Category: Media

  • The Gaslit Nation Media Committee, a watchdog against access journalism and regime propaganda, has developed this essential guide. We urge all members of the media to reject complicity in the erosion of democracy.

     

    The American crisis is a global struggle between democracy and fascism—one that threatens the entire world. Each of us has a role in defending freedom. If you work in media, use this guide to safeguard your integrity, your liberty, and the values we cherish—before it’s too late. Doing your job well can save lives and democracy.

     

    1. Don’t Bury the Lede: Call It an Illegal Tech-Backed Coup To build trust, stick to the facts. When Trump’s administration acts illegally, say it—especially in the headline. Call it what it is: a tech-backed coup that exposes Americans’ most sensitive data and replaces federal workers with unsecured A.I. to establish a new surveillance state. 2. Make Private Prison Execs Famous Investigate the financial interests behind Trump’s immigration system—expose executives, board members, and their connections. Pursue them with cameras; they can’t hide behind profits while lives are ruined and civil liberties eroded. 3. Fascism Needs Ignorance From dismantling the Department of Education to the “War on Woke” in universities, Trump continues delegitimizing education. This isn’t about competition with other countries—it’s about giving everyone the chance to grow as independent thinkers who reject fascism. 4. Follow the Money Investigate Trump’s major donors and their role in Musk’s illegal purge of government services. Hold them accountable—ask how they view their investments amid the chaos. Track their contracts and regulatory benefits. 5. Expose National Security Threats Trump removed key military officials who prevented unlawful actions. Without them, who will stop him? Trump holds the nuclear football, cozying up to adversaries, sending bombs to Israel, and threatening wars against Canada and Greenland. Focus on how our adversaries are taking advantage. 6. Kleptowatch Focus on how companies exploit customers through greedflation and Amazon’s payola for search visibility. While the Biden administration has much to answer for, the media must spotlight the absence of enforcement of investigations brought by Lina Khan and Tim Wu, leaving corporate kleptocrats unchecked.

    7. Media Must Thoroughly Cover Media Journalists must cover media attacks, including blocked access to info and censorship (e.g., Ann Telnaes at WaPo). Report on media ecosystem shifts, address bias, and clarify distinctions between reporting, opinion, and lies. Provide context on media ownership.

    8. Draw Historical Parallels Trump, Musk, and allies are enacting policies similar to dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. The media must challenge their unfounded assertions. They are attacking the press and critics, reminiscent of regimes like Pol Pot’s and Rwanda’s genocide. 9. Trump is Trying to Turn America into an Autocracy: Act Like It Columbia Journalism Review shared 10 essential tips for journalists reporting from autocracies. Share these with your teams, including your company’s lawyers—killing big stories and obeying in advance is self-destructive. 10. Shine a Light on Private Prisons The private prison industry needs scrutiny, especially with Trump’s lack of oversight. Innocent people are caught in reckless immigration raids as the system grows unchecked. Regular coverage of Guantanamo Bay is crucial due to its history of unlawful detention and Trump’s plan for a prison camp there for 30,000 people.

    11. Gilead is Here The media has abandoned calling out Trump’s toxic masculinity regarding reproductive rights and civil rights. Raise awareness of the deadly consequences for women, including trans women, and all nonwhite people.

    12. Access Journalism is Betrayal Fascism’s history includes journalists from major outlets becoming “masters of euphemism,” (to quote Gareth Jones), downplaying atrocities and broken laws to protect access. History will remember you for doing your job or being bought. Doing your job well can save lives and democracy. 13. Family Members Deserve Special Attention Trump’s administration is granting lucrative positions to family members of allies and donors, giving them undue influence over policy. These self-dealing networks must be mapped and exposed. 14. Unmask Voter Suppression Election analysis must address gerrymandering, unfair Senate representation favoring “red states,” the Electoral College designed to protect elites, and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Don’t treat our voter suppression crisis like “horse race” politics.

    15. Focus on the 1% Expose extreme wealth inequality—how the 1% dodge taxes and exploit loopholes to preserve their wealth. Put a spotlight on how inequality fuels authoritarianism and is a direct threat to democracy.

    16. Cover Protests Highlight actions challenging the White House’s destructive crimes. People need to see that citizens care about the laws being broken by Trump’s administration and that they’re not alone. 17. They’re Testing Boundaries: Say It When something is “unprecedented,” that means they’re testing boundaries, to see what they can get away with. Say it. 18. The Weird Fights Matter Trump renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America may seem “weird,” but it’s part of the fascist pageantry, like Mussolini’s famous eyeliner and Putin’s shirtless photos. Look to experts in autocracy to see which stories are being used as a distraction and which stories are important to cover. 

    An expanded version of the Gaslit Nation Media Guide can be found here: https://www.gaslitnationpod.com/media-guide

     

    For More: Ten Tips for Reporting in an Autocracy American journalists have much to learn from colleagues in countries where democracy has been under siege. https://www.cjr.org/political_press/ten-tips-for-reporting-in-an-autocracy.php

     

    Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!

     

    Music Credit: “Tafi Maradi no voice” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com). Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

     


    This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Dakar, March 26, 2025—The Committee to Protect Journalists calls on authorities in Burkina Faso to urgently disclose the whereabouts of journalists Guézouma Sanogo, Boukari Ouoba, and Luc Pagbelguem, who were arrested on Monday, and release them unconditionally.

    Intelligence officers took the Association of Burkinabe Journalists (ABJ) president Sanogo and vice-president Ouoba to an unknown location after Sanogo criticized the intimidation and “kidnapping” of journalists at the media group’s March 21 meeting.

    Two National Security Council intelligence agents also arrested Pagbelguem at the privately owned channel BF1 TV’s offices in the capital, Ouagadougou, to question him about his report on the ABJ meeting.

    “Given the worrying pattern in Burkina Faso of journalists being detained and disappearing under murky circumstances, it is imperative that authorities reveal what has happened to Guézouma Sanogo, Boukary Ouoba, and Luc Pagbelguem,” said Moussa Ngom, CPJ’s Francophone Africa representative. “Four Burkinabe journalists went missing last year, and only months later did the public learn that at least three of them had been conscripted into the military.”

    On March 26, the regulatory Superior Council of Communication fined BF1 TV 500,000 CFA francs (US$822) and suspended Pagbelguem — who was still missing — from audiovisual activity for two weeks, as it condemned his report as “insulting, defamatory, and malicious.” 

    At the media association meeting, Sanogo also criticized authorities’ “total control” over the state-owned “propaganda” outlets RTB and AIB press agency, and said that “attacks on press freedom have reached an unprecedented level.” Sanogo works for the national broadcaster Radiodiffusion Télévision du Burkina (RTB) and Ouoba with the privately owned newspaper Le Reporter.

    On March 25, the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Mobility said that the association had been considered “dissolved or non-existent” since 2019 for alleged non-compliance with the law, and anyone who sought to support or maintain a dissolved association would face sanctions.

    Under Ibrahim Traoré, who took control of Burkina Faso in a September 2022 coup, authorities have cracked down on the press, with journalists disappearing, foreign correspondents expelled, and broadcasters suspended or banned.

    CPJ’s calls to request comment from government spokesperson Pingdwendé Gilbert Ouedraogo were not answered.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Until the designation as a “transnational criminal organization” by the US in 2024, the course of the now-disbanded group was narrated by a network of US think tanks, media and funds that constructed a discourse against the Bolivarian Revolution. This construction currently serves to justify sanctions, carry out mass deportations and feed the false idea of a failed state in Venezuela.

    In July 2024, when the US Treasury Department included Tren de Aragua on its list of transnational criminal organizations, it equated it with cartels such as Sinaloa or Jalisco Nueva Generación, which have a presence in more than 100 countries and have more than 45,000 members, associates and facilitators.

    The post El Tren De Aragua: The Defunct Venezuelan Band appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Washington, D.C., March 26, 2025 —The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns the willful mischaracterization of the vital work and role of public broadcasters NPR and PBS during today’s Congressional hearing, titled “Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the Heads of NPR and PBS accountable.”

    “Millions of Americans from major cities to rural areas rely on NPR and PBS for news and information on natural disasters, political developments, and so much more,” said CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg in New York. “NPR and PBS provide an essential public service. Casting them as propaganda machines undeserving of taxpayer support is a dangerous mischaracterization that threatens to rob Americans of the vital reporting they need to make decisions about their lives.”

    The hearing was chaired by Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who has accused the two networks of liberal bias, and throughout the hearing referred to NPR and PBS as “radical left-wing echo chambers” with “communist” programming. Taylor Greene called for the “complete and total” defunding and dismantling of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps to fund NPR and PBS.

    The Federal Communications Commission ordered an investigation into the two broadcasters’ airing of commercials in January.

    Ahead of the hearing, CPJ and several other press freedom organizations sent a letter to the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, urging the committee to recognize the critical role of a free and pluralistic press and cautioning against rhetoric that undermines journalism.     


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ANALYSIS: By Valerie A. Cooper, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    Of all the contradictions and ironies of Donald Trump’s second presidency so far, perhaps the most surprising has been his shutting down the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) for being “radical propaganda”.

    Critics have long accused the agency — and its affiliated outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia — of being a propaganda arm of US foreign policy.

    But to the current president, the USAGM has become a promoter of “anti-American ideas” and agendas — including allegedly suppressing stories critical of Iran, sympathetically covering the issue of “white privilege” and bowing to pressure from China.

    Propaganda is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The Moscow Times reported Russian officials were elated by the demise of the “purely propagandistic” outlets, while China’s Global Times celebrated the closure of a “lie factory”.

    Meanwhile, the European Commission hailed USAGM outlets as a “beacon of truth, democracy and hope”. All of which might have left the average person understandably confused: Voice of America? Wasn’t that the US propaganda outlet from World War II?

    Well, yes. But the reality of USAGM and similar state-sponsored global media outlets is more complex — as are the implications of the US agency’s demise.

    Public service or state propaganda?
    The USAGM is one of several international public service media outlets based in Western democracies. Others include Australia’s ABC International, the BBC World Service, CBC/Radio-Canada, France Médias Monde, NHK-World Japan, Deutsche Welle in Germany and SRG SSR in Switzerland.

    Part of the Public Media Alliance, they are similar to national public service media, largely funded by taxpayers to uphold democratic ideals of universal access to news and information.

    Unlike national public media, however, they might not be consumed — or even known — by domestic audiences. Rather, they typically provide news to countries without reliable independent media due to censorship or state-run media monopolies.

    The USAGM, for example, provides news in 63 languages to more than 100 countries. It has been credited with bringing attention to issues such as protests against covid-19 lockdowns in China and women’s struggles for equal rights in Iran.

    On the other hand, the independence of USAGM outlets has been questioned often, particularly as they are required to share government-mandated editorials.

    Voice of America has been criticised for its focus on perceived ideological adversaries such as Russia and Iran. And my own research has found it perpetuates stereotypes and the neglect of African nations in its news coverage.

    Leaving a void
    Ultimately, these global media outlets wouldn’t exist if there weren’t benefits for the governments that fund them. Sharing stories and perspectives that support or promote certain values and policies is an effective form of “public diplomacy”.

    Yet these international media outlets differ from state-controlled media models because of editorial systems that protect them from government interference.

    The Voice of America’s “firewall”, for instance, “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news”. Such protections allow journalists to report on their own governments more objectively.

    In contrast, outlets such as China Media Group (CMG), RT from Russia, and PressTV from Iran also reach a global audience in a range of languages. But they do this through direct government involvement.

    CMG subsidiary CCTV+, for example, states it is “committed to telling China’s story to the rest of the world”.

    Though RT states it is an autonomous media outlet, research has found the Russian government oversees hiring editors, imposing narrative angles, and rejecting stories.

    Staff member with sign protesting in front of Voice of America sign.
    A Voice of America staffer protests outside the Washington DC offices on March 17, 2025, after employees were placed on administrative leave. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation

    Other voices get louder
    The biggest concern for Western democracies is that these other state-run media outlets will fill the void the USAGM leaves behind — including in the Pacific.

    Russia, China and Iran are increasing funding for their state-run news outlets, with China having spent more than US$6.6 billion over 13 years on its global media outlets. China Media Group is already one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, providing news content to more than 130 countries in 44 languages.

    And China has already filled media gaps left by Western democracies: after the ABC stopped broadcasting Radio Australia in the Pacific, China Radio International took over its frequencies.

    Worryingly, the differences between outlets such as Voice of America and more overtly state-run outlets aren’t immediately clear to audiences, as government ownership isn’t advertised.

    An Australian senator even had to apologise recently after speaking with PressTV, saying she didn’t know the news outlet was affiliated with the Iranian government, or that it had been sanctioned in Australia.

    Switched off
    Trump’s move to dismantle the USAGM doesn’t come as a complete surprise, however. As the authors of Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America described, the first Trump administration failed in its attempts to remove the firewall and install loyalists.

    This perhaps explains why Trump has resorted to more drastic measures this time. And, as with many of the current administration’s legally dubious actions, there has been resistance.

    The American Foreign Service Association says it will challenge the dismantling of the USAGM, while the Czech Republic is seeking EU support to keep Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty on the air.

    But for many of the agency’s journalists, contractors, broadcasting partners and audiences, it may be too late. Last week, The New York Times reported some Voice of America broadcasts had already been replaced by music.The Conversation

    Dr Valerie A. Cooper is lecturer in media and communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington.  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.

  • ANALYSIS: By Valerie A. Cooper, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    Of all the contradictions and ironies of Donald Trump’s second presidency so far, perhaps the most surprising has been his shutting down the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) for being “radical propaganda”.

    Critics have long accused the agency — and its affiliated outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia — of being a propaganda arm of US foreign policy.

    But to the current president, the USAGM has become a promoter of “anti-American ideas” and agendas — including allegedly suppressing stories critical of Iran, sympathetically covering the issue of “white privilege” and bowing to pressure from China.

    Propaganda is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The Moscow Times reported Russian officials were elated by the demise of the “purely propagandistic” outlets, while China’s Global Times celebrated the closure of a “lie factory”.

    Meanwhile, the European Commission hailed USAGM outlets as a “beacon of truth, democracy and hope”. All of which might have left the average person understandably confused: Voice of America? Wasn’t that the US propaganda outlet from World War II?

    Well, yes. But the reality of USAGM and similar state-sponsored global media outlets is more complex — as are the implications of the US agency’s demise.

    Public service or state propaganda?
    The USAGM is one of several international public service media outlets based in Western democracies. Others include Australia’s ABC International, the BBC World Service, CBC/Radio-Canada, France Médias Monde, NHK-World Japan, Deutsche Welle in Germany and SRG SSR in Switzerland.

    Part of the Public Media Alliance, they are similar to national public service media, largely funded by taxpayers to uphold democratic ideals of universal access to news and information.

    Unlike national public media, however, they might not be consumed — or even known — by domestic audiences. Rather, they typically provide news to countries without reliable independent media due to censorship or state-run media monopolies.

    The USAGM, for example, provides news in 63 languages to more than 100 countries. It has been credited with bringing attention to issues such as protests against covid-19 lockdowns in China and women’s struggles for equal rights in Iran.

    On the other hand, the independence of USAGM outlets has been questioned often, particularly as they are required to share government-mandated editorials.

    Voice of America has been criticised for its focus on perceived ideological adversaries such as Russia and Iran. And my own research has found it perpetuates stereotypes and the neglect of African nations in its news coverage.

    Leaving a void
    Ultimately, these global media outlets wouldn’t exist if there weren’t benefits for the governments that fund them. Sharing stories and perspectives that support or promote certain values and policies is an effective form of “public diplomacy”.

    Yet these international media outlets differ from state-controlled media models because of editorial systems that protect them from government interference.

    The Voice of America’s “firewall”, for instance, “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news”. Such protections allow journalists to report on their own governments more objectively.

    In contrast, outlets such as China Media Group (CMG), RT from Russia, and PressTV from Iran also reach a global audience in a range of languages. But they do this through direct government involvement.

    CMG subsidiary CCTV+, for example, states it is “committed to telling China’s story to the rest of the world”.

    Though RT states it is an autonomous media outlet, research has found the Russian government oversees hiring editors, imposing narrative angles, and rejecting stories.

    Staff member with sign protesting in front of Voice of America sign.
    A Voice of America staffer protests outside the Washington DC offices on March 17, 2025, after employees were placed on administrative leave. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation

    Other voices get louder
    The biggest concern for Western democracies is that these other state-run media outlets will fill the void the USAGM leaves behind — including in the Pacific.

    Russia, China and Iran are increasing funding for their state-run news outlets, with China having spent more than US$6.6 billion over 13 years on its global media outlets. China Media Group is already one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, providing news content to more than 130 countries in 44 languages.

    And China has already filled media gaps left by Western democracies: after the ABC stopped broadcasting Radio Australia in the Pacific, China Radio International took over its frequencies.

    Worryingly, the differences between outlets such as Voice of America and more overtly state-run outlets aren’t immediately clear to audiences, as government ownership isn’t advertised.

    An Australian senator even had to apologise recently after speaking with PressTV, saying she didn’t know the news outlet was affiliated with the Iranian government, or that it had been sanctioned in Australia.

    Switched off
    Trump’s move to dismantle the USAGM doesn’t come as a complete surprise, however. As the authors of Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America described, the first Trump administration failed in its attempts to remove the firewall and install loyalists.

    This perhaps explains why Trump has resorted to more drastic measures this time. And, as with many of the current administration’s legally dubious actions, there has been resistance.

    The American Foreign Service Association says it will challenge the dismantling of the USAGM, while the Czech Republic is seeking EU support to keep Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty on the air.

    But for many of the agency’s journalists, contractors, broadcasting partners and audiences, it may be too late. Last week, The New York Times reported some Voice of America broadcasts had already been replaced by music.The Conversation

    Dr Valerie A. Cooper is lecturer in media and communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington.  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.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    Global media freedom groups have condemned the Israeli occupation forces for assassinating two more Palestinian journalists covering the Gaza genocide, taking the media death toll in the besieged enclave to at least 208 since the war started.

    Journalist and contributor to the Qatari-based Al Jazeera Mubasher, Hossam Shabat, is the latest to have been killed.

    Witnesses said Hossam’s vehicle was hit in the eastern part of Beit Lahiya. Several pedestrians were also wounded, reports Al Jazeera.

    in a statement, Al Jazeera condemned the killings, saying Hossam had joined the network’s journalists and correspondents killed during the ongoing war on Gaza, including Samer Abudaqa, Hamza Al-Dahdouh, Ismail Al-Ghoul, and Ahmed Al-Louh.

    Al Jazeera affirmed its commitment to pursue all legal measures to “prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes against journalists”.

    The network also said it stood in “unwavering solidarity with all journalists in Gaza and reaffirms its commitment to achieving justice” by prosecuting the killers of more than 200 journalists in Gaza since October 2023.

    The network extended its condolences to Hossam’s family, and called on all human rights and media organisations to condemn the Israeli occupation’s systematic killing of journalists.

    Hossam was the second journalist killed in Gaza yesterday.

    House targeted
    Earlier, the Israeli military killed Mohammad Mansour, a correspondent for the Beirut-based Palestine Today television, in an attack targeting a house in Khan Younis, southern Gaza.

    A fellow journalist circulated a video clip of Mansour’s father bidding farewell to his son with heartbreaking words, putting a microphone in his son’s hand and urging the voice that once conveyed the truth to a deaf world.

    “Stand up and speak, tell the world, you are the one who tells the truth, for the image alone is not enough,” the father said through tears.

    Jodie Ginsberg, the chief executive of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), condemned the killings, describing them as war crimes.

    The CPJ called for an independent international investigation into whether they were deliberately targeted.

    “CPJ is appalled that we are once again seeing Palestinians weeping over the bodies of dead journalists in Gaza,” said CPJ’s programme director Carlos Martinez de la Serna in New York.

    The two latest journalists killed by Israeli occupation forces in Gaza . . . Al Jazeera’s Hossam Shabat (left) and Mohammad Mansour
    The two latest journalists killed by Israeli occupation forces in Gaza . . . Al Jazeera’s Hossam Shabat (left) and Mohammad Mansour of Palestine Today. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    ‘Nightmare has to end’
    “This nightmare in Gaza has to end. The international community must act fast to ensure that journalists are kept safe and hold Israel to account for the deaths of Hossam Shabat and Mohammed Mansour, whose killings may have been targeted.”

    Israel resumed airstrikes on Gaza on March 18, ending a ceasefire that began on January 19.

    The occupation forces continued bombarding Gaza for an eighth consecutive day, killing at least 23 people in predawn attacks including seven children.

    Al Jazeera reports that the world ignores calls "to stop this madness"
    Al Jazeera reports that the world ignores calls “to stop this madness” as Israel kills dozens in Gaza. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    A UN official, Olga Cherevko, said Israel’s unhindered attacks on Gaza were a “bloody stain on our collective consciousness”, noting “our calls for this madness to stop have gone unheeded” by the world.

    Gaza’s Health Ministry said 792 people had been killed and 1663 injured in the week since Israel resumed its war on the Strip.

    The total death toll since the war started on October 7, 2023, has risen to 50,144, while 113,704 people have been injured, it said.

    West Bank ‘news desert’
    Meanwhile, the Paris-based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said the repression of reporters in the West Bank and East Jerusalem had intensified in recent months despite the recent ceasefire in Gaza before it collapsed.

    In the eastern Palestinian territories, Israeli armed forces have shot at journalists, arrested them and restricted their movement.

    The Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs the West Bank and East Jerusalem, has detained Al Jazeera journalists.

    RSF warned of a growing crackdown, which was transforming the region into a “news desert”.

    One of the co-directors of the Palestinian Oscar-winning film No Other Land, Hamdan Ballal, has been detained by Israeli forces. It happened after he was attacked by a mob of Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.

    He was in an ambulance receiving treatment when the doors were opened and he was abducted by the Israeli military. Colleagues say he has “disappeared”.

    A number of American activists were also attacked, and video on social media showed them fleeing the settler violence.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Scott Waide, RNZ Pacific PNG correspondent

    The Papua New Guinea government has admitted to using a technology that it says was “successfully tested” to block social media platforms, particularly Facebook, for much of the day yesterday.

    Police Minister Peter Tsiamalili Jr said the “test” was done under the framework of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2024, and sought to address the growing concerns over hate speech, misinformation, and other harmful content online.

    Tsiamalili did not specify what kind of tech was used, but said it was carried out in collaboration with the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary (RPNGC), the National Information and Communications Technology Authority (NICTA), and various internet service providers.

    “We are not attempting to suppress free speech or restrict our citizens from expressing their viewpoints,” Tsiamalili said.

    “However, the unchecked proliferation of fake news, hate speech, pornography, child exploitation, and incitement to violence on platforms such as Facebook is unacceptable.

    “These challenges increasingly threaten the safety, dignity, and well-being of our populace.”

    However, government agencies responsible for communications and ICT, including NICTA, said they were not aware.

    ‘Confidence relies on transparency’
    “Public confidence in our digital governance relies on transparency and consistency in how we approach online regulation,” NICTA chief executive Kilakupa Gulo-Vui said.

    “It is essential that all key stakeholders, including NICTA, law enforcement, telecommunications providers, and government agencies, collaborate closely to ensure that any actions taken are well-understood and properly executed.”

    He said that while maintaining national security was a priority, the balance between safety and digital freedom must be carefully managed.

    Gulo-Vui said NICTA would be addressing this matter with the Minister for ICT to ensure NICTA’s role continued to align with the government’s broader policy objectives, while fostering a cohesive and united approach to digital regulation.

    The Department of Information Communication and Technology (DICT) Secretary, Steven Matainaho, also stated his department was not aware of the test but added that the police have powers under the new domestic terrorism laws.

    Papua New Guinea’s recently introduced anti-terror laws are aimed at curbing both internal and external security threats.

    Critics warn of dictatorial control
    However, critics of the move say the test borders on dictatorial control.

    An observer of Monday’s events, Lucas Kiap, said the goal of combating hate speech and exploitation was commendable, but the approach risks paving way for authoritarian overreach.

    “Where is PNG headed? If the government continues down this path, it risks trading democracy for control,” he said.

    Many social media users, however, appeared to outdo the government, with many downloading and sharing Virtual Area Network (VPN) apps and continuing to post on Facebook.

    “Hello from Poland,” one user said.

    East Sepik Governor Allan Bird said today that the country’s anti-terrorism law could target anyone because “the definition of a terrorist is left to the Police Minister to decide”.

    ‘Designed to take away our freedoms’
    “During the debate on the anti-terrorism bill in Parliament, I pointed out that the law was too broad and it could be used against innocent people,” he wrote on Facebook.

    He said government MPs laughed at him and used their numbers to pass the bill.

    “Yesterday, the Police Minister used the Anti-terrorism Act to shut down Facebook. That was just a test, that was step one,” Governor Bird said.

    “There is no limit to the powers the Minister of Police can exercise under this new law. It is draconian law designed to take away our freedoms.

    “We are now heading into dangerous territory and everyone is powerless to stop this tyranny,” he added.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Israel has begun the final stage of its genocide. The Palestinians will be forced to choose between death or deportation. There are no other options, writes Chris Hedges

    ANALYSIS: By Chris Hedges

    This is the last chapter of the genocide. It is the final, blood-soaked push to drive the Palestinians from Gaza. No food. No medicine. No shelter. No clean water. No electricity.

    Israel is swiftly turning Gaza into a Dantesque cauldron of human misery where Palestinians are being killed in their hundreds and soon, again, in their thousands and tens of thousands, or they will be forced out never to return.

    The final chapter marks the end of Israeli lies. The lie of the two-state solution. The lie that Israel respects the laws of war that protect civilians. The lie that Israel bombs hospitals and schools only because they are used as staging areas by Hamas.

    The lie that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, while Israel routinely forces captive Palestinians to enter potentially booby-trapped tunnels and buildings ahead of Israeli troops. The lie that Hamas or Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) are responsible — the charge often being errant Palestinian rockets — for the destruction of hospitals, United Nations’ buildings or mass Palestinian casualties.

    The lie that humanitarian aid to Gaza is blocked because Hamas is hijacking the trucks or smuggling in weapons and war material. The lie that Israeli babies are beheaded or Palestinians carried out mass rape of Israeli women. The lie that 75 percent of the tens of thousands killed in Gaza were Hamas “terrorists.”

    The lie that Hamas, because it was allegedly rearming and recruiting new fighters, is responsible for the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement.

    Israel’s naked genocidal visage is exposed. It has ordered the evacuation of northern Gaza where desperate Palestinians are camped out amid the rubble of their homes. What comes now is mass starvation — the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) said on March 21 it has six days of flour supplies left — deaths from diseases caused by contaminated water and food, scores of killed and wounded each day under the relentless assault of bombs, missiles, shells and bullets.

    Nothing will function, bakeries, water treatment and sewage plants, hospitals — Israel blew up the damaged Turkish-Palestinian hospital on March 21 — schools, aid distribution centers or clinics. Less than half of the 53 emergency vehicles operated by the Palestine Red Crescent Society are functional due to fuel shortages. Soon there will be none.

    Israel’s message is unequivocal: Gaza will be uninhabitable. Leave or die.

    Since last Tuesday, when Israel broke the ceasefire with heavy bombing, over 700 Palestinians have been killed, including 200 children. In one 24 hour period 400 Palestinians were killed.

    This is only the start. No Western power, including the United States, which provides the weapons for the genocide, intends to stop it. The images from Gaza during the nearly 16 months of incessant attacks were awful.

    But what is coming now will be worse. It will rival the most atrocious war crimes of the 20th century, including the mass starvation, wholesale slaughter and leveling of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 by the Nazis.

    October 7 marked the dividing line between an Israeli policy that advocated the brutalisation and subjugation of the Palestinians and a policy that calls for their extermination and removal from historic Palestine. What we are witnessing is the historical equivalent of the moment triggered by the annihilation of some 200 soldiers led by George Armstrong Custer in June 1876 at the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

    After that humiliating defeat, Native Americans were slated to be killed with the remnants forced into prisoner of war camps, later named reservations, where thousands died of disease, lived under the merciless gaze of their armed occupiers and fell into a life of immiseration and despair.

    Expect the same for the Palestinians in Gaza, dumped, I suspect, in one of the world’s hellholes and forgotten.

    “Gaza residents, this is your final warning,” Israeli Minister of Defense Israel Katz threatened:

    “The first Sinwar destroyed Gaza and the second Sinwar will completely destroy it. The Air Force strikes against Hamas terrorists were just the first step. It will become much more difficult and you will pay the full price. The evacuation of the population from the combat zones will soon begin again…Return the hostages and remove Hamas and other options will open for you, including leaving for other places in the world for those who want to. The alternative is absolute destruction.”

    The ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas was designed to be implemented in three phases. The first phase, lasting 42 days, would see an end to hostilities. Hamas would release 33 Israeli hostages who were captured on Oct. 7, 2023 — including women, those aged above 50, and those with illnesses — in exchange for upwards of 2,000 Palestinian men, women and children imprisoned by Israel (around 1,900 Palestinian captives have been released by Israel as of March 18).

    Hamas has released a total of 147 hostages, of whom eight were dead. Israel says there are 59 Israelis still being held by Hamas, 35 of whom Israel believes are deceased.

    The Israeli army would pull back from populated areas of Gaza on the first day of the ceasefire. On the seventh day, displaced Palestinians would be permitted to return to northern Gaza. Israel would allow 600 aid trucks with food and medical supplies to enter Gaza daily.

    The second phase, which was expected to be negotiated on the 16th day of the ceasefire, would see the release of the remaining Israeli hostages. Israel would complete its withdrawal from Gaza maintaining a presence in some parts of the Philadelphi corridor, which stretches along the 13 km border between Gaza and Egypt.

    It would surrender its control of the Rafah border crossing into Egypt.

    The third phase would see negotiations for a permanent end of the war and the reconstruction of Gaza.

    Israel habitually signs agreements, including the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Peace Agreement, with timetables and phases. It gets what it wants — in this case the release of the hostages — in the first phase and then violates subsequent phases. This pattern has never been broken.

    Israel refused to honour the second phase of the deal. It blocked humanitarian aid into Gaza two weeks ago, violating the agreement. It also killed at least 137 Palestinians during the first phase of the ceasefire, including nine people, — three of them journalists — when Israeli drones attacked a relief team on March 15 in Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza

    Israel’s heavy bombing and shelling of Gaza resumed March 18 while most Palestinians were asleep or preparing their suhoor, the meal eaten before dawn during the holy month of Ramadan. Israel will not stop its attacks now, even if the remaining hostages are freed — Israel’s supposed reason for the resumption of the bombing and siege of Gaza.

    The Trump White House is cheering on the slaughter. They attack critics of the genocide as “antisemites” who should be silenced, criminalised or deported while funneling billions of dollars in weapons to Israel.

    Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza is the inevitable denouement of its settler colonial project and apartheid state. The seizure of all of historic Palestine — with the West Bank soon, I expect, to be annexed by Israel — and displacement of all Palestinians has always been the Zionist goal.

    Israel’s worst excesses occurred during the wars of 1948 and 1967 when huge parts of historic Palestine were seized, thousands of Palestinians killed and hundreds of thousands were ethnically cleansed. Between these wars, the slow-motion theft of land, murderous assaults and steady ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, continued.

    That calibrated dance is over. This is the end. What we are witnessing dwarfs all the historical assaults on Palestinians. Israel’s demented genocidal dream — a Palestinian nightmare — is about to be achieved.

    It will forever shatter the myth that we, or any Western nation, respect the rule of law or are the protectors of human rights, democracy and the so-called “virtues” of Western civilisation. Israel’s barbarity is our own. We may not understand this, but the rest of the globe does.

    Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for 15 years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He is the host of show “The Chris Hedges Report”. This article is republished from his X account.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Real estate has become climate change’s biggest victim. Climate change is attacking America’s most valuable, biggest asset class. For the first time in history there are regions of the country where major property insurers have dropped coverage altogether as elsewhere rates are on the climb, pricing some buyers out of the market.

    America’s politicians punted on tackling climate change decades ago, except for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has masterfully delivered more than 290 “Time to Wake Up” climate speeches to the Senate, calling out deniers and demanding bold action. If Congress had been composed of “Whitehouse intellect,” the world climate system would be in much better shape today. And not threatening the American Dream of Homeownership.

    At a Senate confirmation hearing for Trump appointee Michael Faulkender as Deputy Treasury Secretary, Senator Whitehouse opened up all firing cylinders, blasting away like there’s no tomorrow, which may be where we’re headed after listening to the senator’s scolding rendition of how Congress has failed climate change impacting the financial system and US economy. In short, climate change is raising hell with the financial system as US property insurance goes up in flames.

    In his opening remarks, the senator referenced “very dark economic storm clouds on the horizon,” because of climate change which the administration cannot seriously address because massive political funding has made it “an article of faith to deny climate change,” in fact, claiming “it’s a hoax.” This perverse attitude is now holding America’s homeowner’s hostage.

    Interestingly, over past decades, scientists have gotten it right, even the Exxon scientists got it right, meaning, fossil fuel emissions (CO2) cause climate change. Nevertheless, Congress has failed to act because of pressure by fossil fuel interests, including the “largest campaign of disinformation that America has ever seen,” as dark money spills out all over the place. As a result, all serious bipartisan efforts on The Hill on climate change have been squelched. Poof!

    Disinformation, disinformation, disinformation has been the guiding light of climate denialism. It’s a hoax; it’s a hoax; it’s a hoax; it’s fake news; it’s fake news, repetition creates fact.

    As the senator and the Trump appointee discussed in a meeting beforehand in the senator’s office, the consequences of climate change are severe based upon professional risk judgement where fiduciary responsibly is considered. For example, the chief economist of Freddie Mac told committee hearings we are headed for a “property insurance collapse” that will cascade into a crash in coastal property values that will be so significant that it will cascade into the entire economy, same as 2008. That’s the warning on coastal properties. Additionally, wildfires have now added new property insurance risks that are far removed from coastal property. Climate change knows no boundaries as congressional ineptness and timidity to challenge it clobbers American homeownership.

    Senator Whitehouse offered one example after another of how climate change is undermining the financial system of America.  In a recent Senate banking committee hearing, the Fed Chairman said there will be “areas of the country where you can’t get a mortgage any longer” because of climate change; a very stern warning that something has to change.

    Also, as related by the senator, the Financial Stability Board, the entity that warns the international banking system of impending issues gives the same warning that “property insurance has become a major risk to the survival of the economic system.”

    And even closer to home base, meaning Congress itself, a recent bipartisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office) report identified fires, floods and climate change in toto, threatening to undermine our financial system. Yet, Congress ignores its own warnings.

    And The Economist magazine cover story in April 2024 depicted climate damage undermining insurance markets and threatening the biggest asset class in the world, RE. predicting a 25 trillion dollar hit to RE because of climate change.

    Senator Whitehouse: “The lie that climate change is a hoax is no longer just an act of political malfeasance. It is now an act of economic malfeasance.” Climate change is hitting America’s pocketbooks throughout the country like an early summer thunderstorm crackling in the sky.

    The financial-Wall Street-economic impending upside down collapse due to radical climate change should be item number one on Congress’s docket to do whatever is necessary, but it’s not even given a glancing look. Yet, the insurance industry is feeling the heat; homeowners are feeling the heat. Mortgage companies are feeling the heat. And Wall Street is starting to feel the heat. Can the Trump climate hoax syndrome, “ignore it, it’s not real… it’s fake news” hold up in the face of extremely severe financial strain impacting the world’s largest asset class, real estate?

    “President Trump issued an executive order aimed at dismantling many of the key actions that have been undertaken at the federal level to address climate change. The order, ‘Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” (“Trump Issues Executive Order on Climate Change,” Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School)

    “Nobody’s Insurance Rates Are Safe From Climate Change,” Yale Climate Connections, January 14, 2025.

    “Property Values to Crater Up to 60% Due to Climate Change,” Business Insider, Aug. 9, 2024.

    “U.S. Department of the Treasury Report: Homeowners Insurance Costs Rising, Availability Declining as Climate-Related Events Take Their Toll,” U.S. Department of the Treasury, January 16, 2025.

    “Next to Fall: The Climate-driven Insurance Crisis is Here – And Getting Worse,” Senate Budget Committee, Dec. 18, 2024.

    “Climate Risk Will Take Trillion-dollar Bite Out of America’s Real Estate, Report Finds,” USA Today, Feb. 7, 2025.

    “Homeowners Insurance Sector Slammed by Climate Impacts,” Insurance Business America, May 14, 2024.

    “Climate Change Is Coming for U.S. Property Prices,” Heatmap News, Feb. 3, 2025.

    “Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen,” New York Times, Dec. 18, 2024.

    “Climate Resiliency Flips the Housing Market Upside Down,” Forbes, Feb. 20, 2025.

    “Climate Change Set to Lower Home Prices,” Business Insider, Feb. 4, 2025.

    “How Climate Change Could Upend the American Dream,” Propublica, Feb. 3, 2025.

    “Climate Change to Wipe Away $1.5 Trillion in U.S. Home Values, Study Says,” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 3, 2025.

    “Opinion: That Giant Sucking Sound? It’s Climate Change Devouring Your Home’s Value,” New York Times, Feb. 3, 2025.

    “How and Where Climate Change Will Lower U.S, Home Values,” Context News, Feb. 10, 2025.

    “Climate Change Is Driving an Insurance Crisis,” The Equation – Union of Concerned Scientists, June 19, 2024.

    “Real Estate: How Climate Risk is Changing Prices,” Medium, March 3, 2025.

    “At Least 20% of U.S. Homes Will be De-Valued Due to Climate Change, Says DeltaTerra CEO Dave Burt,” CNBC, Feb. 19, 2025.

    “Climate Change is Fueling the US Insurance Problem,” BBC, March 18, 2024.

    “US Housing Market May Face Losses Due to Climate Change,” Realty, Feb. 21, 2025.

    “Nearly Half of U.S. Homes Face Severe Threat from Climate Change, Study Finds,” CBS News, March 13, 2024.

    “The Possible Collapse of the U.S. Home Insurance System,” New York Times, May 15, 2024.

    “The Climate Crisis Will End Home Ownership as We Know It and Eventually Crash the Economy,” Splinter, Jan. 8, 2025.

    Fake news?

    The big question going forward is whether climate change’s real estate devaluation, which impacts every American household, will take MAGA down to its knees, drowning its lameness in a sea of turbulent financial chaos followed by a massive irrepressible political tsunami payback event that cleanses the nation of lies?

    The post Senator Whitehouse’s Climate Crisis-Property Insurance-RE Collapse Scenario first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Economist is an influential weekly magazine that was founded way back in 1843. But its age hasn’t lent it much ability at all to analyze China’s economy, making embarrassingly bad predictions about this country over the last few decades that show us crystal clear: if you want to understand China and its economy, DO NOT read The Economist.

    The magazine has got it wrong on so many major subjects, most recently being China’s huge successes in the AI sector.

    Just yesterday they were forced to admit that success, with an article calling China’s AI boom “astonishing,” but just a few years ago they told readers not to hold their breath about the country’s chances in AI.

    And their predictions over the decades that China was about to collapse even put serial self-loathing China-hater Gordon Chang to shame, and they were once hilariously even against China’s high speed rail!

    Today we’ll take a closer look at some of The Economist’s embarrassing bad China takes.

    This is Reports on China, I’m Andy Boreham in Shanghai. Let’s get reporting!

    The post The Economist Magazine’s Massive China FAIL! first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Syria’s massacres that can be defined by nothing less than genocide have exceeded in the slaughter of over 10,000 dead souls. The last few days flooded with videos and images of the endless public, mass executions of children, women, civilians, and entire families, have shown that the world is willing to watch yet another genocide unfold with most of the international media and the international community silent, excusing or down-playing the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s (HTS) terrorist ethnic cleansing of Syrians. As Israel once again strikes Gaza killing over 400 people, with the full backing of the Trump administration.

    The post Syria’s Genocide, Claiming Over 10,000 Lives, Is Not A Sectarian Conflict appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    Israel’s most revered jurist, former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak, says that he fears the Netanyahu government’s latest actions, including moves to fire the Shin Bet secret service chief and attorney-general, are steering the country toward civil war.

    Speaking to the Ynet news site shortly before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened the cabinet that voted unanimously to fire Bar, Barak said that “the main problem in Israeli society is . . .  the severe rift between Israelis”.

    “This rift is getting worse and in the end, I fear, it will be like a train that goes off the tracks and plunges into a chasm, causing a civil war,” he said.

    In another interview, with Channel 12, when asked why he thought Israel was close to civil conflict, Barak said it was “because the rift in the people is immense, and no effort is being made to heal it.

    “Everyone is trying to make it worse.

    “Today there are demonstrations, then a car drives through them and runs over someone,” he said, referring to an incident at an anti-Netanyahu protest in Jerusalem on Wednesday when a driver rammed into a protester, injuring him.

    “But tomorrow there will be shootings, and the day after that there will be bloodshed,” Barak continued.

    Overturned sacking
    Barak also told Channel 12 he would have overturned a government decision to fire Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar if he were serving on the bench today.

    The former chief justice explained he believed the ousting of Bar from the role in the middle of his term was illegitimate because the position of Shin Bet chief was not a “role of confidence” with the political echelon.

    Instead, the person in the job was meant to carry out the role as it was explicitly written in legislation.

    “There is authority to dismiss, but no grounds for dismissal,” he elaborated, saying he would also strike down the firing of Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, another top official whom the government is seeking to oust.

    When asked about the prime minister’s tweet on Wednesday night alleging the existence of a “leftist deep state” in Israel that was working to thwart Netanyahu’s government, Barak replied: “I don’t know what a deep state is.”

    “We’re not the United States, we don’t have a deep state here. We have loyal public servants here, and they do things according to the law,” he added.

    Barak also appealed directly to Netanyahu, urging him to halt the process of firing Bar and Baharav-Miara, and other policies the former justice considers destructive, and said he thinks Netanyahu should be offered and should take a plea deal in his criminal trial.


    ‘Israel feels like it is on the brink of civil war.’   Video: France 24

    ‘Right for his legacy’
    “I think that it is right for Netanyahu. It is right for his legacy. And it is right for the State of Israel. And I think it is possible,” he said.

    “Otherwise, the trial will continue. The rift between [those] for Bibi and against Bibi will continue,” he added, using Netanyahu’s nickname.

    Asked by the interviewer what he would say to Netanyahu if he could talk to him, Barak answered: “This is your policy, I am completely against it. I ask you, don’t implement it beyond what you have done today. Stop. Stop.”

    “Don’t take the rift beyond where it already is,” he concluded.

    Responding to Barak, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar issued a terse statement on X, simply posting: “There will be no civil war.”

    Education Minister Yoav Kisch, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, said in a post on X that Barak was “threatening a civil war” with his warning, and promised that “these threats will not deter” the government from implementing its policies.

    MK Almog Cohen of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party said that Barak is “a reckless and irresponsible man,” who was “sent to issue a Sicilian mafia-style threat of blood in the streets and civil war.”

    Retired Israeli Supreme Court president Aharon Barak
    Retired Israeli Supreme Court president Aharon Barak . . . “We’re not the United States, we don’t have a deep state here.” Image: ICJ

    Well-respected internationally
    Barak served as a Supreme Court justice from 1978 to 1995. He was then elected as the court’s president. He retired from the bench in 2006.

    Despite Barak being a vocal critic of Netanyahu and his policies, the premier chose him to represent Israel as an ad-hoc judge at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the genocide case that was brought against Israel by South Africa amid the war in Gaza.

    Barak removed himself from the court last June for personal reasons.

    Barak, a Holocaust survivor, is well-respected internationally and is seen as Israel’s preeminent jurist.

    Within Israel, he long has been seen by Netanyahu and other right-wing leaders as a leftist “activist,” who is to blame for many of the issues with Israel’s judicial system that the government’s controversial judicial overhaul plans aim to rectify.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • New York, March 21, 2025—The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns the harassment of Indonesia’s leading independent news outlet, Tempo, after a severed pig’s head was delivered to its office in the capital Jakarta on March 19—weeks after President Prabowo Subianto alleged that foreign-funded media organizations are trying to “divide” the country.

    On the same day, protesters gathered outside Indonesia’s Press Council building and demanded it to take action against Tempo, accusing the outlet of acting in the interest of “foreign agent,” billionaire financier George Soros.

    “This is a dangerous and deliberate act of intimidation,” said CPJ’s Asia Program Coordinator Beh Lih Yi. “Tempo is well-known internationally for its fiercely independent reporting; using this playbook from autocrats elsewhere simply will not work. President Prabowo Subianto must uphold press freedom and condemn this highly provocative act if he wants Indonesia to be taken seriously as the world’s third-largest democracy.”

    (Photo: Tempo)
    (Photo: Tempo)

    The pig’s head, sent in a cardboard box, was addressed to a female journalist at Tempo who covers politics and hosts a popular podcast program, said Wahyu Dhyatmika, chief executive of Tempo’s digital team. He called the incident an attempt to “scare and silence” the Indonesian press into self-censorship, and said Tempo lodged a police report on Friday.

    Tempo has reported critically on the Prabowo government’s policies, including a newly launched multibillion-dollar free school meal program. Founded originally as a weekly magazine in 1971 by CPJ’s International Press Freedom Award winner and writer Goenawan Mohamad, the outlet had been banned twice, first for two months in 1982 and later in 1994. It was relaunched in 1998 after the fall of dictator Suharto, who Prabowo once served under and who was accused of using military figures to crack down on dissent.

    The national police and presidential office did not immediately respond to CPJ’s requests for comment sent via messaging app.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The post Media Mind Control first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Allen Forrest.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  •  
    Miami, March 20, 2025—The Committee to Protect Journalists is alarmed by the arson attacks on at least three TV and radio stations in Haiti’s capital Port-au-Prince over the last week, as escalating gang violence has caused widescale destruction.

    Between March 12 and 13, armed gangs from the Viv Ansanm (Living Together) coalition attacked independent stations Radio Télévision Caraïbes (RTVC) and Mélodie FM, setting fire to both buildings, which had been previously abandoned due to insecurity in the area. No casualties were reported.

    On March 16, heavily armed Viv Ansanm members also ransacked and set fire to the privately owned TV channel Télé Pluriel in the Delmas 19 neighborhood, according to staff members who spoke to CPJ and wished to remain anonymous out of concern for their safety.

    Separately, at least 10 journalists were physically attacked and had equipment stolen during a large street demonstration on March 19, according to the Haitian Online Media Association (CMEL).

    “Journalists, particularly those in radio broadcasting, have long played a vital role in keeping Haitians informed about what is happening in their communities,” said CPJ U.S., Canada, and Caribbean program coordinator Katherine Jacobsen. “The arson attacks on these three radio stations are the latest attempt from Haitian gangs to sow chaos and destruction and weaken the media’s ability to work. The security situation in the country must be stabilized to allow journalists, and all citizens, to live without fear of violence.”  

    Haitian Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé called the attack on RTVC “a despicable act” against freedom of expression and issued a statement promising to reinforce security for media institutions.

    “The losses were enormous,” Télé Pluriel staff said in a report, adding that they have been unable to access the area due to ongoing violence. Télé Pluriel is owned by Pierre-Louis Opont, a former head of Haiti’s Provisional Electoral Council, and his award-winning journalist wife Marie Lucie Bonhomme. They were each separately abducted and subsequently released in 2023.

    RTVC is the oldest radio station in Haiti. Mélodie FM is owned by Marcus Garcia, a renowned Haitian journalist who was exiled during the Duvalier dictatorship in the 1980s.

    Violence, instability, and impunity in journalist killings have plagued Haiti since the 2021 assassination of President Jovenel Moïse.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone is a harrowing account of life in Gaza as seen through the eyes of Palestinian children. It provides a rare window into young lives devastated by months of relentless bombings, displacements, and unspeakable horrors.

    It aired on 17 February on BBC Two, but was swiftly removed from iPlayer four days later, following fierce lobbying from pro-Israel voices. The reasons given for its removal? Well, they simply don’t add up.

    The main objection was that the father of Abdullah, the 13-year-old narrator, is the deputy minister of agriculture in Gaza’s Hamas-run government. But like it or not, it’s a fact of life in Gaza that almost anyone living there will have some connection to Hamas. Hamas runs the government, so anyone working in an official capacity must also work with Hamas. Not only that, but Abdullah’s father is hardly a “terrorist leader” as was claimed. He is a technocrat, in a role concerned with agriculture, not politics or military, who even studied at UK universities.

    Other objections included the risk of payments potentially funding Hamas. But as Hoyo Films and now the boy himself have confirmed, Abdullah was paid a very small sum via his sister’s bank account which was used to cover basic living expenses. And the complaints around the use of antisemitic language have been rebuffed by many – including Jewish Voice for Labour. The word ‘“Yehudi” is simply Arabic for “Israeli,” and is used by Jewish Israeli journalist Yuval Abrahamto to describe himself in the Oscar-winning film No Other Land.

    Crucially, absolutely nothing in the film has been found to be factually inaccurate.

    The film received five stars in the Guardian and the Times, which described it as “exceptional”. It’s an outstanding, powerful film and a crucial piece of journalism. Since international journalists are banned from Gaza, there are scant opportunities to witness Gazan children’s stories. This film gave us a small insight and humanised Palestinian children.

    Why then, is an innocent child, the victim of unimaginable suffering, put under such intense scrutiny as to whether or not they should be allowed to tell their story?

    Consider the source

    When you consider the source of the complaints, you can’t help but feel like the humanisation of Palestinians was precisely the problem.

    Spearheading the campaign to have the documentary removed from public view was Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s ambassador to the UK. Throughout her political career, Hotovely has gone out of her way to dehumanise Palestinians, accusing them of being “thieves of history” who have no heritage, and calling the Nakba – the violent mass displacement of Palestinians – “an Arab lie.” More recently, she claimed there was “no humanitarian crisis” in Gaza.

    Despite strong counterprotests from a far greater number of people wanting the documentary to stay put – including over 1,000 industry professionals and more than 600 British Jews – the BBC bowed to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby, and dutifully took the documentary down.

    That’s why I decided to start a petition, calling on the BBC to reconsider its decision, and allow Palestinian children their right to be heard. The petition quickly gained lots of support and now has over 25,000 signatures.

    Failing Palestinian children

    Not long after I started the petition, it emerged that Abdullah, the film’s 13-year-old narrator, has experienced harassment as a result of the kickback against the film, and now fears for his life. “I did not agree to the risk of me being targeted in any way”, he said. And “[if] anything happens to me, the BBC is responsible for it.”

    Putting children’s safety and mental wellbeing at risk is not only blatantly wrong, but is in breach of the BBC’s own guidelines on safeguarding young people. Sadly, Abdullah’s was not an isolated case.

    In a recent interview with the Independent, former BBC newsreader Karishma Patel explained her reason for quitting the BBC: its longstanding refusal to show the full extent to which Irael is harming Palestinian children. She recalls how she begged the BBC to cover five-year-old Hind Rajab’s story while she was still alive, trapped inside a car with her murdered relatives. The BBC chose not to, only naming her after she was killed, and not even making clear in the headline who had done it. “The BBC failed Hind,” says Patel. “And it has failed Palestinian children again in pulling the [Gaza] documentary.”

    I’ve just written to Tim Davie, Controller-General of the BBC, to draw his attention to the huge number of people who want the documentary to be reinstated, and why the reasons put forward to justify its removal simply do not add up. I told him, “Anyone who is offended by a child sharing their lived experiences of survival can choose not to watch it. But do not deny innocent children – who have experienced unimaginable grief and loss – the right to tell their stories.”  You can read my full letter here.

    Let’s see if he responds. The BBC didn’t bother reaching out to Abdullah to apologise to him after they pulled the film. So I’m not holding out too much hope.

    The post In Pulling the Gaza Documentary, the BBC is Failing Palestinian Children first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    Earthwise presenters Lois and Martin Griffiths of Plains FM96.9 radio talk to Dr David Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report, about heightened global fears of nuclear war as tensions have mounted since US President Donald Trump has returned to power.

    Dr Robie reminds us that New Zealanders once actively opposed nuclear testing in the Pacific.

    That spirit, that active opposition to nuclear testing, and to nuclear war must be revived.

    This is very timely as the Rainbow Warrior 3 is currently visiting the Marshall Islands this month to mark 40 years since the original RW took part in the relocation of Rongelap Islanders who suffered from US nuclear tests in the 1950s.

    After that humanitarian mission, the Rainbow Warrior was subsequently bombed by French secret agents in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 1985 shortly before it was due to sail to Moruroa Atoll to protest against nuclear testing.

    A new edition of Dr Robie’s book Eyes of Fire The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior will be released this July. The Eyes of Fire microsite is here.

    Lois opens up by saying: “I fear that we live in disturbing times. I fear the possibility of nuclear war, I always have.

    “I remember the Cuban missiles crisis, a scary time. I remember campaigns for nuclear disarmament. Hopes that the United Nations could lead to a world of peace and justice.

    “Yet today one hears from our media, for world leaders . . . ‘No, no no. There will always be tyrants who want to destroy us and our democratic allies . . . more and bigger, deadlier weapons are needed to protect us . . .”

    Listen to the programme . . .


    Nuclear free Pacific . . . back to the future.    Video/audio: Plains FM96.9

    Broadcast: Plains Radio FM96.9

    Interviewee: Dr David Robie, deputy chair of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) and a semiretired professor of Pacific journalism. He founded the Pacific Media Centre.
    Interviewers: Lois and Martin Griffiths, Earthwise programme

    Date: 14 March 2025 (27min), broadcast March 17.

    Youtube: Café Pacific: https://www.youtube.com/@cafepacific2023

    https://plainsfm.org.nz/

    Café Pacific: https://davidrobie.nz/

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Dakar, March 19, 2025—The Committee to Protect Journalists calls on Benin’s regulatory High Authority for Audiovisual and Communication (HAAC) to reverse its suspension of the privately owned news site Bénin Web TV for reporting on alleged inconsistencies in the media regulator’s budget.

    In its March 12 decision, the HAAC also withdrew Benin Web TV director Paul Arnaud Deguenon’s press card over his outlet’s January 21 and 23 reporting that said the HAAC presented “erroneous” figures to parliament’s budget committee and its president demanded a new official car. 

    “The media regulator should allow Bénin Web TV and journalist Paul Arnaud Deguenon to resume reporting,” said Moussa Ngom, CPJ’s Francophone Africa representative. “Benin’s High Authority for Audiovisual and Communication should respect journalists’ right to question the management of public funds, instead of punishing Bénin Web TV for scrutinizing the regulator’s finances.”

    Deguenon attended a public hearing at HAAC’s offices on March 11 where he was ordered to publish an apology as the regulator said the journalist failed to provide evidence to support his outlet’s allegations.

    In response, Bénin Web TV said that its journalism was based on facts and precise terms, with no desire to harm the HAAC. The media outlet published three letters from the HAAC and Deguenon’s responses, explaining that its reporting was based on the HAAC’s own 2025 budget presentation and public statement.

    In its decision, the HAAC said that “Deguenon reoffended on the same day in his baseless accusations” and had “sharply attacked” the regulator.

    The HAAC’s indefinite suspension of Benin Web TV appears to contravene its 2023 authorizationof the outlet’s operations, which specifies that suspensions for noncompliance with a formal regulatory notice may not exceed one month.

    In January, the HAAC suspended six outlets and withdrew a press card for one of the outlet’s journalists, accusing them of publishing false allegations, without specifying, and of running unauthorized websites. The HAAC has not reversed the order.

    CPJ’s calls to the HAAC to request comment were not answered.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • This is Trump’s genocide. Trump is just as culpable for what happens in Gaza as Netanyahu. Just as guilty as Biden was during the last administration.

    Trump signed off on the reignition of the Gaza holocaust. He spent weeks sabotaging the ceasefire and then gave the thumbs up to the resumption of the genocide. He did this while bombing Yemen and threatening war with Iran for Israel.

    I don’t know why Trump has done these things. Maybe it’s all for the Adelson cash. Maybe Epstein recorded him doing something unsavory with a minor during their long association and gave it to Israeli intelligence for blackmail purposes. Maybe he owed somebody a favor for bailing him out of his business failures in the past. Maybe he’s just a psychopath who enjoys murdering children. I don’t know, and it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that he did it, and he is responsible for his actions.

    Trump supporters will justify literally anything their president does using whatever excuses they need to, but they are only revealing how completely empty and unprincipled their political faction is. They are unthinking worshippers of power who go along with whatever the president tells them to. By continuing to support Trump even as he continues Biden’s legacy of mass murder in the middle east, they are proving themselves to be mindless stormtroopers for the empire in full view of the entire world.

    You can still support Trump if you hate immigrants and LGBTQ people and want lower taxes for the obscenely wealthy, but there is no legitimate reason to support him on antiwar or anti-establishment grounds. He’s just another evil Republican mass murderer president.

    *****

    Republicans in 2002: We need more authoritarianism and more wars in the middle east. Anyone who disagrees is a terrorist supporter.

    Republicans in 2025: We need more authoritarianism and more wars in the middle east. Anyone who disagrees is a terrorist supporter, and antisemite.

    *****

    By the way has anyone checked on the western Zionist Jews? How are their feelings feeling today? Are they feeling nice feelings or bad feelings? Are their feelings feeling safe or unsafe? We need wall to wall news coverage of this supremely urgent issue; no time to cover any other story.

    *****

    I write so much about the fake “antisemitism crisis” not only because it’s being used to destroy civil rights throughout the western world, but because it’s one of the most dark and disturbing things I’ve ever witnessed.

    It’s been so intensely creepy watching all of western society mobilize around a complete and utter fiction in order to stomp out all criticism of a foreign state. It’s about as dystopian a thing as you can possibly imagine, all these pundits and politicians pretending to believe that Jewish safety is seriously being threatened by an epidemic of antisemitism which must be aggressively silenced by any means necessary. All to shut down opposition to the worst inclinations of a genocidal apartheid state and the complicity of our own western governments with its crimes.

    And we’re all expected to treat this scam seriously. Anyone who says the emperor has no clothes and calls this mass deception what it is gets tarred with the “antisemite” label and treated as further evidence that we’re all a hair’s breadth from seeing Jews rounded up onto trains again if we don’t all hurry up and shut down anti-genocide protests on university campuses. They’re not just acting out a fraudulent melodrama staged to rob us of our rights, they’re demanding that we participate in it by pretending it’s not what it plainly is.

    It’s not just tyranny, it’s tyranny that orders people to clap along with it. It’s such a disgusting, evil thing to do to people. Such psychologically dominating abusive behavior. The more you look at it, the creepier it gets.

    *****

    The anti-imperialist left is what MAGA and right wing “populism” pretend to be. We ACTUALLY oppose the empire’s warmongering — not only when Democrats are in power. We ACTUALLY want to defeat the deep state — we don’t applaud billionaire Pentagon contractors like Elon Musk taking power. We ACTUALLY oppose the establishment order — because the establishment order is capitalist. We ACTUALLY stand up to the powerful — we don’t offload half the blame onto immigrants and marginalized groups.

    The anti-imperialist left is also what liberals pretend to be. We ACTUALLY support the working class. We ACTUALLY stand up for the little guy. We ACTUALLY want justice and equality. We ACTUALLY support civil rights. We ACTUALLY oppose tyranny.

    Everything the human heart longs for lies in the death of capitalism, militarism and empire, and yet both of the dominant western political factions of our day support continuing all of these things. This is because westerners spend their entire lives marinating in power-serving propaganda which herds them into these two mainstream political factions to ensure that they will pose no meaningful challenges to our rulers. All political energy is funneled into movements and parties which are set up to maintain the status quo while pretending to support the people, with the illusion of political freedom sustained by a false two-party dichotomy in which both factions serve the same ruling power structure.

    Of course, what mainstream liberalism and right wing “populism” have to offer that anti-imperialist socialism does not is the ability to win major elections with successful candidates. This is because generations of imperial psyops have gone into stomping out the anti-imperialist left in the western world, and because only candidates which uphold the status quo are ever allowed to get close to winning an election. This doesn’t mean mainstream liberalism or right wing “populism” are the answer, it just means our prison warden isn’t going to hand us the keys to the exit door.

    At some point we’re going to have to rise up and use the power of our numbers to force the urgently needed changes we long to see in our world. Everything in our society is set up to prevent this from ever happening. That’s all the two mainstream political factions are designed to do. That’s why they both have phony “populist” elements within them which purport to be leading a brave revolutionary charge against the establishment, while herding everyone into support for the two status quo political parties. And that’s why the anti-imperialist left is everything they pretend to be.

    The post This Is Trump’s Genocide Now first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    At least 400 people have been killed after a surprise Israeli attack on Gaza in the early hours of Tuesday.

    The Israeli government vows to continue escalating these military attacks, claiming it is in response to Hamas’ refusal to extend the ceasefire, which has been in place since January 19.

    But is this the real reason for pre-dawn attack? Or is there a much more cynical explanation — one tied to the political fate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

    This week, New Zealand journalist Mohamed Hassan, host of the Middle East Eye’s weekly Big Picture podcast, speaks to Daniel Levy, the president of the US/Middle East Project and a former Israeli peace negotiator.


    Ceasefire broken: Netanyahu is exposed.   Video: Middle East Eye

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • In the year since Hong Kong passed its “Article 23” legislation, national security police have hauled in the friends of a pro-democracy activist in Taiwan over comments he made on social media, and are increasingly monitoring people’s social media interactions.

    Fu Tong, who now lives in democratic Taiwan, said police back home seem to be targeting online speech since the passing of a second national security law that includes a broader “sedition” offense than earlier legislation.

    “It’s pretty serious now,” Fu told RFA in an interview on Monday. “Before, they would just read my posts. But since Article 23, they have even been monitoring my interactions with my friends.”

    A friend of his was hauled in for questioning by national security police after Fu left a comment on their Facebook account, he said.

    “Now, I daren’t leave comments on my friends’ Facebook [posts],” he said.

    Images of activists Simon Cheng, Frances Hui, Joey Siu, Johnny Fok and Tony Choi are displayed during a press conference to issue arrest warrants in Hong Kong, Dec. 14, 2023.
    Images of activists Simon Cheng, Frances Hui, Joey Siu, Johnny Fok and Tony Choi are displayed during a press conference to issue arrest warrants in Hong Kong, Dec. 14, 2023.
    (Tyrone Siu/Reuters)

    The Safeguarding National Security bill, commonly known as Article 23, was passed on March 23, 2024.

    It came amid a crackdown on dissent that has used both the 2020 National Security Law and colonial-era sedition laws to prosecute and jail people for protest and political opposition in unprecedented numbers.

    Chilling effect

    The government said the legislation was needed to plug “loopholes” left by the 2020 National Security Law and claims it is needed to deal with clandestine activity by “foreign forces” in the city, which the ruling Communist Party blames for the 2019 mass protest movement that was sparked by plans to allow extradition to mainland China.

    The law proposes sentences of up to life imprisonment for “treason,” “insurrection,” “sabotage” and “mutiny,” 20 years for espionage and 10 years for crimes linked to “state secrets” and “sedition.”

    It also allows the authorities to revoke the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passports of anyone who flees overseas, and to target overseas activists with financial sanctions.

    Human rights lawyer Chow Hang-tung is seen inside a vehicle after being detained in Hong Kong, Sept. 8, 2021.
    Human rights lawyer Chow Hang-tung is seen inside a vehicle after being detained in Hong Kong, Sept. 8, 2021.
    (Tyrone Siu/Reuters)

    The concept of “collusion with foreign forces ” runs throughout the draft bill, and sentences are harsher where “foreign forces” are deemed to be involved.

    Fu said Article 23 has had a chilling effect on Hong Kong-related activism, even overseas, with fewer exiled Hong Kongers turning out for protests and other events in Taiwan.

    He said activists still plan to go ahead with a protest marking the first anniversary of the Article 23 legislation in Taipei on Sunday, however.

    Eric Lai, a research fellow at the Center for Asian Law, Georgetown University, said there are other examples of the law being used to censor social media.

    In May 2024, Hong Kong police arrested jailed human rights lawyer Chow Hang-tung and five other people — the first arrests to be made under the recently passed Article 23 security law — for making social media posts with “seditious intent” ahead of the anniversary of the June 4, 1989, Tiananmen Square massacre.

    Being watched

    He said the government is using the legislation to bolster the feeling that ordinary people are being watched.

    “Over the past year, the most common charge used to prosecute people under Article 23 has been sedition,” Lai said. “Sedition is kind of a catch-all offense, and the government is using it to target more ordinary Hong Kongers.”

    “The point is to warn Hong Kongers that they’re not immune just because they’re not a political figure … and that ordinary people are also being monitored when they go online,” he said.

    Eric Lai, a research fellow at the Center for Asian Law at Georgetown University, is seen in an undated photo.
    Eric Lai, a research fellow at the Center for Asian Law at Georgetown University, is seen in an undated photo.
    (Tang Zheng/RFA)

    The government hasn’t made public details of the number of prosecutions under the law to date, but Lai said that the cases that make the news may only be the tip of the iceberg.

    He said the recent confiscation of exiled pro-democracy lawmaker Ted Hui’s assets only came to light because Hui himself spoke out about it.

    He said the law grants sweeping powers of surveillance to the authorities, increasing the size of the police dragnet to include everyday comments and activities.

    “The biggest difference between Article 23 and the 2020 National Security Law is that Article 23 provides more powers for the Hong Kong government to chip away at the system,” Lai said.

    “The government can decide not to parole people if it judges them to be a threat to national security, and it can prevent defendants from seeing a lawyer, and hold them in police stations for longer than before,” he said.

    He said it was significant that the Court of Appeal allowed an injunction against the banned 2019 protest anthem “Glory to Hong Kong” after the Article 23 legislation was passed.

    Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Chen Zifei for RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Maria Ressa says rules-based order ‘can perhaps still exist’ but social media is being used to undermine democracy around the world

    The arrest of Rodrigo Duterte is a welcome sign that the rules-based order continues to hold, the Nobel laureate Maria Ressa has said, even as the global order has been marred by the US “descending into hell” at the hands of the same forces that consumed the Philippines.

    Ressa’s remarks came after Duterte, the former president of the Philippines, made his first appearance before the international criminal court (ICC) in The Hague, accused of committing crimes against humanity during his brutal “war on drugs”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    Paris-based global media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has recalled that 20 journalists were killed during the six-year Philippines presidency of Rodrigo Duterte, a regime marked by fierce repression of the press.

    Former president Duterte was arrested earlier this week as part of an International Criminal Court investigation into crimes against humanity linked to his merciless war on drugs. He is now in The Hague awaiting trial.

    The watchdog has called on the administration of current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr to take strong measures to fully restore the country’s press freedom and combat impunity for the crimes against media committed by Duterte’s regime.

    “Just because you’re a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you’re a son of a bitch,” Rodrigo Duterte said in his inauguration speech on 30 June 2016, which set the tone for the rest of his mandate — unrestrained violence against journalists and total disregard for press freedom, said RSF in a statement.

    During the Duterte regime’s rule, RSF recorded 20 cases of journalists killed while working.

    Among them was Jesus Yutrago Malabanan, shot dead after covering Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war for Reuters.

    Online harassment surged, particularly targeting women journalists.

    Maria Ressa troll target
    The most prominent victim was Maria Ressa, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and founder of the news site Rappler, who faced an orchestrated hate campaign led by troll armies allied with the government in response to her commitment to exposing the then-president’s bloody war.

    Media outlets critical of President Duterte’s authoritarian excesses were systematically muzzled: the country’s leading television network, ABS-CBN, was forced to shut down; Rappler and Maria Ressa faced repeated lawsuits; and a businessman close to the president took over the country’s leading newspaper, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, raising concerns over its editorial independence.

    “The arrest of Rodrigo Duterte is good news for the Filipino journalism community, who were the direct targets of his campaign of terror,” said RSF’s Asia-Pacific bureau director Cédric Alviani.

    RSF's Asia-Pacific bureau director Cédric Alviani
    RSF’s Asia-Pacific bureau director Cédric Alviani . . . “the Filipino journalism community were the direct targets of [former president Rodrigo Duterte]’s campaign of terror.” Image: RSF
    “President Marcos and his administration must immediately investigate Duterte’s past crimes and take strong measures to fully restore the country’s press freedom.”

    The repression carried out during Duterte’s tenure continues to impact on Filipino journalism: investigative journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio has been languishing in prison since her arrest in 2020, still awaiting a verdict in her trial for “financing terrorism” and “illegal possession of firearms” — trumped-up charges that could see her sentenced to 40 years in prison.

    With 147 journalists murdered since the restoration of democracy in 1986, the Philippines remains one of the deadliest countries for media workers.

    The republic ranked 134th out of 180 in the 2024 RSF World Press Freedom Index.

    Source report from Reporters Without Borders. Pacific Media Watch collaborates with RSF.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Gavin Ellis

    New Zealand-based Canadian billionaire James Grenon owes the people of this country an immediate explanation of his intentions regarding media conglomerate NZME. This cannot wait until a shareholders’ meeting at the end of April.

    Is his investment in the owner of The New Zealand Herald and NewstalkZB nothing more than a money-making venture to realise the value of its real estate marketing subsidiary? Has he no more interest than putting his share of the proceeds from spinning off OneRoof into a concealed safe in his $15 million Takapuna mansion?

    Or does he intent to leverage his 9.6 percent holding and the support of other investors to take over the board (if not the company) in order to dictate the editorial direction of the country’s largest newspaper and its number one commercial radio station?

    Grenon has said little beyond the barest of announcements that have been released by the New Zealand Stock Exchange. While he must exercise care to avoid triggering statutory takeover obligations, he cannot simply treat NZME as another of the private equity projects that have made him very wealthy. He is dealing with an entity whose influence and obligations extend far beyond the crude world of finance.

    While I do not presume for one moment that he reads this column each week, let me suspend disbelief for a moment and speak directly to him.

    Come clean and tell the people of New Zealand what you are doing and, more importantly, why.

    Over the past week there has been considerable speculation over the answers to those questions. Much of it has drawn on what little we know of James Grenon. And it is precious little beyond two facts.

    Backed right-wing Centrist
    The first is that he put money behind the launch of a right-wing New Zealand news aggregation website, The Centrist, although he apparently no longer has a financial interest in it.

    The second fact is that he provided financial support for conservative activists taking legal action against New Zealand media.

    When I contacted a well-connected friend in Canada to ask about Grenon the response was short: “Never heard of him . . . and there aren’t that many Canadian billionaires.”

    In short, the man who potentially may hold sway over the board of one of our biggest media companies has a very low profile indeed. That is a luxury to which he can no longer lay claim.

    It may be that his interest is, after all, a financial one based on his undoubted investment skills. He may see a lucrative opportunity in OneRoof. After all, Fairfax’s public listing and subsequent sale of its Australian equivalent, Domain, provided not only a useful cash boost for shareholders but the creation of a stand-alone entity that now has a market cap of about $A2.8 billion.

    Perhaps he wants a board cleanout to guarantee a OneRoof float.

    If so, say so.

    Similar transactions
    Although spinning off OneRoof could have dire consequences for the viability of what would be left of NZME, that is a decision no different to similar transactions made by many companies in the financial interests of shareholders.

    There is a world of difference, however, between seizing an investment opportunity and seeking to secure influence by dictating the editorial direction of a significant portion of our news media.

    If the speculation is correct — and the billionaire is seeking to steer NZME on an editorial course to the right — New Zealand has a problem.

    Communications minister Paul Goldsmith gave a lamely neoliberal response reported by Stuff last week: He was “happy to take some advice” on the development, but NZME was a “private company” and ultimately it was up to its shareholders to determine how it operated.

    Let me repeat my earlier point: NZME is an entity whose influence and obligations extend far beyond the crude world of finance (and the outworn concept that the market can rule). Its stewardship of the vehicles at the forefront of news dissemination and opinion formation means it must meet higher obligation than what we expect of an ordinary “private company”.

    The most fundamental of those obligations is the independence of editorial decision-making and direction.

    I became editor of The New Zealand Herald shortly after Wilson & Horton was sold to Irish businessman Tony O’Reilly. On my appointment the then chief executive of O’Reilly’s Independent News & Media, Liam Healy, said the board had only one editorial requirement of me: That I would not advocate the use of violence as a legitimate means to a political end.

    Only direction echoed Mandela
    Coming from a man who had witnessed the effects of such violence in Northern Ireland, I had no difficulty in acceding to his request. And throughout my entire editorship, the only “request” made of me by O’Reilly himself was that I would support the distribution of generic Aids drugs in Africa. It followed a meeting he had had with Nelson Mandela. I had no other direction from the board.

    Yes, I had to bat away requests by management personnel (who should have known better) to “do this” or “not do that” but, without exception, the attempts were commercially driven — they did not want to upset advertisers. There was never a political or ideological motive behind them. Nor were such requests limited to me.

    I doubt there is an editor in the country who has not had a manager asking for something to please an advertiser. Disappointment hasn’t deterred their trying.

    In this column last week, I wrote of the dangers of a rich owner (in that case Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos) dictating editorial policy. The dangers if James Grenon has similar intentions would be even greater, given NZME’s share of the news market.

    The journalists’ union, E tu, has already concluded that the Canadian’s intention is to gain right-wing influence. Its director, Michael Wood, issued a statement in which he said: “The idea that a shadowy cabal, backed by extreme wealth, is planning to take over such an important institution in our democratic fabric should be of concern to all New Zealanders.”

    He called on the current NZME board to re-affirm a commitment to editorial independence.

    Michael Wood reflects the fears that are rightly held by NZME’s journalists. They, too, will doubtless be looking for assurances of editorial independence.

    ‘Cast-iron’ guarantees?
    Such assurances are vital, but those journalists should look back to some “cast-iron” guarantees given by other rich new owners if they are to avoid history repeating itself.

    I investigated such guarantees in a book I wrote titled Trust Ownership and the Future of News: Media Moguls and White Knights. In it I noted that 20 years before Rupert Murdoch purchased The Times of London, there was a warning that the newspaper’s editor “far from having his independence guaranteed, is on paper entirely in the hands of the Chief Proprietors who are specifically empowered by the Articles of Association to control editorial policy”, although there was provision for a “committee of notables” to veto the transfer of shares into undesirable hands.

    To satisfy the British government, Murdoch gave guarantees of editorial independence and a “court of appeal” role for independent directors. Neither proved worth the paper they were written on.

    In contrast, the constitution of the company that owns The Economist does not permit any individual or organisation to gain a majority shareholding. The editor exercises independent editorial control and is appointed by trustees, who are independent of commercial, political and proprietorial influences.

    There are no such protections in the constitution, board charter, or code of conduct and ethics governing NZME. And it is doubtful that any cast-iron guarantees could be inserted in advance of the company’s annual general meeting.

    If James Grenon does, in fact, have designs on the editorial direction of NZME, it is difficult to see how he might be prevented from achieving his aim.

    Statutory guarantees would be unprecedented and, in any case, sit well outside the mindset of a coalition government that has shown no inclination to intervene in a deteriorating media market. Nonetheless, Minister Goldsmith would be well advised to address the issue with a good deal more urgency.

    He might, at the very least, press the Canadian billionaire on his intentions.

    And if the coalition thinks a swing to the right in our news media would be no bad thing, it should be very careful what it wishes for.

    If the Canadian’s intentions are as Michael Wood suspects, perhaps the only hope will lie with those shareholders who see that it will be in their own financial interests to ensure that, in aggregate, NZME’s news assets continue to steer a (relatively) middle course. For proof, they need look only at the declining subscriber base of The Washington Post.

    Postscipt
    On Wednesday, The New Zealand Herald stated James Grenon had provided further detail, of his intentions. It is clear that he does, in fact, intend to play a role in the editorial side of NZME.

    Just how hands-on he would be remains to be seen. However, he told the Herald that, if successful in making it on to the NZME board, he expected an editorial board would be established “with representation from both sides of the spectrum”.

    On the surface that looks reassuring but editorial boards elsewhere have also been used to serve the ends of a proprietor while giving the appearance of independence.

    And just what role would an editorial board play? Would it determine the editorial direction that an editor would have to slavishly follow? Or would it be a shield protecting the editor’s independence?

    Only time will tell.

    Devil in the detail
    Media Insider columnist Shayne Currie, writing in the Weekend Herald, stated that “the Herald’s dominance has come through once again in quarterly Nielsen readership results . . . ” That is perfectly true: The newspaper’s average issue readership is more than four times that of its closest competitor.

    What the Insider did not say was that the Herald’s readership had declined by 32,000 over the past year — from 531,000 to 499,000 — and by 14,000 since the last quarterly survey.

    The Waikato Times, The Post and the Otago Daily Times were relatively stable while The Press was down 11,000 year-on-year but only 1000 since the last survey.

    In the weekend market, the Sunday Star Times was down 1000 readers year-on-year to stand at 180,000 and up slightly on the last survey. The Herald on Sunday was down 6000 year-on-year to sit at 302,000.

    There was a little good news in the weekly magazine market. The New Zealand Listener has gained 5000 readers year-on-year and now has a readership of 207,000. In the monthly market, Mindfood increased its readership by 15,000 over the same period and now sits at 222,000.

    The New Zealand Woman’s Weekly continues to dominate the women’s magazine market. It was slightly up on the last survey but well down year-on-year, dropping from 458,000 to 408,000. Woman’s Day had an even greater annual decline, falling from 380,000 to 317,000.

    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. This article was published first on his Knightly Views website on 11 March 2025 and is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Atereano Mateariki of Waatea News

    The future of Māori radio in Aotearoa New Zealand requires increased investment in both online platforms and traditional airwaves, says a senior manager.

    Matthew Tukaki, station manager at Waatea Digital, spoke with Te Ao Māori News about the future of Māori radio.

    He said there was an urgent need for changes to ensure a sustainable presence on both AM/FM airwaves and digital platforms.

    “One of the big challenges will always be funding. Many of our iwi stations operate with very limited resources, as their focus is more on manaakitanga (hospitality) and aroha (compassion),” Tukaki said.

    He said that Waatea Digital had been exploring various new digital strategies to enhance viewership and engagement across the media landscape.

    “We need assistance and support to transition to these new platforms,” Tukaki said.

    He also highlighted the continued importance of traditional AM frequencies, particularly during emergencies like Cyclone Gabrielle, where these stations served as vital emergency broadcasters.

    Report originally by Te Ao Māori.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Hong Kong Journalists’ Association is appealing to journalists to preserve Facebook live video footage of 2019 protests after Meta said it will start deleting archived videos from its servers.

    There are concerns that much of the online footage of those protests, most of which is banned in the city amid an ongoing crackdown on dissent, will no longer be available to the general public.

    That will make it easier for the authorities to impose their own narrative on events in the city’s recent history.

    Facebook notified users last month that it will be deleting archived live video streams from June 5, while newly streamed live video will be deleted after 30 days from Feb. 19, 2025.

    “Since the Hong Kong news media have relied heavily on Facebook Live for reporting in the past, the Journalists Association now calls on the heads of mainstream, independent and citizen media and online editors to back up their videos as soon as possible,” the Hong Kong Journalists Association said.

    “If necessary, you can follow the platform’s instructions to apply for an extension to up to six months before deletion,” it said.

    Capturing history

    In one livestream still available on YouTube from Oct. 1, 2019, an out-of-breath protester collates video feeds from several sources on the ground, commenting on what is unfolding while sounding out of breath from “running” at a protest a minute earlier.

    Meta's webpage outlining their process to update Facebook Live videos.
    Meta’s webpage outlining their process to update Facebook Live videos.
    (Meta)

    In a Facebook Live video from the same day, a professional reporter from government broadcaster RTHK, which has since been forced to toe the ruling Chinese Communist Party line in its reporting, follows protests in Wong Tai Sin, explaining what is going on to live viewers.

    While one feed is run by protesters and the other by a professional journalist, both offer a sense of boots-on-the-ground immediacy that would be crucial for anyone seeking to learn what the protests were about many years later.

    RELATED STORIES

    Hong Kong social worker convicted of rioting for her role in 2019 protests

    Protesters Dispersed With Tear Gas After Storming Hong Kong Legislature

    Hong Kong rejects amnesty for thousands arrested for 2019 protests

    EXPLAINED: What is the Article 23 security law in Hong Kong?

    A reporter for an online media outlet who gave only the pseudonym Ken for fear of reprisals said a very large proportion of the public record of the 2019 protests was streamed live on Facebook, with more than 100 videos stored there.

    While current media organizations have made backups, the footage will no longer be there for anyone to browse, making the record of that year less publicly available, Ken said.

    “It’s like we’ve lost an online library,” he said. “Unless someone is willing to back it up and put it all online, there’ll be no way of finding that history any more, should you want to.”

    Ken and his colleagues are concerned that online records of the 2019 could disappear entirely in a few years’ time, especially as republishing them from Hong Kong could render the user vulnerable to accusations of “glorifying” the protests, and prosecution under two national security laws.

    Photographers document pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong, left, as he speaks at the police headquarters in Hong Kong, June 21, 2019.
    Photographers document pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong, left, as he speaks at the police headquarters in Hong Kong, June 21, 2019.
    (VIncent Yu/AP)

    “This is a very serious problem, because certain events or people may be completely forgotten about in a few years, maybe 10 years,” Ken said.

    But there are risks attached to republishing video content — especially for residents of Hong Kong.

    “You don’t know whether you will be accused of incitement if you post it again,” Ken said. “You never know what your live broadcast captured and whether there was issue … under the two national security laws.”

    Permanent loss of historical material

    A fellow journalist who gave only the pseudonym Mr. G for fear of reprisals said his media organization still has access to its own live streamed footage of the 2019 protests from both Facebook and YouTube.

    But he said the planned deletions could lead to “the permanent loss of some historical material.”

    Facebook said that the owners of the videos will receive an email or notification in advance “and can choose to download the videos, transfer them to the cloud, or convert them into reels short videos within 90 days.”

    “If users need more time to process old videos, they can apply to postpone the deadline by 6 months,” it said, adding that most live video is viewed in the first few weeks after being uploaded.

    Veteran media commentator To Yiu-ming said social media platforms aren’t suited for use as a historical archive.

    “There’s no point criticizing them,” To said. “Users may well encounter similar practices even … if they move to another social media platform.”

    “If you want to preserve the historical record, you have to use less convenient methods, and spend a bit of time and money,” he said.

    The concerns over the deletion of live video come after a report claimed that Meta was willing to go to “extreme lengths” to censor content and shut down political dissent in a failed attempt to win the approval of the Chinese Communist Party and bring Facebook to millions of internet users in China.

    Citing a whistleblower complaint by Sarah Wynn-Williams from the company’s China policy team, the Washington Post reported that Meta “so desperately wanted to enter the lucrative China market that it was willing to allow the ruling party to oversee all social media content appearing in the country and quash dissenting opinions.”

    The notice in Chinese from Facebook warning users that archived live video will be deleted, Feb. 19, 2025.
    The notice in Chinese from Facebook warning users that archived live video will be deleted, Feb. 19, 2025.
    (Meta)

    So it developed a censorship system for China in 2015 and planned to install a “chief editor” who would decide what content to remove and could shut down the entire site during times of “social unrest,” according to a copy of the 78-page complaint exclusively seen by The Washington Post.

    Meta executives also “stonewalled and provided nonresponsive or misleading information” to investors and American regulators, the complaint said.

    Meta spokesman Andy Stone told the paper that it was “no secret” the company was interested in operating in China.

    “This was widely reported beginning a decade ago,” Stone was quoted as saying. “We ultimately opted not to go through with the ideas we’d explored, which Mark Zuckerberg announced in 2019.”

    Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alice Yam for RFA Cantonese.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The following is an extract from the introduction to the book Worthy and Unworthy: How the Media Reports on Friends and Foes (2024) by Devan Hawkins.

    In the predawn hours of April 3, 1948, rebels assembled on the slopes of Mount Hallasan, a volcano that is located at the center of Jeju Island. On that highest peak in South Korea, the rebels lit fires that were meant to signal the start of armed resistance against both the occupation of South Korea by the United States and in support of the reunification of Korea, which had been divided in half since the end of the World War II. This uprising was preceded by previous incidents in which police fatally fired on protesters.

    In a letter sent to residents of the island, the rebels wrote:

    Fellow citizens! Respectable parents and siblings! Today, on this day of April 3, your sons, daughters, and little brothers and sisters rose up in arms for the reunification and independence of our homeland, and for the complete liberation of the people. We must risk our lives for the opposition to the betrayal of the country and the unilateral election and government. We rose up in arms against the brutal slaughter done by American cannibals that force you into hardship and unhappiness. To vent your deep-rooted rancor we rouse up in arms. You should defend us who fight for the victory of our country and should rise up along with us, responding to the call of the country and its people.

    Over the course of the next day, these rebels would launch attacks on police outposts and on other locations thought to contribute to repression on the island.

    This was the beginning of the Jeju Uprising. Following failed negotiations with police, additional troops would be sent to the island to crush the rebellion. During the next several months, periodic fighting would continue between rebels on the island and Korean forces. Following an incident where members of the South Korean military sent to the island mutinied and killed many of their commanders, dictator Syngman Rhee declared martial law. As part of the military’s efforts to end the rebellion, horrific incidents including the destruction of entire villages, mass rape, and the massacre of thousands of civilians occurred. Reports of the number of dead vary significantly from a low of 15,000 to a high of 65,000. The vast majority of civilian deaths were the responsibility of South Korean security forces. Tens of thousands fled from Jeju to Japan to escape the violence. Three hundred villages and tens of thousands of houses were destroyed.

    If you were a dedicated reader of The New York Times—the paper which declares on its front page that it publishes “All the News That’s Fit to Print”—during the Jeju Uprising you would know very little about the horrors that transpired on Jeju Island in 1948 and 1949. Using the Times search database, I only identified eight articles that discussed Jeju (then rendered as Cheju) for the entirety of 1948 and 1949. All of these articles were fairly short reports, appearing in the newspaper’s back pages. Many of them focused on the activities of the rebels:

         Communists on Cheju Attack Villages—Demand Police Surrender, No Election

         Constabulary Chief on Cheju Shot While Sleeping

         Snipers Fire at U.S. Plane At Airport in South Korea

    As well as alleged involvement by the Soviet Union:

         Soviet Submarines Said To Help Reds in Korea

    In the last article identified about Jeju, on April 1949, the Times devoted less than 50 words to publishing a United Press report about “1,193 Koreans Slain on Cheju” and the thousands more left homeless. The report makes no mention of responsibility for those dead, despite the fact that the vast majority of civilians were killed by the South Korean military. The number reported as being killed is an underestimate, at least by a factor of ten.

    On the same day that last report about Jeju was published by the Times, a story appeared in the Times about the Berlin Airlift, an operation led by the United States and United Kingdom to supply West Berlin (an exclave of the United States-allied West Germany) with supplies after it had been blockaded by the Soviet-allied East Germany, which surrounded it. The period of the blockade and the airlift that followed almost perfectly matched with the period of the Jeju Uprising. During this period, there were over a hundred articles describing the blockade and the airlift that followed, many featured on the front page of the Times.

    There are numerous reasons why the Berlin Airlift likely received more attention than the uprising and massacre on Jeju Island. Berlin is located in the center of Europe, while Jeju is a relatively remote island in East Asia. However, a year after the Jeju Uprising when the Chinese Communists captured Hainan, another remote island in East Asia, from the Chinese Nationalists, the Times published dozens of articles about the operation, suggesting that remoteness does not make significant reporting impossible.

    Berlin was also seen as the frontline of the Cold War, while in the years before the Korean War, the Korean Peninsula was often treated as a periphery issue. However, during the period of the Jeju Uprising, the Times published hundreds of stories about Korea, many of which focused on infiltration of communists from the north into the south. Furthermore, the United States was already heavily invested in Korea, having occupied the southern half of the peninsula since the end of

    World War II. At the time of the uprising, there were thousands of US troops in Korea. Indeed, a report from the South Korean government published decades after the uprising found that the United States shared responsibility for the military operations on Jeju Island.

    The role that disregard for non-Europeans might play in the dearth of coverage should also be considered. Jeju Islanders, unlike Berliners, were East Asians and, therefore, potentially less sympathetic in the minds of some readers of the Times. To compare Jeju Island to another contemporaneous issue in Europe, the final operation of the Greek Civil War, which occurred a few months after the conclusion of the Jeju Uprising, received more coverage in one month than the Jeju Uprising received in a whole year. The fact that the Greek Civil War involved Europeans may have been a factor in this higher level of coverage.

    There is another possible cause for the general lack of coverage of the Jeju Uprising: geopolitics. Berliners were a sympathetic population who were being oppressed by the new official enemy of the United States—the Soviet Union. In contrast, the people of Jeju Island were the victims of a regime that had been put into place and supported by the United States with the goal of preventing the spread of Soviet-aligned communism.

    Stated another way, the people of Berlin were worthy victims and the people of Jeju Island were unworthy victims.

    This formulation of Worthy and Unworthy victims was first developed by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in their seminal book Manufacturing Consent. As they wrote:

    Our prediction is that the victims of enemy states will be found “worthy” and will be subject to more intense and indignant coverage than those victimized by the United States or its clients, who are implicitly “unworthy.” Put another way, the media will be more likely to portray the victims of actions of official-state enemies in unfavorable terms, while portraying the victims of allies in more favorable terms.

    In the book Herman and Chomsky go on to show how crimes committed in client states of the Soviet Union received far more attention than crimes in client states of the United States. For example, the murder of Catholic Polish priest Jerzy Popieluszko “not only received far more coverage than Archbishop Oscar Romero, murdered in the U.S. client-state El Salvador in 1980; he was given more coverage than the aggregate of one hundred religious victims killed in U.S. client states, although eight of those victims were U.S. citizens.” Herman and Chomsky’s book has been influential in how the US media and Western media are viewed more broadly, with writers like Robert McChesney, John Nicholas, and Alan MacLeod expanding on the work.

    This formulation of “Worthy and Unworthy victims” is part of Herman and Chomsky’s larger Propaganda Model, which postulates that “the media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them. The representatives of these interests have important agendas and principles that they want to advance, and they are well positioned to shape and constrain media policy. This is normally not accomplished by crude intervention, but by the selection of right-thinking personnel and by the editors’ and working journalists’ internalization of priorities and definitions of newsworthiness that conform to the institution’s policy.”

    Herman and Chomsky’s argument is compelling and provocative because it argues that despite the fact that media in the United States is not state-run and press freedom is generally protected in the country, the media still serves a similar purpose as it did in the Soviet Union and other countries where media is
    predominately state-run and where journalists do not have the same press freedom protections.

    To explain their Propaganda Model, Herman and Chomsky proposed that there are five filters that tend to restrict media coverage in Western countries, particularly the United States. These filters are:

    Ownership: Media companies are mostly large corporations with the fundamental imperative to make a profit. These companies are disincentivized from covering topics that may threaten their profit.

    Advertising: In a similar way, almost all media companies are dependent on advertising for their revenue. Therefore, media companies are also disincentivized from covering topics that may lose them advertisers.

    Sourcing: Media outlets frequently use official, government sources for their information. These sources will tend to reflect the biases of the government.

    Flak: Individuals who provide dissenting viewpoints will often face concerted campaigns to discredit them. These campaigns will make journalists less likely to decide to cover stories that may result in such flak, including those that may portray allies of the United States in a negative light.

    Anti-Communism/Fear: Reporting will often play into the fears of official enemies (Communists during the Cold War, Islamic Terrorism during the War on Terror, etc.). Playing into these fears will often mean that official state enemies will receive more coverage.

    Together, these filters create a situation where even in a country, like the United States, with relatively few state controls on the media, reporting will tend to reflect the official standpoint of the government.

    This tendency for reporting to reflect the standard positions of the government is seen most powerfully in foreign affairs.

    Unlike domestic issues, where there is at least some daylight between the two major parties, with respect to foreign policy there is much less difference in foreign affairs. While the language used and the particular issues emphasized will often be different, the fundamental positions of both Democrats and Republicans do not tend to differ substantially. For example, if you compare each party’s platforms 5,6 before the 2016 election (in 2020 the Republicans did not adopt a new platform, not allowing for a direct comparison) with respect to Venezuela, Iran, Israel, China, and Russia, you generally see only minor differences. This book will try to make the argument that this same general uniformity in political perspectives about foreign affairs is reflected in media coverage in the United States.

    The post Worthy and Unworthy: How the Media Reports on Friends and Foes first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The BBC’s withdrawal of the powerful documentary, ‘Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone’, epitomises how much the UK’s national broadcaster is beholden to the Israel lobby.

    The corporation’s longstanding systematic protection of Israel, considered an ‘apartheid regime’ by major human rights organisations, has been particularly glaring since the country launched its genocidal attacks on Gaza in October 2023. We have all seen the repetition and amplification of the Israeli narrative above the Palestinian perspective, omission of ‘Israel’ from headlines about its latest war crimes committed in Gaza, and even the dismissive treatment by senior BBC management of serious concerns about bias raised by their own journalists.

    The documentary focused on the experiences of several children trying to survive in Gaza under brutal attack by Israeli forces armed to the hilt with weaponry and intelligence from the US, the UK and other western nations. It transpired that the film’s narrator, 13-year-old Abdullah al-Yazuri, is the son of Ayman al-Yazuri, a deputy minister of agriculture in Gaza’s government which is administered by Hamas.

    Mr al-Yazuri previously worked for the United Arab Emirates’ education ministry and studied at British universities, obtaining a PhD in chemistry from the University of Huddersfield. Middle East Eye (MEE), an independently-funded online news organisation covering stories from the Middle East and North Africa, described him as ‘a technocrat with a scientific rather than political background’, pointing out that ministers, bureaucrats and civil servants in Gaza are appointed by Hamas.

    Indeed, as MEE explained:

    ‘Many Palestinians in Gaza have family or other connections to Hamas, which runs the government. This means that anyone working in an official capacity must also work with Hamas.’

    A campaign was launched by pro-Israel voices, including Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s ambassador to the UK, and Danny Cohen, a former director of BBC television, to pressure the BBC to drop the documentary from iPlayer, soon after it was broadcast on BBC Two on 17 February.

    Despite a countercampaign by over 1,000 media and film professionals objecting to the ‘racist’ and ‘dehumanising’ targeting of the documentary by supporters of Israel, the BBC quickly caved in, apologising for ‘mistakes’ that they deemed ‘significant and damaging’. Notably, however, the BBC did not point to any errors or inaccuracies in the actual editorial content of the programme.

    The broadcaster attempted to divert some of the blame onto the independent company, Hoyo Films, who had made the documentary, saying that the BBC had not been told by the filmmakers that Abdullah al-Yazuri’s father was a deputy agriculture minister in the Hamas government.

    Hoyo Films told the BBC it paid the boy’s mother ‘a limited sum of money for the narration’ via his sister’s bank account. A BBC spokesperson said:

    ‘While Hoyo Films have assured us that no payments were made to members of Hamas or its affiliates, either directly, in kind, or as a gift, the BBC is seeking additional assurance around the budget of the programme and will undertake a full audit of expenditure.’

    Addressing MPs from the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 3 March, Samir Shah, the BBC’s chairman, said that:

    ‘This is a really, really bad moment. What has been revealed is a dagger to the heart of the BBC’s claim to be impartial and to be trustworthy, which is why I and the board are determined to ask the questions.’

    Tim Davie, the BBC’s director general, told the MPs that after ‘failures in transparency’ he simply ‘lost trust’ in the production of the film and personally ordered it to be withdrawn:

    ‘It was a very difficult decision. What I did – and it was a very tough decision – was to say, at the moment, looking people in the eye, can we trust this film in terms of how it was made, the information we’ve got? And that’s where we made the decision. It’s a simple decision in that regard.’

    In short, one child’s family connection with an official in the civilian administration of Gaza is supposedly reason enough to remove a vital documentary humanising Palestinians. This is an important film which redressed, to a marginal extent, the overwhelming pro-Israel bias displayed by the BBC over the past 18 months.

    Meanwhile, the broadcaster repeatedly and prominently platforms the leaders and spokespeople of a state committing genocide and apartheid. Is it any wonder the public reputation of BBC News has likely nosedived yet further since 7 October, 2023?

    As Mark Seddon, director of the Centre for UN Studies at the University of Buckingham and a former speechwriter for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, observed via X:

    ‘Tim Davie should perhaps get the BBC to do some sampling. He may discover that there is a significant body of public opinion that has [been], and is, losing faith in BBC news gathering which is increasingly parochial & transparently failing when it comes to Israel/Palestine.’

    Although Davie insisted on the need for BBC ‘transparency’, he was not at all transparent when asked by Rupa Huq MP to name specific groups or individuals who had demanded the BBC withdraw the film. He declined to do so. One of those is, as mentioned, the Israeli ambassador to the UK who constantly repeats ludicrous propaganda such as ‘our only target is Hamas facilities’, and who has denied that there is any humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

    Spineless BBC

    As Chris Doyle, the director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, noted:

    ‘By pulling [the] Gaza film, BBC shows it cannot stand up to Israel.’

    By contrast, he pointed out that in 2003, the BBC aired a documentary on Israel’s nuclear programme, titled Israel’s Secret Weapon:

    ‘Israeli leaders hit the roof and banned its officials from appearing on the BBC.

    ‘The documentary was spot on. Israel was embarrassed at having its nuclear arsenal exposed when Iraq was being invaded for a non-existent stash of weapons of mass destruction.’

    Doyle added:

    ‘The BBC did not cave in, and Israel lifted its boycott.

    ‘Twenty-five years later, the BBC has lost any semblance of a spine on Israel.’

    British-Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, an emeritus professor of international relations at Oxford, said that the pulling of the film was ‘only the latest example of the public broadcaster’s regular capitulation to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby’. He continued:

    ‘The BBC has good reporters on Israel-Palestine, but its bosses are hopelessly compromised by their pronounced and persistent bias in favour of Israel.

    ‘The reason for this bias is not lack of knowledge but cowardice, the fear of antagonising Israel and Israel’s friends in high places in Britain.’

    Richard Sanders, an award-winning producer who has made over fifty films in history, news and current affairs, including Al-Jazeera’s ‘October 7’ documentary, said:

    ‘Had the situation been reversed and an Israeli boy revealed to be the child of a junior minister in Netanyahu’s government the BBC might have felt obliged to issue one of its “corrections and clarifications” but it’s highly unlikely the film would have been withdrawn and the – extremely vulnerable – production team humiliated in such a public manner.’

    Sangita Myska, dropped by radio broadcaster LBC in April 2024 after robustly challenging an Israeli spokesman live on air, wrote on X:

    ‘I was a BBC journalist for years. However well-intentioned the Gaza doco-makers were, they did not meet editorial standards of transparency BUT does that make a material difference to the overall accuracy of the film? Given the weight of supporting evidence: Probably not.’

    She added:

    ‘I’m reliably informed that morale amongst some brilliant, committed, journalists is in free-fall over this.’

    Sanders followed up with:

    ‘As another old hand who has spent more hours in sweaty edit suites with lawyers and commissioning editors than I care to remember I broadly agree with @SangitaMyska’s comments.

    ‘But I’d stress that a media environment where the victims of genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid are subjected constantly to the most intense scrutiny, while their tormentors and those who support them are all too often allowed a free pass is a distorted and frankly racist one.’

    He added:

    ‘Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone remains by far the best thing the BBC has produced on Gaza and bore no evidence at all of any Hamas involvement in its editorial content.

    ‘It is deeply concerning that it is now being used as a stick to beat the BBC which must not allow itself to become even more cowed.’

    In October 2024, the BBC had broadcast a documentary called, ‘Surviving October 7th: We Will Dance Again’. The BBC’s description said:

    ‘A harrowing glimpse into the brutal assault on partygoers at the Nova Music Festival – one of the sites in Israel attacked by Hamas on 7 October 2023.’

    As one user on X pointed out last week:

    ‘BBC made a documentary “We Will Dance Again”

    ‘Was there anyone in that documentary that was IDF or related to IDF?

    ‘Were there any serving soldiers or illegal settlers in the documentary.

    ‘Were any of their children in it?

    ‘As a @BBC licence payer, I demand an inquiry.’

    Of course, the ‘demand’ for an inquiry was intended ironically and there was no response from the BBC. But the point was clearly made.

    The Truth Exists

    As mentioned in several of our previous alerts on Israel and Palestine, there is tremendous pressure on journalists working at BBC News to toe the Israeli line. Notably, since 7 October, use of the word ‘genocide’ has essentially been banned. Any time an interviewee mentions the word in a live setting, the BBC presenter intervenes to shut down the discussion. As one anonymous former BBC journalist said:

    ‘People [at the BBC] were terrified of using the word “genocide” in coverage. They still are. You will very rarely see it in any BBC coverage. And if an interviewee says the word “genocide”, the presenter will almost always panic.’

    And whenever Israeli war crimes or breaches of international law are raised by a guest on a BBC television or radio programme, the BBC journalist will promptly add words to the effect that, ‘Israel denies that’ or ‘Israeli disputes that’. Such BBC repetition of one side’s viewpoint is rarely, if ever, seen when reporting or discussing Russia’s actions in Ukraine, for example, or more generally when addressing Moscow’s role in global affairs.

    Karishma Patel, a former BBC researcher, newsreader and journalist, wrote recently about her reasons for leaving the BBC. She observed ‘a shocking level of editorial inconsistency’ in how the BBC covers Gaza. Journalists were ‘actively choosing not to follow evidence’ of Israeli war crimes ‘out of fear’.

    Media Lens readers may recall the late Professor Greg Philo, head of the Glasgow Media Group, relating how he was once told by senior BBC editors that they ‘wait in fear’ for a phone call from the Israeli embassy in London whenever a news item appears on Israel or Palestine.

    Patel continued:

    ‘Impartiality has failed if its key method is to constantly balance “both sides” of a story as equally true. A news outlet that refuses to come to conclusions becomes a vehicle in informational warfare, where bad faith actors flood social media with unfounded claims, creating a post-truth “fog”. Only robust evidence-based conclusions can cut through this.’

    She described her horror at seeing images for the first time of a Palestinian man crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer, adding:

    ‘To see such overwhelming evidence every day and then hear 50/50 debates on Israel’s conduct – this is what created the biggest rift between my commitment to truth and the role I had to play as a BBC journalist. We have passed the point at which Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity are debatable. There’s more than enough evidence – from Palestinians on the ground, aid organisations; legal bodies – to come to coverage-shaping conclusions around what Israel has done.’

    As she rightly noted, ‘truth exists’ based on reasonable, verifiable evidence:

    ‘In a world where claims are constantly competing, a journalist’s job is back-breaking: it is to investigate and come to conclusions, rather than setting up constant debates – no matter who this angers and no matter how much work it takes.’

    A perfect example is the fake ‘debate’ over the reality of human-induced climate change. Until very recently, the BBC created a spurious ‘balance’, where none exists, hosting exchanges between highly-credentialed climate scientists and climate ‘sceptics’ often linked to fossil fuel interests.

    Patel observed:

    ‘In 2018, the BBC issued long overdue editorial guidance to its staff, stating: “Climate change IS happening.” There was a sigh of relief from climate scientists, after years spent warning the organisation its debates were harmful. Coverage would now be rooted in this evidence-based conclusion.’

    She summed up:

    ‘When will the BBC conclude that Israel IS violating international law, and shape its coverage around that truth? As the old saying goes, the journalist’s job isn’t to report that it may or may not be raining. It’s to look outside and tell the public if it is. And let me tell you: there’s a storm.’

    The withdrawal of the Gaza documentary has been followed by ‘torrents of online harassment and abuse targeting 13-year-old Abdullah and his family’, according to MEE. Abdullah said:

    ‘I’ve been working for over nine months on this documentary for it to just get wiped and deleted… it was very sad to me.’

    Abdullah told MEE that the whole affair has caused him serious ‘mental pressure’ and made him fear for his safety.

    A BBC spokesperson claimed:

    ‘The BBC takes its duty of care responsibilities very seriously, particularly when working with children, and has frameworks in place to support these obligations.’

    Richard Sanders pointed out that ‘more than 200 journalists have been killed by the Israelis in Gaza’. He said that it was dangerous that:

    ‘the team that made this [film] are effectively being smeared as Hamas accomplices. And at the heart of the story we have a vulnerable child.’

    In an interview with the Sunday National newspaper in Scotland, Patel said:

    ‘He [Tim Davie] was talking about distrusting the entire film on the basis of this connection that the child narrator has.

    ‘One of the things that occurred to me is the fact that the BBC over the past 15 or 16 months has on two different occasions willingly chosen to embed with the Israeli military and to be openly subject to its censor. That was Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza quite early on and there was a Lebanese town as well, where a BBC correspondent followed the Israeli military into the town.

    ‘There is a lot of concern around potential influence over this documentary but there was very little public concern over our public broadcaster embedding with the Israeli military.’

    In a message he addressed to the BBC, Abdullah said:

    ‘I did not agree to the risk of me being targeted in any way before the documentary was broadcasted on the BBC. So [if] anything happens to me, the BBC is responsible for it.’

    Artists for Palestine UK, who organised the letter mentioned earlier with over 1,000 signatories demanding reinstatement of the film, warned that:

    ‘Tim Davie and Samir Shah are throwing Palestinian children under the bus.

    ‘BBC bosses must explain how they plan to safeguard the children who participated in the film. Their lives are in danger as Israel cuts off aid and threatens to collapse the ceasefire in Gaza. How will Britain’s public broadcaster ensure it isn’t putting a target on innocent kids’ backs?’

    Abdullah finished by telling MEE that he is grateful to ‘all of those in the United Kingdom who had supported me, supported the documentary and had protested for the documentary to be put back on the BBC. I thank you all from the bottom of my heart, and continue your efforts that hopefully can and will return the movie back up on BBC. I hope that Gaza sees light again, that children of Gaza have a bright future again and everybody… sees a better future and a better tomorrow.’

    He concluded by saying: ‘My wish is to study journalism [in] the United Kingdom.’

    If Abdullah achieves his dream, it seems unlikely he will pursue a career in journalism with the BBC.

    DC

    Note. At the time of writing, ‘Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone’, can be viewed here on Rumble.

    The post BBC Credibility Nosedives Even Further first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.