Category: Media

  • Facebook has reportedly temporarily blocked posts published by an independent online news outlet in Solomon Islands after incorrectly labelling its content as “spam”.

    In-Depth Solomons, a member centre of the non-profit OCCRP (Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project), was informed by the platform that more than 80 posts had been removed from its official page.

    According to OCCRP, the outlet believes opponents of independent journalism in the country could behind the “coordinated campaign”.

    “The reporters in Solomon Islands became aware of the problem on Thursday afternoon, when the platform informed them it had hidden at least 86 posts, including stories and photos,” OCCRP reported yesterday.

    “Defining its posts as spam resulted in the removal for several hours of what appeared to be everything the news organisation had posted on Facebook since March last year.”

    It said the platform also blocked its users from posting content from the outlet’s website, indepthsolomons.com.sb, saying that such links went against the platform’s “community standards”.

    In-Depth Solomons has received criticism for its reporting by the Solomon Islands government and its supporters, both online and in local media, OCCRP said.

    Expose on PM’s unexplained wealth
    In April, it published an expose into the unexplained wealth of the nation’s former prime minister, Manasseh Sogavare.

    In-depth Solomons editor Ofani Eremae said the content removal “may have been the result of a coordinated campaign by critics of his newsroom to file false complaints to Facebook en masse”.

    “We firmly believe we’ve been targeted for the journalism we are doing here in Solomon Islands,” he was quoted as saying.

    One of the Meta post removal alerts for Asia Pacific Report editor Dr David Robie
    One of the Meta post removal alerts for Asia Pacific Report editor Dr David Robie over a human rights story on on 24 June 2024. Image: APR screenshot

    “We don’t have any evidence at this stage on who did this to us, but we think people or organisations who do not want to see independent reporting in this country may be behind this.”

    A spokesman for Meta, Ben Cheong, told OCCRP they needed more time to examine the issue.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ and permission from ABC.

    Pacific Media Watch reports that in other cases of Facebook and Meta blocked posts, Asia Pacific Reports the removal of Kanaky, Palestine and West Papua decolonisation stories and human rights reports over claimed violation of “community standards”.

    APR has challenged this removal of posts, including in the case of its editor Dr David Robie. Some have been restored while others have remained “blocked”.

    Other journalists have also reported the removal of news posts.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Ronald McDonald, the Hamburger-Happy Clown, first hit American TV screens in 1963, and if you’ve not seen the original version of the fast-food chain’s world-famous mascot, brace yourself: it’s unsettling. With a cup nose, thick eyebrows, and a McDonald’s tray for a hat, the mascot’s TV debut has been dubbed “hideous,” “scary,” and “terrifying” over the years. And yet, after the Hamburger-Happy Clown’s first commercial, Ronald McDonald remained a loyal mascot (albeit with different hair and makeup, thankfully) for decades, only retiring in 2016.

    And Ronald wasn’t alone—he was just one member of a big fast-food gang. Think Colonel Sanders, The Burger King, Jack Box, The Wendy Girl, and those bizarre Spoongmonkeys from Quiznos (which have recently made a comeback). For years, mascots have helped to sell fast food, and they’ve been doing it very successfully. But is it time to retire them for good? After all, while their image may be fun and jovial (for the most part), the realities of the industry they’re promoting are far from positive.

    VegNews.fastfoodmascots.unsplashUnsplash

    How long have fast-food mascots been around?

    Fast-food mascots started to become a thing in the 1960s and 1970s, which makes sense because, before that, the fast-food industry hadn’t really started to take off yet. McDonald’s first launched in the late 1940s, while chains like Burger King and Taco Bell didn’t open their doors until the 1950s.

    That commercial in 1963 was the first appearance for Ronald McDonald, and an animated version of The Burger King first emerged on TV in the 1970s (but he had appeared on the chain’s signage before that). In 1995, Jack in the Box decided to take the iconic head-on springs that sit on the roof of its restaurants and turn them into a character—with a white golf ball-like head and a human body—for its commercials.

    But basically, as long as fast food has been around, mascots have been around. And while they are supposed to be endearing to everyone, a lot of the time, they’re designed to appeal to children. But that said, research suggests that our love for them can stay with us right through to adulthood. In 2014, one study found that the mascots we love can impact our judgment of the same food they endorsed for years afterward.

    “Advertising to children might pay off for decades if you connect with them, and if they develop a strong emotional feeling for your characters,” Merrie Brucks, professor of marketing at the University of Arizona, said to the National Post. “What children learn when they’re really, really young stays with them—almost unquestioningly.”

    Research suggests that food mascots also, unsurprisingly, help to increase profits. In 2021, a study by the Moving Picture Company, for example, suggested that advertising with characters and mascots on a long-term basis could increase brand profits by more than 34 percent, compared with just over 26 percent for brands that don’t use a mascot. The research also suggested that the new customer gain of brands with mascots could increase by more than 40 percent, compared with 32 percent for no-mascot brands.

    VegNews.fastfoodmascotsburgerking.unsplashUnsplash

    Why fast-food mascots are so damaging 

    The fact that fast-food mascots are designed to appeal to children has raised ethical questions for many. After all, the foods they are promoting were not formulated for their nutritional value. 

    A McDonald’s Big Mac, for example, contains 11 grams of saturated fat. And while a little every now and again is unlikely to harm you, eating too much can increase the risk of chronic diseases, like heart disease and stroke. Most fast-food meals are also made with processed meat, which has been categorized as a Group One carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

    Some chains are starting to embrace plant-based options, like Burger King’s Impossible Whopper, for example, and McDonald’s McPlant in the UK, but meat is still in the majority of menu items. This isn’t just potentially harmful to our health, but also to the planet. The quirky, creative, cheerful image of a fast-food promoting mascot is jarring in comparison to the impact all of these burgers and nuggets have on the environment.

    The fast-food industry is one of Big Meat’s most profitable customers, and every year, animal agriculture emits at least 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It’s also a major contributor to water pollution, air pollution, and ocean dead zones. And beef—the key ingredient in Whoppers and Big Macs—is also the biggest driver of deforestation in the world.

    “Beef production is the top driver of deforestation in the world’s tropical forests,” the World Wildlife Fund notes. “The forest conversion it generates more than doubles that generated by the production of soy, palm oil, and wood products (the second, third, and fourth biggest drivers) combined. Beef also drives the conversion of non-forest landscapes, from grasslands to savannas.”

    And there is, of course, also the animal welfare element to consider. Every year, millions of animals are raised in industrialized, cramped factory farm conditions, and many of them will end up in fast-food meals. KFC, McDonald’s, Chick-fil-A, Subway, and Burger King have all been accused of poor, and in some cases, abusive, treatment of chickens, in particular. 

    So, while mascots help us to connect with brands, by playing on our emotions, our sense of fun, and, ultimately, our appetites, it’s also important to consider the motives of the industry they’re asking us to invest in. Research indicates that for Ronald McDonald, the Colonel, or even those weird little Spoongmonkeys, this isn’t about our health, the environment, or animals, but profit above all.

    This post was originally published on VegNews.com.

  • By Kaneta Naimatau in Suva

    In a democracy, citizens must critically evaluate issues based on facts. However in a very polarised society, people focus more on who is speaking than what is being said.

    This was highlighted by journalism Professor Cherian George of the Hong Kong Baptist University as he delivered his keynote address during the recent 2024 Pacific International Media Conference at the Holiday Inn, Suva.

    According to Professor George when a media outlet is perceived as representing the “other side”, its journalism is swiftly condemned — adding “it won’t be believed, regardless of its professionalism and quality.”

    PACIFIC MEDIA CONFERENCE 4-6 JULY 2024
    PACIFIC MEDIA CONFERENCE 4-6 JULY 2024

    Professor George, an author and award-winning journalism academic was among many high-profile journalists and academics gathered at the three-day conference from July 4-6 — the first of its kind in the region in almost two decades.

    The gathering of academics, media professionals, policymakers and civil society organisation representatives was organised by The University of the South Pacific in partnership with the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and the Asia-Pacific Media Network (APMN).

    Addressing an audience of 12 countries from the Asia Pacific region, Professor George said polarisation was a threat to democracy and institutions such as the media and universities.

    “While democracy requires faith in the process and a willingness to compromise, polarization is associated with an uncompromising attitude, treating opponents as the enemy and attacking the system, bringing it down if you do not get in your way,” he said.

    Fiji coups context
    In the context of Fiji — which has experienced four coups, Professor George said the country had seen a steady decrease in political polarisation since 2000, according to data from the Varieties of Democracy Institute (VDI).

    He said the decrease was due to government policies aimed at neutralising ethnic-based political organisations at the time. However, he warned against viewing Fiji’s experience as justification for autocratic approaches to social harmony.

    “Some may look at this [VDI data] and argue that the Fiji case demonstrates that you sometimes need strongman rule and a temporary suspension of democracy to save it from itself, but the problem is that this is a highly risky formula,” he explained.

    Professor George acknowledged that while the government had a role in countering polarisation through top-down attempts, there was also a need for a “bottom-up counter-polarising work done by media and civil society.”

    Professor Cherian George delivers his keynote address
    Professor Cherian George delivers his keynote address at the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference at the Holiday Inn, Suva. Image: David Robie/Asia Pacific Media Network

    Many professional journalists feel uncomfortable with the idea of intervening or taking a stand, Professor George said, labelling them as mirrors.

    “However, if news outlets are really a mirror, it’s always a cracked mirror, pointing in a certain direction and not another,” he said.

    “The media are always going to impact on reality, even as they report it objectively.

    Trapped by conventions
    “It’s better to acknowledge this so that your impact isn’t making things worse than they need to be. There’s ample research showing how even when the media are free to do their own thing, they are trapped by conventions and routines that accentuate polarisation,” he explained.

    Professor George highlighted three key issues that exacerbate polarisation in media:

    • Stereotypes — journalists often rely on stereotypes about different groups of people because it makes their storytelling easier and quicker;
    • Elite focus — journalists treat prominent leaders as more newsworthy than ordinary people the leaders represent; and
    • Media bias — journalists prefer to report on conflict or bad news as the public pay most attention to them.

    As a result, this has created an imbalance in the media and influenced people how they perceive their social world, the professor said.

    “In general, different communities in their society do not get along, since that’s what their media, all their media, regardless of political leaning, tell them every day,” Professor George explained, adding, “this perception can be self-fulfilling”.

    To counter these tendencies, he pointed to reform movements such as peace and solutions journalism which aim to shift attention to grassroots priorities and possibilities for cooperation.

    “We must at least agree on one thing,” he concluded. “We all possess a shared humanity and equal dignity, and this is something I hope all media and media educators in the Pacific region, around the world, regardless of political position, can work towards.”

    Opening remarks
    The conference opening day featured remarks from Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, head of the USP Journalism Programme and conference chair, and Dr Matthew Hayward, acting head of the School of Pacific Arts, Communications, and Education (SPACE).

    The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, Co-operatives, Small and Medium Enterprises and Communications, Manoa Kamikamica was the chief guest. Professor Cherian George delivered the keynote address.

    Professor George is currently a professor of Media Studies and has published several books focusing on media and politics in Singapore and Southeast Asia. He also serves as director of the Centre for Media and Communication Research at the Hong Kong Baptist University.

    The conference was sponsored the United States Embassy in Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga and Tuvalu, the International Fund for Public Interest Media, the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme, Fiji Women’s Rights Movement, New Zealand Science Media Centre and the Pacific Women Lead — Pacific Community.

    The event had more than 100 attendees from 12 countries — Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Cook Islands, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Solomon Islands, the United States and Hong Kong.

    It provided a platform for the 51 presenters to discuss the theme of the conference “Navigating Challenges and Shaping Futures in Pacific Media Research and Practice” and their ideas on the way forward.

    An official dinner held on July 4 included the launch of the 30th anniversary edition of the Pacific Journalism Review (PJR), founded by former USP journalism head professor David Robie in 1994, and launch of the book Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, which is edited by associate professor Singh, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad, and Dr Amit Sarwal, a former senior lecturer and deputy head of school (research) at USP.

    The PJR is the only academic journal in the region that publishes research specifically focused on Pacific media.

    A selection of the best conference papers will be published in a special edition of the Pacific Journalism Review or its companion publication Pacific Media Monographs.

    Kaneta Naimatau is a final-year student journalist at The University of the South Pacific. Republished in partnership with USP.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.


  • This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by The Real News Network.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ANALYSIS: By Randa Abdel-Fattah

    Since 7 October 2023, across every profession and social realm in Australia — teachers, students, doctors, nurses, academics, public servants, lawyers, journalists, artists, food and hospitality workers, protesters and politicians — speaking out against Israel’s genocide and the Zionist political project has been met with blatant anti-Palestinian racism.

    This has manifested in repressive silencing campaigns, disciplinary processes and lawfare.

    As coercive repression of anti-Zionist voices escalates at a frenzied pace in Western society, what is at stake extends beyond individuals’ livelihoods and mental health, for these ultimately constitute collateral damage.

    The real target and objective of anti-Palestinian racism is discursive disarmament, specifically, disarming the Palestinian movement of its capacity to critique and resist Zionism and hold Israel to account.

    This disarmament campaign — the immobilising of our discursive and explanatory frameworks, our analysis and commentary, our slogans, protest language and chants — is emboldened and empowered by the collusion and complicity of institutions, media outlets and employers.

    The past fortnight alone has seen a frenzy of Zionist McCarthyism. Both I and Special Broadcasting Service veteran journalist, Mary Kostakidis, were defamed as “7 October deniers” and rape apologists, and as being on a par with Holocaust deniers.

    Complaint lodged
    A week later, the Zionist Federation of Australia announced it had lodged a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) against Kostakidis, alleging racial vilification for her social media posts on Gaza.

    On July 11, Australian-Palestinian activist and businessman Hash Tayeh was notified of arrest for allegedly inciting hatred of Jewish people over protest chants including “all Zionists are terrorists” and other statements equating Zionism with terrorism.

    The same day, right-wing shock jock radio host Ray Hadley interrogated the AHRC about Australian-Palestinian Sara Saleh, employed as legal and research adviser to the AHRC’s president.

    In violation of Saleh’s privacy, the AHRC went on the defensive and revealed that Saleh had resigned. Saleh had been subjected to months of anti-Palestinian racism and marginalisation at the commission.

    On July 15, documents released under a freedom of information request revealed that the State Library of Victoria was actively surveilling the social media activity of four writers and poets — Arab and Muslim poet Omar Sakr, Jinghua Qian, Alison Evans and Ariel Slamet Ries, specifically around Palestine.

    The documents provided more evidence that the writers’ pro-Palestine social media posts were the likely reason for the State Library cancelling a series of online creative writing workshops for teens which the writers had been contracted to host — corroborating what library staff whistleblowers had revealed earlier this year.

    Political ideology
    It is impossible to overstate how the repression we are witnessing is occurring because governments, media, institutions and employers are legitimating disingenuous complaints and blatant hit-jobs by acquiescing to the egregious and false equivalence between Zionism and Judaism.

    Despite pro-Palestine voices explicitly critiquing and targeting Zionist ideology and practice in clear distinction to Judaism and Jewish identity, and despite standing alongside anti-Zionist Jews, we are accused of antisemitism.

    Zionism is a political ideology that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century. It explicitly argued for settler colonialism to replace the majority indigenous population of Palestine.

    Zionism is not a religious, racial, ethnic or cultural identity. It is a political doctrine that a member of any culture, religion, race or ethnic category can subscribe to.

    Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. Jews and Judaism existed for thousands of years before Zionism. These are not controversial contentions. They are borne out by almost a century of academic scholarship and have been adopted by anti-Zionist Jewish scholars, lawyers, human rights organisations and clerics.

    They are supported by facts. Consider, for example, that the largest pro-Israel organisation in the United States is Christians United for Israel.

    A Zionist can be an adherent of any religion and come from any ethnic or racial background. US President Joe Biden is an Irish-American Catholic and a Zionist.

    Australia’s former prime minister, Scott Morrison, is an evangelical Christian and a Zionist. Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong is an Australian-Malay Christian and a Zionist.

    Inherently racist
    Zionist ideology is recognised as inherently racist because it denies the inalienable right of indigenous Palestinian people to self-determination, and the right to live free of genocide, apartheid, settler colonialism and domination.

    Palestinian subjugation is an existential necessity for the supremacist goal of Israel’s political project. This is not even contested.

    Israel’s 2018 nation-state law explicitly states that “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people” and established “Jewish settlement as a national value”, mandating that the state “will labour to encourage and promote its establishment and development”.

    Anti-Zionism is directed at a state-building project and a political regime. Rather than protect people’s right to subject Zionism to normative interrogation, as is the case with all political ideologies, institutions panic at complaints and uncritically legitimate the false claim that anti-Zionism equals antisemitism.

    Protected cultural identity
    Indulging vexatious claims and dishonest conflations is why we are seeing extraordinary coercive repression and anti-Palestinian racism across institutions.

    To posit Zionism as a religious or ethnic identity is like saying white supremacy, Marxism, socialism or settler colonialism are all categories of identity. The perverse logic we are being asked to indulge is essentially this: Zionism equals Judaism therefore a white Christian Zionist is a protected cultural identity category.

    Indulging the notion that the ideology of Zionism is a protected cultural identity sets a precedent that would be absurd if it were not so dangerous.

    By this logic, communists can claim the status of a protected category of identity on the basis that there are Chinese communists who feel threatened by critiques of communism.

    Adherents of doctrines and ideologies including white supremacy, homophobia, transphobia, socialism, liberalism and communism could claim to be protected identities.

    Adherents of doctrines and ideologies including white supremacy, homophobia, transphobia, socialism, liberalism and communism could claim to be protected identities

    Further, if Zionism is a protected cultural identity, what does this mean for anti-Zionist Jews? And what is Zionism from the standpoint of its victims, as Edward Said famously said?

    Genocide in name of Zionism
    What does it mean for Palestinians whose lives are marked by dispossession, exile, refugee camps, land theft and now, as I write, genocide explicitly enacted in the name of Zionism?

    In the context of a genocide that has so far, on a recent conservative by The Lancet, one of the world’s highest-impact academic journals, caused an estimated 186,000 deaths and counting, governments, institutions and mainstream media are prepared to effectively destroy any vestige of democratic principles, fundamental rights and intellectual rigour in order to exceptionalise Zionism and Israel and shield a political ideology and a state from critique.

    While institutions stand with Israel, the vast majority of the public, witnessing the massacres, are daring to question Israel’s actions. This includes questioning the Zionist ideology that underpins that state.

    Institutions and employers may choose to discipline and sack those calling out Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in this moment, but will be held to account for their complicity in the political suppression of our collective protest against crimes against humanity.

    Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah is a Future Fellow at Macquarie University. Her research areas cover Islamophobia, race, Palestine, the war on terror, youth identities and social movement activism. She is also a lawyer and the multi-award-winning author of 12 books for children and young adults. This article was republished from Middle East Eye.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    An interview with former University of the South Pacific (USP) development studies professor Dr Vijay Naidu, a founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG), has produced fresh insights into the legacy of Pacific nuclear-free and anti-colonialism activism.

    The community storytelling group Talanoa TV, an affiliate of the Whānau Community Centre and Hub and linked to the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), has embarked on producing a series of short educational videos as oral histories of people involved in the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) Movement to document and preserve this activist mahi and history.

    The series, dubbed “Legends of NFIP”, are being timed for screening in 2025 to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the Rainbow Warrior bombing in Auckland harbour on 10 July 1985 and also with the 40th anniversary of the Rarotonga Treaty for a Nuclear-Free Pacific.


    Legends of NFIP – Professor Vijay Naidu.   Video: Talanoa TV

    These videos are planned to “bring alive” the experiences and commitment of people involved in a Pacific-wide movement and will be suitable for schools as video podcasts and could be stored on open access platforms.

    “This project is also expected to become an extremely useful resource for students and researchers,” says project convenor Nikhil Naidu, himself a former FANG and Coalition for Democracy (CDF) activist.

    In this 14-minute interview, Professor Naidu talks about the origins of the NFIP Movement.

    “At this time [1970s], there were the French nuclear tests that were actually atmospheric nuclear tests and people like Suliana Siwatibau and Graeme Bain started the ATOM movement (Against Nuclear Tests on Moruroa) in Tahiti in the 1970s at USP,” he says.

    “And we began to understand the issues around nuclear testing and how it affected people — you know, the radiation. And drop-outs and pollution from it.”

    Published in partnership with Talanoa TV.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • If you want to get ahead in Washington, devise the most dangerous, reckless, merciless and destructive plan for US world domination. If it kills millions of people (especially if they are mostly women and children), you will be called a bold strategist. If tens of millions more become refugees, it will be even more impressive. If you find a way to use nuclear weapons that would otherwise be gathering dust, you will be hailed as brilliant. Such is the nature of proposals for dealing with Russia, China and Iran, not to mention smaller nations like Cuba, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. Can a plan to decimate humanity and scorch the earth be far behind?

    How did we get here? This is not the world that was envisioned in the years following the greatest war in history.

    If you consider yourself a hammer, you seek nails, and this seems to be the nature of US foreign policy today. Nevertheless, when WWII ended in 1945, the US had no need to prove that it was by far the most powerful nation on the planet. Its undamaged industrial capacity accounted for nearly half the economy of an otherwise war-torn and devastated world, and its military was largely beyond challenge, having demonstrated the most powerful weapons the world had ever known, for better or worse.

    That was bound to change as the world recovered, but even as the rebuilding progressed, it did so with loans from the US and US-dominated institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which added international finance as another pillar of US supremacy. The loans built markets for US production, while creating allies for its policies in the postwar period.

    It wasn’t all rosy, of course. But the war and its immediate aftermath introduced greater distribution of wealth, both in the US and much of the world, than had hitherto been the case. Highly graduated income taxes – with rates greater than 90% on the highest incomes – not only funded the war effort, but also assured relative social security and prosperity for much of the working class in the postwar period. In addition, the GI Bill provided funds for college education, unemployment insurance and housing for millions of returning war veterans. Although a main purpose of the legislation may have been to avoid the scenes of armed repression against unemployed and homeless war veterans, as occurred with a much smaller number of veterans after WWI, it had the effect of ushering many of them into middle class status. Another factor was the introduction of employee childcare and health insurance benefits during the war, in order to entice women into the work force and make it possible for them to devote more of their time to war production. These benefits (especially health insurance) remained widespread and even increased after the war, contributing to higher living standards compared to the prewar era.

    Internationally, wider distribution of wealth was seen as a means of deterring the spread of Soviet-style socialism by incorporating some of the social safety net features of the socialist system into a market economy that nevertheless preserved most of the power base in capitalist and oligarchical hands.

    Unfortunately, many of the wealthy and powerful may have seen these developments as temporary measures to avoid potential social disorder, and a means of fattening the cattle before milking, shearing and/or butchering. One of the earliest rollbacks was the income tax structure, which saw a decades-long decline in taxation of corporations and the wealthy, as well as features in the tax code that allowed many of the wealthy to dodge income taxes altogether.

    Similarly, savings and loan institutions, designed to serve the financial needs of the middle class, became a means to exploit them, thanks to changes in chartering rules engineered by the lobbyists of the wealthy to profit from speculative trade in mortgage securities. The most egregious consequence of this was the crash of 2008, resulting in the greatest transfer of wealth in US history to the top 1% (or even 0.1%) in such a short time. By then the neighborhood savings and loan was a memory, having been devoured by investment bankers to satisfy (unsuccessfully) their insatiable appetites.

    In the international dimension, another important development was the uncoupling of the US dollar from the gold standard in 1971. This ended the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944, and made the untethered dollar the standard, rendering its value equivalent to whatever purchasing power it might possess at any given time, and placing the United States in unprecedented control of international exchange.

    A further instrument of postwar power was NATO, an ostensibly voluntary defensive alliance of nonsocialist western European and North American nations, to which the socialist countries reacted with their own Warsaw Pact. Both were voluntary to roughly the same imaginary degree, and justified each other’s existence. But both were also a means for the great powers of the US and the USSR to dominate the other members of their respective alliances. The defensive function of these alliances became obsolete with the dissolution of both the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1991. NATO then became an offensive alliance, functioning to preserve, enhance and expand US hegemony and domination in the face of its descent into internal dysfunction and external predation.

    These transfers of wealth and power, both domestically and internationally took place even as US industrial and manufacturing power waned. This was due not only to competition from the expected postwar recovery of powers destroyed during the war (as well as newly rising ones), but also to the unmanaged voracious appetites of US speculators and venture capitalists, who replaced vaunted US industrial capacity with cheap foreign (“offshore”) sources. This eventually converted the US from a major production economy to a largely consumer one. It also helped to transfer middle and lower class wealth from the American masses to its upper echelons, as well-paying union and other full-time jobs were replaced by menial minimum wage and part-time ones, or by unemployment, welfare and homelessness. The service industries, construction, entertainment, finance, military, government and agriculture usually remained relatively stronger than industry and export, but less so than during the 1950s, and were increasingly funded by expansion of the national debt, rather than a strong economic base.

    Of course, concentration of wealth is commensurate with concentration of power, and although the wealthy always have greater political power than the less wealthy, the transition to an increasingly oligarchical US society got a major boost in 2010 with the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which granted corporations and other associations unprecedented power to use their vast financial resources to control the outcome of elections. It was a bellwether: despite the fact that Supreme Court justices are unelected officials, it is hard to imagine such a decision taking place a half century earlier (during the Warren Court, for example), when popular power in the US (though never as great as proclaimed) was perhaps at its peak, and which was reflected in the composition of the court and its decisions in that era. Citizens United gave corporations and well financed interest groups virtually unlimited control over US domestic and international policy.

    The coalescing of these trends has resulted in a power structure and decision-making procedure (or lack thereof) that accounts for the astonishing headlong rush toward Armageddon described in the introductory paragraph of this article. The US is currently considered the only remaining superpower, but what is the basis of that power? It is not industrial or economic power, which the US abandoned for the sake of short-term profits in “offshore” manufacturing, as previously stated.

    It is not even military power, much of which has been invested in extremely expensive air and sea forces that are now becoming obsolete, as second and third tier powers like Russia and Iran develop cheaper mass drone architecture, untouchable hypersonic missiles and electronic systems that make traditional weaponry less relevant. An extreme example of such irrelevance can be seen in the strategies of Hamas and its Palestinian allies, armed largely with low-tech self-developed weapons designed to exploit the vulnerabilities of massively armed Israeli forces laying waste to the Palestinian population and infrastructure above ground, while the resistance forces remain relatively invulnerable below ground, and able to attack effectively and indefinitely from their hundreds of miles of deep reinforced tunnels.

    Similarly, the irrelevance and obsolescence of US arms became evident in the Ukraine war, as the US, and indeed all of NATO, proved themselves incapable of manufacturing more than a fraction of the artillery, shells and armored vehicles that Russia produces, with a military budget hardly more than a tenth that of the US, much less the combined NATO budget.

    The US aim in the Ukraine war was and is ostensibly to defeat Russia. But it will consider the war a success even if (as seems certain) this objective fails. This is because the more immediate US goal is to assure and reinforce the subjugation of the western NATO countries, as well to expand to the rest of Europe. In effect, the Ukraine war solves the problem perceived by US policymakers that the dissolution of the USSR removed much of the justification for a defensive alliance which was no longer facing a threat of the sort against which it was created to defend.

    But that question was apparently raised mainly if at all by academics at the time, not diplomats. Perhaps a partial explanation was inertia: why change what seemed to be keeping both peace and prosperity (for its members)? The US also found missions for NATO from the Balkans to 9/11 response to West Asia to Afghanistan and North Africa. But all of these paled in comparison to its previous function of deterring the Soviet Union. In order to justify the continued existence of NATO, a new, similar threat was needed, not merely “police actions”. This was manufactured by the US, starting with expansion of NATO to eastern Europe, in violation of its promises in 1991 to the leadership of the dissolving Soviet Politburo not to expand “an inch beyond the eastern border of [East] Germany.” Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined in 1999. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004. In 2009, Albania and Croatia also joined, followed by Montenegro in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020. Finland joined in 2023 followed by Sweden in 2024.

    The purpose of the expansion, while giving the appearance of relevance, was not so much to respond to a perceived threat as to manufacture one, and Russia was selected to be the threat, despite the fact that it had posed no apparent strategic threat to NATO for more than two decades after the end of the Soviet Union. It even discussed the possibility of joining the Alliance. But the US had other intentions. Without a credible common threat, NATO might cease to be a defensive military alliance, with the eventual possibility of defections by members that no longer saw a significant benefit to their otherwise exorbitant and oppressive membership. Furthermore, many western European nations were finding common interests with Russia, most notably the Nordstream pipelines providing cheap, plentiful and reliable Russian natural gas to the European economies.

    Obviously, this was intolerable for the US and its plan to dominate all of western and eastern Europe combined. Russia soon understood that the expansion of NATO was intended as a strategic threat to Russia’s security. As successor of, and inheritor to, the Soviet nuclear arsenal and its delivery systems, Russia could not afford to have NATO nuclear strike systems sitting on its doorstep any more than the US could accept nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. The US therefore chose to threaten Russia’s existence through Ukraine.

    Ukraine was the perfect weapon to prod the Bear. It was poor and corrupt, and it had a substantial racist and ultranationalist anti-Russian Nazi and Fascist minority, with origins dating to collaboration with Nazi Germany. These elements hated Ukraine’s large ethnically and linguistically Russian population, who had a strong traditional link with Russia and its history, including Ukrainian cities founded by Russia. With well-placed undercover money, arms and expert CIA covert manipulation, a small but violent uprising, a coup d’état and civil war might turn Ukraine into a security threat to Russia that could be used to seal NATO under US control.

    Under the stewardship of Hillary Clinton’s handmaiden, Victoria Nuland, laden with $5 billion (actually, with unlimited funds), this is exactly what happened in 2013-14. The newly installed Ukrainian coup government promptly began the repression of its ethnically Russian population, which mounted a resistance movement to defend itself, as intended by the US/NATO covert operators. Over the next eight years, the US funded, armed and trained its Ukrainian puppet, all the while amplifying the repression against the ethnic Russians, whose resistance groups Russia supported with arms and training. Negotiated agreements in 2014 and 2015 (the Minsk accords) to end the fighting were only partially and temporarily effective, and as German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted in an interview with Die Zeit in 2022, they were only an attempt to gain time [to strengthen the Ukrainian military until they were ready to take on Russia].

    That time was February, 2022, when – on cue from its US puppeteers – Ukraine escalated its attacks on its Russian minority in Lugansk and Donetsk oblasts (provinces), instantly raising the daily casualty toll from dozens to hundreds. As intended, this prompted Russia to intervene directly with a “Special Military Operation”, ostensibly limited mainly to ending the massacres and defending the population that was under attack, but also to driving Ukraine to the negotiating table.

    It worked. At the end of March, the two countries reached a ceasefire agreement at negotiations in Istanbul, under the auspices of the Turkish government. But this was not what the US had in mind, so British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was promptly dispatched to Istanbul, to remind the Ukrainians that puppets are controlled by the hands of their masters. From then on, the war escalated until it engaged more than a million armed combatants and resulted in more than a half million casualties. And in case some NATO member might be tempted to explore reconciliation with Russia, the US destroyed the Nordstream pipelines, breaking a major foundation of Russia’s peaceful economic bonds with the rest of Europe, and with them much of Europe’s heretofore economic success, on the assumption that weaker partners are more dependable than strong ones (and constitute weaker economic competition, as well).

    The US thus became the undisputed hegemon of Europe by means of a conventional proxy war with Russia. But their original plan included the defeat of Russia, as well, both militarily and economically, the latter by means of sanctions that would deny markets and world trade to the Russian economy. This part of the plan was a miserable failure, as Russia found prosperity in new markets, and invested in an astonishingly productive, innovative and efficient strategic defense industry, mainly at its robust defense complex in the Ural mountains. No matter. War, destruction and wanton slaughter had nevertheless proven to be effective strategies for European domination, even without defeating Russia. In addition, the US had shown that, despite its industrial limitations, it could impose its will through proxies bought, trained and supplied with its most powerful weapon, which it had in unlimited supply: the mighty US dollar.

    I therefore return to the question of the basis of US power. What enables a country with a declining industrial base and stagnating military production, a shrinking working and middle class and an expanding homeless population to expend vast sums of money to hire and arm proxy fighting forces, purchase and develop foreign political parties, overthrow governments, maintain a military budget that is the equal of the next nine countries combined, and an intelligence budget that is larger than the entire defense budget of every other country except China and Russia?

    Part of the answer is that the US increases its national debt by whatever amount it wishes, usually paying low but reliable rates of interest, depending on the market for US Treasury notes. Currently, the debt is roughly $35 trillion, more than the annual US GDP. The only other time in history that debt has exceeded GDP was in WWII, which hints at profligate borrowing. But the US is not worried about the size of the debt or about finding takers for its IOUs. As mentioned earlier, the dollar was uncoupled from the value of gold in 1971. The untethered dollar is therefore the basis for most currencies in the world. As a result, the  entire world is heavily invested in the dollar and in maintaining its value, and will buy US Treasury notes as needed to assure that it remains stable and valuable. This enables the US to outspend all other countries to maintain and augment its power throughout the globe. Some have accused the US of treating this system of funding as “the goose that lays the golden egg”.

    Others have accused it of coercing or “shaking down” other countries to participate in this financing scheme or face unpleasant consequences. The same accusation has sometimes been leveled with respect to the purchase of US “protection services” and expensive military hardware as part of the NATO member “contributions” that bring US installations and personnel to those countries, and to other US satellite countries around the globe.

    The other major basis of US power is the use of unlimited dollar resources to visit extreme violence, death, war and destruction upon countries and societies that do not accept subordinate status, or even those who do, but whose destruction may be seen as a necessary object lesson to those who might otherwise step out of line. This is a commitment to use totally disproportionate force with little or no effort at diplomatic efforts to reach strategic goals. The Israelis call this the “Dahiyeh Doctrine”, in reference to turning entire suburbs (“dahiyeh” in Arabic) or cities and their populations into smoldering ruins for the sake of intimidation. In the case of Ukraine, the US/NATO, has raised the stakes in the destructiveness of the weapons being used against Russia, as well as the choice of increasingly deeper targets inside Russia, while refusing negotiated diplomatic solutions. Threats to use low yield nuclear weapons have also been suggested.

    This is, in effect, the insanity ploy, “We are unreasonable and capable of anything. Do what we say or accept terrible consequences.” It is the Armageddon strategy, “We are willing to go to any lengths.” It is the strategy of those who think they are invincible, and who demand complete obedience from, and dominance of, potential rivals. It is the strategy of those who think that they can do whatever they want without serious consequence to themselves. The direct origin of this strategy is the Wolfowitz Doctrine, first issued by Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in 1992, and submitted to his superior, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. The basis of the doctrine is that any potential rival to US power must be destroyed or reduced to size.

    Cheney and Wolfowitz are part of the neoconservative political movement that began during the Vietnam war. It is a movement of warmongers and autocrats who believe that the control of US foreign policy must be kept in the hands of “experts” (themselves) and out of the hands of elected officials who don’t support them. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was in their eyes a vindication of their influence in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and their “success” led to the founding of the short-lived Project for a New American Century think tank during the latter part of the Clinton presidency.

    The Project for a New American Century in turn became a springboard for neocon saturation of the George W. Bush administration in the major foreign policy arms of the government – the cabinet, the National Security Agency, the State Department, the intelligence services, and eventually the military. Since then, neoconservative control has only broadened and deepened in the U.S. To a large extent they are the unelected cabal that run US foreign policy and related agencies, with support from the interests that profit from war and exploitation, including weapons manufacturers, petroleum and mineral companies, and, of course, the similarly-minded Israel Lobby.

    It is in these circles that arrogance knows no bounds, that no risk is too great, and that no amount of death and destruction is inconceivable, because you are not invited to participate unless you consider yourself too intelligent and powerful to make a mistake, and because Armageddon can only happen if you will it so.

    The post Tempting Armageddon as a national strategic policy first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, “War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman.

    We end today’s show in The Hague, where the International Court of Justice ruled last Friday that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal, should come to an end — “as rapidly as possible”.

    Israel’s illegal military occupation of the Palestinian Territories began in 1967, has since forcefully expanded, killing and displacing thousands of Palestinians. ICJ Presiding Judge Nawaf Salam read the nonbinding legal opinion, deeming Israel’s presence in the territories illegal.

    JUDGE NAWAF SALAM: [translated] “Israel must immediately cease all new settlement activity. Israel also has an obligation to repeal all legislation and measures creating or maintaining the unlawful situation, including those which discriminate against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as all measures aimed at modifying the demographic composition of any parts of the territory.

    “Israel is also under an obligation to provide full reparations for the damage caused by its internationally wrongful acts to all natural or legal persons concerned.”

    AMY GOODMAN: The court also said other nations are obligated not to legally recognise Israel’s decades-long occupation of the territories and, “not to render aid or assistance,” to the occupation.

    The 15-judge panel said Israel had no right to sovereignty of the territories and pointed to a number of Israeli actions, such as the construction and violent expansion of illegal Israeli settlements across West Bank and East Jerusalem, the forced permanent control over Palestinian lands, and discriminatory policies against Palestinians — all violations of international law.

    The Palestinian Foreign Minister, Riyad al-Maliki, praised Friday’s ruling.

    RIYAD AL-MALIKI: “All states and the UN are now under obligation not to recognise the legality of Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and to do nothing to assist Israel in maintaining this illegal situation.
    “They are directed by the court to bring Israel’s illegal occupation to an end.

    “This means all states and the UN must immediately review their bilateral relations with Israel to ensure their policies do not aid in Israel’s continued aggression against the Palestinian people, whether directly or indirectly. … “[translated] All states must now fulfill their clear obligations: no aid, no collusion, no money, no weapons, no trade, nothing with Israel.”


    Democracy Now! on the ICJ Palestine ruling.           Video: Democracy Now!

    AMY GOODMAN: In 2022, the UN General Assembly issued a resolution tasking the International Court of Justice with determining whether the Israeli occupation amounted to annexation. This all comes as the ICJ is also overseeing a [separate and] ongoing genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa and as the International Criminal Court (ICC) is seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

    Despite mounting outcry over Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed some 39,000 Palestinians — more than 16,000 of them children — Netanyahu is set to travel to Washington, DC, to address a joint session of Congress this Wednesday.

    For more, we go to Brussels, Belgium, where we’re joined by Diana Buttu, Palestinian human rights attorney and former adviser to the negotiating team of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

    Thank you so much for being with us. Diana, first respond to this court ruling. Since it is non-binding, what is the significance of it?

    DIANA BUTTU: Even though it’s nonbinding, Amy, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have any weight. It simply means that Israel is going to ignore it. But what it does, is it sets out the legal precedent for other countries, and those other countries [that] do have to respect the opinion of the highest court, the highest international court.

    And so, what we see with this decision is that it’s a very important and a very necessary one, because we see the court makes it clear not only that Israel’s occupation is illegal, but it also says that all countries around the world have an obligation to make sure that Israel doesn’t get away with it, that they have an obligation to make sure that this occupation comes to an end.

    This is very important, because over the years, and in particular over the past 30 years, we’ve seen a shift in international diplomacy to try to push Palestinians to somehow give up their rights. And here we have the highest international court saying that that isn’t the case and that, in fact, it’s up to Israel to end its military occupation, and it’s up to the international community to make sure that Israel does that.

    AMY GOODMAN: And exactly what is the extended decision when it comes to how other countries should deal with Israel at this point?

    DIANA BUTTU: Well, there are some very interesting elements to this case. The first is that the court comes out very clearly and not just says that the occupation is illegal, but they also say that the settlements have to go and the settlers have to go.

    They also say that Palestinians have a right to return. Now, we’re talking about over 300,000 Palestinians who were expelled in 1967, and now there are probably about 200,000 Palestinians who have never been able to return back — we’re just talking about the West Bank and Gaza Strip — because of Israel’s discriminatory measures.

    The other thing that the court says is that it’s not just the West Bank and East Jerusalem that are occupied, but also Gaza, as well. And this is a very important ruling, because for so many years Israel has tried to blur the lines and make it seem as though they’re not in occupation of Gaza, which they are.

    And so, what this requires is that the international community not only not recognise the occupation, but that they take into account measures or they take measures to make sure that Israel stops its occupation.

    That means everything from arms embargo to sanctions on Israel — anything that is necessary that can be done to make sure that Israel’s occupation finally comes to an end. And this is where we now see that instead of the world telling Palestinians that they just have to negotiate a resolution with their occupier, with their abuser, that the ball is now in their court.

    It’s up to the international community now to put sanctions on Israel to end this military occupation.

    AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about what’s happening right now in Gaza. You’ve got the deaths at — it’s expected to be well over 39,000. But you also have this new report by Oxfam that finds Israel has used water as a weapon of war, with Gaza’s water supplies plummeting 94 percent since October 7 and the nonstop Israeli bombardment.

    Even before, their access was extremely limited. And then you have this catastrophic situation where you have, because of the destruction of Gaza’s water treatment plants, forcing people to resort to sewage-contaminated water containing pathogens that lead to diarrhoea, especially deadly for kids, diseases like cholera, dysentery, hepatitis A and typhoid.

    Meanwhile, the Israeli army has started to vaccinate the Israeli soldiers after Palestinian health authorities said a high concentration of the poliovirus has been found in sewage samples from Gaza. It’s taking place, the vaccination programme of soldiers, across Israel in the coming weeks. The significance of this, Diana?

    DIANA BUTTU: This is precisely what we’ve been talking about, which is that Israel is carrying out genocide, they know that they’re carrying out genocide, and we don’t see that anybody is stopping Israel in carrying out this genocide.

    So, here now we have yet another International Court of Justice ruling. This one — the previous ones are actually binding, saying that Israel has to take all measures to stop this genocide. And yet we just simply don’t see that the world has put into place measures to sanction Israel, to isolate Israel, to punish Israel.

    Instead, it gets to do whatever it wants.

    But there is something very important, as well, which is that Israel somehow believes that it’s going to be immune, that somehow this polio or all of these diseases aren’t going to boomerang back into Israeli society. They will.

    And the issue here now is whether we are going to see some very robust action on the part of the international community, now that we have a number of decisions from the ICJ saying to Israel that it’s got to stop and that this genocide must come to end. Israel must pay a price for continuing this genocide.

    AMY GOODMAN: Diana Buttu, I wanted to end by asking you about Benjamin Netanyahu coming here to the US. The Center for Constitutional Rights tweeted, “Before @netanyahu lands in DC, we demand @TheJusticeDept investigate him for genocide, war crimes & torture in Gaza. Nearly 40k killed, including more than 14k children, 90k injured, 2 million displaced, & an entire population subject to starvation. This cannot go unanswered.”

    If you can talk about the significance of Netanyahu addressing a joint session of Congress?

    Also, it’s expected that the person who President Joe Biden has said he is supporting, as he steps aside, to run for president, Vice-President Kamala Harris, is expected to be meeting with Netanyahu. And what you would like to see happen here?

    DIANA BUTTU: You know, it’s repugnant to me to be hearing that a war criminal, a person who has flattened Gaza, who said that he was going to flatten Gaza, who has issued orders to kill more than 40,000, upwards of 190,000 Palestinians — we still don’t know the numbers — who has made life in Gaza unlivable, who’s using Palestinians as human pinballs, telling them to move from one area to the next, who’s presiding over a genocide, and unabashedly so — it’s going to be shocking to see the number of applause and rounds of applause and the standing ovations that this man is going to be receiving.

    It very much signals exactly where the United States is, which is complicit in this genocide.

    And Palestinians know this. If anything, he should have not had received an invitation. He should simply be getting a warrant for his arrest, not be receiving applause and accolades in Congress.

    AMY GOODMAN: Diana Buttu, I want to thank you so much for being with us, Palestinian human rights attorney, joining us from Brussels, Belgium.

    Democracy Now! is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence. Republished under this licence.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Editor’s note: The author of this piece has requested to publish anonymously due to concerns about her safety and welfare. We know that victims who come forward – in Australia and around the world – often face relentless unwarranted public attack and criticism. BroadAgenda supports the writer and came to the considered judgement that it’s important to publish anyway. 

    I have a particular, personal interest in the topic of toxic parliaments and in the work that is underway to detoxify them. More on that in a second. But first to something that’s happening right now.

    On 17 July 2024 I attended the launch of the new book Toxic Parliaments And What Can Be Done About Them by Marian Sawer and Maria Maley, both from the Australian National University (ANU). The event was hosted by the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, with the keynote speech delivered by former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins, followed by a panel discussion. You can listen to the discussion on YouTube.

    Toxic Parliaments grew out of the workshop Parliament as a gendered workplace: Towards a new code of conduct, held at ANU in July 2021. The workshop also developed a model code of conduct which fed into the code of conduct eventually adopted by the Australian Parliament. Toxic Parliaments examines how the #MeToo movement and revelations of sexual harassment and bullying resulted in reform of parliamentary workplaces in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The book is open access and you can download it for free here.

    Over mocktails and canapes after the launch, I chatted with people I knew and people I had just met. Some of the latter group asked me where I worked. I explained I’d previously worked at Parliament House, but don’t anymore. When they asked why not, I referred them back to the book’s title.

    The entire story is long, complicated, and traumatic. I won’t go into it in any detail here because nobody wants a defamation lawsuit.

    Let’s just say that I have experienced the most toxic elements of toxic parliaments. By that I mean rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, bullying and discrimination. Yes, I’ve managed to collect the full set of toxic parliamentary workplace experiences.

    I realise that no one is giving out any medals for winning the Parliamentary Workplace Trauma Olympics, but if they were I would be among the frontrunners for a podium position.

    For readers who may not have been following quite as closely as I have, I will backtrack a bit …

    Set the Standard

    In her keynote speech Kate Jenkins described her work on Set the Standard: Report of the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces as a ‘privilege’ and a ‘career highlight.’ The Set the Standard report, tabled in November 2021, followed her March 2020 report Respect@Work, which examined sexual harassment in workplaces throughout Australia.

    Kate Jenkins AO was the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Picture: Supplied

    Kate Jenkins AO was the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Picture: UC

    Set the Standard was effectively a more focused version of Respect@Work, targeted at the nation’s seat of power. It was initiated following media reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment and bullying in federal parliament, including former political staffer Brittany Higgins’s television interview in which she described her experience of being raped by a colleague at Parliament House.

    Over 1700 people participated in the review. I was among them. The report included the headline figure that 51 per cent of all people in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces had experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault.

    Upon its release, the Set the Standard report made news headlines not just in Australia, but around the world.

    The report made 28 recommendations. Recommendation 2 was the establishment of a leadership taskforce to oversee the implementation of the other recommendations, ensuring ownership and accountability.

    The Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce (PLT) was established in the 46th Parliament, and re-established in the current (47th) Parliament. It is made up of politicians from across the Parliament and has an independent chair. Following its initial establishment, the PLT implemented Recommendation 1, a Statement of Acknowledgement that included an apology for ‘the unacceptable history of workplace bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault’ in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces.

    The Statement of Acknowledgement also contained the words: ‘We are fully committed to working across the Parliament to implement all of these recommendations within the timeframes proposed by Commissioner Jenkins.’

    Progress on implementing Set the Standard

    It has now been more than two-and-a-half years since Set the Standard was tabled, and more than two years since that commitment was made. The Parliament has not, as it turns out, implemented all the recommendations ‘within the timeframes proposed by Commissioner Jenkins.’

    The delays have been criticised by the Greens and by some independent parliamentarians. By February 2024, less than half the 28 recommendations had been fully implemented. The explanation given for the delays by the responsible minister, Katy Gallagher, (who is also a member of the PLT) has been that ‘we are working hard to get it right.’

    Kate Jenkins herself appears to be satisfied with this explanation. She praised the leadership shown by the PLT and the Presiding Officers, adding that she ‘disagrees vehemently’ with any media reporting that there has been no change in parliament since Set the Standard.

    This may have been a reference to recent comments by independent senator Lidia Thorpe. Senator Thorpe has been a vocal critic of the toxic culture in Parliament House and claims there are people walking the corridors who have not been made accountable for their bad behaviour. While the government delays legislating the body that will investigate such issue and enforce penalties for perpetrators, I’d argue that her frustration is entirely understandable.

    The long tail of trauma and the silencing of survivor voices

    It is important to remember that the Set the Standard report only exists because brave people spoke out about their traumatic experiences in Australia’s parliament.

    Those people demanded a safer workplace and genuine reform. The Australian public was outraged by the stories that emerged from the report and called on politicians to act.

    Kate Jenkins and her team at the Australian Human Rights Commission can be justifiably proud of their work on Set the Standard. The report was comprehensive, thorough and trauma informed. Most importantly, it listened to the voices of people in parliamentary workplaces.

    Unfortunately, the listening seems to have largely ended with the tabling of the report. While I have taken every available opportunity to be consulted on Set the Standard implementation, such opportunities have been rare. Disappointingly, Set the Standard did not include a recommendation for ongoing staff consultation.

    While the PLT did eventually set up a staff consultation group, no mechanism has been established for ongoing consultation with people who have had traumatic experiences in parliamentary workplaces, but who — often for very that reason — no longer work there. Nor does the PLT appear to have engaged meaningfully with survivor advocates while undertaking its work.

    People discussing Set the Standard often refer, as Kate Jenkins did in her speech, to ‘the long tail’ of trauma. What the report’s recommendations and their implementation have failed to do is to provide much in the way of solutions for the people who have been traumatised.

    Apparently, contributing experiences and suggestions for the purpose of creating a safer workplace for other people – a workplace we may now be too traumatised (and not even welcome) to work in ourselves – is meant to be enough for us.

    Well, that … an apology most of us were not invited to attend in person, and free counselling from the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (PWSS). When sexual and other abuse was uncovered in the Australian Defence Force, the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce was established.

     Complainants were able to access reparation payments and to participate in restorative engagement conferences. I have no way of knowing if a similar scheme was ever considered as part of Set the Standard. All I know is that no redress mechanism made it into the report recommendations.

    In addition, the tendency of the media to turn the issue of workplace misconduct in federal parliament into a soap opera revolving around Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann has not done anyone any favours.

    As Kate Jenkins noted in her keynote speech, the intense media focus on a single case runs the risk of people assuming the problem in parliamentary workplaces is confined to ‘a few bad apples’, rather than being a systemic issue. Public attention has been on the ‘omnishambles’ rather than on fixing the broader problems.

    Also, the focus on politicians and political staffers has allowed the long-disregarded problems in the parliamentary departments that support them continue to fly under the radar. The ‘toxic workplace culture’ at the Department of Parliamentary Services, for example, has reached the point where Greens Senator David Shoebridge suggested during a recent Senate Estimates hearing that a new independent review should be considered – only two-and-a-half years after that same culture was examined as part of the Jenkins Review.

    Survivors believe Parliament "...is very much a boys’ club and if you don’t adhere to or agree with the boys’ club unfortunately you are cast out." Picture: Stock image

    Survivors believe Parliament “…is very much a boys’ club and if you don’t adhere to or agree with the boys’ club unfortunately you are cast out.” Picture: Stock image

    Listening to lived experience

    The tone of Kate Jenkins’s speech and of the panel’s conversation as they discussed the implementation of the Set the Standard recommendations to date was overwhelmingly positive, indicating there has been significant progress.

    But for many of us who have experienced the dark side of parliamentary workplaces, both before and after Set the Standard, this narrative feels disconnected from our lived experiences.

    As I wrote this article, I asked some of the people I know who currently work at Parliament House, or who worked there until recently, how they feel about the progress so far. Many of these people have experienced burnout, bullying, discrimination, sexual harassment, or sexual assault during their time in parliamentary workplaces.

    Here are some of the things they told me, speaking anonymously:

    On the pace of change:

    ‘The Set the Standard recommendations have taken way too long to be implemented.’

    ‘Progress has been very slow, and things haven’t moved much in practice.’

    ‘There is a lot of publicity on the progress of the Set the Standard recommendations but not much tangible change in the workplace. People are still being bullied and required to work unreasonable hours.’

    On whether Parliament House is a safe working environment:

    ‘I don’t feel that Parliament House is a safe workplace … I was still bullied post-Jenkins and didn’t feel supported at all. So many people I talk to had similar experiences and a lot of exceptional people have now left the parliamentary workplace to seek safer environments.’

    ‘Within the parliamentary departments, it is well known that there are members’ offices to which you never send female staff alone for any reason. While the number of these offices has been reduced by the demographic change that happened at the 2022 election, many remain. It seems redundant to argue that the building is safer for the Set the Standard recommendations when staff are still adjusting their business processes to account for the possibility of harassment, or worse.’

    ‘The place is toxic [but] senior management have done a good job in presenting a very different viewpoint.’

    ‘There is real abuse of power and people are too scared to speak up due to the real possibility of losing their jobs.’

    ‘There is no respect or genuine care for people [at Parliament House].’

    On diversity and inclusion:

    ‘The place is very much a boys’ club and if you don’t adhere to or agree with the boys’ club unfortunately you are cast out.’

    ‘Accessibility is considered too hard and too expensive and therefore those issues are completely ignored.’

    ‘It’s evident from the recent treatment of Senator Payman that the Parliament is still struggling to accept diversity. Parliaments will remain unsafe to work in until diversity is fully embraced, not just for the photo shoots and quotas but for all that diversity brings to the table in life experiences.’

    On the treatment of parliamentary department staff:

    ‘Implementation has not been accompanied by meaningful change within the three major parliamentary departments. The fragmented implementation has been very concerning for staff, with DPS, House of Representatives and Senate staff initially excluded from the PWSS process. This has led to a lack of trust in the process and the new structures from non-political building occupants.’

    ‘The non-political staffers at Parliament House have been wrongly assumed to have better and safer working conditions than political staffers. In comparison to political staff, non-political staff … enjoy less power and safety.’

    ‘[These] staff do not seem to have mattered as much to this government, which has been particularly detrimental to the efforts of such staff to obtain timely and proper justice in relation to very significant and permanent workplace injuries they have suffered, including sexual assault injuries.’

    These are the voices that the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce doesn’t seem to want to listen to. The people who won’t be featured on any discussion panels.

    In the lead up to the book launch, I had been particularly interested to hear Kate Jenkins’s thoughts on the reforms that have been undertaken so far. But on reflection, it occurred to me that the real question is not whether Kate Jenkins — or an academic expert in the field, or a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce — is satisfied with Set the Standard implementation. The real question is whether the people the Statement of Acknowledgement was directed towards are satisfied.

    And, like the people I’ve quoted above, I am not satisfied. Two-and-a-half years after the report was released, I feel used and discarded, disregarded and powerless, much as I did after being raped and assaulted.

    Once more I am left behind, collateral damage, while others move onwards and upwards, free to build impressive careers. While people with higher profiles than mine congratulate each other on the positive changes they’ve made to parliamentary workplaces, I’m consoling former colleagues over the unjust and preventable collapse of their once promising careers and trying to talk them out of suicide.

    If we want to make real and lasting changes to parliamentary workplaces, we can’t observe them through rose-coloured glasses. We must examine them unflinchingly, acknowledge uncomfortable realities, and confront problems head on. Until our leaders are willing to do that, our parliament will remain toxic.

    This is really tricky because we are effectively defaming David Van, even though I’m sure he did actually assault her. (Because it’s not a proven allegation via a court.) I think we need to vague this up so we don’t get sued. Just say something along the lines of Senator Thorpe has been a vocal critic of the toxic culture in Parliament House and claims there are people walking the corridors who have not been made accountable for their bad behaviour. (We can link to external articles – I just don’t want to actually publish the allegation myself.

    The post Detoxifying Australia’s Parliament: A survivor’s perspective appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • New York, July 22, 2024 — President Joe Biden should press the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the unprecedented number of journalists killed in the Gaza Strip and the near-total ban on international media entering the Strip, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and seven other human rights and press freedom organizations said in letters to the White House and U.S. Congressional leaders today.

    The letters call on the United States, Israel’s chief ally, to “ensure that Israel ceases the killing of journalists, allows immediate and independent media access to the occupied Gaza Strip, and takes urgent steps to enable the press to report freely throughout Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories,” while outlining a series of grave press freedom violations and a response of utter impunity. Netanyahu is expected to meet with Biden on Tuesday and is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.      

    The letters were signed by Amnesty International USA, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Knight First Amendment Institute, the National Press Club, PEN America, Reporters Without Borders, and the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy.

    Since the start of the Israel-Gaza war last October, the letter said, the Netanyahu government’s actions have created what amounts to a “censorship regime.” 

    “Nine months into the war in Gaza, journalists … continue to pay an astonishing toll,” CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg said in a video message to the Israeli Prime Minister released last week. “More than 100 journalists have been killed. An unprecedented number of journalists and media workers have been arrested, often without charge. They have been mistreated and tortured.”

    Israel’s longstanding impunity in attacks on journalists has also cast its shadow on the rights and safety of two American journalists: Shireen Abu Akleh (murdered in 2022) and Dylan Collins, who was injured in an October 13 strike by Israel on journalists in southern Lebanon that killed Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah and wounded others who wore clearly visible press insignia. Investigations by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, AFP and Reuters found the attack was likely targeted.

    On Sunday, Collins joined his AFP colleague Christina Assi—who lost her right leg in the same attack—as she carried the Olympic flame in Vincennes, France, in honor of journalists killed.

    CPJ, which has persistently urged decisive action by the U.S. on journalist safety and media access to Gaza, called on Biden to ensure in his meeting with Netanyahu that the government of Israel takes the following steps: 

    • Lifts its blockade on international, Israeli, and Palestinian journalists from independently accessing Gaza.
    • Revokes legislation permitting the government to shut down foreign outlets, and refrains from any further legal or regulatory curtailment of media operations.
    • Releases all Palestinian journalists from administrative detention or who are otherwise held without charge, including those forcibly disappeared.
    • Abjures the indiscriminate and deliberate killing of journalists.
    • Guarantees the safety of all journalists, including allowing the delivery of newsgathering and safety equipment to reporters in Gaza and the West Bank.
    • Allows all journalists seeking to evacuate from Gaza to do so.
    • Transparently reforms its procedures to ensure that all investigations into alleged war crimes, criminal conduct, or violations of human rights are swift, thorough, effective, transparent, independent, and in line with internationally accepted practices, such as the Minnesota Protocol. Investigations into abuses against journalists must then be promptly conducted in accordance with these procedures.
    • Allows international investigators and human rights organizations, including United Nations (UN) special rapporteurs and the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel, unrestricted access to Israel and the occupied territories to investigate suspected violations of international law by all parties. 

    The letter also was sent to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

    Read the full letter here.

    About the Committee to Protect Journalists
    The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. We defend the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal.


    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.

  • New York, July 22, 2024—Afghan authorities should immediately and unconditionally release journalist Sayed Rahim Saeedi, who was detained by the Taliban’s General Directorate of Intelligence agents in the capital Kabul on July 14, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Monday.

    Saeedi, an editor and producer with ANAR Media YouTube channel, was detained along with Sayed Waris Saeedi, a reporter at the outlet who is also his son, and cameraperson Hasib, who only goes by one name, according to the elder Saeedi’s former colleague Khushal Asefi who spoke with CPJ from exile.

    Hasib and the younger Saeedi were released after two days but Saeedi remains in detention for unknown reasons in an unknown location. ANAR Media reports on culture, travel, religion, and social issues.

    “Taliban intelligence officials must free Sayed Rahim Saeedi and cease their brutal crackdown on journalists in Afghanistan,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Beh Lih Yi. “The media has been decimated since the Taliban returned to power in 2021, forcing journalists to work in a climate of fear and robbing the Afghan people of the right to access information. This harassment must stop.”

    Restrictions on Afghan media are intensifying, according to the exiled Afghanistan Journalists Center watchdog group, which recorded 89 media freedom violations since the start of 2024.

    Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid did not respond to CPJ’s request for comment via messaging app.


    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.

  • By Shailendra Bahadur Singh and Amit Sarwal in Suva

    Given the intensifying situation, journalists, academics and experts joined to state the need for the Pacific, including its media, to re-assert itself and chart its own path, rooted in its unique cultural, economic and environmental context.

    The tone for the discussions was set by Papua New Guinea’s Minister for Information and Communications Technology Timothy Masiu, chief guest at the official dinner of the Suva conference.

    The conference heard that the Pacific media sector is small and under-resourced, so its abilities to carry out its public interest role is limited, even in a free media environment.

    PACIFIC MEDIA CONFERENCE 4-6 JULY 2024
    PACIFIC MEDIA CONFERENCE 4-6 JULY 2024

    Masiu asked how Pacific media was being developed and used as a tool to protect and preserve Pacific identities in the light of “outside influences on our media in the region”. He said the Pacific was “increasingly being used as the backyard” for geopolitics, with regional media “targeted by the more developed nations as a tool to drive their geopolitical agenda”.

    Masiu is the latest to draw attention to the widespread impacts of the global contest on the Pacific, with his focus on the media sector, and potential implications for editorial independence.

    In some ways, Pacific media have benefitted from the geopolitical contest with the increased injection of foreign funds into the sector, prompting some at the Suva conference to ponder whether “too much of a good thing could turn out to be bad”.

    Experts echoed Masiu’s concerns about island nations’ increased wariness of being mere pawns in a larger game.

    Fiji a compelling example
    Fiji offers a compelling example of a nation navigating this complex landscape with a balanced approach. Fiji has sought to diversify its diplomatic relations, strengthening ties with China and India, without a wholesale pivot away from traditional partners Australia and New Zealand.

    Some Pacific Island leaders espouse the “friends to all, enemies to none” doctrine in the face of concerns about getting caught in the crossfire of any military conflict.

    A media crush at the recent Pacific International Media Conference in Fiji
    A media crush at the recent Pacific International Media Conference in Fiji. Image: Asia Pacific Media Network

    This is manifest in Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s incessant calls for a “zone of peace” during both the Melanesian Spearhead Group Leaders’ meeting in Port Vila in August, and the United Nations General Assembly debate in New York in September.

    Rabuka expressed fears about growing geopolitical rivalry contributing to escalating tensions, stating that “we must consider the Pacific a zone of peace”.

    Papua New Guinea, rich in natural resources, has similarly navigated its relationships with major powers. While Chinese investments in infrastructure and mining have surged, PNG has also actively engaged with Australia, its closest neighbour and long-time partner.

    “Don’t get me wrong – we welcome and appreciate the support of our development partners – but we must be free to navigate our own destiny,” Masiu told the Suva conference.

    Masiu’s proposed media policy for PNG was also discussed at the Suva conference, with former PNG newspaper editor Alex Rheeney stating that the media fraternity saw it as a threat, although the minister spoke positively about it in his address.

    Criticism and praise
    In 2019, Solomon Islands shifted diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China, a move that was met with both criticism and praise. While this opened the door to increased Chinese investment in infrastructure, it also highlighted an effort to balance existing ties to Australia and other Western partners.

    Samoa and Tonga too have taken significant strides in using environmental diplomacy as a cornerstone of their international engagement.

    As small island nations, they are on the frontlines of climate change, a reality that shapes their global interactions. In the world’s least visited country, Tuvalu (population 12,000), “climate change is not some distant hypothetical but a reality of daily life”.

    One of the outcomes of the debates at the Suva conference was that media freedom in the Pacific is a critical factor in shaping an independent and pragmatic global outlook.

    Fiji has seen fluctuations in media freedom following political upheavals, with periods of restrictive press laws. However, with the repeal of the draconian media act last year, there is a growing recognition that a free and vibrant media landscape is essential for transparent governance and informed decision-making.

    But the conference also heard that the Pacific media sector is small and under-resourced, so its ability to carry out its public interest role is limited, even in a free media environment.

    Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific
    Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific. Image: Kula Press

    Vulnerability worsened
    The Pacific media sector’s vulnerability had worsened due to the financial damage from the digital disruption and the covid-19 pandemic. It underscored the need to address the financial side of the equation if media organisations are to remain viable.

    For the Pacific, the path forward lies in pragmatism and self-reliance, as argued in the book of collected essays Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, edited by Shailendra Bahadur Singh, Fiji Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad and Amit Sarwal, launched at the Suva conference by Masiu.

    No doubt, as was commonly expressed at the Suva media conference, the world is watching as the Pacific charts its own course.

    As the renowned Pacific writer Epeli Hau’ofa once envisioned, the Pacific Islands are not small and isolated, but a “sea of islands” with deep connections and vast potential to contribute in the global order.

    As they continue to engage with the world, the Pacific nations will need to carve out a path that reflects their unique traditional wisdom, values and aspirations.

    Dr Shailendra Bahadur Singh is head of journalism at The University of the South Pacific (USP) in Suva, Fiji, and chair of the recent Pacific International Media Conference. Dr Amit Sarwal is an Indian-origin academic, translator, and journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. He is formerly a senior lecturer and deputy head of school (research) at the USP. This article was first published by The Interpreter and is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Updated July 19, 2024, 11:28 a.m. ET

    Vietnam’s Communist Party chief Nguyen Phu Trong died on Friday at the age of 80, domestic media reported, after serving for 13 years as the most powerful leader in the Southeast Asian country’s one-party political system. 

    Party Secretary General Trong, who spearheaded a sweeping anti-corruption campaign known as the “Blazing Furnace,” had been sick for some time and had stepped back from his official duties.

    “Party Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong has passed away following a period of illness, despite the care and treatment by the Party, the state, doctors and leading health experts,” VNExpress reported.

    Trong had been at the helm of the party since 2011 but had hardly been seen in public since January when he attended an extraordinary session of the National Assembly.

    State media reported on Thursday that newly appointed president, To Lam, 67, had assumed Nguyen’s duties as Communist Party chief. 

    Lam was named president in May. As acting general secretary, he is now Vietnam’s top leader and will oversee the work of the Party Central Committee, the Politburo and the Secretariat, according to the Vietnam News Agency.


    RELATED STORIES

    To Lam: The man with the golden steak is now leading Vietnam

    Putin visits Vietnam, aiming to renew Cold War ties

    To Lam takes office as Vietnam’s president

    Vietnam leadership battle heats up after serial sackings narrow the field


    Trong was the main architect of the anti-graft drive that has netted senior party officials and business leaders but also raised new concerns about political stability in what is considered Southeast Asia’s manufacturing hub, and is heavily dependent on foreign investment and trade.

    Foreign policy ‘pragmatist’

    Carlyle Thayer, a Vietnam expert at the University of New South Wales, said Trong would be remembered as a staunch adherent to the Vietnamese tenets of Marxism-Leninism and socialism, and a proponent of party-building and one-party rule by the Communist Party. 

    “He will also be viewed as a pragmatist in foreign policy but a stern opponent of peaceful evolution and a ‘color revolution,’” Thayer said

    “Particularly in his first term, Trong reined in the sprawling complex of state-owned corporations, general corporations and state banks that flourished as a result of high GDP growth rates and aggressively prosecuted corrupt officials and their networks,” he added.

    Trong was born in Hanoi in 1944. He earned a bachelor’s degree in literature from Vietnam National University and was a professor and PhD holder in political science, according to the Nhan Dan newspaper.

    He worked as an editor at the Communist Review. In 1996, he was named deputy secretary of the Hanoi Party Committee and afterward ascended through the party ranks.

    U.S. Ambassador Marc Knapper noted in a statement that Trong became the first Vietnamese leader to visit the United States when he traveled to Washington to meet with then-President Barack Obama in 2015.

    Vietnam and the United States upgraded their relationship to “comprehensive strategic partners” during President Joe Biden’s 2023 visit to Hanoi, Biden said in a statement on Friday.

    “The people of Vietnam and the United States – and people across the Indo-Pacific region – enjoy greater security and opportunity today because of the friendship between our two countries,” Biden said in the statement. “That is thanks to him.”

    Edited by Mike Firn and Matt Reed.

    This story has been updated to add details from Trong’s early career and statements from the U.S ambassador and President Biden.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • PANG Media

    The PANG media team at this month’s Pacific International Media Conference in Fiji caught up with independent journalist, author and educator Dr David Robie and questioned him on his views about decolonisation in the Pacific.

    Dr Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report and deputy chair of Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), a co-organiser of the conference, shared his experience on reporting on Kanaky New Caledonia and West Papua’s fight for freedom.

    He speaks from his 40 years of journalism in the Pacific saying the United Nations and the Pacific Islands Forum need to step up pressure on France and Indonesia to decolonise.

    PACIFIC MEDIA CONFERENCE 4-6 JULY 2024
    PACIFIC MEDIA CONFERENCE 4-6 JULY 2024

    This interview was conducted at the end of the conference, on July 6, and a week before the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) leaders called for France to allow a joint United Nations-MSG mission to New Caledonia to assess the political situation and propose solutions for the ongoing crisis.

    The leaders of the subregional bloc — from Fiji, FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front of New Caledonia), Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu — met in Tokyo on the sidelines of the 10th Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting (PALM10), to specifically talk about New Caledonia.

    They included Fiji’s Sitiveni Rabuka, PNG’s James Marape, Solomon Islands’ Jeremiah Manele, and Vanuatu’s Charlot Salwai.

    In his interview with PANG (Pacific Network on Globalisation), Dr Robie also draws parallels with the liberation struggle in Palestine, which he says has become a global symbol for justice and freedom everywhere.

    Asia Pacific Media Report's Dr David Robie
    Asia Pacific Media Report’s Dr David Robie . . . The people see the flags of Kanaky, West Papua and Palestine as symbolic of the struggles against repression and injustice all over the world.

    “I should mention Palestine as well because essentially it’s settler colonisation.

    “What we’ve seen in the massive protests over the last nine months and so on there has been a huge realisation in many countries around the world that colonisation is still here after thinking, or assuming, that had gone some years ago.

    “So you’ll see in a lot of protests — we have protests across Aotearoa New Zealand every week —  that the flags of Kanaky, West Papua and Palestine fly together.

    “The people see these as symbolic of the repression and injustice all over the world.”


    PANG Media talk to Dr David Robie on decolonisation.  Video: PANG Media


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Antonio Di Giampaolo has hosted his popular radio news program En el Aire, Spanish for “On the Air,” for nearly 40 years  On May 17, Di Giampaolo planned to broadcast an interview with opposition presidential candidate Edmundo González, but executives at the station Éxitos 93.1 FM in the western city of Maracay nixed the plan with no explanation, according to the journalist.

    “I had already recorded the interview, but they told me it couldn’t be broadcast,” Di Giampaolo told CPJ, adding that it would have been the first radio interview with González since becoming the opposition’s front-runner.

    Di Giampaolo believes the radio station, which is waiting for state regulator Conatel to renew its license, did not want to risk offending President Nicolás Maduro, who will face González at the polls on July 28 in a critical presidential election. 

    The National Commission of Telecommunications (CONATEL) in Caracas, Venezuela, on February 16, 2017. (Photo: Marco Bello/Reuters)

    In a video posted to his social media accounts, Di Giampaolo announced that he had abruptly quit Éxitos 93.1 with “sadness and deep indignation,” and he published his conversation with González on his Instagram page. Speaking by phone from the city of Maracay, Di Giampaolo told CPJ that he “preferred to leave the station while standing than to remain there on my knees.” 

    The episode typifies how government control of the media and self-censorship has distorted election coverage in Venezuela and deprived voters of vital information about the presidential candidates, according to journalists and press freedom groups who spoke with CPJ,

    They said that TV and radio stations that reach nearly every Venezuelan household provide a barrage of ruling party propaganda and Maduro campaign rallies while mostly ignoring the opposition. By contrast, news about González and his opposition partner María Corina Machado is largely confined to independent news websites, many of which are blocked in Venezuela, and to social media like X, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, and WhatsApp.

    Appearances by opposition politicians in the mainstream media are so rare that when González spoke to TV station Venevisión in April, the resulting commentary on social media ignored the candidates presidential plans and largely focused on the channel’s startling decision to broadcast the interview at all

    “This was treated like an extraordinary event when, in reality, it should be the obligation of a TV station to cover the opposition,” said Marco Ruíz, secretary general of the National Union of Journalists

    Yet for Ruíz and other veteran press watchers, none of this comes as a surprise. They point out that the Maduro government has spent its 11 years in power closing TV and radio stations, blocking news websites, confiscating newspapers and fomenting fear and self-censorship

    The result is a kind of news desert. Indeed, the long-running attack on independent journalism has been so effective that the government has not felt the need to engage in a major media crackdown in the runup to this month’s election.

    “The regime has closed 200 radio stations over the past two years, which means there are fewer stations that they need to close now,” Ruíz said.

    According to a report by Venezuelan free press group Espacio Público, there have been at least 14 radio stations closed in the country this year. Additionally, at least 297 radio stations from 2003 to 2023 were forced to close for various reasons in connection with the renewal of their broadcast licenses.

    Fredy Andrade, who founded Radio Minuto in 1989, in the western city of Barquisimeto, said he received no explanation when state regulator Conatel did not renew the station’s license, forcing it to shutter on April 26. But he pointed out that his daily news programs included reports about the opposition, including polls that showed González with a huge lead over Maduro.  

    “González is going to win this election, and I think the government feared we would go on the air on July 28 and announce an opposition victory,” Andrade told CPJ. “They wanted to silence us. This was a preemptive strike.”

    There was no response from Maduro’s press office nor from Conatel to CPJ’s requests for comment. 

    People walk past a poster of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s re-election campaign on July 11, 2024, as the country prepares for the presidential elections, in Caracas. (Photo: Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/Reuters)

    Due to the closure of so many media outlets, budget problems for those that remain in operation, and the lack of visas for foreign correspondents, there are relatively few journalists covering this election, said Carlos Correa, director of Espacio Público.

    Independent Venezuelan news sites such as Efecto Cocuyo and El Pitazo provide detailed coverage and analysis of both the Maduro and González campaigns. But these two sites and more than 40 others have been blocked in Venezuela by state and private internet service providers, according to the internet watchdog group Venezuela Sin Filtro.

    Determined newshounds can circumvent the blocks and access these sites through virtual private networks (VPNs), but Ruíz said most internet users lack the know-how, patience, and money to set up VPNs. 

    As a result, nearly all the news about the opposition comes from social media. These sites are flooded with video clips of speeches and campaign rallies by Machado, the popular opposition leader who has been banned by the Maduro government from running for president and by González who has replaced her on the ballot. 

    “Social media does not compensate for government censorship but there is no other way to get news about the opposition,” said Ibis León, a former journalist who now works for the Caracas-based Venezuela Electoral Observatory.

    But relying on social media brings a new set of challenges for accessing information in Venezuela. 

    Power outages are common, internet connections are slow and often unavailable in rural areas, and the service is expensive in a country where poverty has jumped amid a deep economic crisis. Moreover, with Maduro facing a battle for reelection, his government is inundating X, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp groups with propaganda and fake news.

    “For the government, this is war,” said Marianela Balbi, director of the Caracas-based Institute for Press and Society. “State TV, Conatel, the Communications Ministry, the ruling party and the military are all getting involved in slandering the opposition.”

    Last month, Machado denounced false reports posted on X by military officials that claimed the Venezuelan Armed Forces would be eliminated should the opposition take power. 

    In response to so much disinformation, Efecto Cocuyo has produced a chatbot to help readers weed out lies and distortions while they can also go to the factchecking website Cazadores de Fake News (Fake News Hunters).

    Correa of Espacio Público warns that social media sites remain a poor substitute for curated election news that used to come from radio, TV, and newspapers, because most information is fragmented and lacking in context.

    “What kind of a candidate proposals and debates can you have on WhatsApp?” he said. “These sites are just not the same as a national TV station dedicated to covering the election.”

    Yet Correa admits that the flood of campaign information on X, Facebook, Instagram and other social media has helped the opposition offset the government’s dominance of traditional news media. Judging by Maduro’s poll numbers, it appears that fewer Venezuelans are being swayed by his propaganda.

    “The government’s message is unconvincing,” Correa said. “But it remains unclear just how well-informed Venezuelan voters will be on election day.”

    González, the opposition candidate, is promising to fully respect press freedom which has inspired new hope among Venezuelan journalists. Speaking of a possible González victory, Di Giampaolo, the former Éxitos 93.1 journalist, said: “I hope better times are coming for journalism and for Venezuela.”


    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.

  • The first-ever cooking show hit British TV screens in 1937. Called Cook’s Night Out, it was hosted by French chef Marcel Boulestin and consisted of five 15-minute-long episodes. Back then, there were less than 20,000 television sets in the UK, so only a privileged few could tune in to watch Boulestin show them how to whip up omelets and dinner party dishes. 

    Things are very different today, of course. Now, millions of viewers around the world watch countless cooking shows across platforms like Netflix, YouTube, and the Food Network. And they are incredibly influential. In 2019, for example, one study found that children who watch cooking shows with healthy foods are more likely to choose healthy foods to eat themselves and vice versa.

    Despite this, most US cooking and food-focused shows still feature a lot of red meat, although research confirms meat-heavy diets aren’t doing our health any favors (red meat is associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases like heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer). But that said, the number of shows with an emphasis on plant-based cooking—which, research also suggests, is associated with a reduced risk of disease—is increasing.

    7 cooking and food-focused TV shows to stream next

    Below, we’ve picked out a few of the best cooking shows to queue up this summer that highlight how delicious, interesting, and versatile plant-based ingredients can be.

    Omnivore posterApple TV+

    1‘Omnivore’

    Given the title, you might expect this show to be a meat-frenzy, but Apple TV+’s  Omnivore will actually follow Noma’s René Redzepi as he learns more about plenty of plant-based foods, including bananas, chiles, corn, rice, and coffee, on a culinary adventure around the world. That said, seafood and pork will also be featured, so it’s not a completely vegan show. Speaking about Omnivore, Redzepi said in a statement: “This journey has reinforced one undeniable truth: food is everything. You can tell any story worth telling through what we cook and how we eat. Because food is never just food; it’s a window into our lives, our history, and our world.”

    Omnivore will hit Apple TV+ on July 19.

    VegNews.TabithaBrown.TabTime

    YouTube Originals



    2‘It’s CompliPlated’

    Tabitha Brown’s It’s CompliPlated first hit the Food Network in 2022. In the series, the popular social media personality, entrepreneur, and cookbook author guides contestants through a string of plant-based cooking challenges that involve things like making ballpark snacks that aren’t fried and southern comfort food that is totally meat-free. “These chefs cook from the heart and their food is mind-blowing—viewers are sure to have a blast and be inspired for their next family dinner,” Brown said in a statement.

    It’s CompliPlated is streaming now on Amazon Prime.

    VegNews.Troy GardnerBobby FlayRachel KleinBeatBobbyFlay.FoodNetworkFood Network



    3‘Beat Bobby Flay’

    The concept behind Beat Bobby Flay is simple. Contestants cook their hearts out in a bid to make a tastier dish than Bobby Flay, a renowned American celebrity chef and restauranteur. Often, Flay wins—but not always. In 2023, for example, vegan chef Rachel Klein won the show with a meaty vegan cheesesteak made with maitake mushrooms.

    Find out more about Klein’s winning episode here.

    VegNews.vegancookingshowmoments.channel4 (1)Channel 4

    4‘The Great British Baking Show’

    The Great British Baking Show (or The Great British Bake Off, as it’s known in the UK) has long been a hit in the US, largely because of its emphasis on comradery, teamwork, and just all-round wholesomeness. While contestants usually create their bakes with eggs, milk, and butter, there have been some stand-out vegan moments. In 2018, the show hosted its first-ever vegan week, and in 2021, it welcomed its first vegan contestant, Freya Cox. In 2023, David Schwimmer took part in the Stand Up to Cancer celebrity special and received a Paul Hollywood handshake for his vegan pie.

    The Great British Baking Show is streaming now on Netflix.

    sugar rush posterNetflix

    5‘Sugar Rush’

    Lovers of all things sweet will also love Sugar Rush, another Netflix baking show. The series follows professional teams as they compete to make show-stopping cupcakes, confections, and cakes for a prize fund of $10,000. In a 2020 Christmas episode, Sugar Rush featured its first vegan baker, Anna Castellanos. “It took me a year to even get noticed as a vegan baker,” Castellanos told VegNews in 2021. “I would apply to all sorts of networks and the only one that reached out was Netflix.”

    Find out more about Castellanos’s episode here.

    chopped poster huluHulu



    6‘Chopped’

    Chopped is all about getting the best out of the unexpected. In every episode, four top chefs compete to create delicious, mouthwatering dishes with random ingredients provided to them on the day. Head back to 2019 to find the show’s vegan episode aptly titled No Meat? No Problem!.

    Chopped is streaming now on Hulu.

    peeled posterPeeled



    7‘Peeled’

    In 2022, America’s first-ever totally vegan cooking show, Peeled, hit YouTube. The show was co-created by Hell’s Kitchen contestant Chef Josie Clemens, and hosted by popular vegan chef Babette Davis and health expert Shabnam Islam. Watch contestants as they battle it out for the title of Hottest Vegan Chef. “As a vegan and a foodie, I’ve always had a love-hate relationship with cooking shows,” said Peeled’s creator, Star Simmons. “Peeled allows vegans and vegetarians to enjoy cooking shows again and gives plant-based culinary arts a platform to be taken seriously.”

    Peeled is streaming now on YouTube.

    This post was originally published on VegNews.com.

  • Vietnam’s top leader, Nguyen Phu Trong, is receiving treatment for an unspecified medical condition and has stepped back from official duties as general secretary of the Communist Party, state media reported on Thursday.

    President To Lam has been assigned to take over his duties overseeing the work of the Party Central Committee, the Politburo, and the Secretariat, online news site VietnamPlus said.

    “The Politburo, the Secretariat, key leaders and the Standing Member of the Secretariat have directed specialized agencies to focus on mobilizing a team of professors, doctors, medical staff, leading experts and the most favorable conditions to treat and care for the general secretary’s health,” it said.


    RELATED STORIES

    Putin visits Vietnam, aiming to renew Cold War ties

    To Lam takes office as Vietnam’s president

    Vietnam leadership battle heats up after serial sacking narrow the field


    Speculation about the 80-year-old Trong’s health on social media was sparked at the end of last year when he disappeared from the public eye after meeting Japanese Communist Party head Kazuo Shii in Hanoi on Dec. 26.

    The following month, he failed to meet Lao Prime Minister Sonexay Siphandone and then-Indonesian President Joko Widodo on their official visits to Vietnam.

    A brief appearance at the start of an extraordinary session of the National Assembly on Jan. 15 failed to assuage rumors of ill health.

    Since then, there has been a major shakeup of the upper echelons of Vietnam’s Communist Party.

    Vo Van Thuong resigned as president in March and Vuong Dinh Hue stepped down as chairman of the National Assembly in May.

    On May 20, Tran Thanh Man took office as National Assembly chairman with parliament swearing-in former Public Security chief To Lam as state president two days later.

    Trong, who also served as president from October 2018 to April 2021, was chosen to serve a rule-breaking third five-year term as party secretary in 2021. 

    His term will expire in 2026 when the Communist Party’s 14th National Congress is expected to take place. The party secretary is supposed to recommend a successor who then needs to be approved by the Central Committee.

    Lam, 67, and Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh, 65, are the only two candidates eligible to succeed him.  

    Edited by RFA Staff 


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Israeli forces have massacred nearly 60 people in the Gaza Strip over just the past 24 hours, and the past week has been one of the deadliest since the war began more than nine months ago. But you’d hardly know it by looking at the front pages of major newspapers in the United States, despite U.S. President Joe Biden fueling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assault with diplomatic…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • By Justin Latif in Suva

    Despite the many challenges faced by Pacific journalists in recent years, the recent Pacific International Media Conference highlighted the incredible strength and courage of the region’s reporters.

    The three-day event in Suva, Fiji, earlier this month co-hosted by the University of South Pacific, Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), was the first of its kind for Fiji in the last 20 years, marking the newfound freedom media professionals have been experiencing in the nation.

    The conference included speakers from many of the main newsrooms in the Pacific, as well as Emmy award-winning American journalist Professor Emily Drew and Pulitzer-nominated investigative journalist Irene Jay Liu, as well as New Zealand’s Indira Stewart, Dr David Robie of APMN and Moera Tuilaepa-Taylor of RNZ Pacific.

    The launch of the 30th anniversary edition of Pacific Journalist Review
    The launch of the 30th anniversary edition of Pacific Journalist Review. Professor Vijay Naidu (from left), Fiji’s Deputy Prime Minister Dr Biman Prasad, founding PJR editor Dr David Robie, Papua New Guinea Minister for Communications and Information Technology Timothy Masiu, Associate Professor Shailendra Bahadur Singh and current PJR editor Dr Philip Cass. Image: PMN News/Justin Latif

    Given Fiji’s change of government in 2022, and the ensuing repeal of media laws which threatened jail time for reporters and editors who published stories that weren’t in the “national interest”, many spoke of the extreme challenges they faced under the previous regime.

    And two of Fiji’s deputy prime ministers, Manoa Kamikamica and Professor Biman Prasad, also gave keynote speeches detailing how the country’s newly established press freedom is playing a vital role in strengthening the country’s democracy.

    Dr Robie has worked in the Pacific for several decades and was a member of the conference’s organising committee.

    He said this conference has come at “critical time given the geopolitics in the background”.

    Survival of media
    “I’ve been to many conferences over the years, and this one has been quite unique and it’s been really good,” he said.

    “We’ve addressed the really pressing issues regarding the survival of media and it’s also highlighted how resilient news organisations are across the Pacific.”

    Dr David Robie spoke at the conference on how critical journalism can survive
    Dr David Robie spoke at the conference on how critical journalism can survive against the odds. Image: PMN News/Justin Latif


    Dr David Robie talks to PMN News on the opening day.   Audio/video:PMN Pacific Mornings

    The conference coincided with the launch of the 30th anniversary edition of Pacific Journalism Review, which is the only academic journal in the region that publishes research specifically focused on Pacific media.

    As founder of PJR, Robie says it is heartening to see it recognised at a place — the University of the South Pacific — where it was also based for a number of years.

    “It began its life at the University of Papua New Guinea, but then it was at USP for five years, so it was very appropriate to have our birthday here. It’s published over 1100 articles over its 30 years, so we were really celebrating all that’s been published over that time.”

    RNZ Pacific manager Moera Tuilaepa-Taylor
    RNZ Pacific manager Moera Tuilaepa-Taylor has been running journalism workshops in the region over many years. Image: PMN News/Justin Latif

    Climate change solutions
    RNZ Pacific manager Moera Tuilaepla-Taylor spoke on a panel about how to cover climate change with a solutions lens.

    She says the topic of sexual harassment was a particularly important discussion that came up and it highlighted the extra hurdles Pacific female journalists face.

    “It’s a reminder for me as a journalist from New Zealand and something I will reinforce with my own team about the privilege we have to be able to do a story, jump in your car and go home, without being tailed by the police or being taken into barracks to be questioned,” she says.

    “It’s a good reminder to us and it gives a really good perspective about what it’s like to be a journalist in the region and the challenges too.”

    Another particular challenge Tuilaepa-Taylor highlighted was the increase in international journalists coming into the region reporting on the Pacific.

    “The issue I have is that it leads to taking away a Pacific lens on a story which is vitally important,” she said.

    “There are stories that can be covered by non-Pacific journalists but there are really important cultural stories that need to have that Pacific lens on it so it’s more authentic and give audiences a sense of connection.”

    But Dr Robie says that while problems facing the Pacific are clear, the conference also highlighted why there is also cause for optimism.

    “Journalists in the region work very hard and under very difficult conditions and they carry a lot of responsibilities for their communities, so I think it’s a real credit to our industry … [given] their responses to the challenges and their resilience shows there can be a lot of hope for the future of journalism in the region.”

    Justin Latif is news editor of Pacific Media Network. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • President Biden’s team is so worried that he can’t hold himself together during an interview that they have been telling interviewers what they are allowed – and NOT allowed – to ask the President. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

    The post Biden’s Team CAUGHT Providing “Journalists” With Pre-Approved Questions appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • ANALYSIS: By Sara Oscar, University of Technology Sydney

    The attempted assassination of Donald Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania was captured by several photographers who were standing at the stage before the shooting commenced.

    The most widely circulated photograph of this event was taken by Evan Vucci, a Pulitzer Prize winning war photographer known for his coverage of protests following George Floyd’s murder.

    A number of World Press Photograph awards have been given to photographers who have covered an assassination.

    In this vein, Vucci’s image can also be regarded as already iconic, a photograph that perhaps too will win awards for its content, use of colour and framing — and will become an important piece of how we remember this moment in history.

    Social media analysis of the image
    Viewers of Vucci’s photograph have taken to social media to break down the composition of the image, including how iconic motifs such as the American flag and Trump’s raised fist are brought together in the frame according to laws of photographic composition, such as the rule of thirds.

    Such elements are believed to contribute to the photograph’s potency.

    To understand exactly what it is that makes this such a powerful image, there are several elements we can parse.

    Compositional acuity
    In this photograph, Vucci is looking up with his camera. He makes Trump appear elevated as the central figure surrounded by suited Secret Service agents who shield his body. The agents form a triangular composition that places Trump at the vertex, slightly to the left of a raised American flag in the sky.

    On the immediate right of Trump, an agent looks directly at Vucci’s lens with eyes concealed by dark glasses. The agent draws us into the image, he looks back at us, he sees the photographer and therefore, he seems to see us: he mirrors our gaze at the photograph.

    This figure is central, he leads our gaze to Trump’s raised fist.

    Another point of note is that there are strong colour elements in this image that deceptively serve to pull it together as a photograph.

    Set against a blue sky, everything else in the image is red, white and navy blue. The trickles of blood falling down Trump’s face are echoed in the red stripes of the American flag which aligns with the republican red of the podium in the lower left quadrant of the image.

    We might not see these elements initially, but they demonstrate how certain photographic conventions contribute to Vucci’s own ways of seeing and composing that align with photojournalism as a discipline.

    A photographic way of seeing
    In interviews, Vucci has referred to the importance of retaining a sense of photographic composure in being able to attain “the shot”, of being sure to cover the situation from numerous angles, including capturing the scene with the right composition and light.

    For Vucci, all of this was about “doing the job” of the photographer.

    Vucci’s statements are consistent with what most photographers would regard as a photographic way of seeing. This means being attuned to the way composition, light, timing and subject matter come together in the frame in perfect unity when photographing: it means getting the “right” shot.

    For Susan Sontag, this photographic way of seeing also corresponded to the relationship between shooting and photographing, a relationship she saw as analogous.

    Photography and guns are arguably weapons, with photography and photographic ways of seeing and representing the world able to be weaponised to change public perception.

    Writing history with photographs
    As a photographic way of seeing, there are familiar resonances in Vucci’s photograph to other iconic images of American history.

    Take for instance, the photograph taken by Joe Rosenthal, The Raising of the Flag on Iwo Jima (1945) during the Pacific War. In the photograph, four marines are clustered together to raise and plant the American flag, their bodies form a pyramid structure in the lower central half of the frame.

    This photograph is also represented as a war monument in Virginia for marines who have served America.

    The visual echoes between the Rosenthal and Vucci images are strong. They also demonstrate how photographic ways of seeing stretch beyond the compositional. It leads to another photographic way of seeing, which means viewing the world and the events that take place in it as photographs, or constructing history as though it were a photograph.

    Fictions and post-truth
    The inherent paradox within “photographic seeing” is that no single person can be in all places at once, nor predict what is going to happen before reality can be transcribed as a photograph.

    In Vucci’s photograph, we are given the illusion that this photograph captures “the moment” or “a shot”. Yet it doesn’t capture the moment of the shooting, but its immediate aftermath. The photograph captures Trump’s media acuity and swift, responsive performance to the attempted assassination, standing to rise with his fist in the air.

    In a post-truth world, there has been a pervasive concern about knowing the truth. While that extends beyond photographic representation, photography and visual representation play a considerable part.

    Whether this image will further contribute to the mythology of Donald Trump, and his potential reelection, is yet to be seen.
    The Conversation

    Sara Oscar, senior lecturer in visual communication, School of Design, University of Technology Sydney.  This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • RNZ Pacific

    Australia has announced more than A$68 million over the next five years to strengthen and expand Australian broadcasting and media sector engagement across the Indo-Pacific.

    As part of the Indo-Pacific broadcasting strategy, the ABC will receive just over $40m to increase its content for and about the Pacific, expand Radio Australia’s FM transmission footprint across the region and enhance its media and training activities.

    And the PacificAus TV programme will receive over $28 million to provide commercial Australian content free of charge to broadcasters in the Pacific.

    The strategy provides a framework to help foster a vibrant and independent media sector, counter misinformation, present modern multicultural Australia, and support deeper people-to-people engagement.

    It focuses on three key areas, including:

    • supporting the creation and distribution of compelling Australian content that engages audiences and demonstrates Australia’s commitment to the region;
    • enhancing access in the region to trusted sources of media, including news and current affairs, strengthening regional media capacity and capability; and
    • boosting connections between Australian-based and Indo-Pacific media and content creators.

    Crucial role
    Foreign Minister Penny Wong said media plays a crucial role in elevating the voices and perspectives of the region and strengthening democracy.

    Wong said the Australia government was committed to supporting viable, resilient and independent media in the region.

    Minister for International Development and the Pacific Pat Conroy said Australia and the Pacific shared close cultural and people-to-people links, and an enduring love of sport.

    “These connections will be further enriched by the boost in Australian content, allowing us to watch, read, and listen to shared stories across the region — from rugby to news and music.

    Conroy said Australia would continue and expand support for media development, including through the new phase of the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme (PACMAS) and future opportunities through the Australia-Pacific Media and Broadcasting Partnership.

    Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said a healthy Fourth Estate was imperative in the era of digital transformation and misinformation.

    “This strategy continues Australia’s longstanding commitment to supporting a robust media sector in our region,” she said.

    “By leveraging Australia’s strengths, we can partner with the region to boost media connections, and foster a diverse and sustainable media landscape.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    Many platitudes about media freedom and democracy laced last week’s Pacific International Media Conference in the Fijian capital of Suva. There was a mood of euphoria at the impressive event, especially from politicians who talked about journalism being the “oxygen of democracy”.

    The dumping of the draconian and widely hated Fiji Media Industry Development Act that had started life as a military decree in 2010, four years after former military commander Voreqe Bainimarama seized power, and was then enacted in the first post-coup elections in 2014, was seen as having restored media freedom for the first time in almost two decades.

    As a result, Fiji had bounced back 45 places to 44th on this year’s Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index – by far the biggest climb of any nation in Oceania, where most countries, including Australia and New Zealand, have been sliding downhill.

    One of Fiji’s three deputy Prime Ministers, Professor Biman Prasad, a former University of the South Pacific economist and long a champion of academic and media freedom, told the conference the new Coalition government headed by the original 1987 coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka had reintroduced media self-regulation and “we can actually feel the freedom everywhere, including in Parliament”.

    The same theme had been offered at the conference opening ceremony by another deputy PM, Manoa Kamikamica, who declared:

    “We pride ourselves on a government that tries to listen, and hopefully we can try and chart a way forward in terms of media freedom and journalism in the Pacific, and most importantly, Fiji.

    “They say that journalism is the oxygen of democracy, and that could be no truer than in the case of Fiji.”

    Happy over media law repeal
    Papua New Guinea’s Minister for Information and Communication Technology Timothy Masiu echoed the theme. Speaking at the conference launch of a new book, Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific (co-edited by Professor Prasad, conference chair Associate Professor Shailendra Singh and Dr Amit Sarwal), he said: “We support and are happy with this government of Fiji for repealing the media laws that went against media freedom in Fiji in the recent past.”

    Fiji Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica
    Fiji Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica . . . speaking about the “oxygen of democracy” at the opening of the Pacific International Media Conference in Suva on 4 July 2024. Image: Asia Pacific Media Network

    But therein lies an irony. While Masiu supports the repeal of a dictatorial media law in Fiji, he is a at the centre of controversy back home over a draft media law (now in its fifth version) that he is spearheading that many believe will severely curtail the traditional PNG media freedom guaranteed under the constitution.

    He defends his policies, saying that in PNG, “given our very diverse society with over 1000 tribes and over 800 languages and huge geography, correct and factful information is also very, very critical.”

    Masiu says that what drives him is a “pertinent question”:

    “How is the media being developed and used as a tool to protect and preserve our Pacific identity?”

    PNG Minister for Information and Communications Technology Timothy Masiu
    PNG Minister for Information and Communications Technology Timothy Masiu (third from right) at the conference pre-dinner book launchings at Holiday Inn, Suva, on July 4. The celebrants are holding the 30th anniversary edition of Pacific Journalism Review. Image: Wansolwara

    Another issue over the conference was the hypocrisy over debating media freedom in downtown Suva while a few streets away Fijian freedom of speech advocates and political activists were being gagged about speaking out on critical decolonisation and human rights issues such as Kanaky, Palestine and West Papua freedom.

    In the front garden of the Gordon Street compound of the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (FWCC), the independence flags of Kanaky, Palestine and West Papua flutter in the breeze. Placards and signs daub the walls of the centre declaring messages such as “Stop the genocide”, “Resistance is justified! When people are occupied!”, “Free Kanaky – Justice for Kanaky”, “Ceasefire, stop genocide”, “Palestine is a moral litmus test for the world” and “We need rainbows not Rambos”.

    The West Papuan Morning Star and Palestinian flags for decolonisation fluttering high in downtown Suva
    The West Papuan Morning Star and Palestinian flags for decolonisation fluttering high in downtown Suva. Image: APMN

    ‘Thursdays in Black’
    While most of the 100 conference participants from 11 countries were gathered at the venue to launch the peace journalism book Waves of Change and the 30th anniversary edition of Pacific Journalism Review, about 30 activists were gathered at the same time on July 4 in the centre’s carpark for their weekly “Thursdays in Black” protest.

    But they were barred from stepping onto the footpath in public or risk arrest. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly Fiji-style.

    Protesters at the Fiji Women's Crisis Centre compound in downtown Suva in the weekly "Thursdays in Black" solidarity rally
    Protesters at the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre compound in downtown Suva in the weekly “Thursdays in Black” solidarity rally with Kanaky, Palestine and West Papua on July 4. Image: APMN

    Surprisingly, the protest organisers were informed on the same day that they could stage a “pre-Bastllle Day” protest about Kanaky and West Papua on July 12, but were banned from raising Israeli’s genocidal war on Palestine.

    Fiji is the only Pacific country to seek an intervention in support of Tel Aviv in South Africa’s case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague accusing Israel of genocide in a war believed to have killed more than 38,000 Palestinians — including 17,000 children — so far, although an article in The Lancet medical journal argues that the real death toll is more like 138,000 people – equivalent to almost a fifth of Fiji’s population.

    The protest march was staged on Friday but in spite of the Palestine ban some placards surfaced and also Palestinian symbols such as keffiyehs and watermelons.

    The "pre-Bastille Day" march in Suva in solidarity
    The “pre-Bastille Day” march in Suva in solidarity for decolonisation. Image: FWCC

    The Fiji NGO Coalition on Human Rights in Fiji and their allies have been hosting vigils at FWCC compound for Palestine, West Papua and Kanaky every Thursday over the last eight months, calling on the Fiji government and Pacific leaders to support the ceasefire in Gaza, and protect the rights of Palestinians, West Papuans and Kanaks.

    “The struggles of Palestinians are no different to West Papua, Kanaky New Caledonia — these are struggles of self-determination, and their human rights must be upheld,” said FWCC coordinator and the NGO coalition chair Shamima Ali.

    Solidarity for Kanaky in the "pre-Bastille Day" march
    Solidarity for Kanaky in the “pre-Bastille Day” march in Suva on Friday. Image: FWCC

    Media silence noticed
    Outside the conference, Pacific commentators also noticed the media hypocrisy and the extraordinary silence.

    Canberra-based West Papuan diplomacy-trained activist and musician Ronny Kareni complained in a post on X, formerly Twitter: “While media personnel, journos and academia in journalism gathered [in Suva] to talk about media freedom, media network and media as the oxygen of democracy etc., why Papuan journos can’t attend, yet Indon[esian] ambassador to Fiji @SimamoraDupito can??? Just curious.”

    Ronny Kareni's X post about the Indonesian Ambassador
    Ronny Kareni’s X post about the Indonesian Ambassador to Fiji Dupito D. Simamora. Image: @ronnykareni X screenshot APR

    At the conference itself, some speakers did raise the Palestine and decolonisation issue.

    Speaker Khairiah A Rahman (from left) of the Asia Pacific Media Network
    Speaker Khairiah A Rahman (from left) of the Asia Pacific Media Network and colleagues Pacific Journalism Review designer Del Abcede, PJR editor Dr Philip Cass, Dr Adam Brown, PJR founder Dr David Robie, and Rach Mario (Whānau Community Hub). Image: APMN

    Khairiah A. Rahman, of the Asia Pacific Media Network, one of the partner organisers along with the host University of the South Pacific and Pacific Islands News Association, spoke on the “Media, Community, Social Cohesion and Conflict Prevention” panel following Hong Kong Professor Cherian George’s compelling keynote address about “Cracks in the Mirror: When Media Representations Sharpen Social Divisions”.

    She raised the Palestine crisis as a critical global issue and also a media challenge.

    "Palestine is a moral litmus test for the world" poster
    “Palestine is a moral litmus test for the world” poster at the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre compound. Image: APMN

    In his keynote address, “Frontline Media Faultlines: How Critical Journalism Can Survive Against the Odds”, Professor David Robie, also of APMN, spoke of the common decolonisation threads between Kanaky, Palestine and West Papua.

    He also critiquing declining trust in mainstream media – that left some “feeling anxious and powerless” — and how they were being fragmented by independent start-ups that were perceived by many people as addressing universal truths such as the genocide in Palestine.

    PJR editorial challenge
    Dr Robie cited the editorial in the just-published Pacific Journalism Review which had laid down a media challenge over Gaza. He wrote:

    “Gaza has become not just a metaphor for a terrible state of dystopia in parts of the world, it has also become an existential test for journalists – do we stand up for peace and justice and the right of people to survive under the threat of ethnic cleansing and against genocide, or do we do nothing and remain silent in the face of genocide being carried out with impunity in front of our very eyes?

    “The answer is simple surely . . .

    “And it is about saving journalism, our credibility, and our humanity as journalists.”


    Professor David Robie’s keynote speech at Pacific Media 2023.  Video: The Australia Today

    At the end of his address, Dr Robie called for a minute’s silence in a tribute to the 158 Palestinian journalists who had been killed so far in the ninth-month war on Gaza. The Gazan journalists were awarded this year’s UNESCO Guillermo Cano Media Freedom Prize for their “courage and commitment to freedom of expression”.

    Undoubtedly the two most popular panels in the conference were the “Pacific Editors’ Forum” when eight editors from around the region “spoke their minds”, and a panel on sexual harassment on the media workplace and on the job.

    Little or no action
    According to speakers in “Gender and Media in the Pacific: Examining violence that women Face” panel introduced and moderated by Fiji Women’s Rights Movement (FWRM) executive director Nalini Singh, female journalists continue to experience inequalities and harassment in their workplaces and on assignment — with little or no action taken against their perpetrators.

    Fiji journalist Lice Movono speaking on a panel discussion about "Prevalence and Impact of sexual harassment on female journalists"
    Fiji journalist Lice Movono speaking on a panel discussion about “Prevalence and Impact of sexual harassment on female journalists” at the Pacific International Media Conference in Fiji. Image: Stefan Armbruster/Benar News

    The speakers included FWRM programme director Laisa Bulatale, experienced Pacific journalists Lice Movono and Georgina Kekea, strategic communications specialist Jacqui Berell and USP’s Dr Shailendra Singh, associate professor and the conference chair.

    “As 18 and 19 year old (journalists), what we experienced 25 years ago in the industry is still the same situation — and maybe even worse now for young female journalists,” Movono said.

    She shared “unfortunate and horrifying” accounts of experiences of sexual harassment by local journalists and the lack of space to discuss these issues.

    These accounts included online bullying coupled with threats against journalists and their loved ones and families. stalking of female journalists, always being told to “suck it up” by bosses and other colleagues, the fear and stigma of reporting sexual harassment experiences, feeling as if no one would listen or care, the lack of capacity/urgency to provide psychological social support and many more examples.

    “They do the work and they go home, but they take home with them, trauma,” Movono said.

    And Kekea added: “Women journalists hardly engage in spaces to have their issues heard, they are often always called upon to take pictures and ‘cover’.”

    Technology harassment
    Berell talked about Technology Facilitated Gender Based Violence (TFGBV) — a grab bag term to cover the many forms of harassment of women through online violence and bullying.

    The FWRM also shared statistics on the combined research with USP’s School of Journalism on the “Prevalence and Impact of Sexual Harassment on Female Journalists” and data on sexual harassment in the workplace undertaken by the team.

    Speaking from the floor, New Zealand Pacific investigative television journalist Indira Stewart also rounded off the panel with some shocking examples from Aotearoa New Zealand.

    In spite of the criticisms over hypocrisy and silence over global media freedom and decolonisation challenges, participants generally concluded this was the best Pacific media conference in many years.

    Asia Pacific Media Network's Nik Naidu
    Asia Pacific Media Network’s Nik Naidu (right) with Maggie Boyle and Professor Emily Drew. Image: Del Abcede/APMN

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Indonesia’s commitment to the Pacific continues to be strengthened. One of the strategies is through a commitment to resolving human rights cases in Papua, reports a Kompas correspondent who attended the Pacific International Media Conference in Suva earlier this month.  

    By Laraswati Ariadne Anwar in Suva

    The Pacific Island countries are Indonesia’s neighbours. However, so far they are not very familiar to the ears of the Indonesian people.

    One example is Fiji, the largest country in the Pacific Islands. This country, which consists of 330 islands and a population of 924,000 people, has actually had relations with Indonesia for 50 years.

    In the context of regional geopolitics, Fiji is the anchor of Indonesian diplomacy in the Pacific.

    Fiji is known as a gateway to the Pacific. This status has been held for centuries because, as the largest country and with the largest port, practically all commodities entering the Pacific Islands must go through Fiji.

    Along with Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, and the Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS) of New Caledonia, Fiji forms the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG).

    Indonesia now has the status of a associate member of the MSG, or one level higher than an observer.

    For Indonesia, this closeness to the MSG is important because it is related to affirming Indonesia’s sovereignty.

    Human rights violations
    The MSG is very critical in monitoring the handling of human rights violations that occur in Papua. In terms of sovereignty, the MSG acknowledges Indonesia’s sovereignty as recorded in the Charter of the United Nations.

    The academic community in Fiji is also highlighting human rights violations in Papua. As a Melanesian nation, the Fijian people sympathise with the Papuan community.

    In Fiji, some individuals hold anti-Indonesian sentiment and support pro-independence movements in Papua. In several civil society organisations in Suva, the capital of Fiji, the Morning Star flag of West Papuan independence is also raised in solidarity.

    Talanoa or focused discussion between a media delegation from Indonesia and representatives of Fijian academics and journalists in Suva, Wednesday (3/7/2024).
    Talanoa or a focused discussion between a media delegation from Indonesia and representatives of Fiji academics and journalists in Suva on July 3 – the eve of the three-day Pacific Media Conference. Image: Laraswati Ariadne Anwar/Kompas

    Even so, Fijian academics realise that they lack context in examining Indonesian problems. This emerged in a talanoa or focused discussion with representatives of universities and Fiji’s mainstream media with a media delegation from Indonesia. The event was organised by the Indonesian Embassy in Suva.

    Academics say that reading sources about Indonesia generally come from 50 years ago, causing them to have a limited understanding of developments in Indonesia. When examined, Indonesian journalists also found that they themselves lacked material about the Pacific Islands.

    Both the Fiji and Indonesian groups realise that the information they receive about each other mainly comes from Western media. In practice, there is scepticism about coverage crafted according to a Western perspective.

    “There must be open and meaningful dialogue between the people of Fiji and Indonesia in order to break down prejudices and provide space for contextual critical review into diplomatic relations between the two countries,” said Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, a former journalist who is now head of the journalism programme at the University of the South Pacific (USP). He was also chair of the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference Committee which was attended by the Indonesian delegation.

    ‘Prejudice’ towards Indonesia
    According to experts in Fiji, the prejudice of the people in that country towards Indonesia is viewed as both a challenge and an opportunity to develop a more quality and substantive relationship.

    The chief editors of media outlets in the Pacific Islands presented practices of press freedom at the Pacific Media International Conference 2024 in Suva, Fiji on Friday (5/7/2024).
    The chief editors of media outlets in the Pacific Islands presented the practice of press freedom at the Pacific Media International Conference 2024 in Suva, Fiji on July 5. Image: Image: Laraswati Ariadne Anwar/Kompas

    In that international conference, representatives of mainstream media in the Pacific Islands criticised and expressed their dissatisfaction with donors.

    The Pacific Islands are one of the most foreign aid-receiving regions in the world. Fiji is among the top five Pacific countries supported by donors.

    Based on the Lowy Institute’s records from Australia as of October 31, 2023, there are 82 donor countries in the Pacific with a total contribution value of US$44 billion. Australia is the number one donor, followed by China.

    The United States and New Zealand are also major donors. This situation has an impact on geopolitical competition issues in the region.

    Indonesia is on the list of 82 countries, although in terms of the amount of funding contributed, it lags behind countries with advanced economies. Indonesia itself does not take the position to compete in terms of the amount of funds disbursed.

    Thus, the Indonesian Ambassador to Fiji, Nauru, Kiribati, and Tuvalu, Dupito Simamora, said that Indonesia was present to bring a new colour.

    “We are present to focus on community empowerment and exchange of experiences,” he said.

    An example is the empowerment of maritime, capture fisheries, coffee farming, and training for immigration officers. This is more sustainable compared to the continuous provision of funds.

    Maintaining ‘consistency’
    Along with that, efforts to introduce Indonesia continue to be made, including through arts and culture scholarships, Dharmasiswa (a one-year non-degree scholarship programme offered to foreigners), and visits by journalists to Indonesia. This is done so that the participating Fiji community can experience for themselves the value of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika — the official motto of Indonesia, “Unity in diversity”.

    The book launch event on Pacific media was attended by Fiji's Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad (second from left) and Papua New Guinea's Minister of Information and Technology Timothy Masiu (third from left) during the Pacific International Media Conference 2024 in Suva, Fiji, on Thursday (4/7/2024).
    The book launching and Pacific Journalism Review celebration event on Pacific media was attended by Fiji’s Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad (second from left) and Papua New Guinea’s Minister of Information and Communication Technology Timothy Masiu (third from left) during the Pacific International Media Conference 2024 in Suva, Fiji, on July 4. Image: USP

    Indonesia has also offered itself to Fiji and the Pacific Islands as a “gateway” to Southeast Asia. Fiji has the world’s best-selling mineral water product, Fiji Water. They are indeed targeting expanding their market to Southeast Asia, which has a population of 500 million people.

    The Indonesian Embassy in Suva analysed the working pattern of the BIMP-EAGA, or the East ASEAN economic cooperation involving Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam and the Philippines. From there, a model that can be adopted which will be communicated to the MSG and developed according to the needs of the Pacific region.

    In the ASEAN High-Level Conference of 2023, Indonesia initiated a development and empowerment cooperation with the South Pacific that was laid out in a memorandum of understanding between ASEAN and the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).

    At the World Water Forum (WWF) 2024 and the Island States Forum (AIS), the South Pacific region is one of the areas highlighted for cooperation. Climate crisis mitigation is a sector that is being developed, one of which is the cultivation of mangrove plants to prevent coastal erosion.

    For Indonesia, cooperation with the Pacific is not just diplomacy. Through ASEAN, Indonesia is pushing for the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP). Essentially, the Indo-Pacific region is not an extension of any superpower.

    All geopolitical and geo-economic competition in this region must be managed well in order to avoid conflict.

    Indigenous perspectives
    In the Indo-Pacific region, PIF and the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) are important partners for ASEAN. Both are original intergovernmental organisations in the Indo-Pacific, making them vital in promoting a perception of the Indo-Pacific that aligns with the framework and perspective of indigenous populations.

    On the other hand, Indonesia’s commitment to the principle of non-alignment was tested. Indonesia, which has a free-active foreign policy policy, emphasises that it is not looking for enemies.

    However, can Indonesia guarantee the Pacific Islands that the friendship offered is sincere and will not force them to form camps?

    At the same time, the Pacific community is also observing Indonesia’s sincerity in resolving various cases of human rights violations, especially in Papua. An open dialogue on this issue could be evidence of Indonesia’s democratic maturity.

    Republished from Kompas in partnership with The University of the South Pacific.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Jai Bharadwaj of The Australia Today

    A pivotal book, Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, has been released at the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference hosted by the University of the South Pacific earlier this month in Suva, Fiji.

    This conference, the first of its kind in 20 years, served as a crucial platform to address the pressing challenges and core issues faced by Pacific media.

    Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, the convenor of the conference and co-editor of the new book, emphasised the conference’s primary goals — to stimulate research, discussion, and debate on Pacific media, and to foster a deeper understanding of its challenges.

    “Our region hasn’t escaped the calamitous impacts of the two biggest events that have shaken the media sector — digital disruption and the covid-19 pandemic,” he said.

    “Both events have posed significant challenges for news media organisations and journalists, to the point of being an existential threat to the industry as we know it. This isn’t very well known or understood outside the news media industry.”

    Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, authored by Dr Singh, Fiji Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad, and Dr Amit Sarwal, offers a comprehensive collection of interdisciplinary research, insights, and analyses at the intersection of media, conflict, peacebuilding, and development in the Pacific – a region experiencing rapid and profound change.

    The book builds on Dr Singh’s earlier work with Professor Prasad, Media and Development: Issues and Challenges in the Pacific Islands, published 16 years ago.

    Dr Singh noted that media issues had grown increasingly complex due to heightened poverty, underdevelopment, corruption, and political instability.

    “Media and communication play vital roles in the framing of conflict, security, and development in public and political discourses, ultimately influencing progression or regression in peace and stability. This is particularly true in the era of digital media,” Dr Singh said.

    Launching the Waves of Change book
    Launching the Waves of Change book . . . contributor Dr David Robie (from left), co-editor Fiji Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad, PNG Minister of Information and Communication Technology Timothy Masiu, co-editor Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, and co-editor Dr Amit Sarwal. Image: The Australia Today

    Dr Amit Sarwal said that the primary aim of the new book was to address and revisit critical questions linking media, peacebuilding, and development in the Pacific. He expressed a desire to bridge gaps in training, publishing, and enhance practical applications in these vital areas particularly amongst young journalists in the Pacific.

    Winds of Change . . . shedding light on the intricate relationship between media, peace, and development in the Pacific. Image: APMN

    Professor Biman Prasad is hopeful that this collection will shed light on the intricate relationship between media, peace, and development in the Pacific. He stressed the importance of prioritising planning, strategising, and funding in this sector.

    “By harnessing the potential of media for peacebuilding, stakeholders in the Pacific can work towards a more peaceful and prosperous future for all,” Professor Prasad added.

    Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific has been published under a joint collaboration of Australia’s Kula Press and India’s Shhalaj Publishing House.

    The book features nine chapters authored by passionate researchers and academics, including David Robie, John Rabuogi Ahere, Sanjay Ramesh, Kalinga Seneviratne, Kylie Navuku, Narayan Gopalkrishnan, Hurriyet Babacan, Usha Sundar Harris, and Asha Chand.

    Dr Robie is founding editor of Pacific Journalism Review, which also celebrated 30 years of publishing at the book launch.

    The 2024 Pacific International Media Conference was organised in partnership with the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN).

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Australia Today

    Here is the livestream of Dr David Robie’s keynote address “Frontline Media Faultlines: How Critical Journalism Can Survive Against the Odds” at the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference in Suva, Fiji, earlier this month.

    Asia Pacific Media Network deputy chair Dr David Robie
    Asia Pacific Media Network deputy chair Dr David Robie . . . giving his keynote address at the 2024 Pacific Media Conference. Image: TOT screenshot/Café Pacific

    The conference was hosted by the University of the South Pacific journalism programme in collaboration with the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) on 4-6 July 2024.

    Dr Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report and deputy chair of the APMN, is introduced by Professor Cherian George of Hong Kong Baptist University.


    Dr David Robie’s keynote address on July 4.  Livestream video: The Australia Today

    Republished from The Australia Today’s YouTube channel and Café Pacific with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Ivy Mallam of Wansolwara

    Media professionals have been urged to undergo gender sensitisation training to produce more inclusive, accurate and ethical representation of women in the news.

    Fiji Women’s Rights Movement executive director Nalini Singh emphasised that such training would help avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes and promote diverse perspectives, ensuring media coverage reflects the realities of all genders.

    She made these comments during her keynote address at a panel discussion on “Gender and Media in Fiji and the Pacific” at the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference at the Suva Holiday Inn in Fiji on July 4-6.

    In her presentation, Singh highlighted the highest rates of gender violence and other forms of discrimination against women in the region.

    She said the Pacific region had, among the highest rates of gender-based violence in the world, with ongoing efforts to provide protection mechanisms and work towards prevention.

    Gender and Media in the Pacific panel
    Head of USP Journalism Associate Professor Shailendra Singh (from left); ABC journalist Lice Movono; Communications adviser for Pacific Women Lead Jacqui Berrell; Tavuli News editor Georgina Kekea; and Fiji Women’s Rights Movement executive director Nalini Singh during the panel discussion on Gender and Media in the Pacific. Image: Monika Singh/Wansolwara

    She highlighted that women in Fiji and the Pacific carried a disproportionate burden of unpaid care work, spending approximately three times as much time on domestic chores and caregiving as men.

    This limits their opportunities for income-generating activities and personal development.

    Labour participation low
    According to Singh, women’s labour force participation remains low — 34 percent in Samoa and 84 percent in the Solomon Islands. The underemployment of women restricts economic growth and perpetuates income inequality, leaving families with single earners, often males with less financial stability.

    She highlighted that women were significantly underrepresented in leadership positions as well. In Fiji, women held only 21 percent of board seats, 11 percent of board chairperson roles, and 30 percent of chief executive officer positions.

    Despite numerous commitments from the United Nations and other bodies over past decades, including the Beijing Platform for Action and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Singh pointed out that gender equality remained a distant goal.

    The World Economic Forum estimates that closing the overall gender gap will take 131 years, with economic parity taking 169 years and political parity taking 162 years at the current rate of progress.

    Singh shared that women were more negatively impacted on by climate change due to limited access to resources and information, adding that media often depicted women as caregivers and community leaders during climate-related disasters, highlighting their increased burdens and risks.

    The efforts made by FWRM in addressing sexual harassment in the workplace was also highlighted at the conference, with a major reference to the research and advocacy by the organisation that has contributed to policy changes that include sexual harassment as a cause for disciplinary action under employment regulations.

    Fiji Women’s Rights Movement’s Programme director Laisa Bulatale
    Fiji Women’s Rights Movement’s programme director Laisa Bulatale (from left); Tavuli News editor Georgina Kekea; ABC journalist Lice Movono; and head of USP Journalism Associate Professor Shailendra Singh. Image: Monika Singh/Wansolwara

    Singh challenged the conference attendees to prioritise creating safer workplaces for women in media. She urged academics, media organisations, students, and funders to take concrete actions to stop sexual harassment and gender-based violence.

    “We must commit to fostering workplaces and online platforms where everyone feels safe and respected.

    ‘Free from fear’
    “Together, we can create environments free from fear and discrimination. Enough is enough,” Singh urged, emphasising the need for collective commitment and action from all stakeholders.

    The conference, the first of its kind in 20 years, was organised by The University of the South Pacific’s Journalism Programme in collaboration with the Pacific Islands News Association and the Asia Pacific Media Network.

    It was officially opened by chief guest Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji and the Minister for Trade, Co-operatives, Small and Medium Enterprises and Communications Manoa Kamikamica.

    Kamikamica said the Fijian government stood firm in its commitment to safeguarding media freedom, as evidenced by recent strides such as the repeal of restrictive media laws and the revitalisation of the Fiji Media Council.

    Papua New Guinea Minister for Communication and Information Technology Timothy Masiu was also present at the official dinner of the conference on July 4.

    Fiji's Manoa Kamikamica (left) and Papua New Guinea's Timothy Masiu.
    Conference chief guest Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji and the Minister for Trade, Co-operatives, Small and Medium Enterprises and Communications Manoa Kamikamica (left) and Papua New Guinea Minister for Communication and Information Technology, Timothy Masiu. Image: Wansolwara

     

    He said the conference theme “Navigating Challenges and Shaping Futures in Pacific Media Research and Practice” was appropriate and timely.

    “If anything, it reminds us all of the critical role that the media continues to play in shaping public discourse and catalysing action on issues affecting our Pacific.”

    Launch of PJR
    The official dinner included the launch of the 30th anniversary edition of the Pacific Journalism Review (PJR) and launch of the book Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, which is edited by the Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad and Dr Amit Sarwal, a former senior lecturer and deputy head of school (research) at USP.

    The PJR is the only academic journal in the region that publishes research specifically focused on Pacific media.

    The conference was sponsored the US Embassy in Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga and Tuvalu, the International Fund for Public Interest Media, the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme, Fiji Women’s Rights Movement, New Zealand Science Media Centre and the Pacific Women Lead – Pacific Community.

    With more than 100 attendees from 11 countries, including 50 presenters, the conference provided a platform for discussions on issues and the future.

    The core issues that were raised included media freedom, media capacity building through training and financial support, the need for more research in Pacific media, especially in media and gender, and some other core areas, and challenges facing the media sector in the region, especially in the wake of the digital disruption and the covid-19 pandemic.

    Ivy Mallam is a final-year student journalist at The University of the South Pacific, Laucala Campus. Republished in collaboration with Wansolwara.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Fijivillage News

    As an economy, Fiji has paid a “very high price for being unable to protect freedom” but people can speak and criticise the government freely now, says Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad.

    He highlighted the “high price” while launching the new book titled Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, which he also co-edited, at the Pacific International Media conference in Suva last week.

    Prasad, a former University of the South Pacific (USP) economics professor, said that he, in a deeply personal way, knew how the economy had been affected when he saw the debt numbers and what the government had inherited.

    Professor Prasad says the government had reintroduced media self-regulation and “we can actually feel the freedom everywhere, including in Parliament”.

    USP head of journalism associate professor Shailendra Singh and former USP lecturer and co-founder of The Australia Today Dr Amrit Sarwal also co-edited the book with Professor Prasad.

    While also speaking during the launch, PNG Minister for Information and Communications Technology Timothy Masiu expressed support for the Fiji government repealing the media laws that curbed freedom in Fiji in the recent past.

    He said his Department of ICT had set up a social media management desk to monitor the ever-increasing threats on Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and other online platforms.


    Fiji Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad speaking at the book launch. Video: Fijivillage News

    While speaking about the Draft National Media Development Policy of PNG, Masiu said the draft policy aimed to:
    The new book, Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific
    The new book, Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific. Image: Kula Press
    • promote media self-regulation;
    • improve government media capacity;
    • roll out media infrastructure for all; and
    • diversify content and quota usage for national interest.

    He said that to elevate media professionalism in PNG, the policy called for developing media self-regulation in the country without direct government intervention.

    Strike a balance
    Masiu said the draft policy also intended to strike a balance between the media’s ongoing role in transparency and accountability on the one hand, and the dissemination of developmental information, on the other hand.

    He said it was not an attempt by the government to restrict the media in PNG and the media in PNG enjoyed “unprecedented freedom” and an ability to report as they deemed appropriate.

    The PNG Minister said their leaders were constantly being put in the spotlight.

    While they did not necessarily agree with many of the daily news media reports, the governmenr would not “suddenly move to restrict the media” in PNG in any form.

    The 30th anniversary edition of the research journal Pacific Journalism Review, founded by former USP Journalism Programme head Professor David Robie at the University of Papua New Guinea, was also launched at the event.

    The PJR has published more than 1100 research articles over the past 30 years and is the largest media research archive in the region.

    Republished from Fijivillage News with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Moera Tuilaepa-Taylor, RNZ Pacific manager

    A group of regional and international media representatives met at a forum in Fiji last week to discuss some of the challenges and opportunities facing journalists in the Pacific.

    The three-day conference brought together people from the media industry, academics, civil society, and other interested parties.

    A budding Fiji journalist Shivaali Shrutika said that newsrooms needed to evolve with the times.

    “Transformation is important, wherever you are, and this is my observation,” she said.

    “But in any space we work, particularly in mainstream media, we are reaching out to the communities that we want to become the voice for, but first we need to work on ourselves to be better people to understand them and then portray their minds and their thoughts to our audiences.”

    She said every journalist and person involved in the newsroom should have a positive environment to work in.

    “Because in journalism there is pressure, and there are deadlines in that space, it is important to have positive energy and a flexible environment to work in where everyone’s work is appreciated, especially for those trying as it is important to help boost people’s confidence and create those spaces.”

    The next generation of Pacific journalists at the Pacific media conference in Fiji
    The next generation of Pacific journalists at the media conference in Fiji with an organiser, Monika Singh (third from right). Image: Moera Tuilaepa-Taylor/RNZ

    Lack of support
    She said some young journalists left the profession due to a lack of support from more experienced reporters.

    “Young journalists need this as they are new to the industry and unsure of their job, and when they are ignored, it can lower their confidence.”

    Kaneta Namimatau is a final-year journalism student at the University of the South Pacific’s journalism programme.

    “This is the biggest media conference I have been to and the first one in Fiji in 20 years,” he said.

    He said the stories of intimidation and harassment that journalists in Fiji had faced, under the Media Industry Development Act, were very challenging to hear.

    For him, the most powerful discussion at the conference was a panel on the “prevalence and impact of sexual harassment on female journalists”.

    The sexual harassment of women journalists in Fiji is a major problem, according to a study published earlier this year.

    ‘Disheartening’ experience
    “I found that disheartening to hear as it is something that I would hate for my sisters to have to experience in the workplace.”

    Namimatau said the conference reinforced his decision to become a journalist and work in the Fiji news arena.

    “I think I can contribute more to Fiji and tell the stories of the Banaba people, my people. I also want to represent my people from Rabi.”

    The conference included academics, like USP’s associate professor Shailendra Singh, who was chair of the Pacific International Media Conference.

    Dr Singh said it was a critical time for journalists in the region.

    “Mainly, for two reasons, the digital disruption that we know has siphoned off huge amounts of advertising revenue from the media industry and mainstream media, as well as covid-19 which worsened the situation.

    “I think most media organisations are struggling to survive.”

    This was a panel on Pacific Media, Geopolitics and Regional Reporting. Speakers were Lice Movono, Marsali Mackinnon, Kalafi Moala, Nic Maclellan and Dr Nicholas Hoare.Moderator: Dr Shailendra Singh.
    This was a panel on Pacific Media, Geopolitics and Regional Reporting. Speakers were (from left) Nic Maclellan, Marsali Mackinnon, Kalafi Moala (standing), Lice Movono, with Dr Shailendra Singh moderating. Image: RNZ Pacific

    Dr Singh is coordinator of the journalism course at the University of the South Pacific.

    He said the papers tabled and some of the discussions that took place would be published in Pacific Journalism Review.

    The 2023 lifting of the FijiFirst government’s 2010 draconian media act, which involved constant censorship, has created a new environment in which Fiji journalists no longer operate in fear.

    No ‘shying away’
    Asia Pacific Report
    publisher and editor Dr David Robie said this was the sort of conference that Fiji needed right now” — a forum that did not “shy away” from the challenges facing reporters in the region.

    Dr Robie described the panels, in particular the discussion around sexual harassment in Pacific journalism, as the best he had ever attended.

    Other panels dealt with similarly difficult topics such as climate change, and stress/burn-out within the industry.

    This is the first conference of its kind in Fiji in 20 years, and Dr Singh hopes that the delegates can take back what they have learned, to their newsrooms.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Stockholm, July 11, 2024 – Azerbaijani authorities have extended the pretrial detentions of 11 journalists in recent weeks as part of an ongoing crackdown on the country’s few remaining independent media outlets.

    The journalists are among 13 media workers from four independent outlets charged since November with currency smuggling related to alleged receipt of Western donor funding. The charges have been brought amid a decline in relations between Azerbaijan and the West and as the country prepares to host the COP29 climate conference in November.

    “Azerbaijan must stop using incarceration and travel bans as a tactic to silence and intimidate journalists,” said Carlos Martínez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director, in New York. “The authorities should drop all charges and restrictions on their movements and immediately release those still in detention.”

    Pretrial detentions of the following journalists have been extended since June 10:
    * Investigative journalist Hafiz Babali ( two months and one week extension, July 9)
    * Toplum TV video editor Mushfig Jabbar (three-month extension, July 4)
    * Toplum TV founder Alasgar Mammadli (three-month extension, July 3)
    * Kanal 13 director Aziz Orujov (three-month extension, June 25)
    * Kanal 13 journalist Shamo Eminov (three-month extension, June 25)
    * Meclis.info founder Imran Aliyev (two-month extension, June 13)
    * Abzas Media director Ulvi Hasanli, editor-in-chief Sevinj Vagifgizi, and project manager Mahammad Kekalov (three-month extension, June 12)
    * Abzas Media journalist Nargiz Absalamova (three-month extension, June 11)
    * Abzas Media journalist Elnara Gasimova (two-month extension, June 10).   

    Authorities have rejected multiple petitions by Mammadli’s lawyers to transfer him to house arrest so he can undergo further tests for suspected thyroid cancer and he has filed a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Council following what relatives say was an incomplete medical examination conducted while he was under police guard.

    Toplum TV journalists Farid Ismayilov and Elmir Abbasov have been released under travel bans pending trial.

    All of the journalists face up to eight years in prison if convicted under Article 206.3.2 of Azerbaijan’s criminal code. Azerbaijani legislation requires official approval for foreign grants, which is routinely denied, while authorities exert pressure on advertisers to squeeze out domestic sources of funding.

    Separately, police questioned Shamshad Agha, head of independent news website Arqument.az and a former Toplum TV journalist, on July 5 as a witness in the Toplum TV case and informed him that he was under a travel ban, the journalist told local media. CPJ is investigating reports that at least 20 other journalists may also be banned from leaving the country and that some are also subject to bank account freezes.

    Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, who secured a fifth consecutive term in February, has rejected criticism of the arrests, saying Azerbaijan “must protect [its] media environment from external negative influences” and media representatives “who illegally receive funding from abroad” were arrested within the framework of the law.

    CPJ emailed the Ministry of Internal Affairs for comment on the pretrial extensions and travel bans and the Penitentiary Service for comment on Mammadli’s medical examination, but did not receive any replies.


    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.