hold until they were finally acquitted in 2018,” the report stated.

    “Many observers believed it was the price the newspaper paid for its independence.”

    Fiji was ranked 52nd in both 2020 and 2019 but was 57th in 2018.

    The Fiji Media Industry Development Authority did not respond to a request for comment.

  • By Luke Nacei in Suva

    Fiji has no place for a partisan media using press freedom as a blank cheque to be a mouthpiece of government, says opposition National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad.

    In a statement to mark World Press Freedom Day last week, Professor Prasad urged journalists to be fearless and amplify the truth and voice of the people at all times.

    He said it was critically important for the media to be impartial and to amplify the voice of the people without fear — especially in an election year.

    “Since September last year, the media, particularly The Fiji Times and Communications Fiji Ltd, operators of five radio stations and the vastly popular FijiVillage news site, have been repeatedly criticised by government for amplifying the voice of the people through their elected representatives,” he said.

    The Fiji Times and CFL are simply doing what any media organisation should do at all times. They are simply performing their fundamental role as an effective watchdog of government.

    “They are the messenger of truth, but unfortunately the truth is unpalatable to the current government because its broken promises and failed policies that are severely hurting the people, are being exposed.

    “The Attorney-General’s statement in Parliament on September 24 last year, while agreeing to the tirade against The Fiji Times and CFL by Assistant Minister Selai Adimaitoga for the media to declare which political party they support in their editorial policy, is the clearest indication of government preferring a pro-FijiFirst and partisan media in the country.

    ‘Freedom of expression’ right
    “Instead, government must fully adhere to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states, ‘Everyone has right to freedom of opinion and expression’.

    “This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through the media regardless of frontiers.

    “This freedom and right are reposed in the people, which the state and politicians must respect at all times.

    “Therefore, it is totally wrong and unethical for government or anyone to launch a tirade against the media organisation and their news director or editor-in-chief just because they don’t like the media amplifying the truth and voice of the people without fear.

    “Do the right thing – shoot the message, not the messenger.”

    MIDA Act ‘dangerous’ for Fiji media
    Meanwhile, Pacific Media Watch reports that the Fijian Media Association (FMA) issued a statement welcoming the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) 2022 World Press Freedom Index, in which Fiji’s ranking slipped by 47 places to 102nd in 180 countries. RSF criticised the legislation in Fiji that “criminalised” journalism.

    The statement said that while the Fiji media was under pressure “the Fijian media remains bold and thriving, and committed to fulfil its role”.

    “Who defines what is against the public interest or what is against the national interest?” asked the statement by general secretary Stanley Simpson.

    “While the Fijian media have been doing their best to be bold and free and abiding by their code of ethics — these laws are making many organisations and editors hesitate about publishing or broadcasting certain views that may go against the government based on how [it] may interpret that legislation and come after a media organisation.

    “The fines are too excessive and designed to be vindictive and punish the media rather [than] encourage better reporting standards and be corrective.

    “Media organisations are almost unanimous in seeking removal of the harsh fines and a review of the Act [Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) Act].

    “It is dangerous for media freedom now and also in the future. The MIDA Act has been ineffective and has done little to nothing to raise media standards,” the FMA statement said.

    RSF changed its system of analysis this year to include a breakdown on specific categories such as legal framework and justice system, technological censorship and surveillance, disinformation and propaganda, arbitrary detention and proceedings, independence and pluralism, models and good practices, media sustainability, and violence against journalists, which partially explains Fiji’s sudden major fall on the Index.

    Luke Nacei is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission and additional reporting by Pacific Media Watch.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Anish Chand in Lautoka

    Fiji’s use of legislation to criminalise the work of journalists who publicise “contrary to the public or national interest” is a term that is poorly defined, says Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in its 2022 Press Freedom Index.

    Fiji has dropped 47 places on the 2022 Press Freedom Index from 55 in 2021 to 102 in 2022.

    The Paris-based global media freedom watchdog said journalists in Fiji continued to face the threat of heavy fines or imprisonment for publishing material “contrary to the public or national interest”.

    “Journalists’ interests are represented by the Fiji Media Association (FMA), which often criticises the government’s harassment of the media,” RSF said.

    “Journalists face the threat of heavy fines or imprisonment for publishing material ‘contrary to the public or national interest,’ a term that is poorly defined in the law.

    “Against this backdrop, many journalists must think twice before publishing content critical of the authorities.”

    RSF said press freedom in Fiji had been affected since the 2006 coup.

    Some MP support for press freedom
    “Some politicians, such as National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad, have shown their support for a free press.”

    RSF stated the Media Industry Development Act and the Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) were directly linked to the government.

    “Journalists can be jailed for up to two years for violating this law’s vaguely worded provisions.

    “The sedition laws, which have repeatedly been misused against The Fiji Times, also fuel a climate of fear and self-censorship thanks to penalties of up to seven years in prison.”

    RSF says authorities use “discriminatory advertising practices” by withholding advertisements and legal notices from those regarded as critical of the government.

    RSF changed its system of analysis this year to include a breakdown on specific categories such as legal framework and justice system, technological censorship and surveillance, disinformation and propaganda, arbitrary detention and proceedings, independence and pluralism, models and good practices, media sustainability, and violence against journalists which partially explains Fiji’s sudden fall on the Index.

    Questions sent to the Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, on the statements made by RSF remain unanswered.

    Anish Chand is a Fiji Times journalist. Republished with permission.

  • By Prianka Srinivasan of ABC Pacific Beat

    A senior Papua New Guinea journalist says an ongoing dispute between journalists and management at television broadcaster EMTV is starving the country’s provinces of news.

    Former Lae regional head of news Scott Waide said the station was failing to provide a proper nationwide news service after its news team had been sacked over a dispute with EMTV’s management.

    “What it’s done is effectively cut off public access to information in all the provinces,” he said.

    “The media is supposed to be a conduit between government and people that’s not happening anymore.”

    EMTV’s news team were sacked in March over the coverage of the controversial Australian hotel businessman Jamie Pang, who was convicted of a number of criminal charges.

    Waide said the sacked staff were making moves to win their jobs back in the courts, but in the meantime they had set up alternative coverage online.

    “They’ve established, registered a company called Inside PNG. It is already an online news service with a website and social media presence. And they’ll be working towards covering the elections in June,” he said.

    Prianka Srinivasan reports for ABC Radio Australia. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    A Melbourne-based Indonesian media academic has warned that declining media freedom in Australia is undermining the country’s ability to project liberal democratic values to the Asia-Pacific region.

    “Many people who have been watching media and journalism in Australia have been worried,” Tito Ambyo, a journalism lecturer at RMIT, told ABC News.

    He said governments in Australia needed “to start seeing journalists as an important part of democracy”.

    “We don’t have journalists being killed or imprisoned in Australia, but we have seen a lot of abuses,” he said, pointing to online harassment that was “often racist or gendered in nature”.

    Ambyo was responding to the 2022 World Press Freedom Index released this week by the Paris-based media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders which reported a big slump in media freedoms in Australia.

    Media freedom in Australia is “fragile” and less protected than in New Zealand and several emerging democracies in Asia, RSF concluded in its annual Index. The assessment measures have become more comprehensive in changes introduced this year.

    Australia slid from 25 to 39 in the Index, ranking below New Zealand in 11th place and Timor-Leste at number 17, but above Samoa (45th), Tonga (49th), Papua New Guinea (62nd) and Fiji (102nd) — with both the latter Pacific countries experiencing big falls while facing elections this year.

    Taiwan, which has transitioned from a military dictatorship to a liberal democracy since the late 1980s, ranked just above Australia at 38th.

    The Press Freedom Index, which assesses the state of journalism in 180 countries and territories, highlights the disastrous effects of news and information chaos — the effects of a globalised and unregulated online information space that encourages fake news and propaganda.

    ‘Fox News model’
    Within democratic societies, divisions are growing as a result of the spread of opinion media following the “Fox News model” and the spread of disinformation circuits that are amplified by the way social media functions.

    At the international level, democracies are being weakened by the asymmetry between open societies and despotic regimes that control their media and online platforms while waging propaganda wars against democracies.

    Polarisation on these two levels is fuelling increased tension, says RSF.

    The invasion of Ukraine (106th) by Russia (155th) at the end of February reflects this process, as the physical conflict was preceded by a propaganda war.

    China (175th), one of the world’s most repressive autocratic regimes, uses its legislative arsenal to confine its population and cut it off from the rest of the world, especially the population of Hong Kong (148th), which has plummeted in the Index.

    Confrontation between “blocs” is growing, as seen between nationalist Narendra Modi’s India (150th) and Pakistan (157th). The lack of press freedom in the Middle East continues to impact the conflict between Israel (86th), Palestine (170th) and the Arab states.

    Media polarisation is feeding and reinforcing internal social divisions in democratic societies such as the United States (42nd), despite President Joe Biden’s election, reports RSF.

    Social media tensions
    The increase in social and political tension is being fuelled by social media and new opinion media, especially in France (26th).

    The suppression of independent media is contributing to a sharp polarisation in “illiberal democracies” such as Poland (66th), where the authorities have consolidated their control over public broadcasting and their strategy of “re-Polonising” the privately-owned media.

    The trio of Nordic countries at the top of the Index — Norway, Denmark and Sweden — continues to serve as a democratic model where freedom of expression flourishes, while Moldova (40th) and Bulgaria (91st) stand out this year thanks to a government change and the hope it has brought for improvement in the situation for journalists even if oligarchs still own or control the media.

    The situation is classified as “very bad” in a record number of 28 countries in this year’s Index, while 12 countries, including Belarus (153rd) and Russia (155th), are on the Index’s red list (indicating “very bad” press freedom situations) on the map.

    The world’s 10 worst countries for press freedom include Myanmar (176th), where the February 2021 coup d’état set press freedom back by 10 years, as well as China, Turkmenistan (177th), Iran (178th), Eritrea (179th) and North Korea (180th).

    Fatal danger for democracies
    “Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of RT (the former Russia Today), revealed what she really thinks in a Russia One TV broadcast when she said, ‘no great nation can exist without control over information,’ said RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire.

    “The creation of media weaponry in authoritarian countries eliminates their citizens’ right to information but is also linked to the rise in international tension, which can lead to the worst kind of wars.

    “Domestically, the ‘Fox News-isation’ of the media poses a fatal danger for democracies because it undermines the basis of civil harmony and tolerant public debate,” he said.

    “Urgent decisions are needed in response to these issues, promoting a New Deal for Journalism, as proposed by the Forum on Information and Democracy, and adopting an appropriate legal framework, with a system to protect democratic online information spaces.”

    Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    The next Australian government must recommit to press freedom by putting in place overdue reforms to support public interest journalism, says the union for Australia’s media workers.

    On World Press Freedom Day, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance is calling on all political parties to act on a range of reforms that are needed to ensure journalists can continue to perform their essential work finding facts, seeking the truth and holding power to account.

    MEAA media federal president Karen Percy said the role of public interest journalism in a democratic society had been highlighted by the covid-19 pandemic, when there has been confusion and debate about what is true and what is false, often exploited by deliberate disinformation campaigns.

    “We know from the covid-19 pandemic that the work of journalists saves lives, informs the public, improves public policy and holds the powerful to account,” Percy said in a statement.

    “But we’ve also witnessed how people have been confused about what is true and what is false with their vulnerabilities exploited by those pushing disinformation campaigns.

    “Australians have relied on journalists to accurately and impartially convey important information, but our jobs have been made all the more difficult when governments suppress information, refuse to answer questions, hide information under the pretext of national security, and when defamation laws are used to quash accountability.

    “So, on World Press Freedom Day 2022, it is timely to call for our political leaders — and those aspiring to lead us — to respect and honour public interest journalism, to put accountability and transparency at the heart of our democracy.

    “Because without a free press, democracy dies.”

    With the federal election underway, MEAA has submitted to the major parties our key priorities for reform to protect media freedom and support public interest journalism.

    Among the reforms that are needed are:

    • Boosting the Public Interest News Gathering (PING) programme for a minimum of three years with $150 million per annum available to the small and medium news sectors, with substantial funds quarantined for providers of regional news services.
    • Restoration of adequate funding to public broadcasters the ABC and SBS, with greater certainty over a five-year funding cycle.
    • Implementing reforms to protect whistle blowers who disclose confidential information to media in the public interest.
    • Conducting an urgent review of Australia’s security laws to remove impediments and sanctions against public interest journalism.
    • Harmonising journalism shield laws across all national, state and territory jurisdictions to protect journalists from identifying sources.
    • Introduce new provisions to ensure that any future media mergers meet a “diversity of voices” test before they are approved by government regulators.
    • Financial reforms to enable the costs of journalism to be offset via taxation incentives.
    • Increasing international advocacy in support of journalists and allied workers when they are exposed to arbitrary detention, imprisonment and threats to their life, and adopting the International Federation of Journalists’ International Convention on the Safety and Independence of Journalists and Other Media Professionals.

    Today, MEAA is also releasing its annual report into the state of press freedom in Australia, titled Truth vs Disinformation: the Challenge for Public Interest Journalism.

    The report examines the impact of covid-related disinformation campaigns on journalism and press freedom, including increases in violent attacks, harassment and threats against journalists.

    The report is available at pressfreedom.org.au.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Sofia Tomacruz in Manila

    Nobel laureates José Ramos-Horta and Maria Ressa have urged Southeast Asians to keep working toward a better region where democratic freedoms are protected in lecture leading into World Press Freedom Day on May 3.


    Nobel laureates José Ramos-Horta and Maria Ressa have called on Southeast Asians to fight for democracy and continue demanding human rights amid growing threats to democratic freedoms in the region.

    Ramos-Horta, a longtime politician and independence leader in Timor-Leste, along with Ressa, veteran journalist and co-founder of Rappler, made the statements in an online lecture titled “Freedom in Southeast Asia” last Tuesday.

    The discussion centred on ethical issues and the future of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the areas of governing democracy, human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and social media.

    “We have to keep fighting to improve democracy, perfect democracy as we have been fighting for decades, continue understanding that there will be setbacks, there will be triumphs for democracy again,” Ramos-Horta said.

    Ramos-Horta recently won Timor-Leste’s presidential election, gaining 62 percent of votes after facing off with incumbent President Francisco “Lu Olo” Guterres, who secured 37 percent.

    Ramos-Horta, one of East Timor’s best known political figures, was also president from 2007 to 2012, and prime minister and foreign minister before that.

    Ramos-Horta said part of the reason he decided to run for public office again was inadequate government response to crises like the covid-19 pandemic. The president-elect said he would work to respond to global economic pressures, including supply chain issues stemming from the Russia-Ukraine war and covid-19 lockdowns in China.

    ‘Demand good governance’
    “Don’t lose sight of what is important. Fight, but fight not with radicalism but fight with brains, wisdom, and a great deal of humility,” Ramos-Horta said.

    Ressa, who covered Ramos-Horta as a journalist, echoed this call, saying that people in Southeast Asia “must continue demanding our rights and demanding good governance.”

    “Our public officials need to realize that in the end, their struggle for power should not impede on the ability to deliver what their citizens need,” she said.


    The full media freedom lecture. Video: Rappler

    ‘Enlightened self-interest’
    Ressa, who has reported on democracy movements in Southeast Asia, said ASEAN has not been able to live up to its promises since it was founded in 1967. While advances have been made, the fight to protect democracy, she said, faces steeper challenges, including the use of social media platforms to spread lies and hate.

    Ressa challenged leaders and the public to practice “enlightened self-interest” in an effort to foster a code of ethics that could push back against corruption and abuse.

    Nobel Peace laureate Maria Ressa
    Nobel Peace laureate Maria Ressa … “I can distill almost everything wrong into two words: power and money – and how do you put guardrails around the people who have that?. Image: RSF

    “I can distill almost everything wrong into two words: power and money – and how do you put guardrails around the people who have that? Ethics, rules-based [order], and they themselves limit themselves because there is a greater good. This is not just ASEAN, it is universal,” she said.

    In fighting for democracy in the region, the Rappler co-founder also urged young people to first think of what they consider important and what freedoms they are willing to fight for.

    She said: “Because of social media, democracy now is a person-to-person battle for integrity. And so the question for you is, where do you draw the line?

    “How well will you give up some of your power to others in order to have a better world? What kind of leader not only do you want, but what kind of leader do you want to be?”

    Ramos-Horta reminded the public to “live up to the responsibility” the region has in Myanmar, where a military coup plunged the country into turmoil, derailing a decade of democratic reforms and economic gain.

    Expected to join ASEAN
    Ramos-Horta earlier said he expected Timor-Leste to become the 11th member of the ASEAN “within this year or next year at the latest.” It currently holds observer status in the bloc – and also observer status with the Pacific Islands Forum.

    “The message to the young people: You want a better Southeast Asia? You want a better region, better community that is generous, embracing of everyone because Southeast Asia is extraordinarily rich in diversity – and that makes Southeast Asia unique – then fight for it,” he said.

    “Do not abandon the people of Myanmar who feel completely abandoned. That is the absolute priority for us in Southeast Asia,” he added.

    Sofia Tomacruz is a Rappler reporter. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    Groups representing journalists around the world have expressed concern that billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s move to buy Twitter would damage media freedoms on the online platform.

    Musk, who has reached a $44 billion deal for Twitter, describes himself as a “free speech absolutist” who would encourage no holds barred exchanges between the network’s 400 million users.

    But the International Federation of Journalists and the European Federation of Journalists said his move would place too much power in the hands of one owner and could harm efforts to curtail bullying and disinformation on the site, reports The Jakarta Post citing AFP.

    “Twitter is an extension of journalists’ offices. This is where journalists promote their work, express ideas or find sources of information,” said IFJ general secretary Anthony Bellanger.

    “This space must be duly moderated, while respecting freedom of speech. It is a fine balance that any Twitter owner must pay attention to” he said.

    “We are concerned that Elon Musk’s plans for Twitter are going the wrong direction by exacerbating opportunities to attack journalists and threatening the anonymity of users.”

    Musk has said that he wishes to expand Twitter’s user verification system to “authenticate all humans”.

    Raising fears among vulnerable groups
    This might curtail some anonymous abuse on the platform, but will raise fears among vulnerable groups who prefer to keep their identities secret.

    The purchase of Twitter by Musk means the company is now owned by one single person instead of multiple shareholders.

    EFJ general secretary Ricardo Guitterez said: “The billionaire has never hesitated in the past to use Twitter to manipulate information, influence stock prices and control media coverage of his own business.

    “We have every reason to believe that he will tighten his grip on the social network for his own benefit, with no regard for the public interest.

    “It is high time to regulate the ownership of media and social networks in order to counteract a concentration of power that is harmful to pluralism, public debate and democracy”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    Following a district court order referring the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange back to the United Kingdom’s Home Office, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has launched a new petition calling on Home Secretary Priti Patel to reject Assange’s extradition to the United States.

    RSF urges supporters to join the call on the Home Secretary to #FreeAssange by signing and sharing the petition before May 18.

    On April 20, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court issued an order referring Julian Assange’s extradition back to the Home Office, reports RSF.

    Following a four-week period that will now be given to the defence for representations, Home Secretary Priti Patel must approve or reject the US government’s extradition request.

    As Assange’s fate has again become a political decision, RSF has launched a new #FreeAssange petition, urging supporters to sign before May 18 to call on the Home Secretary to protect journalism and press freedom by rejecting Assange’s extradition to the US and ensuring his release without further delay.

    “The next four weeks will prove crucial in the fight to block extradition and secure the release of Julian Assange,” said RSF’s director of operations and campaigns Rebecca Vincent, who monitored proceedings on RSF’s behalf.

    “Through this petition, we are seeking to unite those who care about journalism and press freedom to hold the UK government to account.

    “The Home Secretary must act now to protect journalism and adhere to the UK’s commitment to media freedom by rejecting the extradition order and releasing Assange.”

    Patel’s predecessor, former Home Secretary Sajid Javid initially greenlit the extradition request in June 2019, initiating more than two years of proceedings in UK courts.

    This resulted in a district court decision barring extradition on mental health grounds in January 2021; a High Court ruling overturning that ruling in December 2021; and finally, refusal by the Supreme Court to consider the case in March 2022.

    RSF’s prior petition calling on the UK government not to comply with the US extradition request gathered more than 90,000 signatures (108,000 including additional signatures on a German version of the petition), and was delivered to Downing Street, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ahead of the historic first-instance decision in the case on 4 January 2021.

    The UK is ranked 33rd out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

    Pacific Media Watch collaborates with RSF.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    The Media Association of Solomon Islands (Masi) has called on the police to respect journalists and media workers when carrying out their work in a public space after officers harassed two media people trying to film the prime minister, reports the Solomon Star.

    Masi said in a statement that the incident happened at the National Parliament precinct this week when police confronted two members of the press, asking them not to film Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare on his arrival.

    Masi president Georgina Kekea said Solomon Islands was a democratic country and freedom of the press was guaranteed under article 12 of the Constitution.

    She said Sogavare was a public figure and the incident happened when he was carrying out his duty as a parliamentarian and prime minister of his country.

    Masi was surprised to hear of the incident and Kekea said it was hoped that it was just a mistake by the police.

    “If the press are not allowed to carry out their duties without fear or intimidation, then we are doomed as a democratic country,” Kekea said.

    “There are different roles that each of us play in society and the police must respect this.

    “Had the incident occurred at the prime minister’s private residence, then it should be a concern for his Close Personal Protection team.

    ‘A national duty’
    “However, this incident occurred just in the Parliament precinct where he was on his way to carry out a national duty. This should not be an issue at all,” the Masi president said.

    Kekea said members of the press were “not the enemy” and should not be treated as such either. She said journalists were doing their jobs just like any other profession.

    “Our job is to gather information through interviews, filming and of course we write news pieces and present them to the public. I know there are instances where a few articles published by the press are deemed irresponsible.

    “This however should not be the reason to restrict journalists or members of the press from doing their job.

    “If the police or the government is concerned about such articles being a threat to national security, they should work on improving or developing effective communication strategies.”

    Kekea said the action by the police showed a lack of understanding of the work of journalists and the role of the media.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch newdesk

    Australia must step up diplomatic efforts to encourage the US government to drop its bid to extradite Julian Assange who has now been imprisoned for three years, says the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance.

    Today marks the third anniversary of Assange’s arrest when he was dragged from the Ecuador Embassy in London on 11 April 2019 to face extradition proceedings for espionage charges laid by the US.

    The WikiLeaks founder and publisher has been held at Belmarsh Prison near London ever since, where his mental and physical health has deteriorated significantly.

    On this day, the MEAA calls on the Biden administration to drop the charges against Assange, which pose a threat to press freedom worldwide. The scope of the US charges imperils any journalist anywhere who writes about the US government.

    MEAA media federal president Karen Percy urged the Australian government to use its close ties to both the US and the UK to end the court proceedings against him and have the charges dropped to allow Assange to return home to Australia, if that is his wish.

    Assange won his initial extradition hearing in January last year, but subsequent appeals by the US government have dragged out his detention at Belmarsh.

    “Julian Assange’s work with WikiLeaks was important and in the public interest: exposing evidence of war crimes and other shameful actions by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Percy said.

    Assange charges an ‘affront to journalists’
    “The stories published by WikiLeaks and its mainstream media partners more than a decade ago were picked up by news outlets around the world.

    “The charges against Assange are an affront to journalists everywhere and a threat to press freedom.”

    The US government has not produced convincing evidence that the publishing of the leaked material endangered any lives or jeopardised military operations, but their lasting impact has been to embarrass and shame the United States.

    “Yet Assange faces the prospect of jail for the rest of his life if convicted of espionage charges laid by the US Department of Justice,” Percy said.

    “The case against Assange is intended to curtail free speech, criminalise journalism and frighten off any future whistleblowers and publishers with the message that they too will be punished if they step out of line.

    “The US Government must see reason and drop these charges, and the Australian Government should be doing all it can to represent the interests of an Australian citizen.”

    Assange has been a member of the MEAA since 2009 and in 2011 the WikiLeaks organisation was awarded the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    Ahead of national elections in the Philippines next month, the state has stepped up its attacks on Nobel Peave laureate Maria Ressa and the news outlet she leads, Rappler, reports the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders global media watchdog.

    “This dramatic escalation in the legal harassment of Maria Ressa and Rappler highlights the urgent need for the Philippines’ to decriminalise libel and do away with laws that are repeatedly abused to persecute journalists whose reporting exposes public wrongdoing,” said the Hold the Line Coalition Steering Committee.

    “The state’s blatant attempts to suppress Rappler’s election-related fact-checking services is an unacceptable attempt to cheat the public of their right to accurate information, which is critical during elections.”

    The Philippines president election is on May 9.

    Fourteen new cyber libel complaints have been made against Rappler in recent weeks, naming several journalists and their sources in connection with reporting on President Rodrigo Duterte’s pastor Apollo Quiboloy, who is on the FBI’s “most wanted” list, and eight of his followers.

    Quiboloy and his associates were charged with conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking by force, fraud and coercion; sex trafficking of children; marriage fraud; fraud, and misuse of visas; and various money laundering offences.

    Quiboloy’s company Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI), which has attacked independent journalists and news outlets reporting critically on the Duterte administration, was recently granted a TV licence by the government.

    In addition to these cases, Ressa has been named personally as one of 17 reporters, editors and executives, and seven news organisations in cyber libel complaints brought by Duterte government cabinet minister Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi.

    Legal harassment
    He alleges Ressa and the other named individuals and organisations “publicly accused [him] of graft” by reporting on a graft suit filed against him and a businessman.

    Cusi is demanding each of the accused pay him 200 million pesos (nearly US$4 million) in damages.

    Ressa did not write the article published by Rappler.

    If the authorities choose to prosecute these cases, they will become criminal charges with potentially heavy jail sentences attached.

    Having already been convicted of one criminal cyber libel charge, which is under appeal, and facing multiple other pre-existing legal cases, Ressa testified before the US Senate last week about the state-enabled legal harassment she experiences:

    “All told, I could go to jail for the rest of my life. Because I refuse to stop doing my job as a journalist. Because Rappler holds the line and continues to protect the public sphere.”

    In parallel, Rappler is facing another legal challenge, with the Philippines’ Solicitor-General petitioning the Supreme Court to void Rappler’s fact-checking agreement with the Commission of Elections (COMELEC).

    Countering disinformation
    As a result, this collaboration between Rappler and COMELEC designed to counter disinformation associated with the presidential poll has been temporarily halted — just over a month from the election.

    “This new wave of cases and complaints, which represents an egregious attack on press freedom, is designed to undermine the essential work of fact-checking and critical reporting during elections — acts which help uphold the integrity of democratic processes.

    Rappler must be allowed to perform the essential public service of exposing falsehoods, particularly during the election period, even when these prove politically damaging for those in power,” the coalition said.

    The Philippines is ranked 138th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

    Statement by Julie Posetti (ICFJ), Gypsy Guillén Kaiser (CPJ), and Daniel Bastard (RSF) on behalf of the Hold the Line Coalition.

    • The #HTL Coalition comprises more than 80 organisations around the world. This statement is issued by the #HoldTheLine Steering Committee, but it does not necessarily reflect the position of all or any individual coalition members or organisations.
  • SPECIAL REPORT: By Jason Brown

    Good news — an Australian parliamentary review recommends a more “expansive” media presence in the Pacific.

    Bad news — little of that expansion envisions a role for island media.

    Instead, the committee endorsed a proposal for “consultation” and the establishment of an independent “platform neutral” media corporation, versus the existing “broadcasting” organisation.

    That proposal was among several points raised at two public hearings and nine written submissions as part of Australia’s “Pacific Step Up” programme, aimed at countering the growing regional influence of China.

    Former long-time Pacific correspondent Sean Dorney last month told the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade that Australia was previously leading regional media spaces.

    “But the vacant space that was left there when Australia Network disappeared, as people have said, has really been taken over by China,” he said.

    “Throughout my time as the Pacific correspondent for the ABC, I saw this Chinese influence growing everywhere.”

    Local media delivery
    Dorney suggested local media ought to deliver news content in any future media expansion.

    “I’ll just end off by saying that, if we did boost broadcasting again, it does require greater collaboration.

    “There are excellent journalists out there in the Pacific that we could work with to create content for both of us. It’s our region, and I think we should embrace it.”

    The Strengthening Australia's Relationships in the Pacific report
    The Strengthening Australia’s Relationships in the Pacific report. Image:” APR

    Similar points were made by Free TV Australia.

    “Key to the success of the PacificAus TV initiative has been Free TV’s ability to work with our Pacific broadcast partners to ensure that the programming made available meets the needs of the Pacific communities.”

    However recommendations for local staff were not picked up in the final findings of the standing committee.

    Only “consultation” was called for.

    Relatively comprehensive
    Taking up ten of 176 pages, the report’s media section is nonetheless seen as relatively comprehensive compared with the dismantling of broadcasting capacity in recent years.

    This includes the literal dismantling of shortwave equipment in Australia despite wide protest from the Pacific region.

    Nearly three years previously, a 2019 Pacific Media Summit heard that discontinuation of the shortwave service would save Australia some $2.8 million in power costs.

    A suggestion from a delegate that that amount could be spent on $100,000 for reporters in each of 26 island states and territories was met with silence from ABC representatives at the summit.

    However, funding would be dramatically expanded if the government takes up suggestions from the submissions to the joint committee.

    Members of the Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative (AAMPI) called for the “allocation of a total of $55-$75 million per year to ensure Australia has a fit-for-purpose, multi-platform media voice in the Asia Pacific region.”

    Overall, submissions called for greater recognition of the media in “soft power” calculation.

    Public diplomacy tool
    AAPMI member Annmaree O’Keeffe said that “international broadcasting and its potency is not recognised at government level as a public diplomacy tool.”

    Consultancy group Heriot Media and Governance cautioned against trying to use media as a policy messenger.

    “A substantial body of research internationally supports the view that audiences are likely to invest greater trust in an international media service if they perceive it to be independent of political and other vested interests.”

    Heriot also noted the loss of radio capacity, submitting that “shortwave [radio] had been the only almost uninterruptible signal when local media had been disabled by natural events or political actions.”

    ABC told the inquiry that around 830,000 Pacific Islanders access their various platforms each month.

    Off-platform, there were 1.6 million views of ABC content via social media such as YouTube.

    Jason Brown is a long-time Pacific reporter based in Aotearoa New Zealand and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ANALYSIS: By Sarah Kendall, The University of Queensland

    This week, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security released its much anticipated report on national security threats affecting the higher education and research sector.

    The 171-page report found the sector is a target for foreign powers using “the full set of tools” against Australia, which can undermine our sovereignty and threaten academic freedom.

    It made 27 recommendations to “harden the operating environment to deny adversaries the ability to engage in the national security risks in the sector”.

    The committee’s recommendations, when correctly implemented, will go a long way towards combating the threat of espionage and foreign interference. But they are not enough to protect academic freedom.

    This is because the laws that make espionage and foreign interference a crime could capture legitimate research endeavours.

    National security risks to higher education and research
    The joint committee found there are several national security threats to the higher education and research sector. Most significant are foreign interference against students and staff, espionage and data theft.

    This includes theft via talent recruitment programmes where Australian academics working on sensitive technologies are recruited to work at foreign institutions.

    These threats have been occurring through cyber attacks and human means, including actors working in Australia covertly on behalf of a foreign government.

    Foreign adversaries may target information on research that can be commercialised or used for national gain purposes.

    The kind of information targeted is not limited to military or defence, but includes valuable technologies or information in any domain such as as agriculture, medicine, energy and manufacturing.

    What did the committee recommend?
    The committee stated that “awareness, acknowledgement and genuine proactive measures” are the next steps academic institutions must take to degrade the corrosive effects of these national security risks.

    Of its 27 recommendations, the committee made four “headline” recommendations. These include:

    1. A university-wide campaign of active transparency about the national security risks (overseen by the University Foreign Interference Taskforce)
    2. adherence to the taskforce guidelines by universities. These include having frameworks for managing national security risks and implementing a cybersecurity strategy
    3. introducing training on national security issues for staff and students
    4. guidance for universities on how to implement penalties for foreign interference activities on campus.

    Other recommendations include creation of a mechanism to allow students to anonymously report instances of foreign interference on campus and diversification of the international student population.

    What about academic freedom?
    Espionage makes it a crime to deal with information on behalf of, or to communicate to, a foreign principal (such as a foreign government or a person acting on their behalf). The person may also need to intend to prejudice, or be reckless in prejudicing, Australia’s national security.

    In the context of the espionage and foreign interference offences, “national security” means defence of Australia.

    It also means Australia’s international relations with other countries. “Prejudice” means something more than mere embarrassment.

    So, an academic might intend to prejudice Australia’s national security where they engage in a research project that results in criticism of Australian military or intelligence policies or practices; or catalogues Australian government misconduct in its dealings with other countries.

    Because “foreign principals” are part of the larger global audience, publication of these research results could be an espionage offence.

    The academic may even have committed an offence when teaching students about this research in class (because Australia has a large proportion of international students, some of whom may be acting on behalf of foreign actors), communicating with colleagues working overseas (because foreign public universities could be “foreign principals”), or simply engaging in preliminary research (because it is an offence to do things to prepare for espionage).

    Research
    Even communicating about research with overseas colleagues could fall foul of espionage and foreign interference laws. Image: The Conversation/Shutterstock

    Foreign interference makes it a crime to engage in covert or deceptive conduct on behalf of a foreign principal where the person intends to (or is reckless as to whether they will) influence a political or governmental process, or prejudice Australia’s national security.

    The covert or deceptive nature of the conduct could be in relation to any part of the person’s conduct.

    So, an academic working for a foreign public university (a “foreign principal”, even if the country is one of our allies) may inadvertently commit the crime of foreign interference where they run a research project that involves anonymous survey responses to collect information to advocate for Australian electoral law reform.

    The anonymous nature of the survey may be sufficient for the academic’s conduct to be “covert”.

    Because it is a crime to prepare for foreign interference, the academic may also have committed an offence by simply taking any steps towards publication of the research results (including preliminary research or writing a first draft).

    The kind of research criminalised by the espionage and foreign interference offences may be important public interest research. It may also produce knowledge and ideas that are necessary for the exchange of information which underpins our liberal democracy.

    Criminalising this conduct risks undermining academic freedom and eroding core democratic principles.

    So, how can we protect academic freedom?
    In addition to implementing the recommendations in the report, we must reform our national security crimes to protect academic freedom in Australia. While the committee acknowledged the adequacy of these crimes to mitigate the national security threats against the research sector, it did not consider the overreach of these laws.

    Legitimate research endeavours could be better protected if a “national interest” defence to a charge of espionage or foreign interference were introduced. This would be similar to “public interest” defences and protect conduct done in the national interest.

    “National interest” should be flexible enough so various liberal democratic values — including academic freedom, press freedom, government accountability, and protection of human rights — can be considered alongside national security.

    In the absence of a federal bill of rights, such a defence would go a long way towards ensuring legitimate research is protected and academic freedom in Australia is upheld.The Conversation

    Sarah Kendall is a PhD candidate in law, The University of Queensland. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By David Reid of Local Democracy Reporting

    A media bribe? More like the deal of the century.

    Fifty-five million dollars does sound like a lot of money. It could buy you a fantastic jet-setting lifestyle, homes around the world and certainly the freedom to never work again.

    But what it won’t buy you is influence over a near 200-year-old industry that costs billions to run every year.

    Local Democracy Reporting
    LOCAL DEMOCRACY REPORTING

    Yet, as the government’s Public Interest Journalism Fund turns towards its home straight, there is the baffling suggestion that somehow editors around New Zealand have all been “bought” by the Labour government.

    It is a false, dangerous and frankly lazy assumption.

    One of the bigger recipients of the fund is the Local Democracy Reporting scheme. It takes about $1.5 million a year. It will likely always need public money because it was set up to fix a problem.

    Regional news is struggling. Advertising revenue has been hoovered by tech giants.

    Facebook versus the Akaroa Mail… who would you bet on?

    Slashed to survive
    So, local radio stations, community papers and even regional titles in place for more than a century have had to slash to survive.

    Reporters could no more sit in council meetings, chase up the activities of ports or dig into what district health boards are up to. There wasn’t the time. There wasn’t the money.

    Journalists, already earning scandalously small wages, got sacked and local news got smaller.

    Private media did not step in to fill the gap as there was no profit to be had.

    So local lawmakers were quietly left alone to manage ratepayer money. Some did better than others.

    Addressing this information vacuum, RNZ and the News Publishers’ Association got creative.

    In 2019, they set up a project known as Local Democracy Reporting. Based on similar schemes in Canada and the UK, it now manages 15 reporters around the country.

    Seeking the truth
    The journalists, funded by taxpayer money, are employed to go and seek truth from publicly elected people and organisations.

    Stories they write can be accessed by rival media outlets at the same time as they go to print by the host newsroom. It is, at its core, a domestic wire service.

    Last year, LDR reporters wrote more than 3000 local stories from around the country generating more than 9 million page views.

    Stories from the top to bottom of New Zealand were shared for free to the 30 media partners who sign up to the scheme.

    And since the project’s inception in 2019, how many stories have been questioned by the purse holders at NZ On Air? Not one. Not a single email, telephone call or meeting has questioned the editorial output of any one of the reporters.

    Neither has there been a single suggestion of a news line that reporters might consider. And if there had been, you can take it as gospel that these reporters would chuck the suggestions straight in the bin.

    Journalists value their independence.

    LDR reporters not ‘newbies’
    LDR reporters are not “newbies” to the game either. They are at least mid-career and know their patches well. Most are part of a newsroom they worked in before LDR existed and are well in tune with their audience.

    They are Māori, Pākehā, female, male, old and young. But most importantly they are skilled reporters who spend their time searching for fact, inconsistency, lies and truth.

    The idea that they and their editors are now craven to government paymasters that they have never met is both preposterous and insulting.

    And the best way to see this is to look at the stories. They hardly paint the government of the day in a flattering light.

    Covid-19 rules, new laws for farmers, racial inequity and management of water are just some of the topics given regional voice. In these stories, government ministers don’t get a look in.

    Some who decry public funding of news are also quick to complain that the ‘metropolitan elite’ don’t pay enough attention to the smaller towns and communities.

    They say the mainstream media has no clue about ‘real New Zealand, doing it tough’.

    Stitching it all together
    LDR is in place to address that very concern.

    Up and down the country, the reporters go out and talk to iwi, business owners, parents, councillors and mayors. They stitch it all together and get it in the news.

    If you want to judge the success and worth of a local democracy reporter, go talk to your local councillors. Ask if they enjoy having reporters present at meetings. If they are honest, they will tell you that they don’t.

    They know public discussion of any rate increase, speed limit change or building project could be online to a big audience within minutes.

    The LDR project constantly keeps its eye on the use of public cash all around the country. It costs every New Zealander about 30 cents a year. What a bargain.

    David Reid is the Local Democracy Reporting manager. Asia Pacific Report is an LDR partner.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    The first media freedom advocacy group has formed in the Marshall Islands. Organisers this week were in the initial phase of outreach to launch the Pacific Media Institute, which was incorporated last month as a non-profit organisation.

    Despite a small but robust independent news media in the Marshall Islands, there has never been an advocacy group for media freedom in this nation.

    “If ever there was a ‘right time’ to form an advocacy organisation for freedom of expression and transparency in government, now is it,” said Marshall Islands Journal editor Giff Johnson, one of the founding members of the institute.

    “Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine is a prime example of a violation of a sovereign, independent democracy that undermines the rule of law.

    “Moreover, we watch as Russia suppresses access to independent media at home to prevent its citizens from knowing what is happening in the Ukraine and the world’s reaction to the invasion.”

    Founders of PMI said closer to home, there were indications of democracy and media freedoms eroding in island nations that banned visits by foreign independent media and attempted to restrict their own media and freedom of expression by their citizens.

    “We are fortunate in the Marshall Islands to have clear free speech rights enshrined in the Constitution and to have had governments for decades that respect this essential element of democracy,” Johnson added.

    Freedoms ‘cannot be taken for granted’
    “But these freedoms here and in the region should not be taken for granted. We need to celebrate them where they exist, strengthen them where we can, and advocate for them where they don’t.”

    A growing concern is the increasingly active presence in the islands of governments outside the region that do not support media freedom and transparency in government operations at home and bring this philosophy with them into the region, he said.

    The PMI is a joint effort of three people in independent media in the Marshall Islands.

    Joining Johnson as co-founders of PMI are Daniel Kramer, CEO of Six9Too Productions and Power 103.5FM, and Fred J. Pedro, a long-time broadcaster and talk show host.

    They said PMI hoped to promote independent media and transparency in government in the Marshall Islands as well as neighbouring nations.

    The purpose of the new non-profit organisation is to:

    • Advocate for and engage in media freedom and freedom of expression;

    • Promote transparency and accountability in government;

    • Support expansion of independent, non-government media; and

    • Promote training and other initiatives to increase the number and skills of people working in media and the quality of reporting in the Marshall Islands and regionally.

    ‘Watershed moment’
    Veteran Pacific islands journalist Floyd K. Takeuchi said: “This is a watershed moment in the history of independent journalism in the Western Pacific.

    “And what better country to see a media freedom group organized than the Marshall Islands, which for more than half a century has shown how democratic values, chiefly and cultural traditions, and a free press can comfortably coexist.”

    PMI has already reached out to Takeuchi and other journalists with extensive experience in the region to collaborate on proposed training for media and outreach dialogues with top-level government authorities in the initial phase of the organisation.

    “We want to see more young people take up careers in media in the future,” said Kramer.

    “We hope that PMI can help interest young people in media careers through training and other opportunities that our new group plans to offer for journalists here and in the island region.”

    Kramer’s Six9Too Productions has established an ongoing record of collaboration among musicians from the Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands and Polynesian countries that have produced hit songs and music videos.

    He said PMI hoped to see this type of collaboration among working journalists here and in the region to bolster reporting skills and media freedom in general.

    The PMI founders said they were hopeful that countries internationally that supported media freedom, democracy and transparency in government would be supportive of PMI training and other initiatives.

    “We want to start tapping opportunities for synergy among working journalists in the Marshall Islands and in other Pacific islands through collaborative training programs and reporting initiatives,” said Johnson.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    Several media crews have already come under fire and four reporters have sustained gunshot injuries in Ukraine since the start of the Russian invasion as it enters its fourth week.

    Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has reaffirmed its call to the Russian and Ukrainian authorities to comply with their international obligations to guarantee the safety of reporters in the field, and urges journalists to take the utmost care.

    The shots came within centimetres of Swiss photographer Guillaume Briquet’s head when presumed members of a Russian special commando fired on him shortly after he passed a Ukrainian checkpoint on a road towards the southern city of Mykolaiv on March 6, while covering the Russian advance in the region.

    Despite the many “Press” markings on his car and his bulletproof vest marked “Press,” this experienced war reporter was then harassed by the soldiers, who stole 3000 euros and reporting equipment from him.

    “As this incident clearly illustrates, reporters in the field are targets for belligerents despite all the rules protecting journalists,” said Jeanne Cavelier, the head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk.

    “They are civilians, who are keeping the world informed about the progress of the fighting. They must be able to work safely. We therefore call on all parties to the conflict to immediately commit to protecting journalists in the field in accordance with international law.

    “We also recommend that journalists exercise the utmost caution in the light of the many attacks by Russian commandos sent ahead as scouts.”

    Under Russian fire
    “They were less than 50 metres away,” RSF was told by Briquet, who was wounded in the face and arm by glass splinters from his windshield.

    “They clearly shot to kill. If I hadn’t ducked, I would have been hit. I’ve been fired on before in other war zones, but I’ve never seen this.

    Journalists - RSF Ukraine war map 17 March 2022
    Map: RSF. Go to https://bit.ly/3qjMuKz for the interactive map

    “Journalists traveling around the country with no war experience are in mortal danger.”

    A crew working for the London-based pan-Arab TV channel Al-Araby TV — reporter Adnan Can and cameraman Habip Demircicame under Russian fire in Irpin, a suburb of Kyiv, on March 6. Shots were aimed at their car even though they had attached a white flag and “Press” signs to it.

    Trapped in a town where fighting was taking place, the two journalists had to hide with residents.

    A crew with the UK’s Sky News TV channel — consisting of four Brits and a Ukrainian journalist – came under fire from a Russian reconnaissance unit while heading toward Bucha, on the outskirts of Kyiv, on the fourth day of the invasion, February 28.

    The crew’s leader, reporter Stuart Ramsay, sustained a gunshot injury to the lower back while cameraman Richie Mockler’s body armour stopped two other rounds.

    After shouting that they were journalists and after seeing that the shooting continued despite their press vests, the crew had to abandon their vehicle and run for cover.

    Brush with death
    Vojtech Bohac
    and Majda Slamova, two Czech journalists reporting for Voxpot, and two Ukrainian journalists with Central TV had more luck during a similar incident while travelling together in a car in Makariv, another town on the outskirts of Kyiv, on March 3.

    They managed to escape uninjured in their car after coming under fire from Russian soldiers using AK-47 assault rifles, their media outlets reported.

    “This shoulder wound missed costing me my life by just a few centimetres,” Danish journalist Stefan Weichert told RSF. He is now hospitalised in Denmark after being evacuated along his colleague, Emil Filtenborg Mikkelsen, who sustained four gunshot wounds in the same attack.

    The two reporters for the Danish newspaper Ekstra-Bladet sustained these injuries in the northeastern town of Okhtyrka on 26 February.

    “The gunman, who we weren’t able to identify, was located about 15 metres behind our car.” Weichert said. “He couldn’t have failed to see the ‘press’ sign that was clearly visible on our car.”

    4 TV towers bombed
    As well as firing live rounds at reporters, the Russian armed forces have also carried out strikes on telecommunications antennae to prevent Ukrainian TV and radio broadcasts. Four radio and TV towers — in Kyiv, Korosten, Lyssytchansk and Kharkiv — have been the targets of Russian attacks that abruptly terminated broadcasting by at least 32 TV channels and several dozen national radio stations.

    Evgeny Sakun, a cameraman for the local Kyiv Live TV channel, was at the Kyiv tower at the time of the attack and was killed in circumstances that RSF is investigating.

    Ukraine is ranked 97th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index, while Russia is ranked 150th.

    Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ANALYSIS: By Sue Ahearn

    As China seeks greater influence in the South Pacific, its manipulation of local news outlets is having a serious impact on media independence.

    Most Pacific media organisations are struggling financially, many journalists have lost their jobs and China is offering a way for them to survive — at the cost of media freedom.

    It’s not just the “no strings attached” financial aid and “look and learn” tours of China for journalists; it’s about sharing an autocratic media model.

    Prominent journalists and media executives say Pacific leaders are copying Chinese media tactics and stopping them from doing their jobs.

    China is one of the worst countries in the world for media freedom. It ranks 177 on the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index.

    Now it’s trying to influence media around the world, especially in countries which have signed up to its Belt and Road Initiative. That includes 10 Pacific island nations. Four remain with Taiwan.

    China has spent an estimated US$6.6 billion over 13 years strengthening its global media presence. It took over Radio Australia’s shortwave transmitter frequencies in the Pacific when the ABC shut down its shortwave service in 2017.

    Satellite service for Vanuatu
    China’s national television service is about to start broadcasting by satellite into Vanuatu.

    In a 2020 report, the International Federation of Journalists warned that foreign journalists were wooed by exchange programs, opportunities to study in China, tours and financial aid for their media outlets. Beijing also provides free content in foreign newspapers and ambassadors write opinion pieces for local media.

    The federation’s report found that journalists frequently think their media is strong enough to withstand this influence, but a global survey suggests that’s not the reality and China is reshaping the media round the world.

    These attempts at ‘sharp power’ go beyond simply telling China’s story, according to Sarah Cook, research director for China, Hong Kong and Taiwan at Freedom House. Their sharper edge often undermines democratic norms, erodes national sovereignty, weakens the financial sustainability of independent media, and violates local laws.

    Journalists say this is an ideological and political struggle, with China determined to combat what it sees as decades of unchallenged Western media imperialism.

    There’s mounting evidence from the Pacific of the impact of Beijing’s worldwide campaign, particularly in Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

    The situation for journalists in Solomon Islands has rapidly changed since the country swapped diplomatic allegiance from Taipei to Beijing in 2019. Media freedom has deteriorated and journalists say leaders are now taking their cues from China.

    Vulnerable media outlets
    Media outlets are vulnerable to offers of financial help. Many journalists have lost jobs and others haven’t been paid for months. It’s estimated there are just 16 full-time journalists left in Honiara.

    There’s been little advertising since the November 2021 riots, a situation exacerbated by the covid pandemic. The only income for one privately owned media outlet is from the small street sales of its newspapers.

    Earlier this month, the Solomon Islands government held its first news conference for 2022 after months of pressure to talk to journalists. The government denied there were restrictions on media freedom.

    As the media struggles to survive, China’s ambassador is offering support, such as more trips to China (after the pandemic) and donations including two vehicles to the Solomon Star and maintenance of the newspaper’s printing presses. In the experience of other media, these offers are often followed with pressure to adhere to editorial positions congruent with those of the Chinese embassy.

    While some journalists are resisting the pressure and holding a strong line, others are being targeted by China with rewards for “friends”.

    Chinese embassies throughout the South Pacific are active on social media. In Solomon Islands, the embassy’s Facebook site includes posts about its aid assistance for covid-19, joint press releases with the Solomons government and stories from official Chinese news outlets.

    There are numerous examples of the growing impact on media freedom.

    Harassment over investigation
    A freelance journalist has relocated to Australia after her investigations into the relationship between Solomons Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and a Chinese businessman resulted in harassment from police. She said police told her an order for her arrest came directly from the prime minister.

    She was advised by Australia’s high commissioner to move to Australia for her safety.

    Veteran journalist Dorothy Wickham was among a group of Solomon Islands journalists who accepted an invitation for a “look and learn” tour of China soon after the Sogavare government swapped allegiance to China in 2019.

    She said the trip left her concerned about how Solomon Islands would deal with its new diplomatic partner.

    “By the time our tour concluded in Shanghai, I was personally convinced that our political leaders are not ready or able to deal effectively with China. Solomon Islands’ regulatory and accountability mechanisms are too weak,” she says.

    “We have already shown some spirit with our attorney-general rejecting a hasty deal to lease the island of Tulagi, the capital of one of our provinces, to a Chinese company, but I fear how fragile and weak my country is against any large developed nation let alone China,’ she wrote in an article for The Guardian.

    One senior media executive that said if his own government, Australia, and New Zealand didn’t assist, he would look to China.

    “There is too much talk about the role of media in democracy,” he said. He thought the Chinese ambassador understood that his organisation had its own editorial policy.

    Soon after that, though, he was asked to publish a press release word for word.

    No expense spared
    Another media executive said he only had to ring the Chinese embassy and help arrived. He said China was rapidly moving into his country’s media space with no expense spared.

    High-profile Vanuatu journalist Dan McGarry says he has no doubt that some Pacific governments are following China’s lead and adopting its contempt for critical speech and dissent.

    In 2019, McGarry left Vanuatu to attend a forum in Australia, but his visa was revoked and he was banned from re-entering Vanuatu. He told the ABC’s Media Watch programme at the time that he had no doubt it was because of a story he wrote about the secret deportation of six Chinese from Vanuatu.

    The six were arrested and detained without charge on the premises of a Chinese company with numerous large government contracts before being escorted out of Vanuatu by Chinese and Vanuatu police. McGarry said he was summoned by the prime minister, who told him he was disappointed with his negative reporting.

    McGarry said he had no evidence that China tried to influence the Vanuatu government over his residence, but he’d seen a tendency in Pacific leaders to emulate behaviour they saw elsewhere.

    Now back in Vanuatu, he said the decision to refuse his work permit was still under judicial review and he’s seeking financial compensation.

    In 2018, Papua New Guinea journalist Scott Waide was suspended by EMTV under pressure from Prime Minister Peter O’Neill for a story he wrote about a diplomatic Chinese tantrum and a scandal over the purchase of Maserati cars for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Port Moresby.

    Waide told the ABC that Pacific governments were taking lessons from China in dealing with their critics using media clampdowns and intimidation. That didn’t necessarily involve direct instructions from Beijing, “but people watch, people learn”.

    Head of news sacked
    A dispute over media freedom has escalated with the sacking of the head of news and 24 journalists at EMTV in PNG. They were initially suspended but later terminated for supporting their editor over interference from a government minister about a story involving an Australian man charged with drug trafficking.

    On March 9, the EMTV news manager was sacked for insubordination. The network has since hired a new team of recent graduates with little experience — just months before the scheduled elections in June.

    These examples give a sharper edge to concerns about China’s growing influence in the South Pacific and the lack of an Australian media voice there. The ABC’s presence has been described as a whisper.

    There’s only one Australian journalist based in the region, the ABC’s Natalie Whiting in PNG. Meanwhile, Xinhua has a correspondent based in Fiji and China has recently been recruiting Pacific journalists for its global TV network.

    The situation worries Australia’s national broadcaster. ABC managing director David Anderson told a Senate hearing in February 2022 of growing Chinese influence in the Pacific.

    “The single biggest piece of information that comes back to us from the public broadcasters is concern over the pressure the Chinese government put on them to carry content,” he said.

    In November 2019, the Melanesian Media Freedom Forum at Griffith University expressed concern about growing threats to media freedom. It called on Pacific governments to fund public broadcasters properly to ensure they have sufficient equipment and staff to enable their services to reach all citizens and to adequately play their watchdog role.

    Australian journalist, media development consultant and trainer Jemima Garrett says media executives are at risk of being captured by China.

    She has no doubt that China’s growing influence is a major story, but with so few Australian journalists based in the region, even significant developments in the China story are going unreported.

    Sue Ahearn is the creator and co-editor of The Pacific Newsroom and co-convenor of the Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative. She was a senior executive at ABC Radio Australia and is currently studying Pacific development at the Australian National University. Image: Media Association of Solomon Islands/Facebook. This article was first published by The Strategist and is republished with the author’s permission.

    • Author’s note: Some of the Pacific journalists in this story have asked not to be named or identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ Pacific

    Sincha Dimara, the news and current affairs manager at EMTV and one of Papua New Guinea’s most experienced journalists, has been sacked after weeks of being suspended.

    Dimara, who was one of the longest serving journalists in PNG and at EMTV for 30 years, was accused of “insubordination” after political pressure from a minister.

    It concerned stories EMTV had run about a controversial Australian businessman Jamie Pang operating in PNG who was facing criminal charges.

    When she was suspended, 24 other news staff walked off the job in support — they were later sacked.

    Leading independent journalist Scott Waide worked alongside Dimara for years and said her main concern was that the other reporters be re-instated because there was important work to do with the elections looming in mid-year.

    “She was trying to negotiate the re-instatement of the 24 stafff who were sacked because they stood up,” he said.

    Heavy penalty expected
    “And she was expecting a termination or something like that heavier penalty after her suspension.

    “So she was saying, ‘Even if they sack me that’s fine, but the 24 staff have to go back to work because we have an election to cover in June’”

    Pacific Media Watch reports that EMTV is reported to have recruited recent graduates and inexperienced journalists to replace its core team, which was one of the most experienced newsrooms in Papua New Guinea.

    The suspensions have been widely condemned by the PNG Media Council, Brussels-based International Journalists Federation, Paris-based Reporters Without Borders, Media Alliance (MEAA), Pacific Freedom Forum and Pacific Media Watch.

    RSF called it “unacceptable political meddling”.

    Some media critics have expressed concern about a foreign CEO at the network axing virtually an entire newsroom. They say the country’s leading television channel has lost credibility as a result.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • SPECIAL REPORT: By Rituraj Sapkota of Māori Television

    “I have never had that fear before that I might get physically hurt,” says Patrice Allen, a Ngati Kahungunu and Newshub camera operator based in Wellington.

    “You’re going down there, you don’t know what it’s going to be like. A person from Wellington Live got beaten up.”

    Māori Television’s press gallery videographer David Graham (Taranaki Whānui and Waikato) started working as a news cameraman in Wellington in 1989. He was there for the seabed and foreshore protests, and “in the 1990s it was Moutua and Pakitore,” he recollects. “But this is the most volatile one I have seen.

    “Back then we [the media] were part of the show. They wanted us to be there. Now we are a part of the ‘axis of evil’, along with the police and government.”

    Up against your own
    “Now there are Pākehā calling you kūpapa [Māori warriors who fought on the British colonial troops side during the New Zealand Wars in the 19th century],” he says. He has just returned from filming with his phone in the crowd, and has heard protesters say things. Nasty things.

    “Stuff like ‘you should be ashamed of yourself. You should be ashamed of your whakapapa!’”

    “I just don’t engage,” says Graham. “And I am not a random man with a camera here. I actually have whakapapa back to this marae on my father’s side,” he says, referring to Pipitea Marae where Taranaki Whānui laid down Te Kahu o Raukura as a cultural protection over the surrounding land that includes the Parliament grounds.

    The protesters had lots of livestreams and many of them kept filming media camera-ops who were filming them. (Below: David Graham finds himself in one of the live feeds while a protester in the crowd heckles him.)

    A standup by Maori Television's Parliament videographer Dave Graham
    A standup by Maori Television’s Parliament videographer David Graham captured on protester’s social media grab. Image: Māori Television

    Allen feels the mamae is stronger when it comes from your own people.

    “This happened on the day of the last protests,” she says, referring to the protests in November where the crowd threw tennis balls and water bottles at the media. She was filming a timelapse of the crowd leaving when a mother-son duo walked up to her.

    “He was a big dude and he was really getting in my face. I was not feeling very safe. And I thought, ‘how can I diffuse this?’” So she asked them where they were from.

    “And they were like where are you from? What are you?”

    “Oh, Ngati Kahungunu, just over the hill in Wairarapa,” she replied. The man said something targeting not just her but also her iwi. “And that just broke my spirit,” says Allen.

    “It was one of the days I went home and cried.”

    ‘We’re the enemy now’
    “We are the enemy now,” says Allen. “And there is nothing you can do or say that will change their minds.”

    Her teammate Emma Tiller thinks the camera can be a beacon in the crowd. “As soon as you put it up, everyone knows who you are. And they hate you.”

    And even though security cover has become standard practice for all news camera-ops filming in the crowd, there are times she feels vulnerable. “It’s hard to think back to protests when we were out there. We didn’t have security with us. It didn’t even cross our minds.

    “But now who wants to risk the violence?” she says.

    “They have thrown things at the police. If they can do that to them, what can they do to us?”

    The Speaker’s balcony
    The Speaker’s balcony is empty today … a far cry from Wednesday, March 2, when it was packed with camera operators and reporters (below) as police cracked down on the occupation and cleared Parliament grounds. Image: Māori Television
    The balcony was allocated by the Speaker to media workers
    The balcony was allocated by the Speaker of the House to media workers as a safe space. David Graham (left) and Patrice Allen (third from left). Māori Television

    “The last time I had security was when I was filming in East Timor,” says Allen. It was a long time ago, she adds, and at a time and place when there were terrorists around.

    “It’s really bad because it’s made it ‘us and them’, media against protesters, and it’s not supposed to be like that.”

    ‘Difficult to turn off’
    Sam Anderson, 22, is TVNZ’s camera operator at the press gallery. “It has been difficult to turn off,” he says “ I have been there [on the Speaker’s balcony] from 9am to 6pm just streaming the whole day.

    “It’s all you are doing – copping the abuse, being yelled at, having your morality questioned.

    “I sometimes hide behind the pillars from the frontliners who can yell all day.

    “And throw that in with reading all the signs around you,” says Tiller.

    “And they yell at you. And you go home and you can’t switch it off.”

    Anti-"mainstream" media signs
    Throughout the protests, the signs have been as much anti-“mainstream” media as they have been anti-government. Image: Māori Television

    Anderson’s teammate, Sam von Keisenberg, was on that balcony on February 11 when police made many arrests. Shortly after they arrested someone at the forecourt and the crowd was yelling at the police, a lady pointed a finger at him and said “You! You are a paedophile protector!”

    “At first I was like, ‘that’s new’. But then she said it 50 times, as loud as she could, just at me.”

    He pulled his camera off the tripod. “It was getting to me”, he says. “I have children. I would never protect a paedophile.”

    His colleague asked him where he was going. “Just to punch some lady in the face,” he said under his breath. “And I walked out and just went to the bathroom.”

    Sweeping generalisations
    “Sometimes you have to take a step back,” von Keisenberg says.

    “I had never experienced hate [directed] at me before,” RNZ video journalist Angus Dreaver says. Especially this type, he says, where they think media are traitors, and they want them to know.

    “Four months ago, I was doing kids’ TV.”

    Dreaver thinks the generalisation works both ways. While the protesters see the mainstream media as a monolith and sweep them with one giant brush, “it’s important for us, conversely, not to see them that way.”

    Von Keisenberg believes there were more moderates in the crowd than extremists. “I always felt there were enough people around me,” he says. And that made him feel safe in the first week when he was filming undercover, knowing that “if things did get violent, there would be some moderate ones who would stop them”.

    He saw that in action, too. In his forays of the first week, when he joined the crowd unmasked to avoid attention. He saw a man there in his 70s wearing a mask.

    “The first thing he said to me was that he was immunocompromised, which is why he was wearing the mask.”

    “It’s fine, mate. It’s a freedom rally, do what you want,” von Keisenberg said. But another protester came up and “tried to pull his mask off and started berating him, saying he had no identity. The mob mentality started and people around the gate joined in and started giving him grief.”

    Von Keisenberg intervened. “Oi! chill out man. It’s a freedom rally, he’s free to wear a mask!”

    “A woman close by turned around and said, ‘Yeah, come on guys! leave him alone.’ And they did.”

    Mainstream media
    When people tell von Keisenberg that they don’t watch mainstream media, his follow-up is, “Well then, how do you know we are ‘lying’?”

    “They say, ‘we get our news from Facebook, which is different’. Yeah, different, because there aren’t many rules around it,” von Keisenberg says.

    “Mainstream media is held more to account than social media,” Allen says. “But they think the opposite.”

    Some of Dreaver’s acquaintances have shared his photos on Instagram, in posts that read “Mainstream media are liars”. “Bro, that’s me!”, he says.

    Trying to remain objective in the face of constant harassment is a real challenge.

    “I am almost hyper-aware of that, where I am trying to capture the mundane and relax as much as the heightened states,” he adds. “And I am trying to not let my anger affect the pictures I take or how I cover it.”

    But for camera operators, the task ends once they take the picture. “We only aim for clear sound and sharp, steady pictures,” Graham says. “The rest of the stuff is for other people to decide what to do with.”

    Anderson thinks there are differences in perspectives within newsrooms. People who have watched the protests from a distance or from their desks often take a kinder view of the protesters, he says.

    “But me and the other camera ops, we copped a lot of abuse over three weeks. We just have a more bitter taste in our mouths for this crowd.”

    The PM in ‘disguise’
    There have been the fun moments, though, Anderson admits. There have been “raves” with young people dancing on the frontlines and he found himself almost filming to the beat. And there was a protester who thought he was the prime minister in disguise.

    A Reddit thread with a screenshot of a protester’s post
    A Reddit thread with a screenshot of a protester’s post. Image: Sam Anderson screenshot

    “Now that is one theory I know is not true,” says his teammate von Keisenberg. But how does he know for sure?

    “Because I have seen both of them in the same room at the same time.”

    And von Keisenberg has had his fun moments in the crowd, too. In one instance when he was filming undercover, a woman went on the stage and started talking into the mic about electric and magnetic fields (radiation) and how crystals could block them.

    “Bullshit!” von Keisenberg turned around and shouted.

    “We are here for the mandates,” he added, not snapping out of character, and for the benefit of those around him who were listening to the woman speak.

    A potential for volence
    “The vibe changed every few days, and that was because people kept coming and going,” von Keisenberg says. “But there were always the elements who were there for whatever happened on day 23.”

    One camera op I spoke to said there had been a “potential for violence” right throughout. And when someone like Winston Peters visits the crowd and says “the mainstream media have been gaslighting you for a long time,” it gives them validation, and lends credibility to their theories.

    But for those on the ground gathering news amid a hostile crowd, it exacerbates the possibility for harm.

    Added to this potential of violence is the constant anticipation of things to come. “You have to be always prepared for when something will happen,” as Tiller puts it. “And that is exhausting.”

    Emma Tiller describes her experience of the Speaker’s balcony as, “You feel like you have to be prepared for if something is going to happen, and that is exhausting.”

    Emma Tiller on the Speaker’s balcony … “You feel like you have to be prepared for if something is going to happen, and that is exhausting.” Image: Sam James/Newshub

    “The day things turn to custard, you want to be there on the ground,” Graham said to me a few days before the police operation. “You don’t want to be at home watching it on TV.”

    And turn to custard it did; the threat of violence became reality on day 23. While the “battle” raged between the police and the protesters, the media people found themselves being targeted.

    Dreaver was in the crowd by the tent where a fire had started. “A Mainstream! We have got a Mainstream here,” a woman who spotted him started shouting.

    Brandishing a camping chair, she told him to, “get out of here! Out! Out!” The riot police were advancing behind him and he stood his ground.

    “She started hitting me on the back with it,” he said. “She didn’t have a lot of speed but it was still a metal chair.”

    “It hurt a bit,” he reckons.

    “Get out of here,” demands the woman who attacked Dreaver with a chair. “Just go” shouts a man standing beside her. Screengrab from RNZ’s video story.

    RNZ protest screengrab
    “Get out of here,” demands a woman who attacked RNZ’s Angus Dreaver with a chair. “Just go” shouts a man standing beside her. Image: RNZ screengrab from video story.

    ‘Not everyone’
    “There were some protesters who were trying to stop the violence. Even right at the end,” says Dreaver, recollecting how when some people were breaking up bits from the concrete slabs to get smaller throw-able chunks, another person tried to physically get in the way and stop them.

    “But the other guys had a metal tent pole and whacked him over the head with it.”

    Throughout the three weeks of protests, there had been repeated calls from the protesters asking the media to talk to them. On the morning of day 23 when I was filming from the Speaker’s balcony, a TV reporter had just finished a live cross into the bulletin.

    A man’s voice rang out from among the crowd, on the PA, inviting the media on the balcony to “come down and talk to real people and report the truth.” The same voice went on to berate us for wearing masks, behind which we were allegedly smiling smugly.

    Less than a minute after the initial invitation, he followed up with another call to step down so he could put a fist through the mask.

    “Why don’t you come down to talk to us? Because getting bashed with a chair was always inevitable,” says Dreaver. “It’s crazy it took so long.”

    Protesters whacked another protester with a tent pole as he tried to stop the violence. “It didn’t look as though it injured him, because the tent poles are quite light, but it looked quite gnarly,” Dreaver says.

    Protesters whack another protestor with a tent pole
    Protesters whack another protestor with a tent pole as he tries to stop the violence. Image: Screengrab from RNZ video story

    The aftermath
    Parliament’s grounds have been reclaimed. All but one street around the buildings is now open to the public. On Sunday, Te Āti Awa held a karakia to reinstall the mauri of the land. There is currently a rāhui over the Parliament grounds.

    It is time for healing. And moving on.

    “I was feeling sad last week. And then I look at Ukraine and realise there are bombs going off next to all these journalists and camera operators,” Dreaver says “I got hit with a camping chair and I am going to sit around and complain about it?”

    The effect of these protests linger though. Graham spent last Friday a week ago filming the hau kainga at Wainuiomata on high alert, and trying to keep the protesters from entering and setting up camp on their marae, as have other hapū around the capital.

    The crowd has dispersed but not vanished, and neither has their kaupapa.

    “I have seen some of their kōrero online,” Graham says. The mandates might be gone soon, but “there will be other stuff,” he reckons.

    “It’s definitely not over.”

    Rituraj Sapkota is Māori Television’s videographer in Parliament’s press gallery. Republished with permission from Te Ao Māori News.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor about Russian strikes on four radio and TV towers in Ukraine since March 1 that constitute a war crime.

    The strikes have prevented Ukrainian media from broadcasting. At least 32 TV channels and several dozen radio stations have been affected, reports the Paris-based global media freedom watchdog.

    Since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine on February 24, it has deliberately targeted TV antennae throughout the country.

    Under international law, antennae used for broadcasting radio and TV signals cannot be regarded as legitimate military targets unless they are used by the armed forces, or are temporarily assigned to military use, or are used for both civilian and military purposes at the same time.

    RSF’s complaint demonstrates that the TV towers were civilian in nature, and that Russia deliberately targeted Ukrainian media installations because, Russia said, these installations were participating in “information attacks”.

    The complaint filed by RSF emphasises the intentional nature of these attacks, and the fact that they are being carried out on a large scale, which shows that they are part of a deliberate plan.

    “Deliberately bombarding many media installations such as television antennae constitutes a war crime and demonstrates the scale of the offensive launched by Putin against the right to news and information,” RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said.

    Plea on crimes against media
    “These crimes are all the more serious for clearly being part of a plan, part of a policy, and for being carried out on a large scale. We call on the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor to put crimes against media and journalists at the heart of the investigation he opened on February 28.”

    The ICC’s chief prosecutor announced on February 28 that he was opening an investigation into the situation in Ukraine.

    On March 2, 39 countries that are parties to the Rome Statute (the treaty establishing the ICC) formally referred the situation in Ukraine to the prosecutor.

    These referrals allow him to begin his investigations at once, without having to seek authorisation from the court’s judges first.

    After Kyiv being fired on by the Russian armed forces for the previous week, the city’s TV tower was hit by a precision strike on March 1 that abruptly terminated broadcasting by 32 TV channels and several dozen national radio stations.

    This deliberate strike had been announced in advance by the Russian Defence Ministry. Under the guise of protecting civilians, the Defence Ministry issued a signed confession to its crimes.

    The Kyiv TV tower — which had an adjoining technical building that was destroyed by the bombardment — had no military use and was used only by civilian TV and radio stations, such as the public TV channel UA Pershiy, the privately-owned TV channel 1+1 and the TV news channel Ukraine 24.

    Broadcasts were cut short
    The viewers and listeners of these media outlets, whose broadcasts were cut short by the Russian strike, had to switch to satellite operators or go online to access their programming until broadcasting was reinstated later in the day.

    The Russian strike killed Evgeny Sakun, a cameraman working for the Kyiv Live local TV channel who was at the TV tower, and four other people.

    Since that first major attack on an essential installation for accessing news and information, Russia has attacked other TV towers.

    According to the information obtained by RSF and its local partner IMI, at least three other radio and TV towers, in Korosten, Lysychansk and Kharkiv, have been the targets of Russian strikes, and two radio antennae, in Melitopol and Kherson, stopped broadcasting after Russian soldiers took control of those cities.

    Strikes targeted the TV tower in the city of Lysychansk (in the Luhansk region, whose independence Russia has recognised) late in the morning of March 2. The radio and TV tower in the northeastern city Kharkiv was targeted by two Russian missiles shortly before 1 pm, causing its broadcast to be suspended.

    Later the same day, another strike destroyed the TV tower in the norther city of Korosten.

    These strikes against telecommunications antennae show a clear intention by the Russian armed forces to prevent the dissemination of news and information. The warning issued shortly before the attacks makes it clear that Russian military want to end what they call “information attacks”.

    This desire is confirmed by the fact that the Russian army has cut Ukrainian TV and radio signals in several cities after taking control of them. In the southern region that Russia has invaded from Crimea, the occupation forces have blocked Ukrainian TV and radio broadcasts from the telecommunication towers in the cities of Melitopol and Kherson.

    Russian ‘fake news’ law cripples media
    The equipment on these towers has been changed and they are now broadcasting the pro-Kremlin propaganda channel Russia 24.

    The satellite signal of UA Pershiy, a TV channel owned by the Ukrainian public broadcasting corporation Suspline, is meanwhile being subjected to jamming attempts by Russia, and its website was hacked on March 1.

    Meanwhile, RSF has called on the Russian authorities to immediately repeal a draconian law adopted on March 4 that makes the publication of “false” or “mendacious” information about the Russian armed forces punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

    It leaves little hope for the future of the country’s few remaining independent media outlets.

    Many leading foreign media — including the BBC, CNN, Bloomberg News, ABC, CBS News and Canada’s CBC/Radio-Canada — have decided to temporarily suspend broadcasting or news gathering in Russia since the amendment, which applies to foreign as well as Russian citizens, was signed into law by President Vladimir Putin.

    Ukraine is ranked 97th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index, while Russia is ranked 150th.

    Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • SPECIAL REPORT: By Giff Johnson, editor of the Marshall Islands Journal and RNZ Pacific correspondent

    Micronitor News and Printing Company founder Joe Murphy moved the goal posts of freedom of press and freedom of expression in the Marshall Islands, a country that had virtually no tradition of either, by establishing an independent newspaper that today is the longest running weekly in the Micronesia region.

    Murphy’s sharp intellect, fierce independence, vision for creating a community newspaper, bilingual language ability, and resilience in the face of adversity saw him navigate hurdles — including high tide waves that in 1979 washed printing presses out of the Micronitor building and into the street — to successfully establish a printing company and newspaper in the challenging business environment of 1970s Majuro.

    Murphy, who died at age 79 in the United States last week, was the original sceptic, who revelled in the politically incorrect.

    At 25, he arrived in the Marshall Islands capital Majuro in the mid-1960s and was dispatched by the Peace Corps to Ujelang, the atoll of the nuclear exiles from Enewetak bomb tests that was a textbook definition of the term “in the back of beyond.” A ship once a year, and no radio, TV, telephones or mail.

    Still, Joe thrived as an elementary teacher, survived food shortages and hordes of rats, endearing him to a generation of Ujelang people as an honorary member of the exiled community.

    After Ujelang, he wrapped up his two-year Peace Corps stint by taking over teaching an unruly urban centre public school class after the previous teacher walked out. He rewrote what he deemed boring curriculum and taught in military style, replete with chants in English.

    These experiences in pre-1970s Marshall Islands fuelled his desire to return. After his Peace Corps tour, some time to travel the world, and a brief return to the US, Murphy headed back to Majuro.

    No money, but a vision
    He had no money to speak of, but he had a vision and he set out to make it happen.

    “He was determined to start a newspaper written in both the English and Marshallese languages,” recalls fellow Peace Corps Volunteer Mike Malone, the co-founder with Murphy of what was initially known as Micronitor.

    Marshall Islands Journal founder and publisher Joe Murphy in the late 2010s.
    Marshall Islands Journal founder and publisher Joe Murphy in the late 2010s … “Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.” – “I own one.” Image: Giff Johnson/RNZ

    In late 1969, they began constructing a small newspaper building, mixing concrete and laying the foundation block-by-block with the help of a few friends.

    Before the building was completed, however, they launched the Micronitor in 1970, printing from Malone’s house.

    The Micronitor would be renamed later to the Micronesian Independent for a bit before finding its identity as the Marshall Islands Journal.

    Writing in the Journal in 1999, Murphy commented: “The 30th anniversary of this publication is an event most of us who remember the humble beginnings of the Journal are surprised to see.

    “February 13, 1970 was a Friday, an unlucky day to begin an enterprise by most reckonings, and the two guys who were spearheading the operation were Irish-extract alcohol aficionados with very little or no newspaper experience.

    A worthy undertaking
    “They also, between the two of them, had practically no money, and of course should never, had they any commonsense, even attempted such a worthy undertaking.

    “But circumstances and time were on their side, and with all potential serious investors steering clear of such a dubious exercise they had the opportunity to make a great number of mistakes without an eager competitor ready and willing to capitalise on them.”

    With Murphy at the helm, it wasn’t long before the Journal earned a reputation far beyond the shores of the tiny Pacific outpost of Majuro. Murphy encouraged local writers, and spiced the newspaper with pithy comment and attacks on US Trust Territory authorities and the Congress of Micronesia.

    Joe Murphy in Majuro in the mid-1970s
    Joe Murphy in Majuro in the mid-1970s, a few years after launching the Marshall Islands Journal, which would go on to be the longest publishing weekly newspaper in the Micronesia area. Image: Giff Johnson/RNZ

    In the late 1980s and 1990s Murphy built two bars and restaurants, local-style places that appealed to Majuro residents as well as visitors. He also built the Backpacker Hotel, a modest cost accommodation that turned into a popular outpost for fisheries observers awaiting their next assignment at sea, low-budget journalists, environmentalists and assorted consultants.

    “The first thing that people think about when it comes to my father is that he is a very successful businessman here in the Marshall Islands,” said his eldest daughter Rose Murphy, who manages the company today.

    “But we need to remember him as someone who wanted to give the Republic of the Marshall Islands a voice.”

    “To say Joe was a unique person is a large understatement,” said Health Secretary and former Peace Corps Volunteer Jack Niedenthal.

    An icon with impact
    “He was an icon and had a profound impact on our country because he fostered free speech and demanded that those in our government always be held publicly accountable for their actions.”

    A plaque in his office defined his independent personality and his appreciation of the power of the press. It quoted the famous American journalist AJ Liebling: “Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.” This was followed by a three-word comment: “I own one.” – Joe Murphy.

    “He fought for freedom of speech and fought against discrimination,” said Rose Murphy. “Regardless of race, religion, and even status, he befriended people from all parts of the world and from all walks of life.”

    In the mid-1990s, Joe Murphy created what became the justly famous motto of the Journal, the “world’s worst newspaper.” It was a reaction to the more politically correct mottos of other newspapers.

    Those three words led to wide international media exposure. In 1994, the Boston Globe conducted a survey of the world’s worst newspapers, reviewing a batch of Journals Murphy mailed.

    When the Globe reporter concluded that despite its claim, the Journal not only didn’t rank as the world’s worst newspaper it was “a first-class newspaper,” Murphy’s reaction was to say, “We must have sent you the wrong issues.”

    The Marshall Islands Journal was the subject of scrutiny by the Boston Globe to determine if publisher Joe Murphy's claim that the Journal was the "World's Worst Newspaper" was accurate.
    The Marshall Islands Journal was the subject of scrutiny by the Boston Globe to determine if publisher Joe Murphy’s claim that the Journal was the “World’s Worst Newspaper” was accurate. Image: Giff Johnson/RNZ

    Murphy knew the key to successful newspaper publishing was not how nicely or otherwise the newspaper was packaged, or if a photograph was in colour. The most important ingredient in any successful local newspaper is original content, intelligently and interestingly written.

    ‘Livened up’ the Journal
    He did more than his fair share to liven up the Journal, from the time of its launch until poor health after 2019 prevented his engagement in the newspaper.

    “My father experienced extreme hardships on Ujelang along with his adopted Marshallese family, the exiled people of Enewetak Atoll, who were moved to Ujelang to make way for US nuclear tests in the late 1940s,” said daughter Rose.

    “He shared these hardships with his children to give them the perspective of being grateful for any little thing we had. If we had a broken shoe or little food, he shared with us this story.

    “Our father, to us, is a symbol of resilience and gratitude. Be resilient in tough situations.”

    From growing up among eight children of Irish immigrant parents in the United States to the austerity of Ujelang Atoll to the early days of establishing what would become the longest publishing weekly newspaper in the Micronesia region, Murphy was indeed a symbol of resilience and independence, able to navigate tough situations with alacrity.

    One of the first editions of the Majuro newspaper Micronitor in 1970
    One of the first editions of the Majuro newspaper in 1970, then known as Micronitor. Image: Giff Johnson/RNZ

    “Democracy was able to establish a toehold, and then a firm grip, in the Western Pacific in part because of a handful of journalism pioneers who believed in the power of truth, particularly Joe Murphy on Majuro,” said veteran Pacific island journalist Floyd K Takeuchi.

    “He had the courage to challenge the powers that be, including those of the chiefly kind, to be better, and to do better.

    “People forget that for many years, the long-term future of the Marshall Islands Journal wasn’t a sure thing. With every issue of the weekly newspaper, Joe’s legacy is made firmer in the islands he so loved.”

    Murphy is survived by his wife Thelma, by children Rose, Catherine “Katty,” John, Suzanne, Margaret “Peggy,” Molly, Fintan, Sam, Charles “Kainoa,” Colleen “Naki,” Patrick “Jojo”, Sean, Sylvia Zedkaia and Deardre Korean, and by 32 grandchildren.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Sharon Brettkelly, co-host of RNZ’s The Detail

    After 23 days, the occupation at Aotearoa New Zealand’s Parliament was finally brought to a chaotic and violent end. The Detail talks to two reporters who were there as it all unfolded.


    Torn tents, burnt trees and a scorched lawn were all that remained on Wednesday night of the 23-day protest on Parliament grounds.

    That morning, when the operation to clear the occupation began, RNZ’s Charlotte Cook and Stuff’s Thomas Manch had arrived before daybreak.

    Even before the first clashes erupted between the police and protesters, there was a sense of tension.

    “We had some suspicion that something was going to happen,” says Manch.

    “You don’t get 500 police officers in a city without people noticing.”

    For an hour it was quiet, but the protesters seemed agitated.

    They knew something was up, too.

    Noticed some signals
    “They’d been talking about it on their channels, they’d noticed some of the signals that we’d noticed,” says Manch.

    Protest security guards were communicating on their walkie-talkies and flashing strobe lights in the faces of the reporters.

    “And then the police helicopter was in the air, that was the start of it, that was the beginning,” says Manch

    Cook watched police officers come out of the back of Parliament, march past Lambton Quay and along Stout Street. The protesters were yelling.

    “They were upset, they knew something was going to happen but what that looked like they weren’t sure”.

    RNZ's Charlotte Cook
    RNZ’s Charlotte Cook reporting from the protest at Parliament. Image: Charlotte Cook/RNZ

    There were moments when both Cook and Manch feared for their safety.

    Cook was nearly caught in the crossfire when protesters were hurling orange traffic cones at the police.

    Aggressive agitators
    Manch says aggressive agitators, who were pushed away from the frontline by other protesters, turned on him and the Stuff visual journalist filming it.

    “We were mobbed out of the protest site by a group of people who were very angry, very threatening and very aggressive.”

    It was when Cook watched people standing in front of police cars and throwing whatever objects they could find that she knew the aggression and conflict would escalate.

    The clashes continued for more than 14 hours as protesters and riot gear-clad police pushed up against each other again and again.

    Manch watched as the police made their way towards Parliament, picking up tents as they went.

    “They would advance, claim a bunch of the territory, clear it out with a forklift and then they would move again,” he says.

    Cook says the last 23 days have left her in shock.

    “It feels like such a distant memory that the Parliament forecourt and grass area were green and luscious — it was the kind of place you want to take your shoes off and rub your toes in the grass.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Vitorio Mantalean in Jakarta

    The Indonesian Independent Journalist Alliance (AJI) has condemned the hacking and disinformation attacks against the group’s general chairperson Sasmito Madrim as a serious threat to media freedom.

    In a written release, the AJI stated that the incident was a “serious threat to press freedom and the freedom of expression”.

    “This practice is a form of attack against activists and the AJI as an organisation which has struggled for freedom of expression and press freedom,” the group stated.

    “The hacking and disinformation attack against AJI chairperson Sasmito Madrim is an attempt to terrorise activists who struggle for freedom of expression and democracy”, the group said.

    The AJI stated that the hacking attack began on February 23 and targeted Madrim’s personal WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook accounts as well as his personal mobile phone number.

    All of the posted content on his Instagram account was deleted then the hacker uploaded Madrim’s private mobile number.

    Madrim’s mobile number was subsequently unable to receive phone calls or SMS messages.

    Pornographic picture hack
    On his Facebook account, Madrim’s profile photograph was replaced with a pornographic picture.

    On February 24, the AJI monitored a disinformation attack which included Madrim’s name and photograph on social media.

    The narrative being disseminated was that Madrim supported the government’s 2020 banning of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), supports the government’s construction of the Bener Dam in Purworejo regency and has asked the police to arrest Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti, two activists who were criminalised by Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan.

    The AJI Indonesia asserts that these messages are false and such views have never been expressed by Madrim.

    “These three [pieces of] disinformation are clearly an attempt to play AJI Indonesia off against other civil society organisations, including to pit AJI against the residents of Wadas [Village] which is currently fighting against the exploitation of natural restores in its village,” wrote AJI.

    AJI Indonesia is asking the public not to believe the narrative of disinformation spreading on social media and to support them in fighting for press freedom, the right to freedom of expression, association, opinion and the right to information.

    Translated from the Kompas.com report by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Kecam Peretasan Terhadap Ketumnya, AJI: Ancaman Serius Bagi Kebebasan Pers“.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • MEAA News

    The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance’s national media section committee of elected officials has condemned the suspension of 24 Papua New Guinean TV journalists who walked off the job in support of their colleague.

    They have alleged intimidation by EMTV management and political interference. The journalists may now lose their jobs.

    EMTV head of news and current affairs Sincha Dimara has been suspended for 21 days without pay over a dispute about editorial balance.

    The incident is the third time in five years that senior journalists have been suspended for reporting public interest news stories.

    MEAA’s National Media Section committee resolved: “MEAA stands in solidarity with the journalists of EMTV in Papua New Guinea and condemns the suspension without pay of news manager Sincha Dimara and notice that 24 journalists face dismissal for walking off in support of her and over on-going editorial interference by management.

    “This is an assault not only on workers’ rights but also media freedom in PNG.

    “No journalist should be economically sanctioned for alleged ‘insubordination’ involving a dispute over editorial balance or be terminated for taking industrial action in support of a colleague in this circumstance.

    Dramatic escalation
    “This dramatic escalation by EMTV comes as MEAA continues to hold on-going concerns about allegations of political interference in the editorial decision making at PNG’s only national commercial broadcaster.

    “Ms Dimara’s case, alongside those of former EMTV head of news and current affairs Neville Choi and former Lae bureau chief Scott Waide, is the third in five years of senior journalists being suspended for reporting on matters of public interest.

    “MEAA calls on EMTV executive management to reinstate Ms Dimara and her staff on full pay and guaranteed journalists’ editorial independence.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the threats and violence against news media by protesters during the 16-day anti-covid-19 vaccine mandates occupation of Parliament grounds, and called for prosecutions of those responsible.

    The media are among favourite targets of some of the 500 or so protesters still camped in front of the Parliament building, known as the Beehive, after arriving from various parts of the country in “freedom convoys” akin to those causing chaos in parts of Canada for the past month, reports the Paris-based media freedom watchdog in a statement tonight.

    The violence against journalists trying to cover the protest had included being regularly pelted with tennis balls with such not-very-subtle insults as “terrorists” and “paedophiles” written on them, said RSF.

    “Media = Fake News” and “Media is the virus” are typical of the slogans on the countless signs outside protesters’ tents.

    Journalists who approach have also been greeted with drawings of gallows and nooses, as well as insults and threats of violence ­– to the point that most of them now have bodyguards, says Mark Stevens, head of news at Stuff, New Zealand’s leading news website.

    ‘Your days are numbered
    Stevens sounded the alarm about the attacks on journalists in an editorial published on February 11.

    “They’ve had gear smashed, been punched and belted with umbrellas,” he wrote. “Many reporters have been harassed […], including one threatened with their home being burned down.”

    The violence has not been limited to Wellington.

    In New Plymouth, an angry crowd tried to storm the offices of the local newspaper, Stuff’s Taranaki Daily News, two weeks ago, as reported by Mediawatch. Some of the protesters even managed to breach the newspaper’s secured doors and attack members of the staff.

    “After the police intervened, [conspiracy theorist] Brett Power urged the protesters to return in order to hold the editor ‘accountable for crimes’ — meaning the newspaper’s failure to report their protests in the way they wanted,” the RSF statement said.

    “The verbal and physical violence against journalists is accompanied by extremely shocking online hate messages.”

    Stuff’s chief political reporter Henry Cooke tweeted an example of the threats he had received on social media:

    Daniel Bastard, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk, said: “The virulence of the threats against journalists by demonstrators, and the constant violence to which they have been subjected since the start of these protests are not acceptable in a democracy.”

    He called on authorities to “not allow these disgraceful acts to go unpunished. There is a danger that journalists will no longer be able to calmly cover these protests, opening the way to a flood of misinformation.”

    In a recent article, Kristin Hall, a reporter for 1News, described her dismay at discovering the level of “distaste for the press” among protesters who regarded the mainstream media as nothing more than “a bunch of liars”.

    “People have asked me why I’m not covering the protests while I’m in the middle of interviewing them,” she wrote.

    A Wellington Facebook page publisher attacked
    A Wellington Facebook page publisher attacked at the protest, as reported by 1News. Image: 1News screenshot APR

    ‘Headlocks, punches’
    Protester mistrust is no longer limited to mainstream media regarded as accomplices of a system imposing pandemic-related restrictions, as Graham Bloxham — a Wellington resident who runs the Wellington Live Community local news page on Facebook – found to his cost when he went to interview one of the protest organisers on February 18.

    “We just wanted to show people that it is peaceful … then bang. They just yelled and whacked. They were just all on me and they basically beat me and my cameraman to a pulp,” he told 1News.

    “Headlocks, punches… they were really violent.”

    A photo of a dozen Nazi war criminals being hanged at the end of the Second World War has been circulating on social media popular with the protesters for the past few days, accompanied by the comment: “Photograph of hangings at Nuremberg, Germany. Members of the media, who lied and misled the German people, were executed.” Definitely not subtle.

    Attacks against journalists have rarely or never been as virulent as this in New Zealand, which is ranked 8th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

    • Henry Cooke reported an apology from some of the protesters over the “treatment” of some journalists, but incidents have continued to be reported.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    A national trade union in Papua New Guinea today blamed State Enterprises Minister William Duma for causing a media freedom furore at the country’s premier television broadcaster EMTV as a general election looms in June.

    The crisis has led to the suspension of the news chief and a walkout by 19 journalists and news workers last week that forced the channel to repeat its Wednesday 6pm news bulletin the following night.

    Following the walkout, EMTV interim CEO Lesieli Vete suspended the news team and reportedly hired stand-in staff after walk-in interviews.

    A former sports reporter, Dinnierose Raiko, who was promoted to EMTV sales department late last year, was said to be now acting news editor.

    The PNG Trade Union Council (PNGTUC) has appealed to Prime Minister James Marape to intervene and for head of news and current affairs Sincha Dimara — suspended for 21 days without pay for alleged “insubordination” — to be reinstated without penalty.

    Dimara is one of Papua New Guinea’s most experienced journalists with 33 years in the industry.

    She was reportedly suspended for broadcasting stories about the arrest of Australian businessman Jamie Pang, including criticism of police and criminal procedure in the case.

    ‘Blackout’ of Pang news
    The coverage centred on Pang, who had first been arrested in 2021 after police discovered an illegal firearms cache and an alleged meth lab in the Sanctuary Hotel Resort and Spa in the capital Port Moresby, where Pang was group operations manager.

    The PNGTUC accused minister Duma of “instigating the whole mess” by ordering a  “blackout [of] all news on Jamie Pang” and on the performances of state enterprises.

    “All national leaders are mandated to serve the people’s interest and must be seen to uphold and promote tenants of democracy and not otherwise,” said PNGTUC acting general secretary Anton Sekum in a statement.

    EMTV head of news and current affairs Sincha Dimara
    EMTV head of news and current affairs Sincha Dimara … suspended for “insubordination” over news judgment. Image: RSF

    “The powers vested in them to make decisions over public utilities and finance should not be used as a stick to control media freedom specifically, and for that matter, generally, violate democratic rights of people.”

    William Duma, as minister responsible for the Telikom Holdings Ltd which owns EMTV through Media Niugini Ltd, had “intimidated the management of EMTV and Telikom” by making it known that he would not approve funding to relocate EMTV studios to the Telikom Rumana Haus if EMTV published any “negative news” about Pang and any state-owned enterprises.

    The PNGTUC statement on EMTV
    The PNG Trade Union Congress statement on the EMTV controversy today. Image: APR

    Sekum said the Prime Minister would need to “confirm for public benefit” whether minister Duma’s action reflected the official position of his government.

    “This country cannot afford to be led by leaders pushing self-serving ulterior agendas any more. We need leaders serving the real interest of the people more now than any other time in our short history,” he said.

    ‘Worst ever reward’
    Sekum described the suspension of Dimara without pay “for doing her job right was the worst ever reward for diligently serving EMTV for over 33 years”.

    The PNGTUC said it had been reliably informed that there had been no bias in the Jamie Pang coverage that Dimara had been penalised for.

    “But what is of more concern to the PNGTUC as the national workers’ rights organisation and as a defender of our democracy is the fact that bad politics [has] crept into the media space to control media freedom,” he said.

    “Penalising Sincha for doing the right thing is a classic example.”

    Sekum called on the prime minister to “restore some sense into the whole affair” by ensuring that Sincha Dimara and her television crew would be reinstated to their jobs without loss of entitlements.

    “Journalists are workers and we will stand up for them until they get justice,” he said.

    Sekum also called for the sacking of the EMTV interim CEO Vete, accusing her of violating media freedom in breach of the constitution.

    The government and EMTV management made no immediate response to the PNGTUC’s claims.

    Meanwhile, Lae staff members of EMTV held a press conference tonight and reaffirmed their support for their colleagues in Port Moresby.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.