Category: Media

  • Is it possible for an entire ‘mainstream’ media system – every newspaper, website, TV channel – to completely suppress one side of a crucial argument without anyone expressing outrage, or even noticing? Consider the following.

    In February 2022, Nigel Farage, former and future leader of the Reform UK party, tweeted that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was:

    ‘A consequence of EU and NATO expansion, which came to a head in 2014. It made no sense to poke the Russian bear with a stick.’

    In a recent interview, the BBC reminded Farage of this comment. He responded:

    ‘Why did I say that? It was obvious to me that the ever-eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union was giving this man [Putin] a reason to his Russian people to say they’re coming for us again, and to go to war.

    ‘We’ve provoked this war – of course it’s his fault – he’s used what we’ve done as an excuse.’

    The BBC quickly made this a major news story by publishing a front page, top headline piece by BBC journalist Becky Morton who cited, and repeated, high-level sources attacking Farage. Morton wrote:

    ‘Former Conservative Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, who is not standing in the election, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme Mr Farage was like a “pub bore we’ve all met at the end of the bar”.’

    And:

    ‘Conservative Home Secretary James Cleverly said Mr Farage was echoing Mr Putin’s “vile justification” for the war and Labour branded him “unfit” for any political office.’

    Morton then repeated both criticisms:

    ‘Mr Wallace – who oversaw the UK’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 – said Mr Farage “is a bit like that pub bore we’ve all met at the end of the bar” and often presents “very simplistic answers” to complex problems.’

    And:

    ‘Conservative Home Secretary James Cleverly said Mr Farage was “echoing Putin’s vile justification for the brutal invasion of Ukraine”.’

    Morton piled on the pain:

    ‘Labour defence spokesman John Healey said Mr Farage’s comments made him “unfit for any political office in our country, let alone leading a serious party in Parliament”.

    ‘Former Nato Secretary General Lord Robertson accused Mr Farage of “parroting the Kremlin Line” and “producing new excuses for the brutal, unprovoked attack”.’

    Wallace, Cleverly, Healey and Robertson are all, of course, influential, high-profile figures; compiling their criticisms in this way sent a powerful message to BBC readers. Remarkably, one might think – given the BBC’s supposed devotion to presenting ‘both sides’ of an argument – Morton offered no source of any kind in support of Farage’s argument.

    The BBC intensified its coverage by opening a ‘Live’ blog (reserved for top news stories, disasters and scandals) on the issue, titled:

    ‘Farage “won’t apologise” for Ukraine comments after Starmer and Sunak criticism’

    The BBC reported:

    ‘Keir Starmer has called Nigel Farage’s comments on Ukraine “disgraceful” as Rishi Sunak says they play into Putin’s hands’

    Again, nowhere in the ‘Live’ blog coverage did the BBC cite arguments in support of Farage’s argument. Is it because they don’t exist?

    In June 2022, Ramzy Baroud interviewed Noam Chomsky:

    ‘Chomsky told us that it “should be clear that the (Russian) invasion of Ukraine has no (moral) justification.” He compared it to the US invasion of Iraq, seeing it as an example of “supreme international crime.” With this moral question settled, Chomsky believes that the main “background” of this war, a factor that is missing in mainstream media coverage, is “NATO expansion.”

    ‘”This is not just my opinion,” said Chomsky, “it is the opinion of every high-level US official in the diplomatic services who has any familiarity with Russia and Eastern Europe. This goes back to George Kennan and, in the 1990s, Reagan’s ambassador Jack Matlock, including the current director of the CIA; in fact, just everybody who knows anything has been warning Washington that it is reckless and provocative to ignore Russia’s very clear and explicit red lines. That goes way before (Vladimir) Putin, it has nothing to do with him; (Mikhail) Gorbachev, all said the same thing. Ukraine and Georgia cannot join NATO, this is the geostrategic heartland of Russia.”’

    We know people are interested in Chomsky’s views on the Ukraine war because when we posted a comment from him on X it received 430,000 views and 7,000 likes (huge numbers by our standards).

    In 2022, John Pilger commented:

    ‘The news from the war in Ukraine is mostly not news, but a one-sided litany of jingoism, distortion, omission.  I have reported a number of wars and have never known such blanket propaganda.

    ‘In February, Russia invaded Ukraine as a response to almost eight years of killing and criminal destruction in the Russian-speaking region of Donbass on their border.

    ‘In 2014, the United States had sponsored a coup in Kiev that got rid of Ukraine’s democratically elected, Russian-friendly president and installed a successor whom the Americans made clear was their man.’

    Pilger added:

    ‘Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is wanton and inexcusable. It is a crime to invade a sovereign country. There are no “buts” – except one.

    ‘When did the present war in Ukraine begin and who started it? According to the United Nations, between 2014 and this year, some 14,000 people have been killed in the Kiev regime’s civil war on the Donbass. Many of the attacks were carried out by neo-Nazis.’

    In May 2023, economist Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University wrote:

    ‘Regarding the Ukraine War, the Biden administration has repeatedly and falsely claimed that the Ukraine War started with an unprovoked attack by Russia on Ukraine on February 24, 2022. In fact, the war was provoked by the U.S. in ways that leading U.S. diplomats anticipated for decades in the lead-up to the war, meaning that the war could have been avoided and should now be stopped through negotiations.

    ‘Recognizing that the war was provoked helps us to understand how to stop it. It doesn’t justify Russia’s invasion.’ (Our emphasis)

    Sachs has previously been presented as a credible source by the BBC on other issues. In 2007, Sachs gave five talks for the BBC’s Reith Lectures.

    The New Yorker magazine described political scientist Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago as ‘one of the most famous critics of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War’. Mearsheimer commented:

    ‘I think the evidence is clear that we did not think he [Putin] was an aggressor before February 22, 2014. This is a story that we invented so that we could blame him. My argument is that the West, especially the United States, is principally responsible for this disaster. But no American policymaker, and hardly anywhere in the American foreign-policy establishment, is going to want to acknowledge that line of argument…’

    There are numerous other credible sources, including Benjamin Abelow, author of How The West Brought War to Ukraine (Siland Press, 2022) and Richard Sakwa, Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands (Yale University Press, 2022). Journalist Ian Sinclair, author of The March That Shook Blair (Peace News, 2013), published a collection of material titled:

    ‘Testimony from US government and military officials, and other experts, on the role of NATO expansion in creating the conditions for the Russian invasion of Ukraine’

    Sinclair cited, for example, current CIA Director William Burns:

    ‘Sitting at the embassy in Moscow in the mid-nineties, it seemed to me that NATO expansion was premature at best and needlessly provocative at worst.’

    And George F. Kennan, a leading US Cold War diplomat:

    ‘…something of the highest importance is at stake here. And perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era’.

    We can understand why the BBC might want to cite Sunak, Starmer, Wallace, Cleverly, Healey and Robertson, but we can’t understand why it would ignore the counterarguments and sources cited above.

    It gets worse. A piece in the Daily Mail essentially repeated the BBC performance with endless vitriolic comments again cited from Sunak, Starmer, Cleverly, Healey, Robertson and several others. And again, no counterarguments.

    A Reuter’s report quoted Sunak and Healey but no counterarguments.

    ITV cited former prime minister Boris Johnson:

    ‘To try and spread the blame is morally repugnant and parroting Putin’s lies.’

    No counterarguments were allowed, other than from Farage himself. At a recent rally, he held up a front-page headline from the i newspaper in 2016, which read, tragicomically:

    ‘Boris blames EU for war in Ukraine’

    That about sums up the state of both Boris Johnson and UK politics generally.

    The Telegraph cited Cleverly and other high-profile sources attacking Farage:

    ‘Tobias Ellwood, the former Tory defence minister, told The Telegraph: “Churchill will be turning in his grave. Putin, already enjoying how Farage is disrupting British politics, will be delighted to hear this talk of appeasement entering our election debate.”

    ‘Lord West of Spithead, the former chief of the naval staff, said: “Anyone who gives any seeming excuse to president Putin and his disgraceful attack … is standing into danger as regards their views on world affairs.” James Cleverly, the Home Secretary, wrote on X, formerly Twitter: “Just Farage echoing Putin’s vile justification for the brutal invasion of Ukraine.”

    ‘Liam Fox, the former Tory defence secretary, told The Telegraph: “The West did not ‘provoke this war’ in Ukraine and it is shocking that Nigel Farage should say so.”’ (Daily Telegraph, ‘Farage: West provoked Russia to attack Ukraine’, 22 June 2024)

    Again, all alternative views were ignored as non-existent.

    In the Independent, journalist Tom Watling packed his article with comments from Sunak, Starmer and Wallace. Again, no counterarguments were allowed.

    The Guardian cited Sunak, Healey and Cleverly. Again, no counterarguments were included. (Peter Walker, ‘Nigel Farage claims Russia was provoked into Ukraine war’, The Guardian, 21 June 2024)

    With such limited resources, it is difficult for us to wade through all mentions of this story, but we will stick our necks out and suggest that it is quite possible that no sources supporting Farage’s argument have been cited in any UK national newspaper.

    By any rational accounting, this ‘mainstream’ coverage is actually a form of totalitarian propaganda. It has denied the British public the ability to even understand the criticisms. Most people reading these reports will simply not understand why Farage made the claim – it is a taboo subject in ‘mainstream’ coverage – and so they have no way of making sense of either his argument or the backlash. This is deep bias presented as ‘news’. It is fake news.

    And this suppression of honest journalism in relation to one of the most dangerous and devastating wars of our time, in which our own country is deeply involved, is happening in the run up to what is supposed to be a democratic election.

    None of the above is intended as a defence of Farage’s wider political stance. On the contrary, we agree with political journalist Peter Oborne:

    ‘Farage, a close ally of Donald Trump, who has supported Marine Le Pen in France and spoken at an AfD rally in Germany, fits naturally into the rancid politics of the far-right movements making ground across Europe and in the United States.’

    Farage and his far-right views have been endlessly platformed by the BBC.

    Needless to say, the Ukraine war is only one of many key issues that are off the agenda for our choice-as-no-choice political system. In a rare example of dissent, Owen Jones commented in the Guardian:

    ‘Is this a serious country or not? It is egregious enough that this general election campaign is so stripped of discussion about the defining issues facing us at home for the next half decade, whether that be public spending, the NHS or education. But it is especially shocking how quickly the butchery in Gaza – and the position of this imploding government and its successor – has been forgotten.’

    Jones noted:

    ‘On Thursday night’s BBC Question Time leaders’ special, there was not a single question or answer on Gaza.

    ‘Seriously? Clearly this is an issue that matters to many Britons.’

    Earlier this month, Professor Bill McGuire, Emeritus Professor of Geophysical and Climate Hazards at University College London commented:

    ‘The most astonishing thing about the UK election campaign is not what the leaders and parties are saying, but what they are NOT saying

    ‘It beggars belief that the #climate is simply not an issue and – as far as I have heard – has not been addressed by either leader

    ‘Just criminal’

    It works like magic: two major political parties ostensibly representing the ‘left’ and ‘right’ of the political spectrum, but both actually serving the same establishment interests, naturally ignore issues that offend power. Establishment media can then also ignore these issues on the pretext that the party-political system covers the entire spectrum of thinkable thought, and that any ideas outside that ‘spectrum’ have no particular right to be heard at election time. Indeed, to venture beyond the carefully filtered bubble of party politics is seen as actually undemocratic. As one ITV journalist reported:

    ‘Outrage at Nigel Farage’s comments about the war in Ukraine has drawn criticism from all corners of British politics.’

    Not quite. They drew criticism from the select few corners of British politics that are allowed to exist in our ‘managed democracy’.

    The post Did The West Provoke The Ukraine War? Sorry, That Question Has Been Cancelled first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific journalist

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s court hearing in Saipan is set to make “this dot in the middle of the Pacific” the centre of the world for one day, says a CNMI journalist.

    The Northern Marianas — a group of islands in the Micronesian portion of the Pacific with a population of about 50,000 — is gearing up for a landmark legal case.

    In 2010, WikiLeaks released hundreds of thousands of classified US military documents on Washington’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — the largest security breaches of their kind in US military history.

    Assange is expected to plead guilty to a US espionage charge in the US District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands today at 9am local time.

    Saipantribune.com journalist and RNZ Pacific’s Saipan correspondent Mark Rabago will be in court, and said it was a significant moment for Saipan.

    “Not everybody knows Saipan, much less can spell it right. So it’s one of the few times in a decade that CNMI or Saipan is put in the map,” he said.

    He said there was heavy interest from the world’s media and journalists from Japan were expected to fly in overnight.

    ‘Little dot in the middle’
    “It’s significant that our little island, this dot in the middle of the Pacific, is the centre of the world,” Rabago said.

    Assange was flying in from the United Kingdom via Thailand on a private jet, Rabago said.

    He said it was not known exactly why the case was being heard in Saipan, but there was some speculation.

    “He doesn’t want to step foot in the continental US and also Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, is the closest to Australia, aside from Guam,” Rabago said.

    Reuters was reporting Assange was expected to return home to Australia after the hearing.

    Rabago added that Assange probably was not able to get a court date in Guam, and there was a court date open on Saipan.

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

    Julian Assange . . . timeline to freedom?
    Julian Assange . . . timeline to freedom? Image: NZ Herald screenshot/APR/Pacific Media Watch

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Nairobi, June 25, 2024—Kenyan authorities must investigate reports of several journalists attacked while covering protests, desist from intimidating the media, and ensure reliable and secure access to the internet, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Tuesday.

    Thousands of Kenyans have taken to the streets several times since June 18 to protest a proposed law that would significantly increase taxes and express broader concerns about governance in the country. Local and regional press rights organizations said that amid the protests, security personnel acted violently against journalists and briefly detained several members of the press. The broadcaster KTN, which is part of the publicly-listed Standard Media Group, reported on Tuesday, June 25, that authorities threatened to shut it down.

    Beginning on Tuesday afternoon, the Internet Outage Detection and Analysis (IODA) and Cloudflare, two organizations that detect internet outages, reported disruption to the internet in the country as protestors breached parliament buildings in the capital, Nairobi.

    CPJ continues to research reports of press freedom violations connected to the protests; however, due to the ongoing crisis, CPJ was unable to immediately confirm details of the incidents.

    “Journalists covering the protests in Kenya are carrying out a crucial public service. Any attempts to hinder or silence them through physical attacks, threats, or detention are unacceptable in a democratic society,” said CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Muthoki Mumo. “Authorities should credibly investigate attacks on journalists, desist from intimidation or censorship of the press, and urgently ensure that the Kenyan public has reliable access to the internet.”

    On June 18, police assaulted or briefly detained at least five journalists covering protests, according to separate statements by the Media Council of Kenya, a statutory industry regulator, and the Kenya Media Sector Working Group, an umbrella organization for local and regional media rights bodies. In one of these incidents, police briefly detained Standard Media Group video editor Justus Macharia before pushing him out of a moving vehicle, according to a report by the privately owned media outlet, which added that Macharia sustained “non-life-threatening injuries,” without specifying.

    On June 25, freelance journalist Collins Olunga was hit with a teargas canister on his right hand while covering the protests, according to a statement by the International Press Association of East Africa and a report by the state-owned Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC), which interviewed Olunga at the hospital. In that report, Olunga appeared with a bandage on his right hand. CPJ could not immediately confirm the nature of the injuries he sustained.

    On Tuesday, IODA and Cloudflare did not indicate the cause of the internet disruption in Kenya, which they documented as also affecting Uganda and Burundi.

    In Tuesday statements, telecommunication companies Safaricom and Airtel said undersea cables that deliver internet traffic in and out of the country were experiencing outages. On Monday, the Communications Authority, Kenya’s telecommunication regulator, said it did not plan to disrupt the internet.

    Further protests are expected later this week, part of what demonstrators are calling “7 Days of Rage,” according to media reports.

    CPJ’s queries sent via emails and text messages to the Ministry of Interior, Kenya National Police Service, and the Communications Authority on Tuesday night did not receive an immediate response.


    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.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    The reported plea bargain between WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the United States government brings to a close one of the darkest periods in the history of media freedom, says the union for Australian journalists.

    While the details of the deal are still to be confirmed, MEAA welcomed the release of Assange, a Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance member, after five years of relentless campaigning by journalists, unions, and press freedom advocates around the world.

    MEAA remains concerned what the deal will mean for media freedom around the world.

    The work of WikiLeaks at the centre of this case — which exposed war crimes and other wrongdoing by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan — was strong, public interest journalism.

    MEAA fears the deal will embolden the US and other governments around the world to continue to pursue and prosecute journalists who disclose to the public information they would rather keep suppressed.

    MEAA media federal president Karen Percy welcomed the news that Julian Assange has already been released from Belmarsh Prison, where he has been held as his case has wound its way through UK courts.

    “We wish Julian all the best as he is reunited with his wife, young sons and other relatives who have fought tirelessly for his freedom,” she said.

    ‘Relentless battle against this injustice’
    “We commend Julian for his courage over this long period, and his legal team and supporters for their relentless battle against this injustice.

    “We’ve been extremely concerned about the impact on his physical and mental wellbeing during Julian’s long period of imprisonment and respect the decision to bring an end to the ordeal for all involved.

    “The deal reported today does not in any way mean that the struggle for media freedom has been futile; quite the opposite, it places governments on notice that a global movement will be mobilised whenever they blatantly threaten journalism in a similar way.

    Percy said the espionage charges laid against Assange were a “grotesque overreach by the US government” and an attack on journalism and media freedom.

    “The pursuit of Julian Assange has set a dangerous precedent that will have a potential chilling effect on investigative journalism,” she said.

    “The stories published by WikiLeaks and other outlets more than a decade ago were clearly in the public interest. The charges by the US sought to curtail free speech, criminalise journalism and send a clear message to future whistleblowers and publishers that they too will be punished.”

    Percy said was clearly in the public interest and it had “always been an outrage” that the US government sought to prosecute him for espionage for reporting that was published in collaboration with some of the world’s leading media organisations.

    Julian Assange has been an MEAA member since 2007 and in 2011 WikiLeaks won the Outstanding Contribution to Journalism Walkley award, one of Australia’s most coveted journalism awards.

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange boarding his flight
    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange boarding his flight at Stansted airport on the first stage of his journey to Guam. Image: WikiLeaks

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    Papua New Guinean journalist Sincha Dimara, news editor at the online publication InsidePNG, is one of seven recipients of this year’s East-West Center Journalists of Courage Impact Award.

    Pakistani journalist Kamal Siddiqi, former news director at Aaj TV, also received the award last night at the EWC’s International Media Conference in Manila, the organisation announced.

    He was also the first Pakistani to win the biennial award, which honours journalists who have “displayed exceptional commitment to quality reporting and freedom of the press, often under harrowing circumstances”.

    The five other recipients are Tom Grundym, editor-in-chief and founder of Hong Kong Free Press, Alan Miller, founder of the News Literacy Project in Washington DC, Soe Myint, editor-in-chief and managing director at Mizzima Media Group in Yangon, Myanmar, John Nery, columnist and editorial consultant at Rappler in Manila and Ana Marie Pamintuan, editor-in-chief of The Philippine Star.

    Six InsidePNG staff are in Manila at the conference. They were invited to engage in discussions on several different panels relating to the work of InsidePNG in investigative journalism.

    InsidePNG is part of the Pacific Island contingent, supported by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

    Global media event
    The global event brings media professionals from around the world to discuss current trends and challenges faced by the media industry.

    “We are excited to represent InsidePNG at this prestigious international media conference in Manila,” said Charmaine Yanam, chief editor and co-founder of InsidePNG.

    “We are grateful to OCCRP for recognising the importance of an independent newsroom that transmits through it’s continued support in pursuing investigative reporting.”

    This is the second time for InsidePNG to attend this event, the first was in 2022 where only two representatives attended.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Faramarz Farbod: You have taught at Princeton University for four decades; you were the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in Israel (2008-2014); and you are the author of numerous books about global issues and international law. In preparation for this conversation, I have been reading your autobiography, Public Intellectual: The Life of a Citizen Pilgrim (2019). Tell us about yourself and how you became politically engaged in your own words.

    Richard Falk: I grew up in New York City in a kind of typical middle-class, post-religious, Jewish family that had a lot of domestic stress because I had an older sister with mental issues who was hospitalized for most of her life. This caused my parents to divorce because they saw the issues in a very different way. I was brought up by my father. He was a lawyer and quite right-wing, a Cold War advocate, and a friend of some of the prominent people who were anticommunists at that time, including Kerensky, the interim Prime Minister of Russia after the revolution between the Czar and Lenin. My father had a kind of entourage of anti-communist people who were frequent guests. So, I grew up in this kind of conservative, secular environment, post-religious, post any kind of significant cultural relationship to my ethnically Jewish identity.

    I attended a fairly progressive private school that I didn’t like too much because I was more interested in sports than academics at that stage of my life. I managed to go to the university and gradually became more academically oriented. I was jolted into a fit of realism by being on academic probation after my first year at the University of Pennsylvania. That scared me enough that I became a better student. I went to law school after graduating from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in economics. But I knew I didn’t want to be a lawyer in the way my father was. So, it was a very puzzling time. I studied Indian law and language to make myself irrelevant to the law scene in the US. I never thought of myself as an academic because of the mediocre academic record I had managed to compile. When I graduated from law school, I was supposed to go to India on a Fulbright, but it was canceled at the last minute because India hadn’t paid for some grain under the Public Law-480 program [commonly known as Food for Peace signed into law by President Eisenhower in 1954 to liquidate US surplus agricultural products and increasingly used as a policy tool to advance US strategic and diplomatic interests with “friendly” nations]. It turned out Ohio State University was so desperate to fill a vacancy created by the sickness of one of its faculty that they hired me as a visiting professor. I realized immediately that it was a good way out for me. I managed to stay there for six years until I went to Princeton for 40 years.

    I became gradually liberated from my father’s conservatism and achieved a certain kind of political identity while opposing the Vietnam War. That took a very personal turn when I was invited to go to Vietnam in 1968. There I encountered the full force of what it meant to be a Third World country seeking national independence and yet be opposed by colonial and post-colonial intervention. I was very impressed by the Vietnamese leadership, which I had the opportunity to meet. It was very different from the East European and Soviet leadership that I had earlier summoned some contact with. They were very humanistic and intelligent and oriented toward a kind of post-war peace with the US. They were more worried about China than they were about the US because China was their traditional enemy. But it made me see the world from a different perspective. I felt personally transformed and identified with their struggle for independence and the courage and friendship they exhibited towards me.

    FF: What did you teach at Princeton University?

    RF: My academic background was in international law. Princeton had no law school, so in a way, I was a disciplinary refugee. I began teaching international relations as well as international law. The reason they hired me was that they had an endowed chair in international law instead of a law school and they hadn’t been able to find anyone who was trained in law but not so interested in it. They tracked me down in Ohio State and offered me this very good academic opportunity. They invited me as a visiting professor first and then some years later offered me this chair which had accumulated a lot of resources because they had been unable to fill this position and I was able to have a secretary and research assistants and other kinds of perks that are not normal even at a rich university like Princeton. I felt more kind of an outsider there in terms of both social background and political orientation, but it was a very privileged place to be in many ways that had very good facilities, and I was still enough of an athlete to use the tennis and squash courts as a mode of daily therapy.

    FF: Why would the Vietnamese leadership invite you to come to Vietnam to meet them? Was it because you were a professor at a prestigious university, which gave you an elite status, or was it something else?

    RF: I think it was partly because of my background. I had written some law journal articles that had gotten a bit of attention, and somebody must have recommended me. I don’t know. I was somewhat surprised. I was supposed to go with a well-known West Coast author considered a left person, but she got sick, and I was accompanied by a very young lawyer. So, I was basically on my own, inexperienced, and didn’t know what to expect. It seemed a risky thing to do from a professional point of view because I was going as an opponent of an ongoing war. There was a 19th-century law that said if you engage in private diplomacy, you’re subject to some kind of criminal prosecution. I didn’t know what to anticipate. But it turned out this was at a time when the US was at least pretending to seek a peaceful negotiation to end its involvement. So, when I came back, because I had these meetings with the Prime Minister and others who had given me a peace proposal that was better than what Kissinger negotiated many deaths later during the Nixon presidency, the US government rather than prosecuting me, came to debrief me and invited me to the State Department and so on, which was something of a surprise.

    FF: Did the State Department take this peace proposal seriously?

    RF: I don’t know what happened internally in the government. I made them aware of it. It was given a front-page New York Times coverage for a couple of days. There was this atmosphere at that time, in the spring of 1968, that was disposed toward finding some way out of this impasse that had been reached in the war itself. The war couldn’t be won, and the phrase of that time was “peace with honor” though it was hard to have much honor after all the devastation that had been carried out.

    FF: What were the elements of that peace proposal given to you that were striking to you?

    RF: The thing that surprised me was that they agreed to allow a quite large number of American troops to stay in Vietnam and to be present while a pre-election was internationally monitored in the southern part of Vietnam. They envisioned some kind of coalition government emerging from those elections. It was quite forthcoming given the long struggle and the heavy casualties they had endured. It was a war in which the future in a way was anticipated; the US completely dominated the military dimensions of the war, land, sea, and air, but managed to lose the war. That puzzle between having military superiority and yet failing to control the political outcome is a pattern that was repeated in several places, including later in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    It is a lesson the US elites can not learn. They are unable to learn because of the strength of the military-industrial-congressional complex. They can’t accept the limited agency of military power in the post-colonial world. Therefore, they keep repeating this Vietnam pattern in different forms. They learned some political lessons like not having as much TV coverage of the US casualties. One of the things that was often said by those who supported the war was that it wasn’t lost in Vietnam; it was lost in the US living rooms. Years later, we heard the same concerns with “embedded” journalists with combat forces, for instance, in the first Gulf War. It was a time when they abolished the draft and relied on a voluntary, professional armed forces. They did their best to pacify American political engagement through more control of the media and other techniques. But it didn’t change this pattern of heavy military involvement and political disappointment.

    FF: This pattern maybe repeating itself in Gaza as we speak. But I would like to ask you a follow up question. You said that the reason essentially for the persistence of that pattern is the existence of a powerful military-industrial-congressional complex. Are you assuming that the US political leadership is wishes to learn the hard lessons but gets blocked by the influence of this complex? Could it be that the US ruling class is in fact so immersed in imperial consciousness that it cannot learn the right lessons after all? When the US leaders look at debacles in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, don’t they seek to learn lessons to pursue their imperial policies more effectively the next time? Which of these perspectives is closer to reality in your thinking?

    RF: The essential point is that the political gatekeepers only select potential leaders who either endorse or consider it a necessity to go along with this consensus as to putting the military budget above partisan politics and making it a matter of bipartisan consensus with small agreements at the margins about whether this or that weapon system should be given priority and greater resource. Occasionally one or two people in Congress will challenge that kind of idea but nothing politically significant in terms of friction. There’s no friction in terms of this way of seeing the projection of US influence in the post-colonial world.

    FF: Let’s assume that’s correct, and I think you’re right about that. But why is that the case? Is it because the US political class knows that a modern capitalist political economy and state needs this military industrial complex as a kind of floor to the economy, that this floor needs to exist, otherwise, if you remove it, stagnationist tendencies will prevail? Is this military industrial floor a requirement of modern US capitalism? Is that why they’re thinking in this way?

    RF: It is a good question. I’m not sure. I think that the core belief is one that’s deep in the political culture. That somehow strength is measured by military capabilities and the underrating of other dimensions of influence and leadership. This is sustained by Wall Street kind of perspectives that see the arms industry as very important component of the economy and by the government bureaucracy that became militarized as a consequence first of World War Two and then along the Cold War. It overbalanced support for the military as a kind of essential element of government credibility. You couldn’t break into those Washington elites unless you were seen as a supporter of this level of consensus. It’s similar in a way to the unquestioning bipartisan support for Israel, which was, until this Gaza crisis, beyond political questioning, and still is beyond political questioning in Washington, despite it being subjected for the first time to serious political doubts among the citizens.

    FF: I think you’re right. There is a cultural element here as well in addition to the uses of military Keynesianism for domestic economic reasons and for imperial reasons to project power. I want to ask you one final question about your reflections on Vietnam. What was the quarrel about from the US perspective? Why was the US so keen on having decades of engagement after the French were defeated in early 1950s all the way to mid 1970s? Why did the US engage in such destructive behavior?

    RF: I think there are two main reasons. Look at the Pentagon Papers that were released by Daniel Ellsberg; they were a study of the US involvement in Vietnam.

    FF: In 1971.

    RF: Yes in 1971, but they go back to the beginning of the engagement. The US didn’t even distinguish between Vietnam and China. They called the Vietnamese Chicoms in those documents. Part of the whole motivation was this obsession with containing China after its revolution in 1949. The second idea was this falling dominoes image that if Vietnam went in a communist direction, other countries in the region would follow and that would have a significant bearing on the global balance and on the whole geopolitics of containment. The third reason was the US trying to exhibit solidarity with the French, who had been defeated in the Indochina war, and to at least limit the scope of that defeat and assert a kind of Western ideological hegemony in the rest of Vietnam.

    FF: I think Indonesia was probably more important from the US perspective. Once there was a successful US-backed coup d’etat in 1965, some in the US argued that perhaps it’s over. The US has won and achieved its strategic objectives by securing Indonesia from falling in the image of the falling dominoes. The US could have gotten out of Vietnam then. But it didn’t. Maybe this was because of concerns about losing credibility. Do you have any thoughts on this matter?

    RF: Yes, that’s a very important observation and it’s hard to document because people don’t acknowledge it fully. The support that the US and particularly CIA gave to the Indonesian effort at genocidal assault on the Sukarno elements of pro-Marxist, anti-Western constituents there resulted in a very deadly killing fields. Indonesia was from a resource and a geopolitical point of view far more important than Vietnam. But Vietnam had built-up a constituency within the armed forces and the counterinsurgency specialists that created a strong push to demonstrate that the US could succeed in this kind of war. The defeat which eventually was acknowledged in effect was thought correctly to inhibit support within the United States for future regime changing interventions and other kinds of foreign policy.

    FF: Let’s move on to another politically engaged episode in your life. You were engaged with the revolutionary processes in Iran in late 1970s. You even met Ayatollah Khomeini in 1978 in a three-hour-long meeting prior to his departure from Paris to Iran in early 1979 when he founded the Islamic Republic and assumed its Supreme Leadership until his death in 1989. What were your thoughts about the Iranian revolution? And what are your reflections today given the vantage point of 45 years of post-revolutionary history? Also tell us what were your impressions of Ayatollah Khomeini in that long meeting you had with him?

    RF: My initial involvement with Iran was a consequence of several Iranian students of mine who were active at Princeton. Princeton had several prominent meetings in 1978 during the year of the Revolution. As a person who had been involved with Vietnam, I was approached by these students to speak and to be involved with their activities. They were all at least claiming to be victims of SAVAK, the Iranian intelligence service under the Shah that was accused of torturing people in prison. I was convinced that after Vietnam, the next place the US would be involved in a regressive manner would be in Iran in support the Shah. Recall that Henry Kissinger in his book on diplomacy says that the Shah was the rarest of things and an unconditional US ally. By that he meant that he did things for Israel that were awkward even for the US to do and he supplied energy to South Africa during the apartheid period. This sense that there would be a confrontation of some sort in Iran guided my early thinking. Then I also had this friendship with Mansour Farhang, who was an intellectual opponent of the Shah’s regime [and later the revolutionary Iran’s first ambassador to the UN] and represented the Iranian bazaari [pertaining to the traditional merchant class] view of Iranian politics that objected to the Shah’s efforts at neoliberal economic globalization. All that background accounted for my invitation to visit Iran and learn first-hand what the revolution was about.

    I went with the former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a young religious leader. Three of us spent two quite fascinating weeks in Iran in the moment of maximum ferment because the Shah left the country while we were there. It was a very interesting psychological moment. The people we were with in the city of Qazvin on the day the Shah left couldn’t believe it. They thought it was a trick to get people to show their real political identity as a prelude to a new round of repression. During the Carter presidency, the US was very supportive of the Shah’s use of force in suppressing internal revolt. They had an interval at [the September 1978] Camp David talks, seeking peace between Egypt and Israel, to congratulate the Shah on the shooting of demonstrators [on 8 September in Jaleh Square] in Tehran. That was seen as the epitome of interference in Iran’s internal politics.

    After our visit, we met many religious leaders and secular opponents of the Shah’s government. It was a time when Carter sent the NATO General Huyser to Iran to try to help the armed forces. Because our visit went well, we were given the impression that as a reward for our visit we would have this meeting with Khomeini in Paris, which we did. My impression was of a very severe individual, but very intelligent, with very strong eyes that captured your attention. He was impressive in the sense that he started the meeting by asking us questions – quite important ones as things turned out. His main question was: Did we think the US would intervene as it had in the past in 1953 against Mossadeq? Would the US repeat that kind of intervention in the present context? He went on to add that if the US did not intervene, he saw no obstacle to the normalization of relations. That view was echoed by the US ambassador in Iran, William Sullivan, during our meeting with him. Khomeini objected to speaking of the Iranian revolution and insisted on calling it the Islamic revolution. He extended his condemnation of the Shah’s dynasty to Saudi Arabia and the gulf monarchies arguing that they were as decadent and exploitative as was the Shah. He used a very colorful phrase that I remember to this day, which was the Shah had created “a river of blood” between the state and society. His own private ambition was to return to Iran and resume his religious life. He did not want to be a political leader at that point at least or he may not have understood the degree of support that he enjoyed in Iran at that time. He did go back to the religious city of Qom and resumed a religious life but was led to believe that Bazargan, the Prime Minister of Iran’s interim government, was putting people in charge of running the country who were sacrificing revolutionary goals.

    FF: When you met Ayatollah Khomeini, were you aware of the series of lectures he had given in the early 1970s in Najaf while in exile in Iraq that were smuggled via audio cassettes into mosque networks inside Iran and later published as a book titled Islamic Government: Governance of the Jurist? Some people knew that he had those ideas about an Islamic state, but he did not talk about it in Paris. Did he talk about it when you met him?

    RF: He didn’t talk about it. I was superficially familiar with it. Among the people we met in Tehran was a mathematician who was very familiar with that part of Khomeini’s writing and was scared by what it portended. Of course, Khomeini, as I said, did not anticipate or at least said he did not anticipate his own political leadership, and may have regarded that vision in his writing as something he hoped to achieve but did not necessarily think of himself as the agent of its implementation. I have no idea about that.

    FF: In retrospect, what are your general reflections looking back on Iran’s revolution?

    RF: One set of reflections is the revolution’s durability. Whatever failures it has had, it has successfully resisted its internal, regional, and global adversaries. If it had not been tough on its opponents, it probably would not have survived very long. The comparison, for instance, with the Arab Spring’s failures to sustain their upheavals is quite striking, particularly with Egypt when comparing the failure of the Egyptian movement to sustain itself with the Iranian experience and resistance.

    The second thing is disappointment at the failure to develop in more humane directions and the extreme harshness of the treatment of people perceived as their opponent. In that sense, there is no doubt that it has become a repressive theocratic autocracy. But countries like Israel and the US are not completely without some responsibility for that development. There was a kind of induced paranoia in a way because they had real opponents who tried to destabilize it in a variety of ways. The West encouraged Iraq to attack Iran and gave it a kind of green light. The attack involved the idea that they could at least easily control the oil producing parts of Iran, if not bring about the fall of the Khomeini-style regime itself. As often is the case in the US-induced use of force overseas, there are a lot of miscalculations, probably on both sides.

    FF: The US has viewed Iran ever since its revolution as a threat to its geostrategic interests. I think that the “threat” is more the deterrence power of Iran, in other words, Iran’s ability to impose a cost on US operations in the region, oftentimes targeting Iran itself. And of course, Israel, too, is in alliance with the US. Do you agree with this assessment that there is basically no threat to the United States from Iran aside from Iran’s ability to impose costs on US operations in the region, oftentimes against Iran itself?

    RF: I completely agree with that. Iran had initially especially at most an anti-imperial outlook that did not want interference with the national movement. Of course, it wanted to encourage Islamic movements throughout the region and had a certain success. That was viewed in Washington as a geopolitical threat. It was certainly not a national security threat in the conventional sense. But it could be viewed as a threat to the degree to which US hegemony could be maintained in the strategic energy policies that were very important to the US at that time.

    FF: Let’s shift to Palestine-Israel. What is the appropriate historical context for understanding what happened on Oct. 7 and what has been taking place since then in Gaza and the West Bank? We know that the conventional US view distorts reality by talking about this issue as if history began on 7 October with the Hamas attack on southern Israel.

    RF: This is a complicated set of issues to unravel in a brief conversation. But there is no question that the context of the Hamas attack is crucial to understanding its occurrence, even though the attack itself needs to be problematized in terms of whether Israel wanted it to happen or let it happen. They had adequate advance warning; they had all that surveillance technology along the borders with Gaza. The IDF did not respond as it usually does in a short period. It took them five hours, apparently, to arrive at the scene of these events. On the one side, we really don’t know how to perceive that October 7 event. We do know that some worse aspects of it, the beheading of babies, mass rapes, and those kinds of horrifying details, were being manipulated by Israel and its supporters. So, we need an authoritative reconstruction of October 7 itself.

    But even without that reconstruction, we know that Hamas and the Palestinians were being provoked by a series of events. There is a kind of immediate context where Netanyahu goes to the UN General Assembly and waves a map with Palestine essentially erased from it. To Netanyahu, this is the new Middle East without Palestine in it. He has made it clear recently that he is opposed to any kind of Palestinian statehood. So, one probable motivation was for the Palestinians to reassert their presence or existence and resolve to remain.

    The other very important contextual element is the recollection of the Nakba or catastrophe that occurred in 1948 where 750,000 Palestinians were forced to flee from their homes and villages and not permitted to return. The Israeli response since October 7 gives rise to a strong impression that the real motivation on its part is not security as it is ordinarily understood but rather a second Nakba to ethnically cleanse and to implement this by the forced evacuation and unlivability of Gaza carried out by what many people, including myself, have regarded as a genocide.

    The Israeli argument that they are entitled to act in self-defense seems very strained in this context. Gaza and the West Bank are from an international law point of view occupied territories; they are not foreign entities. How do you exercise self-defense against yourself? The Geneva Accords are very clear that the primary duty of the occupying power is to protect the civilian population. It is an unconditional duty of the occupying power, and it is spelled out in terms of an unconditional obligation, to make sure that the population has sufficient food and medical supplies, which the Israeli leadership from day one excluded. They tried to block the entry of food, fuel, and electricity and have caused a severe health-starvation scenario that will probably cost many more lives than have already been lost.

    FF: Not to speak of another violation by Israel: As an occupying power it is prohibited from transferring its own population to the territories that it has been occupying.

    RF: Yes.

    FF: Of course, Israeli expansionism in terms of its settlements, practically does away with the viability of the idea of a two-state solution, unless somehow, they can be forced to remove all the settlers and dismantle the major settlement blocks in the West Bank.

    Let me get your thoughts on the following. It seems Israel used October 7 as an excuse to carry out a speedier mass expulsion campaign rather than to continue with the slower ethnic cleansing that oftentimes characterize its actions in various decades in the period of Israeli control over these territories. We can point to 1948 and 1967 as two other occasions when Israel took advantage of historical moments and expelled many Palestinians. Post-Oct. 7 may be the third historical moment in which Israel is behaving in this manner. Do you agree with this assessment?

    RF: Absolutely. The only thing I would add is that the Netanyahu coalition with religious Zionism as it took over in Israel in January of 2023 was widely viewed, even in Washington, as the most extreme government that had ever come to power in Israel. What made it extreme was the green lighting of settler violence in the West Bank, which was clearly aimed at dispossessing the Palestinian presence there. They often at these settler demonstrations would leave on Palestinian cars these messages: “leave or we will kill you.” It is horrifying that this dimension of Israeli provocation has not been taken into some account.

    FF: Yes, we see that in the West Bank since October 7. By now some 16 villages have been depopulated, several hundred Palestinians killed, and close to 6000 arrested by the Israeli Offensive (not Defensive) Forces who often act alongside armed settlers who enjoy impunity in terrorizing the Palestinians.

    Well, thank you, Richard, for joining me in this conversation. I found it to be very interesting.

    RF: Thank you and I also found your questions very suggestive and a challenge.

    The post Richard Falk on the Vietnam War, Revolution in Iran, and Genocide in Gaza first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    An exhibition from Tara Arts International has been brought to The University of the South Pacific as part of the Pacific International Media Conference next week.

    In the first exhibition of its kind, Connecting Diaspora: Pacific Prana provides an alternative narrative to the dominant story of the Indian diaspora to the Pacific.

    The epic altar “Pacific Prana” has been assembled in the gallery of USP’s Oceania Centre for Arts, Culture and Pacific Studies by installation artist Tiffany Singh in collaboration with journalistic film artist Mandrika Rupa and dancer and film artist Mandi Rupa Reid.

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

    A colourful exhibit of Indian classical dance costumes are on display in a deconstructed arrangement, to illustrate the evolution of Bharatanatyam for connecting the diaspora.

    Presented as a gift to the global diaspora, this is a collaborative, artistic, immersive, installation experience, of altar, flora, ritual, mineral, scent and sound.

    It combines documentary film journalism providing political and social commentary, also expressed through ancient dance mudra performance.

    The 120-year history of the people of the diaspora is explored, beginning in India and crossing the waters to the South Pacific by way of Fiji, then on to Aotearoa New Zealand and other islands of the Pacific.

    This is also the history of the ancestors of the three artists of Tara International who immigrated from India to the Pacific, and identifies their links to Fiji.

    expressed through ancient dance mudra performance.

    The 120-year history of the people of the diaspora is explored, beginning in India and crossing the waters to the South Pacific by way of Fiji, then on to Aotearoa New Zealand and other islands of the Pacific.

    Tiffany Singh (from left), Mandrika Rupa and Mandi Rupa-Reid
    Tiffany Singh (from left), Mandrika Rupa and Mandi Rupa-Reid . . . offering their collective voice and novel perspective of the diasporic journey of their ancestors through the epic installation and films. Image: Tara Arts International

    Support partners are Asia Pacific Media Network and The University of the South Pacific.

    The exhibition poster
    The exhibition poster . . . opening at USP’s Arts Centre on July 2. Image: Tara Arts International

    A journal article on documentary making in the Indian diaspora by Mandrika Rupa is also being published in the 30th anniversary edition of Pacific Journalism Review to be launched at the Pacific Media Conference dinner on July 4.

    Exhibition space for Tara Arts International has been provided at the Oceania Centre for Arts, Culture and Pacific Studies at USP.

    The exhibition opening is next Tuesday, and will open to the public the next day and remain open until Wednesday, August 28.

    The gallery will be open from 10am to 4pm and is free.

    Published in collaboration with the USP Oceania Centre for Arts, Culture and Pacific Studies.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Savanna Craig

    On the morning of April 15, I headed to a branch of Scotiabank in downtown Montreal to cover a pro-Palestine protest. Activists had chosen the venue due to the Canadian bank’s investments in Israeli defence company Elbit Systems.

    I watched as protesters blocked the bank’s ATMs and teller booths and the police were called in.

    Police officers showed up in riot gear. When it was announced the activists were going to be arrested, I didn’t expect that I would be included with them.

    Despite identifying myself as a journalist numerous times and showing officers my press pass, I was apprehended alongside the 44 activists I was covering. It was inside the bank that I was processed and eventually released after hours of being detained.

    I now potentially face criminal charges for doing my job. The mischief charges I face carry a maximum jail sentence of two years and a fine of up to C$5000 (NZ$6000). I could also be restricted from leaving the country.

    Canadian police can only suggest charges, so the prosecution has to decide whether or not to charge me. This process alone can take anywhere from a few months to a year.

    I am the second journalist to be arrested in Canada while on assignment since the beginning of 2024.

    Arrested over homeless raid
    In January, journalist Brandi Morin was arrested and charged with obstruction in the province of Alberta while covering a police raid on a homeless encampment where many of the campers were Indigenous. It took two months of pressure for the police to drop the charges against her.

    Over the past few years, a pattern of arrests has emerged, with police specifically targeting journalists working freelance or with smaller outlets. Many of these journalists have been covering Indigenous-led protests or blockades.

    Often they claim that the media workers they have come after “do not look like journalists”.

    The Canadian police continue to use detention to silence and intimidate us despite our right to free speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To specify, under section two of the charter, Canadians’ rights to freedom of thought, belief and expression are protected.

    The charter identifies the media as a vital medium for transmitting thoughts and ideas, protecting the right for journalists and the media to speak out.

    Furthermore, a 2019 ruling by a Canadian court reasserted the protection of journalists from being included in injunctions in situations where they are fulfilling their professional duties.

    The court decision was made in the case of journalist Justin Brake, who was arrested in 2016 while documenting protests led by Indigenous land defenders at the Muskrat Falls hydro project site in Newfoundland and Labrador. Brake faced criminal charges of mischief and disobeying a court order for following protesters onto the site, as well as civil contempt proceedings.

    Victory for free press
    Despite Brake’s victory in the court case, journalists have still been included in injunctions.

    In 2021, another high-profile arrest of two Canadian journalists occurred in western Canada. Amber Bracken and Michael Toledano were documenting Indigenous land defenders protecting Wet’suwet’en territory near Houston, British Columbia, from the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline when they were arrested.

    They were held in detention by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) for three days until they were released.

    In an interview, Toledano said he and Bracken were put in holding cells with the lights on 24 hours a day, minimally fed and denied access to both toothbrushes and soap.

    “We were given punitive jail treatment,” Toledano explained. They faced charges of civil contempt which were dropped a month later.

    Even though I knew about these cases, had analysed numerous press freedom violations in Canada over the last few years, and had researched the different ways in which journalists can experience harassment or intimidation, nothing prepared me for the experience.

    Since I was arrested, I have not had the same sense of security I used to have. The stress, feeling like I have eyes on me at all times and waiting to see whether charges will be laid, has taken a mental toll on me.

    Exhausting distraction
    This is not only exhausting but it distracts me from the very important and essential work I do as a journalist.

    I have also, however, received a lot of support. It has been genuinely heartwarming that Canadian and international journalists rallied behind me following my arrest.

    Journalists’ solidarity in such cases is crucial. If just one journalist is arrested, it means that none of us are safe, and the freedom of the press isn’t secure.

    I know that I did nothing wrong and the charges against me are unjust. Being arrested won’t deter me from covering blockades, Indigenous-led protests or other demonstrations. However, I am concerned about how my arrest may discourage other journalists from reporting on these topics or working for independent outlets.

    I have been covering pro-Palestine activism in Montreal for eight years, and more intensely over the last eight months due to the war in Gaza. For years I have been one the few journalists at these protests, and often, the only one covering these actions.

    The public must see what’s happening at these actions, whether they are pro-Palestine demonstrations opposing Canada’s role in Palestine or Indigenous land defenders opposing construction on their territory.

    Regardless of its judgment on the matter, the Canadian public has the right to know what fellow citizens are protesting for and if they face police abuses.

    Held to account
    The presence of a journalist can sometimes be the only guarantee that police and institutions are held to account if there are excesses.

    However, there is a clear lack of political will among officials to protect journalists and make sure they can do their work undisturbed.

    Montreal Mayor Valerie Plante did not denounce my arrest or urge police to drop my charges. Instead, when asked for a comment on my arrest, her office stated that press freedoms are important and that they will allow police to carry out their investigation.

    Just one city councillor wrote to the mayor’s office urging for my arrest to be denounced. Local politicians have also been largely mute on detentions of other journalists, too, with few exceptions.

    The comment from the mayor’s office reflects the attitude of most politicians in Canada, who otherwise readily declare their respect for freedom of expression.

    On May 3, World Press Freedom Day, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau put out a statement saying that “journalists are the bedrock of our democracy”.

    Yet he never took a stance to defend Morin, Brake, Bracken, Toledano and many others who were arrested while on assignment. He, like many other politicians, falls short on words and action.

    Until concrete steps are taken to prevent law enforcement officers from intimidating or silencing journalists through arrest, press freedom will continue to be in danger in Canada.

    Journalists should be protected and their chartered rights should not be disregarded when certain subjects are covered. If journalists continue to be bullied out of doing their work, then the public is at risk of being kept in the dark about important events and developments.

    Savanna Craig is a reporter, writer and video journalist covering social movements, policing and Western imperialism in the Middle East. Republished from Al Jazeera under Creative Commons.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Savanna Craig

    On the morning of April 15, I headed to a branch of Scotiabank in downtown Montreal to cover a pro-Palestine protest. Activists had chosen the venue due to the Canadian bank’s investments in Israeli defence company Elbit Systems.

    I watched as protesters blocked the bank’s ATMs and teller booths and the police were called in.

    Police officers showed up in riot gear. When it was announced the activists were going to be arrested, I didn’t expect that I would be included with them.

    Despite identifying myself as a journalist numerous times and showing officers my press pass, I was apprehended alongside the 44 activists I was covering. It was inside the bank that I was processed and eventually released after hours of being detained.

    I now potentially face criminal charges for doing my job. The mischief charges I face carry a maximum jail sentence of two years and a fine of up to C$5000 (NZ$6000). I could also be restricted from leaving the country.

    Canadian police can only suggest charges, so the prosecution has to decide whether or not to charge me. This process alone can take anywhere from a few months to a year.

    I am the second journalist to be arrested in Canada while on assignment since the beginning of 2024.

    Arrested over homeless raid
    In January, journalist Brandi Morin was arrested and charged with obstruction in the province of Alberta while covering a police raid on a homeless encampment where many of the campers were Indigenous. It took two months of pressure for the police to drop the charges against her.

    Over the past few years, a pattern of arrests has emerged, with police specifically targeting journalists working freelance or with smaller outlets. Many of these journalists have been covering Indigenous-led protests or blockades.

    Often they claim that the media workers they have come after “do not look like journalists”.

    The Canadian police continue to use detention to silence and intimidate us despite our right to free speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To specify, under section two of the charter, Canadians’ rights to freedom of thought, belief and expression are protected.

    The charter identifies the media as a vital medium for transmitting thoughts and ideas, protecting the right for journalists and the media to speak out.

    Furthermore, a 2019 ruling by a Canadian court reasserted the protection of journalists from being included in injunctions in situations where they are fulfilling their professional duties.

    The court decision was made in the case of journalist Justin Brake, who was arrested in 2016 while documenting protests led by Indigenous land defenders at the Muskrat Falls hydro project site in Newfoundland and Labrador. Brake faced criminal charges of mischief and disobeying a court order for following protesters onto the site, as well as civil contempt proceedings.

    Victory for free press
    Despite Brake’s victory in the court case, journalists have still been included in injunctions.

    In 2021, another high-profile arrest of two Canadian journalists occurred in western Canada. Amber Bracken and Michael Toledano were documenting Indigenous land defenders protecting Wet’suwet’en territory near Houston, British Columbia, from the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline when they were arrested.

    They were held in detention by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) for three days until they were released.

    In an interview, Toledano said he and Bracken were put in holding cells with the lights on 24 hours a day, minimally fed and denied access to both toothbrushes and soap.

    “We were given punitive jail treatment,” Toledano explained. They faced charges of civil contempt which were dropped a month later.

    Even though I knew about these cases, had analysed numerous press freedom violations in Canada over the last few years, and had researched the different ways in which journalists can experience harassment or intimidation, nothing prepared me for the experience.

    Since I was arrested, I have not had the same sense of security I used to have. The stress, feeling like I have eyes on me at all times and waiting to see whether charges will be laid, has taken a mental toll on me.

    Exhausting distraction
    This is not only exhausting but it distracts me from the very important and essential work I do as a journalist.

    I have also, however, received a lot of support. It has been genuinely heartwarming that Canadian and international journalists rallied behind me following my arrest.

    Journalists’ solidarity in such cases is crucial. If just one journalist is arrested, it means that none of us are safe, and the freedom of the press isn’t secure.

    I know that I did nothing wrong and the charges against me are unjust. Being arrested won’t deter me from covering blockades, Indigenous-led protests or other demonstrations. However, I am concerned about how my arrest may discourage other journalists from reporting on these topics or working for independent outlets.

    I have been covering pro-Palestine activism in Montreal for eight years, and more intensely over the last eight months due to the war in Gaza. For years I have been one the few journalists at these protests, and often, the only one covering these actions.

    The public must see what’s happening at these actions, whether they are pro-Palestine demonstrations opposing Canada’s role in Palestine or Indigenous land defenders opposing construction on their territory.

    Regardless of its judgment on the matter, the Canadian public has the right to know what fellow citizens are protesting for and if they face police abuses.

    Held to account
    The presence of a journalist can sometimes be the only guarantee that police and institutions are held to account if there are excesses.

    However, there is a clear lack of political will among officials to protect journalists and make sure they can do their work undisturbed.

    Montreal Mayor Valerie Plante did not denounce my arrest or urge police to drop my charges. Instead, when asked for a comment on my arrest, her office stated that press freedoms are important and that they will allow police to carry out their investigation.

    Just one city councillor wrote to the mayor’s office urging for my arrest to be denounced. Local politicians have also been largely mute on detentions of other journalists, too, with few exceptions.

    The comment from the mayor’s office reflects the attitude of most politicians in Canada, who otherwise readily declare their respect for freedom of expression.

    On May 3, World Press Freedom Day, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau put out a statement saying that “journalists are the bedrock of our democracy”.

    Yet he never took a stance to defend Morin, Brake, Bracken, Toledano and many others who were arrested while on assignment. He, like many other politicians, falls short on words and action.

    Until concrete steps are taken to prevent law enforcement officers from intimidating or silencing journalists through arrest, press freedom will continue to be in danger in Canada.

    Journalists should be protected and their chartered rights should not be disregarded when certain subjects are covered. If journalists continue to be bullied out of doing their work, then the public is at risk of being kept in the dark about important events and developments.

    Savanna Craig is a reporter, writer and video journalist covering social movements, policing and Western imperialism in the Middle East. Republished from Al Jazeera under Creative Commons.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The case of a prominent businessman accused of shooting a young couple during a dispute inside a Phnom Penh home has angered Cambodians on social media and prompted King Norodom Sihamoni to revoke the accused man’s honorary title.

    Srey Sina, 50, was arrested in neighboring Kandal province after he apparently fled the scene following Monday’s shooting, which left Long Lysong, 27, and his fiancee Khin Kanchana, 26, dead and two others wounded, according to Phnom Penh police.

    Srey Sina told police he shot the young couple with a handgun after Long Lysong used abusive language following an argument between neighbors over a parking space, the felling of a mango tree and a clothes line, the Khmer Times reported.

    The long-running dispute was originally between Long Lysong and a woman who rents one of Srey Sina’s houses, the newspaper said. 

    On Facebook, Cambodians urged Phnom Penh authorities to hold Srey Sina accountable, and expressed worries that he would use his influence and money to gain his release from jail.

    ENG_KHM_TYCOON SHOOTING_06182024.10.jpg
    Srey Sina appears in two images displayed on the Kampuchea Thmey Daily Telegram page June 17, 2024. (@kptnews via Telegram)

    Srey Sina, a wealthy real estate investor, held the title of Oknha, which is bestowed on Cambodians involved in business who are committed to charity or generous with donations to the government. 

    But earlier this week, the Cambodian Oknha Association said in a statement that he wasn’t a member of their association, even though he held the Oknha title. The group said it would request to have the title withdrawn to “the honor and reputation of the Okhna title.”

    Prime Minister Hun Manet made a similar public plea, and on Friday, the king issued a decree stripping Srey Sina of the Oknha title.

    ‘Difficult to accept’

    The prime minister’s brother, Minister of Civil Service Hun Many, said on Facebook that he was “devastated” to learn of the “horrific incident.” He called Long Lysong “my brother” and urged Cambodians to promote a culture of peace, tolerance and forgiveness.

    “We really don’t want this to happen and condemn such barbaric abuse of human life,” he said. “I applaud and thank the law enforcement forces who worked hard to catch criminals accountable to the law.”

    Long Lysong died at the scene, Khin Kanchana died at a hospital and two other young men received minor injuries, according to the Khmer Times. Police have arrested two other people suspected of involvement in the case.

    Hun Manet and his father, Senate President Hun Sen, have arranged for lawyers to represent the victims’ families in court, the Khmer Times reported.

    “We have lost everything and received nothing,” Lysong’s sister, Long Lyhor, told Kiripost. “It is difficult to accept as it happened immediately. It’s cruel that [the suspect] shot 12 bullets, resulting in two people dying and another two staff being injured.” 

    Long Lysong and Khin Kanchana became engaged last November and planned to marry later this year, Kiripost reported. 

    One of the attorneys representing family members, Son Chumchuon, told Radio Free Asia that the incident has caused mental suffering and monetary losses. Long Lysong was the family’s breadwinner, he said.

    “We have to assess the extent of the damages. We have to look at how much (their death) affects the future living conditions of their dependents,” he said. “Their parents have the right to seek compensation.”

    Translated by Sovannarith Keo. Edited by Matt Reed.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The surgeon general is calling on Congress to approve warning labels for social media websites and apps, alerting parents and young users to the dangers these sites can pose. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos. Mike Papantonio: The Surgeon General is calling on […]

    The post Surgeon General Takes Steps To Place Mental Health Warnings On Social Media Sites appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • By Mark Pearson

    Journalists, publishers, academics, diplomats and NGO representatives from throughout the Asia-Pacific region will gather for the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference hosted by The University of the South Pacific in Suva, Fiji, next month.

    A notable part of the conference on July 4-6 will be the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the journal Pacific Journalism Review — founded by the energetic pioneer of journalism studies in the Pacific, Professor David Robie, who was recently honoured in the NZ King’s Birthday Honours list as a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

    I have been on the editorial board of PJR for two of its three decades.

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

    As well as delivering a keynote address titled “Frontline Media Faultlines: How Critical Journalism can Survive Against the Odds”, Dr Robie will join me and the current editor of PJR, Dr Philip Cass, on a panel examining the challenges faced by journalism journals in the Global South/Asia Pacific.

    We will be moderated by Professor Vijay Naidu, former professor and director of development studies and now an adjunct in the School of Law and Social Sciences at the university. He is also speaking at the PJR birthday event.

    In addition, I will be delivering a conference paper titled “Intersections between media law and ethics — a new pedagogy and curriculum”.

    Media law and ethics have often been taught as separate courses in the journalism and communication curriculum or have been structured as two distinct halves of a hybrid course.

    Integrated ethics and law approach
    My paper explains an integrated approach expounded in my new textbook, The Communicator’s Guide to Media Law and Ethics, where each key media law topic is introduced via a thorough exploration of its moral, ethical, religious, philosophical and human rights underpinnings.

    The argument is exemplified via an approach to the ethical and legal topic of confidentiality, central to the relationship between journalists and their sources.

    Mark Pearson's new book
    Mark Pearson’s The Communicator’s Guide to Media Law and Ethics cover. Image: Routledge

    After defining the term and distinguishing it from the related topic of privacy, the paper explains the approach in the textbook and curriculum which traces the religious and philosophical origins of confidentiality sourced to Hippocrates (460-370BC), via confidentiality in the priesthood (from Saint Aphrahat to the modern Catholic Code of Canon Law), and through the writings of Kant, Bentham, Stuart Mill, Sidgwick and Rawls until we reach the modern philosopher Sissela Bok’s examination of investigative journalism and claims of a public’s “right to know”.

    This leads naturally into an examination of the handling of confidentiality in both public relations and journalism ethical codes internationally and their distinctive approaches, opening the way to the examination of law, cases and examples internationally in confidentiality and disclosure and, ultimately, to a closer examination in the author’s own jurisdiction of Australia.

    Specific laws covered include breach of confidence, disobedience contempt, shield laws, whistleblower laws and freedom of information laws — with the latter having a strong foundation in international human rights instruments.

    The approach gives ethical studies a practical legal dimension, while enriching students’ legal knowledge with a backbone of its philosophical, religious and human rights origins.

    Details about the conference can be found on its USP website.

    Professor Mark Pearson (Griffith University) is a journalist, author, academic researcher and teacher with more than 45 years’ experience in journalism and journalism education. He is a former editor of Australian Journalism Review, a columnist for 15 years on research journal findings for the Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers’ Association Bulletin, and author of 13 books, including The Communicator’s Guide to Media Law and Ethics — A Handbook for Australian Professionals (Routledge, 2024). He blogs at JournLaw.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • America’s Lawyer E102: The Surgeon General is calling for warning labels on social media so that parents are aware of the threats these sites pose to young users. Documents have revealed that the Pentagon ran a secret anti-vaccine campaign overseas to prevent China from vaccinating people against COVID 19. And President Biden is suffering from […]

    The post Gen Z Influencers Abandon Biden appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • The news media loves to tell us that the country is more divided than ever, and in some ways that’s true. Plus, President Biden is still struggling in the polls, and he’s got an approval rating of around 33%, causing some serious concerns with Democratic strategists who feel that Biden may have already lost the […]

    The post Corporate Media Capitalizes On Political Hate & Strategists Fear Biden’s Reelection Chances appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • When Belete Kassa’s friend and news show co-host Belaye Manaye was arrested in November 2023 and taken to the remote Awash Arba military camp known as the “Guantanamo of the desert,” Belete feared that he might be next.

    The two men co-founded the YouTube-based channel Ethio News in 2020, which had reported extensively on a conflict that broke out between federal forces and the Fano militia in the populous Amhara region in April 2023, a risky move in a country with a history of stifling independent reporting.  

    Belay was swept up in a crackdown against the press after the government declared a state of emergency in August 2023 in response to the conflict.

    After months in hiding, Belete decided to flee when he heard from a relative that the government had issued a warrant for his arrest. CPJ was unable to confirm whether such an order was issued.

    “Freedom of expression in Ethiopia has not only died; it has been buried,” Belete said in his March 15 farewell post on Facebook. “Leaving behind a colleague in a desert detention facility, as well as one’s family and country, to seek asylum, is immensely painful.” (Belaye and others have been released this month after the state of emergency expired.)

    Belete’s path into exile is one that has been trod by dozens of other Ethiopian journalists who have been forced to flee harassment and persecution in a country where the government has long maintained a firm grip on the media. Over the decades, CPJ has documented waves of repression and exile tied to reporting on events like protests after the 2005 parliamentary election and censorship of independent media and bloggers ahead of the 2015 vote.

    In 2018, the Ethiopian press enjoyed a short-lived honeymoon when all previously detained journalists were released and hundreds of websites unblocked after Abiy Ahmed became prime minister.

    But with the 2020 to 2022 civil war between rebels from the Tigray region and the federal government, followed by the Amhara conflict in 2023, CPJ has documented a rapid return to a harsh media environment, characterized by arbitrary detentions and the expulsion of international journalists.

    A burned tank stands near the town of Adwa in Ethiopia’s Tigray region on March 18, 2021. (Photo: Reuters/Baz Ratner)

    CPJ is aware of at least 54 Ethiopian journalists and media workers who have gone into exile since 2020, and has provided at least 30 of them with emergency assistance. Most of the journalists fled to neighboring African countries, while a few are in Europe and North America. In May and June 2024, CPJ spoke to some of these exiled journalists about their experiences. Most asked CPJ not to reveal how they escaped Ethiopia or their whereabouts and some spoke on condition of anonymity, citing fears for their safety or that of family left behind.

    CPJ’s request for comment to government spokesperson Legesse Tulu via messaging app and an email to the office of the prime minister did not receive any response.

    Under ‘house arrest’ due to death threats

    Guyo Wariyo, a journalist with the satellite broadcaster Oromia Media Network was detained for several weeks in 2020 as the government sought to quell protests over the killing of ethnic Oromo singer Hachalu Hundessa. Authorities sought to link the musician’s assassination with Guyo’s interview with him the previous week, which included questions about the singer’s political opinions.

    Following his release, Guyo wanted to get out of the country but leaving was not easy. Guyo said that the first three times he went to Addis Ababa’s Bole International Airport, National Intelligence and Security Service agents refused to let him board, saying his name was on a government list of individuals barred from leaving Ethiopia.

    Guyo eventually left in late 2020. But, more than three years later, he still feels unsafe.

    In exile, Guyo says he has received several death threats from individuals that he believes are affiliated with the Ethiopian government, via social media as well as local and international phone numbers. One of the callers even named the neighborhood where he lives. 

    “I can describe my situation as ‘house arrest,’” said Guyo, who rarely goes out or speaks to friends and family back home in case their conversations are monitored.

    Transnational repression is a growing risk globally. Ethiopia has long reached across borders to seize refugees and asylum seekers in neighboring Kenya, Uganda, Somalia, and South Sudan, and targeted those further afield, including with spyware.

    Ethiopians fleeing from the Tigray region register as refugees at the Hamdeyat refugee transit camp in Sudan, on December 1, 2020. (Photo: Reuters/Baz Ratner)

    Journalists who spoke to CPJ said they fear transnational repression, citing the 2023 forcible return of The Voice of Amhara’s Gobeze Sisay from Djibouti to face terrorism charges. He remains in prison, awaiting trial and a potential death penalty.

    “We know historically that Ethiopian intelligence have been active in East Africa and there is a history of fleeing people being attacked here in Kenya,” Nduko o’Matigere, Head of Africa Region at PEN International, the global writers’ association that advocates for freedom of expression, told CPJ.

    Several of the journalists exiled in Africa told CPJ that they did not feel their host countries could protect them from Ethiopian security agents.

    “The shadow of fear and threat is always present,” said one reporter, describing the brief period he lived in East Africa before resettling in the United States.

    ‘We became very scared’

    Woldegiorgis Ghebrehiwet Teklay felt at risk in Kenya, after he fled there in December 2020 following the arrest of a colleague at the now-defunct Awlo Media Center.

    As with Guyo, Woldegiorgis’s initial attempt to leave via Addis Ababa failed. Airport security personnel questioned him about his work and ethnicity and accused him of betraying his country with his journalism, before ordering him to return home, to wait for about a week amid investigations.

    When Woldegiorgis finally reached the Kenyan capital, he partnered with other exiled Ethiopian journalists to set up Axumite Media. But between November 2021 and February 2022, Axumite was forced to slow down its operations, reducing the frequency of publication and visibility of its journalists as it was hit by financial and security concerns, especially after two men abducted an Ethiopian businessman from his car during Nairobi’s evening rush hour.

    “It might be a coincidence but after that  businessman was abducted on the street we became very scared,” said Woldegiorgis who moved to Germany the following year on a scholarship for at-risk academics and relaunched the outlet as Yabele Media.

    ‘An enemy of the state’

    Tesfa-Alem Tekle was reporting for the Nairobi-based Nation Media Group when he had to flee in 2022, after being detained for nearly three months on suspicion of having links with Tigrayan rebels.

    He kept contributing to the Nation Media Group’s The EastAfrican weekly newspaper in exile until 2023, when a death threat was slipped under his door.

    “Stop disseminating in the media messages which humiliate and tarnish our country and our government’s image,” said the threat, written in Amharic, which CPJ reviewed. “If you continue being an enemy of the state, we warn you for the last time that a once-and-for-all action will be taken against you.”

    Tesfa-Alem moved houses, reported the threat to the police, and hoped he would soon be offered safety in another country. But more than two years after going to exile, he remains in limbo, waiting to hear the outcome of his application for resettlement.

    Last year, only 158,700 refugees worldwide were resettled in third countries, representing just a fraction of the need, according to the U.N. refugee agency UNHCR; that included 2,289 Ethiopians, said UNHCR global spokesperson Olga Sarrado Mur in an email to CPJ. The need is only growing: “UNHCR estimates that almost 3 million refugees will be in need of resettlement in 2025, including over 8,600 originating from Ethiopia,” Sarrado Mur said. 

    “Unfortunately, there are very limited resettlement places available worldwide, besides being a life-saving intervention for at-risk refugees,” said Sarrado Mur.

    Without a stable source of income, Tesfa-Alem said he was living “in terrible conditions,” with months of overdue rent.

    “Stress, lack of freedom of movement, and economic reasons: all these lead me to depression and even considering returning home to face the consequences,” he said, voicing a frustration shared by all of the journalists that spoke to CPJ about the complexities and delays they encountered navigating the asylum system.

    ‘No Ethiopian security services will knock on my door’

    Most of the journalists who spoke to CPJ described great difficulties in returning to journalism. A lucky few have succeeded.

    Yayesew Shimelis, founder of the YouTube channel Ethio Forum whose reporting was critical of the Ethiopian government, was arrested multiple times between 2019 and 2022.

    In 2021, he was detained for 58 days, one of a dozen journalists and media workers held incommunicado at Awash Sebat, another remote military camp in Ethiopia’s Afar state. The following year, he was abducted by people who broke into his house, blindfolded him, and held him in an unknown location for 11 days.

    “My only two options were living in my beloved country without working my beloved job; or leaving my beloved country and working my beloved job,” he told CPJ. 

    At Addis Ababa airport in 2023, he said he was interrogated for two hours about his destination and the purpose of his trip. He told officials he was attending a wedding and promised to be back in two weeks. When his flight took off, Yayesaw was overwhelmed with relief and sadness to be “suddenly losing my country.”

    “I was crying, literally crying, when the plane took off,” he told CPJ. “People on the plane thought I was going to a funeral.”

    In exile, Yayesew feels “free”. He continues to run Ethio Forum and even published a book about Prime Minister Abiy earlier this year.

    “Now I am 100% sure that no Ethiopian security services will knock on my door the morning after I publish a critical report,” he said.

    But for Belete, only three months on from his escape, such peace remains a distant dream.

    He struggles to afford food and rent and worries who he can trust.

    “When I left my country, although I was expecting challenges, I was not prepared for how tough it would be,” he told CPJ.

    Belete says it’s difficult to report on Ethiopia from abroad and that sometimes he must choose between doing the work he loves and making a living.

    “I find myself in a state of profound uncertainty about my future,” said Belete. “I am caught between the aspiration to pursue my journalism career and the necessity of leading an ordinary life to secure my livelihood”.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    Earthwise presenters Lois and Martin Griffiths of Plains FM96.9 radio talk to Dr David Robie, a New Zealand author, independent journalist and media educator with a passion for the Asia-Pacific region.

    Dr Robie has just been made a Member of the NZ Order of Merit (MNZM) and Earthwise ask him what this means to him. Why has he campaigned for so long for Pacific issues to receive media attention?

    Do Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia really feel like part of the Pacific world? What are the growing concerns about increasing militarisation in the Pacific and spreading Chinese influence?

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

    And why is decolonisation in Kanaky New Caledonia from France such a pressing issue? Dr Robie also draws parallels between the Kanak, Palestinian and West Papuan struggles.

    Dr Robie also talks about next month’s Pacific Media International Conference in Suva, Fiji, on 4-6 July 2024.

    Broadcast: Plains Radio FM96.9

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

    Date: 12 June 2024 (28min), broadcast June 17.

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

    https://plainsfm.org.nz/

    Café Pacific: https://davidrobie.nz/

    The Earthwise interview with David Robie.                         Video: Plains Radio FM96.9FM

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The news media loves to tell us that the country is more divided than ever, and in some ways that’s true. But it isn’t because of our political differences – it is because of our tribalism – the “team sports” mentality that we’ve attached to our politics. Mike Papantonio is joined by Independent newspaper publisher Rick Outzen to explain […]

    The post Corporate Media Pushes Civil War With Team Sport Politics appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • No doubt like many other people around the world, we have been surprised and increasingly concerned that Noam Chomsky has not commented publicly on current events for around one year; in particular, on the Israeli genocide of Palestinians.

    The most recent major interview we could find was this from 5 June 2023 with Piers Morgan.

    As mentioned in a message we posted on our Facebook page last Friday, we had just seen messages on Reddit, a public forum social network, one of the most visited internet sites in the world, from Bev Stohl, Noam’s longtime assistant at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for 24 years until he moved to the University of Arizona in 2017.

    Stohl’s first message in a series titled, ‘Updates on Noam’s Health from his long-time MIT assistant, Bev Stohl’, was posted on 5 February 2024:

    Hi Fellow Redditors,

    I’ve been replying to questions on other people’s posts about why Noam Chomsky hasn’t been returning emails, or interviewing. I’m grateful for the few of you who suggested that I create my own post. So, here it is.

    I’m in contact with a close family member, and we know the basics, and hope to know more in the near future. In a nutshell, Noam is 95 years old and suffered a medical event in June. As many have noticed, he has not been writing, corresponding, or interviewing, as his health situation has taken the majority of his time and energy. He is still with us, now watching the news (he doesn’t look happy about what he’s watching). I will answer basic questions and give you updates as the family member I’m in touch with feels comfortable.

    Meanwhile, keep doing your good work.

    Best,

    Bev Stohl

    On 23 April, Stohl added:

    ‘Noam has not made significant progress, I’m sorry to say. I doubt he will be able to return to the public eye, as he is not communicating much if at all.’

    As we said in our Facebook message, it was upsetting to learn about Noam’s health. We felt it was important to share this information as the comments from Noam’s former assistant were already in the public domain, but were not well known or widely disseminated. We had direct confirmation from another reliable source who has known Noam very well for decades that he had suffered a stroke last year.

    Obviously, Noam has contributed an incredible amount to the world in his 95 years, almost beyond compare. His vital insights and in-depth knowledge of US politics and the Middle East have been terribly missed during Israel’s onslaught on Gaza. And Noam’s silence, amazingly, has been barely remarked upon in news reports, if at all, or on the internet. That changed after our Facebook post and tweet linking to it went viral.

    Peter Cronau, the Australian investigative journalist, responded:

    ‘Noam #Chomsky’s contribution is insurmountable. His inspiration is a force for change. His analysis is a pathway to understanding.

    ‘Noam is ill, so send your thoughts and live an exemplar life, and bring the change he inspires.

    ‘As relevant today as when written with Ed Herman, “The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights” contains the gem of the weaknesses of imperialism and how it must be dismantled.

    ‘For many journalists of a generation, “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” [also co-written with Ed Herman], provides the breakdown of how the news media are so powerfully able to set the misleading narratives that sabotage democracy.

    ‘The honour and pleasure of supporting him during his first visit to Australia, helping edit and publish his book of that tour, “Powers and Prospects”, remains.

    ‘Intelligent beyond belief, but understanding and tolerant of those willing to learn, Noam has persuasively and persistently given us the understanding of this modern world, and the knowledge we need to be able to get on with the project of changing it for the benefit of all.

    ‘Viva Noam Chomsky!’

    Former MSNBC and Al Jazeera journalist, Mehdi Hasan, founder of a new media organisation called Zeteo, said:

    ‘Sending prayers Noam’s way. There has been no one else like him in our lifetime.’

    Aaron Maté of The Grayzone thanked Chomsky ‘for a lifetime of immeasurable service to humanity.’

    Matt Kennard, co-founder of Declassified UK, wrote:

    ‘One of the most beautiful minds and souls there’s ever been.

    ‘We send our love to you, Noam.’

    Time magazine and the Independent both followed up on our post with news stories.

    Associated Press (AP) has now reported that Noam is currently hospitalised in Brazil, the home country of his wife, Valeria. She took him to a Sao Paulo hospital for specialist treatment, once he could more easily travel from the United States following his stroke. She confirmed to AP the details of a piece in the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paulo which noted that Noam has difficulty speaking and the right side of his body is affected. He is visited daily by a neurologist, speech therapist and lung specialist.

    Valeria told the newspaper that:

    ‘her husband follows the news and when he sees images of the war in Gaza, he raises his left arm in a gesture of lament and anger.’

    The newspaper added the heartening news that:

    ‘His condition has improved significantly. He [has] left the ICU [intensive care unit] and is now in a regular room.’

    Media Lens owes a huge debt of gratitude to Noam Chomsky. The example he sets as a rational, decent, tirelessly committed individual motivated by compassion for human suffering was a key inspiration, not just for the creation of Media Lens, but for our involvement in political activism at all.

    We send our very best wishes to Noam and his family at this challenging time.

    The post A Message About Noam Chomsky: An Update first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Stockholm, June 12, 2024—The Committee to Protect Journalists is dismayed by a series of Azerbaijani court decisions this week that further extended the pre-trial detention of six journalists with the anti-corruption investigative outlet Abzas Media.

    The Khatai District Court in the capital, Baku, extended the pre-trial detention of Abzas Media director Ulvi Hasanli, editor-in-chief Sevinj Vagifgizi, and project manager Mahammad Kekalov by three months on Wednesday, June 12.

    On Tuesday, the same court extended the detention of outlet journalist Nargiz Absalamova by three months, and on Monday, it extended the detention of journalists Hafiz Babali and Elnara Gasimova by one and two months, respectively.

    Police raided Abzas Media and began arresting its staff in November 2023 on allegations of conspiring to illegally bring money from Western donor organizations into the country. The six journalists, who have all been charged with conspiracy to smuggle currency, face up to eight years in prison if convicted, according to Azerbaijan’s criminal code.

    “CPJ is deeply disappointed that Azerbaijani authorities have once again prolonged the unwarranted incarceration of six journalists with Abzas Media and denounces the charges as retaliation for critical reporting,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Azerbaijani authorities should immediately release all detained Abzas Media staff and drop charges against the 13 journalists in the country who currently face similar accusations. Journalists must not be causalities of Azerbaijan’s diplomatic tussles with the West.”

    The Abzas Media staff are among 11 journalists from four independent media outlets currently jailed in Azerbaijan on similar accusations amid a decline in relations between Azerbaijan and the West. Two more have been released under travel bans pending trial.

    Abzas Media director Ulvi Hasanli arrives at court on June 11, 2024. (Photo: Farid Ismayilov)

    Abzas Media denounced the charges as reprisal for “a series of investigations into the corruption crimes of the president and officials appointed by him.”

    In April, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev rejected criticism of the arrests, saying media representatives “who illegally receive funding from abroad” had been arrested within the framework of the law.

    On May 21, a court extended by one month the pre-trial detention of Kanal 13 director Aziz Orujov and journalist Shamo Eminov on similar charges.


    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.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    The Paris-based Reporters Without Borders global media freedom watchdog has announced that it is deeply saddened by the death of its secretary-general, Christophe Deloire, following a battle with cancer. He was 53.

    Christophe Deloire, who died last Saturday, had held the post since 2012 and for 12 years transformed the association, marked by renewed growth and impact, into a global champion for the defence of journalism.

    Founding president of the Forum on Information and Democracy since 2018 and appointed general delegate of the États Généraux de l’Information in 2023, Christophe Deloire was a tireless defender, on every continent, of the freedom, independence and pluralism of journalism, in a context of information chaos.

    Journalism was his life’s struggle, which he fought with unshakeable conviction, said RSF in a statement.

    Many of those media freedom defenders working in the Asia-Pacific region, including Pacific Media Watch, met him at a regional collaboration in Paris in 2018.

    Under Deloire’s leadership, RSF had stepped up advocacy for media freedom in the Pacific.

    Pacific Media Watch joins Reporters Without Borders in extending its deepest condolences to Deloire’s wife Perrine, his son Nathan, his parents, and all those close to him.

    For Pierre Haski, chairman of RSF’s board of directors, said: “Christophe Deloire led the organisation at a crucial time for the right to information.

    “His contribution to defending this fundamental right has been considerable. The board of directors shares in the grief of his family and friends.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • New York, June 11, 2024 – The Committee to Protect Journalists expressed alarm on Tuesday that Pakistan’s east Punjab province hastily enacted a defamation law that is likely to greatly restrict press freedom, and the country’s Supreme Court issued notices to 34 media outlets in connection with their programming.

    On Saturday, June 8, acting Punjab governor and speaker of the provincial assembly Malik Ahmad Khan, a Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party member, approved a defamation law passed on May 20 despite concerns from journalists, human rights organizations, and opposition lawmakers, according to news reports.

    The law, which is being challenged by journalists and press bodies in the Lahore High Court, replaces Punjab’s Defamation Ordinance, 2002 and loosely defines “defamation” and “broadcasting” to include social media platforms. 

    Separately, on June 5, Pakistan’s Supreme Court issued show-cause notices to 34 news channels, asking them to explain, within two weeks, why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for airing press conferences by two parliamentarians who criticized the judiciary, according to multiple news reports.

    The court issued the order while hearing a contempt case against the two parliamentarians, who questioned senior judges alleging the ISI– Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency– was interfering in judicial matters.

    “Pakistan’s Punjab government must swiftly repeal the recently enacted defamation law and ensure that any such legislation does not impinge on press freedom,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Beh Lih Yi. “The media must also be allowed to broadcast key political speeches and developments without interference or fear of reprisal.”

    Under Punjab’s new defamation law, claimants may initiate legal action “without proof of actual damage or loss.” Penalties range from three million rupees (US $10,792) to punitive damages 10 times that amount. Tribunals may also order defendants to tender an unconditional apology or issue a directive to suspend or block the social media account or website where the alleged defamatory content was disseminated. 

    Pakistan has intermittently blocked access to X, formerly Twitter, since February.

    The law also mandates special tribunals, whose members will be appointed by the Punjab government in consultation with the chief justice of the Lahore High Court to adjudicate offenses within 180 days. 

    According to Farieha Aziz, a freelance journalist and co-founder of the digital rights organization Bolo Bhi, the appointment procedure represented a conflict of interest because those who select tribunal members can also be complainants.

    The law further authorizes the tribunal to pass a preliminary decree against a defendant if they do not obtain a leave to defend, or permission to defend themselves against the accusations, at the outset of trial. Moreover, the law bars commenting on pending proceedings, which Aziz called a “gag order.”

    “If a public official has brought a case under the law, it is in public interest to know,” Aziz said.

    Defamation claims filed by a “constitutional office” holder such as the prime minister, Supreme Court and Lahore High Court judges, and army chiefs, will be tried through a separate procedure, raising concerns surrounding violations of constitutional rights.

    Pakistan’s political environment remains volatile after February elections– widely described as flawed– led to the formation of a coalition government of the PML-N and the Pakistan People’s Party, with the former taking power in Punjab.

    Punjab governor Sardar Saleem Haider, a PPP member who was abroad when the defamation law was enacted, earlier stated on June 5 that the provincial government would address the concerns of journalists and other stakeholders, suggesting the legislation would be sent back to the assembly for further consultation.

    Punjab information minister Azma Zahid Bokhari did not immediately respond to CPJ’s request for comment.


    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.

  • In 2016, as The New Republic reporter Walter Shapiro wandered around a hockey arena in eastern Pennsylvania where former President Donald Trump was holding a rally, he could find no one willing to speak with him. He remembers a middle-aged woman attendee telling him, “Why should I talk to you? You are from the liberal press.” Just days earlier, Trump had falsely accused CNN of turning off its…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Department of Labor and OSHA are conducting an investigation into the death of a 16-year old at a poultry processing plant. Also, as lawmakers in Washington ban TikTok in the United States, angry constituents are lobbing death threats at them. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so […]

    The post OSHA Investigates Teen Death At Poultry Plant & Lawmakers Receive Death threats Over TikTok Ban appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Berlin, June 10, 2024—The Committee to Protect Journalists joined seven international press freedom organizations in urging Slovak members of parliament on Monday to reject the proposed public service broadcasting bill scheduled for parliamentary review next week.

    The statement says that despite modifications, the bill still allows the government to politicize the public broadcaster, which would fatally compromise its independence. Therefore, it is contrary to the European Media Freedom Act’s provisions on the independence of public media.

    Referring to the recent shooting of Prime Minister Robert Fico in the background of a polarized society, the statement says that the “need for pluralistic and independent public media, that can facilitate debate across the political spectrum in a time of crisis, has never been greater.”

    Read the full statement:


    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 Monika Singh in Suva

    New Zealand Order of Merit (MNZM) awardee Professor David Robie has called on young journalists to see journalism as a calling and not just a job.

    Dr Robie, who is also the editor of Asia Pacific Report and deputy chair of the Asia Pacific Media Network, was named in the King’s Birthday Honours list for “services to journalism and Asia Pacific media education”.

    He was named last Monday and the investiture ceremony is later this year.

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

    The University of the South Pacific’s head of journalism Associate Professor Shailendra Singh told Wansolwara News: “David’s mountain of work in media research and development, and his dedication to media freedom, speak for themselves.

    “I am one of the many Pacific journalists and researchers that he has mentored and inspired over the decades”.

    Dr Singh said this recognition was richly deserved.

    Dr Robie was head of journalism at USP from 1998 to 2002 before he resigned to join the Auckland University of Technology ane became an associate professor in the School of Communication Studies in 2005 and full professor in 2011.

    Close links with USP
    Since resigning from the Pacific university he has maintained close links with USP Journalism. He was the chief guest at the 18th USP Journalism awards in 2018.

    Retired AUT professor of journalism and communication studies and founder of the Pacific Media Centre Dr David Robie
    Retired AUT professor of journalism and communication studies and founder of the Pacific Media Centre Dr David Robie. Image: Alyson Young/APMN

    He has also praised USP Journalism and said it was “bounding ahead” when compared with the journalism programme at the University of Papua New Guinea, where he was the head of journalism from 1993 to 1997.

    Dr Robie has also co-edited three editions of Pacific Journalism Review (PJR) research journal with Dr Singh.

    He is a keynote speaker at the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference which is being hosted by USP’s School of Pacific Arts, Communications and Education (Journalism), in collaboration with the Pacific Island News Association (PINA) and the Asia-Pacific Media Network (APMN).

    The conference will be held from 4-6 July at the Holiday Inn, Suva. This year the PJR will celebrate its 30th year of publishing at the conference.

    The editors will be inviting a selection of the best conference papers to be considered for publication in a special edition of the PJR or its companion publication Pacific Media.

    Professor David Robie and associate professor and head of USP Journalism Shailendra Singh at the 18th USP Journalism Awards. Image: Wnsolwara/File

    Referring to his recognition for his contribution to journalism, Dr Robie told RNZ Pacific he was astonished and quite delighted but at the same time he felt quite humbled by it all.

    ‘Enormous support’
    “However, I feel that it’s not just me, I owe an enormous amount to my wife, Del, who is a teacher and designer by profession, and a community activist, but she has given journalism and me enormous support over many years and kept me going through difficult times.

    “There’s a whole range of people who have contributed over the years so it’s sort of like a recognition of all of us, especially all those who worked so hard for 13 years on the Pacific Media Centre when it was going. So, yes, it is a delight and I feel quite privileged.”

    Reflecting on his 50 years in journalism, Dr Robie believes that the level of respect for mainstream news media has declined.

    “This situation is partly through the mischievous actions of disinformation peddlers and manipulators, but it is partly our fault in media for allowing the lines between fact-based news and opinion/commentary to be severely compromised, particularly on television,” he told Wansolwara News.

    He said the recognition helped to provide another level of “mana” at a time when public trust in journalism had dropped markedly, especially since the covid-19 pandemic and the emergence of a “global cesspit of disinformation”.

    Dr Robie said journalists were fighting for the relevance of media today.

    “The Fourth Estate, as I knew it in the 1960s, has eroded over the last few decades. It is far more complex today with constant challenges from the social media behemoths and algorithm-driven disinformation and hate speech.”

    He urged journalists to believe in the importance of journalism in their communities and societies.

    ‘Believe in truth to power’
    “Believe in the contribution that we can make to understanding and progress. Believe in truth to power. Have courage, determination and go out and save the world with facts, compassion and rationality.”

    Despite the challenges, he believes that journalism is just as vital today, even more vital perhaps, than the past.

    “It is critical for our communities to know that they have information that is accurate and that they can trust. Good journalism and investigative journalism are the bulwark for an effective defence of democracy against the anarchy of digital disinformation.

    “Our existential struggle is the preservation of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa  — protecting our Pacific Ocean legacy for us all.”

    Dr Robie began his career with The Dominion in 1965, after part-time reporting while a trainee forester and university science student with the NZ Forest Service, and worked as an international journalist and correspondent for agencies from Johannesburg to Paris.

    In addition to winning several journalism awards, he received the 1985 Media Peace Prize for his coverage of the Rainbow Warrior bombing. He was on a 11-week voyage with the bombed ship and wrote the book Eyes of Fire about French and American nuclear testing.

    He also travelled overland across Africa and the Sahara Desert for a year in the 1970s while a freelance journalist.

    In 2015, he was awarded the AMIC Asian Communication Award in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

    Professor David Robie (second from right), and USP head of journalism Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, (left)
    Professor David Robie (second from right), and USP head of journalism Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, (left) with the winners of the 18th USP Journalism Awards in 2018. Image: Wansolwara/File

    Geopolitics, climate crisis and decolonisation
    Dr Robie mentions geopolitics and climate crisis as two of the biggest issues for the Pacific, with the former being largely brought upon by major global players, mainly the US, Australia and China.

    He said it was important for the Pacific to create its own path and not become pawns or hostages to this geopolitical rivalry, adding that it was critically important for news media to retain its independence and a critical distance.

    “The latter issue, climate crisis, is one that the Pacific is facing because of its unique geography, remoteness and weather patterns. It is essential to be acting as one ‘Pacific voice’ to keep the globe on track over the urgent solutions needed for the world. The fossil fuel advocates are passé and endangering us all.

    “Journalists really need to step up to the plate on seeking climate solutions.”

    Dr Robie also shared his views on the recent upheaval in New Caledonia.

    “In addition to many economic issues for small and remote Pacific nations, are the issues of decolonisation. The events over the past three weeks in Kanaky New Caledonia have reminded us that unresolved decolonisation issues need to be centre stage for the Pacific, not marginalised.”

    According to Dr Robie concerted Pacific political pressure, and media exposure, needs to be brought to bear on both France over Kanaky New Caledonia and “French” Polynesia, or Māohi Nui, and Indonesia with West Papua.

    He called on the Pacific media to step up their scrutiny and truth to power role to hold countries and governments accountable for their actions.

    Monika Singh is editor-in-chief of Wansolwara, the online and print publication of the USP Journalism Programme. Published in partnership with Wansolwara.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Gorethy Kenneth in Port Moresby

    New Ireland Governor and a former Papua New Guinea prime minister Sir Julius Chan told the PNG Post-Courier in a “last man standing” interview at the weekend that this “media crime” should stop.

    He was responding to a fake press release allegedly released by New Ireland Deputy Governor Missen Semmie in Kavieng in the early hours of Saturday morning at 2.30am which claimed Sir J — as he is popularly known — had “succumbed to the call of nature” and passed on.

    But Sir J, now 84, said it was “unbelievable” as Semmie was in his remote village where communication was a problem.

    “I am used to it but some other people are not used to it,” Sir J told the Post-Courier.

    “I am okay, yes, and . . . whether you like me or not, you better be ready because you’ll be going before me.”

    Meanwhile, the Post-Courier reports that the ruling Pangu Pati parliamentary wing had resolved to dismiss the 12 MPs who had defected to the opposition.

    The party also confirmed that party leader and Prime Minister James Marape and deputy leader and Deputy Prime Minister John Rosso would keep their positions.

    This resolution was made during the Pangu caucus meeting at Parliament attended by Pangu MPs.

    Four of the renegade Pangu MPs — Finschhafen MP Rainbo Paita, Moresby Northwest MP Lohia Boe Samuel, Goilala MP Casmiro Aia and Lagaip MP Amos Akem — were present.

    “Those MPs who defected were asked to present their case, after which the meeting resolved that the 12 MPs be given seven days’ notice of their dismissal from the party,” Prime Minister Marape said.

    “The Pangu Pati constitution gives them the choice to appeal if they do choose to appeal, for readmittance to the party.”

    Gorethy Kenneth is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • How can politically-conscious people meaningfully engage with the onslaught of propaganda presented as factual news during an election year? We’re in another election year — one that feels eerily similar to the exceptionally painful 2020 presidential election. The same two candidates, their campaigns, and by extension mainstream media, are forcing voters into an impossible moral battle of deciding…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • New reports have revealed that the company that operated the vessel that struck the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore have a history of punishing whistleblowers who point out safety violations by the company. Then, the state of Florida has passed a major new law that limits social media use for children, banning popular apps […]

    The post Company Behind Baltimore Bridge Collapse Has Shady History & New Law Limits Social Media For Kids appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Anyone who imagines there is something resembling academic freedom in the US, or elsewhere in the West for that matter, needs to read this article in the Intercept on an extraordinary – or possibly not so extraordinary – episode of censorship of a Palestinian academic. It shows how donors are the ones really pulling the strings in our academic institutions.

    Here’s what happened:

    1. The prestigious Harvard Law Review was due to publish its first-ever essay by a Palestinian legal scholar late last year, shortly after Hamas’ October 7 attack in Israel. Hurrah (finally) for academic freedom!

    2. However, the essay, which sought to establish a new legal concept of the Nakba – the mass expulsion of Palestinian civilians from their homeland in 1948 to create what would become the self-defined Jewish state of Israel – was pulled at the last moment, despite the fact the editors had subjected it to intense editorial checks and scrutiny. The Harvard Review got cold feet – presumably because of the certainty the essay would offend many of the university’s donors and create a political backlash.

    3. Editors at the rival Columbia Law Review decided to pick up the baton. They asked the same scholar, Rabea Eghbariah, to submit a new, much longer version of the essay for publication. It would be the first time a Palestinian legal scholar had been published by the Columbia Law Review too. Hurrah (finally) for academic freedom!

    4. Aware of the inevitable pushback, 30 editors at the Review spent five months editing the essay, but did so in secret and mostly anonymously to protect themselves from reprisals. The article was subjected to unprecedented scrutiny.

    5. Alerted to the fact that the essay had been leaked and that pressure was building from powerful figures associated with Columbia university and the Washington establishment to prevent publication, the editors published the article this month, unannounced, on the Review’s website. Hurrah (finally) for academic freedom!

    6. But within hours, the Review’s board of directors, comprising law professors and alumni, some with official roles in the federal government, demanded that the essay be taken down. When the editors refused, the whole website was pulled offline. The homepage read “Website under maintenance.”

    7. Hurrah for… the Israel lobby (again).

    If even the academic community is so browbeaten by donors and the political establishment that they dare not allow serious academic debate, even over a legal concept, what hope is there that politicians and the media – equally dependent on Big Money, and even more sensitive to the public pressure of lobbies – are going to perform any better.

    University complicity in the Gaza genocide – brought out of the shadows by the campus protests – highlights how academic institutions are tightly integrated into the political and commercial ventures of western establishments.

    The universities’ savage crackdown on the student encampments – denying them any right to peacefully protest complicity in genocide by the very institutions to which they pay their fees – further underscores the fact that universities are there to maintain the semblance of free and open debate but not the substance. Debate is allowed but only within strictly controlled, and policed, parameters.

    Academic institutions, politicians and the media speak as one on the Gaza genocide for a reason. They are there not promote a dialectics in which truth and falsehood can be tested through open discussion, but to confer legitimacy on the darkest agendas of the establishment they serve.

    Our public debates are rigged to avoid topics that would be difficult for western elites to counter, like their current support for genocide in Gaza. But the very reason we have a genocide in Gaza is because lots of other debates we should have had decades ago have not been allowed to take place, including the one Eghbariah was trying to raise: that the Nakba that began in 1948 and has continued ever since for the Palestinian people needs its own legal framework that incorporates apartheid and genocide.

    Israel’s genocide in Gaza was made possible precisely because western establishments avoided any meaningful scrutiny of, or engagement with, the events of the Nakba for more than 75 years. They pretended either that the ethnic cleansing of 1948 never happened, or that it was the Palestinians’ choice to ethnically cleanse themselves.

    In the decades that followed, western establishments pretended that the illegal colonisation of Palestine by Jewish settlers and the reality of apartheid rule faced by Palestinians – hidden under the rubric of a “temporary occupation” – either weren’t happening, or could be solved through a bogus, bad-faith “peace process”.

    There was never accountability, there was no truth or reconciliation. The western establishment are still furiously avoiding that debate 76 years on, as Eghbariah’s experiences at the hands of the Harvard and Columbia Law Reviews prove.

    We can only pray we don’t have to wait another three-quarters of a century before western elites consider acknowledging their complicity in the genocide of Gaza.

    The post Academia is only as free as powerful donors allow it to be first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • New York, June 7, 2024 – Mozambican authorities should investigate the harassment and assault of at least five journalists covering election-related events since March, and take concrete steps to ensure the press can freely and safely report on matters of crucial public interest leading up to the country’s October general elections, said the Committee to Protect Journalists on Friday.

    On May 16, in Mozambique’s central Zambézia province, about 10 private security guards assaulted and threatened STV reporter Jorge Marcos and camera operator Verson Paulo at a Renamo opposition party event, according to the two journalists, a statement by the Mozambican chapter of the regional press freedom group Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA), and video footage of the incident reviewed by CPJ.

    The police were also there but did nothing, Marcos said, and Paulo added that his camera was damaged in the incident.

    Marcos said that the private security officers also yelled insults and accused them of working for Venâncio Mondlane, a challenger to presidential hopeful Ossumo Momade, leader of the opposition Renamo party, in October’s election.

    Three private security officers interrupted TV Sucesso reporter Ernesto Martinho and camera operator Valdo Massingue during a May 5 live report from a school in the capital of Maputo, where the ruling Frelimo party was holding a congress to elect its next presidential candidate, according to the MISA statement and the journalists, who spoke to CPJ.

    Frelimo has governed the country and nominated all of its presidents since the country became independent in 1975. Its current president, Filipe Nyusi, is term-limited and will leave office after the upcoming national election.

    The private security officers expelled both journalists from the school grounds, told Martinho that he was banned from covering the event, and threatened to also ban all TV Sucesso journalists. Martinho said that a security officer briefly confiscated his microphone, and Valdo said that security personnel also tried to confiscate his camera.

    “Mozambique’s October 2024 elections will be pivotal, and political parties must not be allowed to dictate what information reaches the public domain by harassing and intimidating journalists,” said CPJ Africa Program Coordinator, Muthoki Mumo, in Nairobi. “Mozambican authorities, as well as the leadership of the Frelimo and Renamo parties, must hold those responsible to account for attacks on at least five journalists covering election-related events.”

    On March 28, journalist Atanázio Amade was arrested while he was covering the voter registration process in the northern Nampula province, after a Frelimo party official alleged that the journalist did not have the proper credentials to be present, according to the journalist who spoke to CPJ and the MISA statement.

    Amade, who works with the community radio Ehale, said that he was taken to a local station where the national police’s district commander Américo Francisco, and directors with Mozambique’s Information and National Security Service (SISE) and the Criminal Investigation Service (SERNIC), forced him to delete footage of voters waiting in long queues to register and told him that he “was infringing the law and committing fraud because he was monitoring the electoral registration without special authorization.” Amade said he did not know the names of the SISE and SERNIC directors.

    Renamo spokesperson José Manteigas and Frelimo spokesperson Ludmila Maguni did not respond to CPJ’s phone calls or messages. Rosa Chaúque, spokesperson of the police in Nampula told CPJ via phone that she would look into the incident involving Amade and get back to CPJ. Chaúque did not answer several subsequent calls or messages.

    Emina Tsimine, spokesperson for Sernic, told CPJ via message app that Amade did not identify himself before taking photos at the registry posts and that electoral posts have “heightened levels of security.” She added that Sernic and SISE “merely made the journalist aware of the need to identify himself to avoid these situations” and that both police forces took 20 minutes to speak to him to ascertain his identity, not being responsible for the journalist being held for five hours.

    SISE representatives could not be reached for comment.


    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.