Allen Forrest is writer, painter, graphic artist and activist who produces many cartoons illustrating the regressivism of capitalist societies. One cartoon by Forrest depicted a man and woman swimming in a shark-patrolled sea of MSM (aka mainstream media) lies. But why call it MSM or mainstream media?
Of course, any media would love to be branded as “mainstream media.” After all, “mainstream” is defined as: “considered normal, and having or using ideas, beliefs, etc. that are accepted by most people.” Specifically, what is often called the mainstream media refers to news media: a source for people to find out the how, why, where, and when of events and what these events mean or portend.
This awareness of events, both domestic and international, is important insofar as an enlightened populace is desired by a society. One assumes that most people want to be up-to-date and informed; at the very least people do not want to be kept in the dark on important matters or be deceived by their governments and media.
But the news media of “mainstream” outlets does not appear to have the confidence of the news consuming public. Gallup gauged Americans’ views of of the news media and noted on 27 February 2025: “Americans are now divided into rough thirds, with 31% trusting the media a great deal or a fair amount, 33% saying they do “not [trust it] very much,” and 36%, up from 6% in 1972, saying they have no trust at all in it.” In other words, 31% of Americans trust, to some degree, their so-called mainstream media and the rest don’t have trust in the “mainstream” media.
It should be starkly apparent that 31% constitute a definitive minority of a trusting population. Ergo, it is not “mainstream.” Others will refer to it as monopoly media, as did Ben Bagdikian, in the title of his books on media consolidation that posits media is presenting the views desired by the media consolidators. Another term that came into vogue is legacy media, which refers to the old mass media that predate the internet; for example, newspapers, television, radio, and magazines. Legacy media does proliferate online, as well. Others might simply note that there is state media (media funded by government and hence influenced by views desired by a government) or corporate media (media that seek profits and, therefore, will not want to upset the bottom line by losing potential advertisers).
The poll reveals that 69% of people, far exceeding a 50% cutoff, thus constituting a mainstream, are distrusting of the media.
Many people distrust or have even turned away from legacy media. With the advent of the internet an alternative media has cropped up. To the extent that people have given up on legacy media, then the alternative media may well represent a mainstream media for sourcing news and information. But is this media best depicted as an “alternative”? A more preferable name might be “independent media.” In this case, independent means not dependent on seeking profit beyond breaking even. In fact, many of these independent media editors and writers donate their time and efforts to provide relevant background information and reveal propaganda and disinformation.
Disinformation, being an intentional attempt to deceive, is of particular importance. In the case of the United States-led coalition’s invasion of Iraq, the disinformation campaign helped generate support from many sectors of the public. The legacy media kept repeating the disinformation, and much of the public believed it, being unable to discern the verisimilitude. The legacy media had a hand in the slaughter through its complicity that led to a range of 392,979–942,636 excess mortalities in Iraq. This was based on the fallacious claim that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, although United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspector Scott Ritter had warned against such an attack claiming that Iraq was “fundamentally disarmed.” As such, following four days of detailed information on the method and operation of disinformation, as well as relevant international law and conventions on propaganda, the July 2004 Halifax Symposium on Media and Disinformation held that “disinformation—its creation and propagation—is a crime against humanity and a crime against peace.”
Conclusion
I do not suggest ditching the legacy media; there is value in being aware of the narrative the legacy media is pushing. Approach legacy media the same way one should approach independent media. Use open-minded skepticism. Demand evidence for information presented. Reserve extra skepticism for media sources known to have disinformed in the past.
Consider describing a media accurately by name. Legacy media is not my mainstream news source. Independent media, media dedicated to informing others with factual accuracy, coherent analysis, and a commitment to morality is my mainstream.
Like many others, I abandoned mainstream media long ago. The endless spin, shallow reporting, and predictable and propagandist narratives made it unbearable. Podcasts once seemed like the antidote: raw, unfiltered, and intellectually daring. But after countless hours of listening, I’ve begun to notice something unsettling: the global podcast universe is slowly morphing into the very thing it set out to replace.
It doesn’t matter which show you tune into—the same pundits, professors, and activists appear on rotation. The circle is closed. What once felt refreshing now feels predictable and self-referential. And part of the problem is the commercialization and ruthless competition for views and followers. Every podcaster wants traction, and the easiest shortcut is to invite a star guest. We, the audience, fall for it every time—believing that the bigger the name, the more profound the insights. The reality? Most celebrities are exhausted, endlessly repeating the same theses. Consistent, yes. But new? Rarely.
Despite the promise of broader horizons, most discussions follow the daily news cycle or focus on whichever conflict dominates headlines. Everything else disappears. The world is effectively shrinking—reduced to a handful of regions and a narrow set of concerns. Some hosts release multiple episodes in a single day. How deep can those conversations possibly be? Often, what masquerades as productivity is really just mass production. The speed comes at the expense of substance. Meanwhile, Western voices dominate. Women are often absent altogether. So we all end up in the world of westsplaining and mansplaining.
When podcasters endlessly guest on each other’s shows, swapping seats and recycling conversations, the result is not dialogue but repetition. An echo chamber with shinier packaging is still an echo chamber. The real challenge is not in lining up “big names” but in expanding the conversation: making it more polemical, more creative, more imaginative, more globally aware, more diverse.
Perhaps the true problem is our own laziness. We have grown accustomed to outsourcing our judgment, waiting for the “best” or most famous voices to tell us what to think. It is comfortable, quick, and flattering to believe we are following the wisdom of giants. But perhaps it is precisely this habit that leaves us intellectually dependent, recycling dominant (even though alternative, critical) insights instead of creating new ones.
Local and national podcasters are on the rise for quite some time, but their reach remains limited, often hindered by language barriers or uneven production quality. The same pattern repeats everywhere: chasing visibility, recycling familiar perspectives, and favoring recognizable names over truly fresh voices. The result is a public sphere that is narrower, less inventive, and less daring than it could be. But it remains a (relatively) profitable one…
If podcasts are to be more than mainstream media’s digital twin, we need to demand more—not only from hosts but from ourselves as listeners. We must cultivate curiosity beyond celebrity, seek voices we disagree with, challenge accepted wisdom, etc. Otherwise, the danger isn’t just boredom—it’s intellectual stagnation. If we do not break this cycle, we will soon discover that these “alternatives” were never really alternatives at all.
If we don’t insist on new voices (especially from the Global South/majority), bolder ideas, and sharper arguments, the “alternative” will soon be indistinguishable from the mainstream it once sought to escape.
Maybe I am wrong… I am just sharing my observations.
By the way, I still find Substack more inspirative than podcasts. It feels like a space where ideas can breathe, develop, and push us beyond the recycled talking points.
New Delhi, August 21, 2025—Maldives president Mohamed Muizzu should reject a bill that was recently introduced in the country’s parliament that would dismantle press freedom and place the media under government control, the second such bill in a year after earlier attempts failed, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Thursday.
“President Mohamed Muizzu must uphold his pledge to support media freedom by ensuring this regressive bill is withdrawn,” said CPJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director Beh Lih Yi. “Creating a new commission, stacking it with presidential appointees, and then granting it sweeping powers to fine, suspend, and shutter news outlets as it sees fit would destroy independent journalism and erode the Maldives’ fragile democratic space.”
The bill would dissolve two existing regulatory bodies, the Maldives Media Council and the Maldives Broadcasting Commission, and replace them with a new entity — the Maldives Media and Broadcasting Commission.
The proposed commission would have seven members, with the president empowered to appoint three of them. The president would also select the chairperson. The four remaining members, elected by the media, could be removed by a parliamentary vote. The bill would give the commission the power to:
Fine journalists between US$325 and US$650 and media outlets up to US$6,500 for code of conduct violations, failing to comply with the commission’s orders and legal violations.
Temporarily suspend registrations of outlets during commission probe
Pursue judicial order to cancel registrations of media outlets
Block websites and halt broadcasts during commission probe
Investigate cases retroactively (up to a year before the creation of the new commission)
The Maldives Journalists Association (MJA), a local press freedom organization, warned that the bill would dismantle press freedom and place the media under government control. MJA called the bill a “grave threat” that criminalizes reporting and said journalists and media outlets were not consulted during its drafting.
Independent parliamentarian Abdul Hannan Aboobakuru introduced the bill in the People’s Majlis, the country’s legislative body, on August 18, after similar attempts last year. That bill was rejected after President Muizzu said he opposed controlling the press and wanted greater media freedom. He asked his party, the People’s National Congress, which controls parliament, to vote against that bill.
Muizzu and Hannan did not immediately respond to CPJ’s email requesting comment.
“Speak Up Kōrerotia” — a radio show centred on human rights issues — has featured a nuclear-free Pacific and other issues in this week’s show.
Encouraging discussion on human rights issues in both Canterbury and New Zealand, Speak Up Kōrerotia offers a forum to provide a voice for affected communities.
Engaging in conversations around human rights issues in the country, each show covers a different human rights issue with guests from or working with the communities.
Analysing and asking questions of the realities of life allows Speak Up Kōrerotia to cover the issues that often go untouched.
Discussing the hard-hitting topics, Speak Up Kōrerotia encourages listeners to reflect on the issues covered.
Hosted by Dr Sally Carlton, the show brings key issues to the fore and provides space for guests to “Speak Up” and share their thoughts and experiences.
The latest episode today highlights the July/August 2025 marking of two major anniversaries — 80 years since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, and 40 years since the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior here in Aotearoa.
What do these anniversaries mean in the context of 2025, with the ever-greater escalation of global tension and a new nuclear arms race occurring alongside the seeming impotence of the UN and other international bodies?
Anti-nuclear advocacy in 2025 Video/audio podcast: Speak Up Kōrerotia
Speak Up Kōrerotia . . . human rights at Plains FM Image: Screenshot
Guests: Disarmament advocate Dr Kate Dewes, journalist and author Dr David Robie, critical nuclear studies academic Dr Karly Burch and Japanese gender literature professor Dr Susan Bouterey bring passion, a wealth of knowledge and decades of anti-nuclear advocacy to this discussion.
Dr Robie’s new book Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warriorwas launched on the anniversary of the ship’s bombing. This revised edition has extensive new and updated material, images, and a prologue by former NZ prime minister Helen Clark.
The Speak Up Kōrerotia panel in today’s show, “Anti-Nuclear Advocacy in 2025”, Dr Kate Dewes (from left), Sally Carlton, Dr David Robie, Dr Karly Burch and Susan Bouterey. Image: Screenshot
To get to the venue involves a calming, if early, ritual. Uneasy sleep beforehand, given the morning slot. Eagerness to prepare for the topic to be discussed in the global affairs segment, accompanied by that childish sense of worry that approval means something. Then, getting on a tram to the venue, which, as luck would have it, is positioned just at the end of the tramline in East Brunswick. This is Melbourne, and the destination is one of the city’s most heart-throbbing venues of community radio, Triple R.
The trio of radio hosts on the program Breakfasters has already grown callouses of experience, managing multiple tasks as they go through the music listings and guests with placid ease. Before heading to the green room, the scene is welcoming. Wooden floors, slightly worn, charmingly tatty, with brochures prominently displayed as you enter the building, a solid, expansive structure that accommodates generous space for live music and studios.
Triple R or 3RRR, depending on preference, is one of those community radio stations that sports an influence far beyond the plutocrats of the traditional or commercial radio scene. There are no demagogues to be found, no celebrity functionaries to be lauded. You are not handed a list of forbidden topics or words, much as you would be if running a program for the national broadcaster. The programming is also distinctly free of the venom and spite trafficked on the airwaves of the shock jock stations. While the arterial flow of the station is music, the mix of news and discussions on international and local affairs adds a rich sauce. Those with omnivorous tastes will be hard to disappoint.
Across the vast expanse of Australia, some 450 community radio stations hum away, hoping to offer their listeners alternative platforms with varied content. That very fact is almost singular. The development of such radio, observes David Melzer, himself having had lengthy experience at the helm of Melbourne’s polyglot 3ZZZ, had its roots in a number of factors: those dealing in education, activists inspired by anti-Vietnam War protests, increasing numbers of migrants, and enthusiasts of classical music. “Each of these four groups had one thing in common. They challenged how broadcasting operated in Australia. They wanted control of the airwaves, and they lobbied for it, leading to the establishment of the third tier of broadcasting in Australia.” With the advent of community broadcasting came the increasing role of Indigenous communities and those reluctant to use print media.
Globally, such stations face the corrosive effects of not so much digital disruption as digital appropriation, a process that is also shaping listening habits. Be it such internet-based giants as YouTube and Spotify, and the personalised, podcasting format, where tastes become bespoke affairs, the very idea of the radio as an important part of a day’s routine is being challenged. Not only does this alter the nature of what content is being offered, but it has had behavioural effects. As a co-authored article in the Electronic Journal of Education, Social Economics and Technology published this year contends, “Today’s listeners, especially younger generations, prefer interactive, mobile-accessible content and often participate in content production themselves via social media”.
That said, there is room for some sunny optimism. Community radio in the United Kingdom, for instance, is burgeoning. In September 2024, the country had over 350 licensed community radio stations, a marked increase from the 200 stations broadcasting in 2014. Data from Radio Joint Audience Research published in July this year also finds that over 50 million adults (86% of the UK population) tune in to radio every week, which augurs well for the more specific programming offered by community radio outlets. The streaming behemoths have created an odd sense of detachment, even estrangement, and certain listeners are seeking grassroots comforts. The significance of this is hard to exaggerate, given the nourishment such radio outlets provide in terms of language, cultural pursuits, and the arts.
During those necessary radiothons, when money is sought from the subscribers, the staff place themselves into the hands, ears, and pockets of the listeners, trying to sweetly convince them that another year of financial loyalty is needed. The theme this year for Triple R is “Digging Deeper”, described by the radio station as representing the labours of volunteer presenters who “work hard to dig deeper every single day, uncovering musical gems and unearthing important issues that often do not find airtime anywhere else.” The names of subscribers are read out with hearty enthusiasm and a tease. Renewals are emphasised with pride.
It is almost impossible to believe that an institution such as Triple R has been around for some three decades. The brooding fear is that such a scene will cease before the thieving systems of artificial intelligence or be chewed up by the ghastly listening habits of “influencers” and curated streaming services. Let us hope there is still ample time before that ghastly universe triumphs. Till then, best appreciate the admirable exploits of digging deeper by those able staff in community radio.
On May 1, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,” instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to cease nearly all federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The order prohibited local public radio and television stations, and any other recipient of CPB funds, from using federal grants to purchase programming from these public media organizations and mandated a review of existing grants for compliance with the administration’s ideological priorities. The Trump administration’s attempt to cut public media funding is part of their “rescission” strategy—a process to roll back previously appropriated budgets.
The House gave final approval on July 18, 2025, to the Trump administration’s plan to rescind approximately $9 billion in previously allocated funds. This measure included a $1.1 billion cut to the CPB, effectively eliminating all federal support for NPR, PBS, and their member stations. Following this, the CPB announced on August 1, 2025, that it would begin an orderly shutdown of its operations after the Senate-Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill excluded its funding for the first time in nearly sixty years. These actions are part of a broader initiative spearheaded by the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which aims to streamline the federal government, eliminate programs deemed unnecessary by the administration, and reduce bureaucratic inefficiency.
While the administration claims its efforts are motivated by fiscal responsibility and safeguarding taxpayer dollars, critics argue that these moves are politically motivated attempts to silence dissent and reshape the media landscape to favor partisan narratives. Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of Reporters Without Borders USA, told Project Censored, “The administration frames the cuts as ‘efficiency cuts,’ but that is not necessarily the case. They frame it that way because they decided that’s a more palatable way to sell it to the American people. But at the end of the day, public media broadcasting costs the American taxpayer, on average, $1.60 per year, and the level of value that Americans get out of that $1.60 per year is tremendous.”
The CPB, established in 1967 as a private nonprofit corporation, was specifically designed to insulate public broadcasting from political interference, with its charter expressly forbidding government control over broadcasting content while ensuring that over 70 percent of federal appropriations flow directly to more than 1,500 local affiliate stations rather than centralized bureaucracies.
“It’s really important that people understand how public media is funded in this country,” Weimers shared with Project Censored. Local affiliates have the freedom to purchase programming from NPR and PBS that caters to their audiences’ preferences. He explained how Trump’s executive order essentially bans affiliate stations from buying this programming, thereby infringing on their First Amendment rights. Weimers emphasized that “it is up to the individual local independent stations what they want to show their audience on air, and they should make that decision based on what their audiences want to see and what their audience wants to hear, not based on what politicians in Washington think they ought to hear.” He challenged the Trump administration’s claim that public media is a biased tool of his political opponents, “Some of the editorial coverage might lean left and the audience might lean left, but it’s a complete mischaracterization. Public media in this country has over a thousand different broadcast, television, and radio stations. It’s not just any one thing. There isn’t one political line across all of public media.”
Other voices in the media industry echo Weimers’s statements regarding the motivations behind the Trump administration’s CPB rescissions. Victor Pickard, Professor of Media Policy and Political Economy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, explained to Project Censored that public media was created to address gaps in commercial broadcasting and to ensure that all audiences, especially low-income communities and communities of color, would have access to high-quality, trusted content. Pickard warned that defunding public media will force communities to “learn that lesson once again” about the limitations of commercial broadcasting, which “will never provide all of the information and communication needs of a democratic society.”
Lisa Graves, founder and Executive Director of True North Research, told Project Censored that the Trump administration’s cuts to the CPB are a systematic effort to undermine independent journalism, not address legitimate concerns about bias or fiscal policy. Graves explained that the targeting of NPR and PBS stems from coordinated and widespread disinformation and propaganda being perpetuated by the Trump administration. “These entities are important public investments that help bring national, international, as well as local news into our communities,” Graves told Project Censored. “The administration claims that there is political bias or partisan bias at these outlets, when in fact they are just covering the news. … The attack on public broadcasting is an attack on facts, truth, and journalistic independence. It has to be seen as such.”
This strategy poses an Achilles’ heel: While the rhetoric employed by the Trump administration targets elite, national outlets, the most damaging impact will fall on the hyperlocal media infrastructure already struggling to survive. Many small-town, rural, and tribal affiliates rely on CPB funding and syndicated content from NPR and PBS to fill gaps in local coverage, provide educational programming, and serve communities with little to no other media access, otherwise known as news deserts. Eliminating this support could crater regional journalism ecosystems—leading to programming losses, station closures, and widespread layoffs that ripple down the media supply chain. In many conservative and underserved communities, where public broadcasting often remains the only consistent source of local and noncommercial news, the cuts could unintentionally harm the very constituencies that the defunding narrative claims to serve.
Noting that public media receive only paltry funding from federal sources, Pickard called the defunding of the CPB a “tragic irony,” because it will “hurt individual stations, especially in rural and conservative areas in states such as Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Texas.” He explained to Project Censored that some stations depend on CPB funding for 25–50 percent of their budgets and “will likely go under if federal subsidies are entirely cut, leaving news deserts in their wake.”
The Trump administration frames these funding cuts as fiscal responsibility, but smaller local news outlets view them as politically motivated attacks and part of a campaign to delegitimize public media and the services they provide. NPR and three Colorado public radio stations filed a lawsuit alleging that the May executive order is “textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination” in violation of the First Amendment. PBS, along with Lakeland PBS in rural Minnesota, also filed a similar lawsuit, disputing claims of bias and asserting that the Constitution forbids the President from arbitrating content. These lawsuits suggest Trump has far exceeded the expansive powers of the presidency, usurping congressional prerogatives and eroding free speech rights.
Seth Stern, Director of Advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, told Project Censored that the Trump administration has adopted what he calls a “throw-it-at-the-wall approach,” where they challenge the Constitution despite knowing most cases will fail on constitutional grounds. However, Stern explained that the strategy behind this approach is to find any legal opening the administration can exploit. “They are looking for the case they win, looking for the one instance where the courts give them an opening, and once they have that opening, they are going to barge through it.”
The Trump administration has adopted a multifaceted strategy to politicize public media by portraying these institutions as adversaries rather than recognizing them as informational resources or allies. Through rhetorical attacks, the administration frames public media and their content as ideologically biased, financially irresponsible, and increasingly unnecessary. This approach is implemented through executive orders and policies that employ loaded language such as “woke propaganda,” citing questionable fiscal justifications like “cost efficiency,” downplaying societal value, and implementing disruptive measures that create instability for essential broadcasting programs, ultimately exploiting public media rather than leveraging its potential for effective public communication.
Experts like Reporters Without Borders’ Weimers contend that the Trump administration has “shown a very strong disposition towards using whatever levers of power they have to punish those who oppose their agenda in any way.” Weimers emphasized to Project Censored that this targeting can affect public media outlets simply for “accurately reporting on what they’re doing.” The implications of these executive actions extend far beyond public media, he cautioned. “There is no reason that that would not also impact nonprofit media that publish content that the Trump administration does not like, even for-profit media.”
Weimers warned of a troubling escalation, characterizing the Trump administration’s campaign against public media as “a slippery slope.” Once the government gains control over public media and broadcast licensees, he argued, “they are one step closer to getting their hands on the rest of the media as well.”
Pickard told Project Censored that while the federal funding cuts will have a “chilling effect” on an already compromised media system, they also open the possibility of “building something entirely new out of the wreckage.” That wreckage is not merely financial—it is the collapse of a decades-old compact between government, media, and the public.
But from that imminent destruction comes a rare opportunity to reimagine public media not as a government-funded institution vulnerable to political whims, but as a truly community-owned resource, insulated from both partisan interference and commercial pressures. Rebuilding cannot depend on Washington reversing course or a future administration restoring support. Instead, citizens must take action: establishing community-supported journalism cooperatives, developing hyperlocal news networks sustained by their audiences, and building media infrastructures accountable to neighbors rather than distant politicians or corporate shareholders. The Trump administration may have dismantled decades of public media investment, but it cannot destroy the fundamental human need for trustworthy, bipartisan information and community connection.
Originally published on https://www.projectcensored.org/trump-admin-hijacked-public-broadcasting/
On May 1, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,” instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to cease nearly all federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The order prohibited local public radio and television stations, and any other recipient of CPB funds, from using federal grants to purchase programming from these public media organizations and mandated a review of existing grants for compliance with the administration’s ideological priorities. The Trump administration’s attempt to cut public media funding is part of their “rescission” strategy—a process to roll back previously appropriated budgets.
The House gave final approval on July 18, 2025, to the Trump administration’s plan to rescind approximately $9 billion in previously allocated funds. This measure included a $1.1 billion cut to the CPB, effectively eliminating all federal support for NPR, PBS, and their member stations. Following this, the CPB announced on August 1, 2025, that it would begin an orderly shutdown of its operations after the Senate-Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill excluded its funding for the first time in nearly sixty years. These actions are part of a broader initiative spearheaded by the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which aims to streamline the federal government, eliminate programs deemed unnecessary by the administration, and reduce bureaucratic inefficiency.
While the administration claims its efforts are motivated by fiscal responsibility and safeguarding taxpayer dollars, critics argue that these moves are politically motivated attempts to silence dissent and reshape the media landscape to favor partisan narratives. Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of Reporters Without Borders USA, told Project Censored, “The administration frames the cuts as ‘efficiency cuts,’ but that is not necessarily the case. They frame it that way because they decided that’s a more palatable way to sell it to the American people. But at the end of the day, public media broadcasting costs the American taxpayer, on average, $1.60 per year, and the level of value that Americans get out of that $1.60 per year is tremendous.”
The CPB, established in 1967 as a private nonprofit corporation, was specifically designed to insulate public broadcasting from political interference, with its charter expressly forbidding government control over broadcasting content while ensuring that over 70 percent of federal appropriations flow directly to more than 1,500 local affiliate stations rather than centralized bureaucracies.
“It’s really important that people understand how public media is funded in this country,” Weimers shared with Project Censored. Local affiliates have the freedom to purchase programming from NPR and PBS that caters to their audiences’ preferences. He explained how Trump’s executive order essentially bans affiliate stations from buying this programming, thereby infringing on their First Amendment rights. Weimers emphasized that “it is up to the individual local independent stations what they want to show their audience on air, and they should make that decision based on what their audiences want to see and what their audience wants to hear, not based on what politicians in Washington think they ought to hear.” He challenged the Trump administration’s claim that public media is a biased tool of his political opponents, “Some of the editorial coverage might lean left and the audience might lean left, but it’s a complete mischaracterization. Public media in this country has over a thousand different broadcast, television, and radio stations. It’s not just any one thing. There isn’t one political line across all of public media.”
Other voices in the media industry echo Weimers’s statements regarding the motivations behind the Trump administration’s CPB rescissions. Victor Pickard, Professor of Media Policy and Political Economy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, explained to Project Censored that public media was created to address gaps in commercial broadcasting and to ensure that all audiences, especially low-income communities and communities of color, would have access to high-quality, trusted content. Pickard warned that defunding public media will force communities to “learn that lesson once again” about the limitations of commercial broadcasting, which “will never provide all of the information and communication needs of a democratic society.”
Lisa Graves, founder and Executive Director of True North Research, told Project Censored that the Trump administration’s cuts to the CPB are a systematic effort to undermine independent journalism, not address legitimate concerns about bias or fiscal policy. Graves explained that the targeting of NPR and PBS stems from coordinated and widespread disinformation and propaganda being perpetuated by the Trump administration. “These entities are important public investments that help bring national, international, as well as local news into our communities,” Graves told Project Censored. “The administration claims that there is political bias or partisan bias at these outlets, when in fact they are just covering the news. … The attack on public broadcasting is an attack on facts, truth, and journalistic independence. It has to be seen as such.”
This strategy poses an Achilles’ heel: While the rhetoric employed by the Trump administration targets elite, national outlets, the most damaging impact will fall on the hyperlocal media infrastructure already struggling to survive. Many small-town, rural, and tribal affiliates rely on CPB funding and syndicated content from NPR and PBS to fill gaps in local coverage, provide educational programming, and serve communities with little to no other media access, otherwise known as news deserts. Eliminating this support could crater regional journalism ecosystems—leading to programming losses, station closures, and widespread layoffs that ripple down the media supply chain. In many conservative and underserved communities, where public broadcasting often remains the only consistent source of local and noncommercial news, the cuts could unintentionally harm the very constituencies that the defunding narrative claims to serve.
Noting that public media receive only paltry funding from federal sources, Pickard called the defunding of the CPB a “tragic irony,” because it will “hurt individual stations, especially in rural and conservative areas in states such as Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Texas.” He explained to Project Censored that some stations depend on CPB funding for 25–50 percent of their budgets and “will likely go under if federal subsidies are entirely cut, leaving news deserts in their wake.”
The Trump administration frames these funding cuts as fiscal responsibility, but smaller local news outlets view them as politically motivated attacks and part of a campaign to delegitimize public media and the services they provide. NPR and three Colorado public radio stations filed a lawsuit alleging that the May executive order is “textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination” in violation of the First Amendment. PBS, along with Lakeland PBS in rural Minnesota, also filed a similar lawsuit, disputing claims of bias and asserting that the Constitution forbids the President from arbitrating content. These lawsuits suggest Trump has far exceeded the expansive powers of the presidency, usurping congressional prerogatives and eroding free speech rights.
Seth Stern, Director of Advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, told Project Censored that the Trump administration has adopted what he calls a “throw-it-at-the-wall approach,” where they challenge the Constitution despite knowing most cases will fail on constitutional grounds. However, Stern explained that the strategy behind this approach is to find any legal opening the administration can exploit. “They are looking for the case they win, looking for the one instance where the courts give them an opening, and once they have that opening, they are going to barge through it.”
The Trump administration has adopted a multifaceted strategy to politicize public media by portraying these institutions as adversaries rather than recognizing them as informational resources or allies. Through rhetorical attacks, the administration frames public media and their content as ideologically biased, financially irresponsible, and increasingly unnecessary. This approach is implemented through executive orders and policies that employ loaded language such as “woke propaganda,” citing questionable fiscal justifications like “cost efficiency,” downplaying societal value, and implementing disruptive measures that create instability for essential broadcasting programs, ultimately exploiting public media rather than leveraging its potential for effective public communication.
Experts like Reporters Without Borders’ Weimers contend that the Trump administration has “shown a very strong disposition towards using whatever levers of power they have to punish those who oppose their agenda in any way.” Weimers emphasized to Project Censored that this targeting can affect public media outlets simply for “accurately reporting on what they’re doing.” The implications of these executive actions extend far beyond public media, he cautioned. “There is no reason that that would not also impact nonprofit media that publish content that the Trump administration does not like, even for-profit media.”
Weimers warned of a troubling escalation, characterizing the Trump administration’s campaign against public media as “a slippery slope.” Once the government gains control over public media and broadcast licensees, he argued, “they are one step closer to getting their hands on the rest of the media as well.”
Pickard told Project Censored that while the federal funding cuts will have a “chilling effect” on an already compromised media system, they also open the possibility of “building something entirely new out of the wreckage.” That wreckage is not merely financial—it is the collapse of a decades-old compact between government, media, and the public.
But from that imminent destruction comes a rare opportunity to reimagine public media not as a government-funded institution vulnerable to political whims, but as a truly community-owned resource, insulated from both partisan interference and commercial pressures. Rebuilding cannot depend on Washington reversing course or a future administration restoring support. Instead, citizens must take action: establishing community-supported journalism cooperatives, developing hyperlocal news networks sustained by their audiences, and building media infrastructures accountable to neighbors rather than distant politicians or corporate shareholders. The Trump administration may have dismantled decades of public media investment, but it cannot destroy the fundamental human need for trustworthy, bipartisan information and community connection.
Originally published on https://www.projectcensored.org/trump-admin-hijacked-public-broadcasting/
The news industry has undergone a sea-change in the last two decades. Print readership of newspapers has declined sharply, while their digital readership has edged up slowly. Local newspapers have consolidated into ever larger chains controlled by private equity and vulture funds. Newer digital-only media sites have multiplied.
Into this changing news landscape has come an influx of new journalists who bridle at the poor working conditions and low pay inflicted by media moguls building their empires on the cheap. Thousands of these media workers are finding a home in the NewsGuild.
The Guild has transformed itself in recent years, thanks to rising rank-and-file militancy and innovative organizing tactics. Since 2020, the Guild has organized 210 workplaces, including some of the largest media organizations in the U.S.
New York, August 19, 2025—The Committee to Protect Journalists calls on authorities in Guinea-Bissau to rescind an August 15, 2025, order effectively suspending the work of the Portuguese state-owned news outlets LUSA and RTP and expelling Portuguese journalists working with them.
Authoritiesordered the immediate and indefinite closure of the LUSA and RTP offices and the discontinuation of local broadcasts of RTP, andsaid that Portuguese journalists with the two outlets should leave the country by August 19, according to ajoint statement by LUSA and RTP and astatement by the local journalists’ union, SINJOTECS.
“Guinea-Bissau’s closure of LUSA and RTP is the latest sign of the government’s hostility to the media and raises significant concerns about the public’s access to independent journalism ahead of the country’s general elections in November,” said CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Muthoki Mumo. “Guinea-Bissau should allow LUSA and RTP to continue operating freely and ensure that journalists can work in the country without undue interference.”
Authorities did not provide an explanation for their actions, according to LUSA director, Luísa Meirelles, and RTP Chair Nicolau Santos, both of whom spoke to CPJ. Prime Minister Braima Camará and President Sissoco Embaló declinedto answer questions from journalists on the subject at an August 15 press conference, but promised a forthcoming statement, which has yet to be issued.
During a state visit to Cape Verde on August 17, Embaló told journalists that the closure of the outlets is “a problem between Guinea-Bissau and Portugal.”
Santos told CPJ that although he still hopes the decision will be reversed soon, he fears it might remain in place until the November elections because “authorities are not interested in having independent news coverage.”
Embalódissolved the country’s parliament in December 2023 and has ruled by decree since.
On July 27, RTP’s Guinea-Bissau bureau chief, Waldir Araújo, wasrobbed and beaten by three men who told him that his reporting“gave a bad image of the country,” the journalist told CPJ. Santos said that in March, the RTP transmission equipment in the town of Nhacra wasdamaged in a suspicious fire.
Last year, CPJdocumented a number of assaults and cases of harassment of journalists, as well as verbal attacks on the press by Embaló.
Presidential spokesperson Ndira Baldé Tavares did not respond to phone calls or text messages from CPJ.
Journalists like Anas al-Sharif who report the truth in Gaza to the world and are targeted by Israel deserve protection, not just sympathy.
COMMENTARY:By Sara Qudah
During the past 22 months in Gaza, the pattern has become unbearable yet tragically predictable: A journalist reports about civilians; killed or starved, shares footage of a hospital corridor, shelters bombed out, schools and homes destroyed, and then they are silenced.
Killed.
At the Committee to Protect Journalists we documented that 2024 was the deadliest year for journalists, with an unprecedented number of those killed by Israel reporting from Gaza while covering Israel’s military operations.
That trend did not end; it continued instead in 2025, making this war by far the deadliest for the press in history.
When a journalist is killed in a besieged war city, the loss is no longer personal. It is institutional, it is the loss of eyes and ears on the ground: a loss of verification, context, and witness.
Journalists are the ones who turn statistics into stories. They give names to numbers and faces to headlines. They make distant realities real for the rest of the world, and provide windows into the truth and doors into other worlds.
That is why the killing of Anas al-Sharif last week reverberates so loudly, not just as a tragic loss of one life, but as a silencing of many stories that will now never be told.
Not just reporting Anas al-Sharif was not just reporting from Gaza, he was filling a vital void. When international journalists couldn’t access the Strip, his work for Al Jazeera helped the world understand what was happening.
On August 10, 2025, an airstrike hit a tent near al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City where journalists had gathered. Al-Sharif and several of his colleagues were killed.
The strike — its method, its targets, and its aftermath – wasn’t isolated. It fits a pattern CPJ and other press freedom organisations have tracked for months: in Gaza, journalists are facing not just the incidental risks of war, but repeated, targeted threats.
And so far, there has been no accountability.
The Israeli military framed its action differently: officials alleged that al-Sharif was affiliated with Hamas and that the attack was aimed at a legitimate threat. But so far, the evidence presented publicly failed to meet the test of independent witnesses; no public evidence has met the basic standard of independent verification.
UN experts and press freedom groups have called for transparent investigations, warning of the danger in labelling journalists as combatants without clear, verifiable proof.
In the turmoil of war, there’s a dangerous tendency to accept official narratives too quickly, too uncritically. That’s exactly how truth gets lost.
Immediate chilling effect
The repercussions of silencing reporters in a besieged territory are far-reaching. There is the immediate chilling effect: journalists who stay risk death; those who leave — if they even can — leave behind untold stories.
Second, when local journalists are killed, international media have no choice but to rely increasingly on official statements or third-party briefings for coverage, many with obvious biases and blind spots.
And third, the families of victims and the communities they represented are denied both justice and memory.
Al-Sharif’s camera recorded funerals and destroyed homes, bore witness to lives cut short. His death leaves those images without a voice, pointing now only into silence.
We also need to name the power dynamics at play. When an enormously powerful state with overwhelming military capability acts inside a densely populated area, the vast majority of casualties will be civilians — those who cannot leave — and local reporters, who cannot shelter.
This is not a neutral law of physics; it is the to-be-anticipated result of how this war waged in a space where journalists will not be able to go into shelter.
We have repeatedly documented that journalists killed in this war are Palestinian — not international correspondents. The most vulnerable witnesses, those most essential to documenting it, are also the most vulnerable to being killed.
So what should the international community and the world leaders do beyond offering condolences?
Demand independent investigation
For starters, they must demand an immediate, independent investigation. Not just routine military reviews, but real accountability — gathering evidence, preserving witness testimony, and treating each death with the seriousness it deserves.
Accountability cannot be a diplomatic nicety; it must be a forensic process with witnesses and evidence.
Additionally, journalists must be protected as civilians. That’s not optional. Under international law, reporters who aren’t taking part in the fighting are civilians — period.
That is an obligation not a choice. And when safety isn’t possible, we must get them out. Evacuate them. Save their lives. And in doing so, allow others in — international reporters who can continue telling the story.
We are past the time for neutrality. The use of language like “conflict”, “collateral damage”, or “civilian casualties” cannot be used to deflect responsibility, especially when the victims are people whose only “crime” was documenting human suffering.
When the world loses journalists like Anas al-Sharif, it loses more than just one voice. We lose a crucial balance of power and access to truth; it fails to maintain the ability to understand what’s happening on the ground. And future generations lose the memory — the record — of what took place here.
Stand up for facts
The international press community, human rights organisations, and diplomatic actors need to stand up. Not just for investigations, but for facts. Families in Gaza deserve more than empty statements. They deserve the truth about who was killed, and why. So does every person reading this from afar.
And the journalists still risking everything to report from inside Gaza deserve more than sympathy. They deserve protection.
The killing of journalists — like those from Al Jazeera — isn’t just devastating on a human level. It’s a direct attack on journalism itself. When a state can murder reporters without consequence, it sends a message to the entire world: telling the truth might cost you your life.
I write this as someone who believes that journalism is, above all, a moral act. It’s about bearing witness. It’s about insisting that lives under siege are still lives that matter, still worth seeing.
Silencing a journalist doesn’t just stop a story — it erases a lifetime of effort to bring others into view.
The murder of al-Sharif isn’t just another tragedy. It’s an assault on truth itself, in a place where truth is desperately needed. If we let this keep happening, we’re not just losing lives — we’re losing the last honest witnesses in a world ruled by force.
And that’s something we can’t afford to give up.
Sara Qudah is the regional director for Middle East and North Africa of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Sara on LinkedIn: Sara Qudah
Twenty-four-hour news networks have demonstrated that surfeit kills discretion. The search for fillers, distractions, and items that will titillate, enrage, or simply sedate is an ongoing process. Gone are the days when discerning choices were made about what constituted worthy news, an admittedly difficult problem that would always lead to priorities, rankings, and judgments that might well be challenged. At the very least, news could be kept to specific time slots during the day, meaning that audiences could be given some form of rationing. Such an approach culminated in that most famous of occasions on April 18, 1933, when the BBC’s news announcer declared with a minimum of fuss that “There is no news.” This was followed by piano music playing out the rest of the segment.
On the pretext of coming across as informed and enlightened, such networks have also bought into astrology masquerading as sound comment. The commentators are intended to lend an air of respectability to something that either has not happened or something they have little idea about. Their credentials, however, are advertised like glitzy baubles, intended to arrest the intelligence of the viewing audience long enough to realise they have been had.
Sky News Australia is one such cringing example. The premise of The War Cabinet, which aired on August 11, was clear: those attending it were simply dying for greater militarism and war preparedness on the part of the Australian government, while those preferring diplomacy would be treated like verminous denialists yearning for some sand to bury their heads in. The point was less a matter of news than prediction and speculation, an exercise of mass bloviation. To lend a wartime flavour to proceedings, the event was staged in the Cabinet Room of Old Parliament House, which host Chris Uhlmann celebrated as the place Australia’s Prime Minister, John Curtin, and his ministers steered the nation through World War II.” Former ministers, defence leaders, and national security experts were gathered “around the Cabinet table to answer a single question: is Australia ready for war?”
The stale view from Alexander Downer, Australia’s longest and, in many ways, most inconspicuous foreign minister, did little to rustle or stir. Liberal democracy, to be preserved in sacred glory, needed Australia to be linked to a “strong global alliance led by the United States”. That such an alliance might itself be the catalyst for war, notably given expectations from Washington about what Australia would do in a conflict with China, was ignored with an almost studious ignorance. Instead, Downer saw quite the opposite. “If this alliance holds, if it’s properly cemented, if it is well-led by the Americans… and if we, as members of the alliance, are serious about making a practical contribution to defence through our spending and our equipment, then we will maintain a balance of power in the world.”
His assessment of the current Albanese government was somewhat dotty. “I think the government here in Australia has made a major mistake by playing, if you like, politics with this issue of the dangers of the region and losing the balance of power because they don’t want to be seen as too close to President Trump.” Any press briefing from Defence Minister Richard Marles regarding the anti-China AUKUS pact would ease any anxiety on Downer’s part. Under the Albanese government, sovereignty has been surrendered to Washington in a way so remarkable it could be regarded as treasonous. While the Royal Australian Navy may never see a single US nuclear-powered submarine, let alone a jointly constructed one, US naval shipyards are rolling in the cash of the Australian taxpayer.
Former Labor Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, lamented that Australia’s strategic outlook in the Indo-Pacific was “deteriorating rather markedly,” a formulation utterly vague and a mere parroting of just about every other hawkish analyst that sees deterioration everywhere. Thankfully, we had Strategic Forum CEO Ross Babbage to give some shape to it, which turned out to be that ragged motif of the Yellow Horde to the North, readying to strike southwards. The Oriental Barbarians, with a tinge of Communist Red, were the primary reasons for a worsening strategic environment, aided by their generous military expenditure. With almost a note of admiration, Babbage felt that China was readying for war by adjusting its economy and readying its people “for tough times that may come”.
The venal, ever-noisy former Home Affairs Department Secretary Mike Pezzullo, who has an unhealthy appetite for warring matters, drew upon figures he could not possibly know, along with everybody else who has tried to read the inscrutable entrails of international relations. Chances of conflict in the Indo-Pacific by 2027, for instance, were a “10 to 20 per cent” likelihood. Sky News, living down to its subterranean standards, failed to mention that Pezzullo had misused his position as one of Canberra’s most powerful bureaucrats to opine on ministerial appointments via hundreds of private text messages to Liberal Party powerbroker Scott Briggs. The Australian Public Service Commission found that Pezzullo had, among other things, used his “duty, power, status or authority to seek to gain a benefit or advantage for himself” and “failed to maintain confidentiality of sensitive government information” and “failed to act apolitically in his employment”. His employment was subsequently terminated, and his Order of Australia stripped in September last year—fine credentials for balanced commentary on the strategic outlook of a state.
Other talking heads were keen to push spine-tingling prospects of wicked regimes forming alliances and making mischief. Oleksandra Molloy, billed as an aviation expert, thought the “emerging axis” between Russia, North Korea, and Iran was “quite concerning”. Former naval officer and defence pundit Jennifer Parker urged the fattening of the defence budget to “develop a degree of autonomy”.
Retired Australian Army major general Mick Ryan was most unimpressed by the “zero risk” mentality that seemed to pervade “pretty much every bit of Australian society”. The Department of Defence needed to take greater risks in terms of procurement, innovation, and reducing “the amount of time it takes to develop capability”. His fantasy was positively Spartan in its military totalitarianism: an Australian state nurturing “a spirit of innovation that connects military, industry and society”. The cry for conscription must be just around the corner.
Chief war monger and think tanker Peter Jennings aired his all too familiar views on China, which have become pathological. “It is utterly false for our government to say that somehow they have stabilised the relationship with China. Things may have improved on the trade front, but that is at the expense of ignoring the strategic developments which all of our colleagues around the table have spoken about, which is that China is positioning for war.” And there you had it: an hour of furious fretting and wailing anxiety with all figures in furious agreement, with a resounding boo to diplomacy and a hurrah for astrology.
Author David Robie left his cabin on the Rainbow Warrior three days before it was blown up by the Directorate General for External Security (DGSE), France’s foreign intelligence agency
The ship was destroyed at Marsden Wharf on 10 July 1985 by two limpet mines attached
below the waterline.
As New Zealand soon learned to its shock, the second explosion killed crew member and photographer Fernando Pereira as he tried to retrieve his cameras.
“I had planned to spend the night of the bombing onboard with my two young sons, to give them a brief taste of shipboard life,” Dr Robie writes. “At the last moment I decided to leave it to another night.”
He left the ship after 11 weeks documenting what turned out to be the last of her humanitarian missions — a voyage which highlighted the exploitation of Pacific nations
by countries who used them to test nuclear weapons.
Dr Robie was the only journalist on board to cover both the evacuation of the people
of Rongelap Atoll after their land, fishing grounds and bodies were ravaged by US nuclear fallout, and the continued voyage to nuclear-free Vanuatu and New Zealand.
Eyes of Fire is not only the authoritative biography of the Rainbow Warrior and her
missions, but a gripping account of the infiltration of Greenpeace by a French spy, the bombing, its planning, the capture of the French agents, the political fallout, and ongoing
challenges for Pacific nations.
Dr Robie corrects the widely held belief that the first explosion on the Rainbow Warrior
was intended as a warning, to avoid loss of life. No, it turns out, the French state really
did mean to kill people.
“It was remarkable,” he writes, “that Fernando Pereira was the only person who
died.”
The explosives were set to detonate shortly before midnight, when members of the
crew would be asleep. (One of them was the ship’s relief cook, Waihekean Margaret Mills. She awoke in the nick of time. The next explosion blew in the wall of her cabin).
“Two cabins on the main deck had their floors ruptured by pieces of steel flying from
the [first] engine room blast,” writes Dr Robie.
“By chance, the four crew who slept in those rooms were not on board. If they had been,
they almost certainly would have been killed.”
Eyes of Fire author David Robie with Rainbow Warrior III . . . not only an account of the Rongelap humanitarian voyage, but also a gripping account of the infiltration of Greenpeace and the bombing. Image: Asia Pacific Report
Eyes of Fire was first published in 1986 — and also in the UK and USA, and has been reissued in 2005, 2015 and again this year to coincide with the 40th anniversary
of the bombing.
If you are lucky enough to own the first edition, you will find plenty that is new here; updated text, an index, new photographs, a prologue by former NZ prime minister Helen Clark and a searing preface by Waihekean Bunny McDiarmid, former executive director
of Greenpeace International.
As you would expect from the former head of journalism schools at the University
of Papua New Guinea and University of the South Pacific, and founder of AUT’s Pacific Media Centre, Eyes of Fire is not only a brilliant piece of research, it is an absolutely
fascinating read, filled with human detail.
The bombing and its aftermath make up a couple of chapters in a book which covers an enormous amount of ground.
Professor David Robie is a photographer, journalist and teacher who was awarded an MNZM in 2024 for his services to journalism and Asia-Pacific media education. He is founding editor of the Pacific Journalism Review, also well worth seeking out.
Eyes of Fire is an updated classic and required reading for anyone interested in activism
or the contemporary history of the Pacific.
Palestinian journalists have long known Gaza to be the most dangerous place on earth for media workers, but Israel’s attack on a tent housing journalists in Gaza City last Sunday has left many reeling from shock and fear, reports Al Jazeera.
Four Al Jazeera staff members were among the seven people killed in an Israeli drone strike outside al-Shifa Hospital.
The Israeli military admitted to deliberately targeting the tent after making unsubstantiated accusations that one of those killed, Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif, was a member of Hamas.
Israeli attacks in Gaza have killed at least 238 media workers since October 2023, according to Gaza’s Government Media Office. This toll is higher than that of World Wars I and II, the Vietnam War, the war in Afghanistan and the Yugoslavia wars combined.
Al Jazeera correspondent Hani Mahmoud said in a video report about the plight of journalists this week that “press vests and helmets, once considered a shield, now feel like a target.”
“The fear is constant — and justified,” Mahmoud said. “Every assignment is accompanied by the same unspoken question: Will [I] make it back alive?”
Smears no coincidence
“It is no coincidence that the smears against al-Sharif — who has reported night and day for Al Jazeera since the start of the war — surfaced every time he reported on a major development in the war, most recently the starvation brought about by Israel’s refusal to allow sufficient aid into the territory,” CPJ regional director Sara Qudah said in the aftermath of Israel’s attack.
In light of Israel’s systematic targeting of journalists, media workers in Gaza are forced to make difficult choices.
Palestinian reporter Sally Thabet told Al Jazeera: “As a mother and a journalist, I go through this mental dissonance almost daily, whether to go to work or stay with my daughters and being afraid of the random shelling of the Israeli occupation army.”
“Journalism is not a crime . . . oppressing it is” placards at the Auckland free Palestine rally in Te Komititanga Square last weekend. Image: Asia Pacific Report
Across the street from the ruins of the School of Media Studies at al-Quds Open University in Gaza City, where he used to teach, Hussein Saad has been recovering from an injury he sustained while running to safety.
“The deliberate targeting of Palestinian journalists has a strong effect on the disappearance of the Palestinian story and the disappearance of the media narrative,” he said.
Saad argued the Gaza Strip was witnessing “the disappearance of the truth”.
While journalists report on mass killings, human suffering and starvation, they also cope with their own losses and deprivation. Photographer and correspondent Amer al-Sultan said hunger was a major challenge.
“I used to go to work, and when I didn’t find anything to eat, I would just drink water,” he said.
Palestinian journalists under fire. Video: Al Jazeera
‘We are all . . . confused’
“I did this for two days. I had to live for two or three days on water. This is one of the most difficult challenges we face amid this war against our people — starvation.”
Journalist and film director Hassan Abu Dan said reporters “live in conditions that are more difficult than the mind can imagine.”
“You live in a tent. You drink water that is not good for drinking. You eat unhealthy food …
“We are all, as journalists, confused. There is a part of our lives that has been ruined and gone far away,” he said.
Al Jazeera’s Mahmoud said that despite the psychological trauma and the personal risks, Palestinian journalists continue to do their jobs, “driven by a belief that documenting the truth is not just a profession, but a duty to their people and history”.
Al Jazeera correspondent Hani Mahmoud . . . the fear in Gaza is constant – and justified – after Israel’s targeted attack killed four colleagues. Image: Al Jazeera
Protesters staged pro-Palestinian demonstrations across Aotearoa New Zealand at the weekend, calling on the government to place sanctions on Israel for its war on Gaza.
The government announced last week it was considering whether to join other countries like France, Canada and Australia in recognising Palestinian statehood at a United Nations leader’s meeting next month.
Demonstrators took to the streets in about 20 cities and towns on Saturday in a “National Day of Protest”, waving Palestinian and other flags, holding vigils, and banging pots and pans to represent what a UN-backed food security agency has called “the worst case scenario of famine”.
They also condemned Israel’s targeted killing of journalists.
In Wellington, about 2000 protesters gathered at Te Aro Park, and formed a crowd almost a kilometre long during the march, an RNZ journalist estimated.
One demonstrator, who carried a sign which read “Palestine is in our hearts”, said the government had been “woefully silent” on what was happening in Gaza.
The Wellington Gaza protest on Saturday. Video: RNZ
It was her first protest, she said, and she intended to go to others in order to “agitate for our politicians to listen and take a stand”.
“I hope the country comes out in force today right across all of our regions, to give Palestine a voice, to show that we care, and to inspire action from our politicians — who have been woefully silent and as a result compliant in the genocide in Palestine.”
A protester’s “Palestine is in our hearts” placard at the Wellington protest. Image: Mark Papalii/RNZ News
She said she wanted to see the New Zealand government sanction Israel and take a global stand against the war in Gaza.
Another protester said the killings of four Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza this week was what had spurred him to join the crowd.
A “grow a spine Luxon!” placard at the Wellington protest in reference to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s “woeful” stance on the Israeli war on Gaza. Photo: Mark Papalii/RNZ
“You know hearing about the attack on the journalists, the way they were targeting just one purportedly but were willing to kill [others] just to get their man.
“It’s not right.”
Pro-Palestinian protesters condemn the killing of journalists by Israel and call for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador as part of nationwide demonstrations. Image: Mark Papalii/RNZ
Others in the capital carried signs showing Palestinian journalist Anas al-Sharif and his three Al Jazeera colleagues who were killed by an Israeli strike on a tent of reporters in Gaza.
The IDF claimed that al-Sharif was working for the Hamas resistance — something Al Jazeera has strongly denied.
Some of the demonstrators at the Wellington protest against Israel. Image: Mark Papalii/RNZ
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.
This morning there is no article on the political page of The New Zealand Herald about the plight of people in Gaza, the same is the case at The Post and at RNZ. Even the 1News political page is Gaza free but what may stun you over a Sunday morning coffee is the fact that there is also no mention of Gaza on the “World Pages” of any of these so-called news organisations.
It’s not news in the world of our mainstream media journalists.
Instead, there is articles about “no deal” between Trump and Putin, 300 dead in Pakistan, Trump will meet Zelenskyy, Stone Age Humans were picky about what stones they used . . . and other things — in fact the only article in the “big ” New Zealand mainstream media “World” pages about Gaza is at Stuff and it’s a link to a three minute news video item from yesterday’s Auckland protest about Neil Finn supporting Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick.
Chlöe said the evidence is pretty clear and you don’t kill journalists for no reason when Israel laughed off claims that people in Gaza were starving.
Last night, TVNZ 1News broadcast a news item that led with Neil Finn singing “Don’t Dream it’s Over” and Simon Mercep interviewing Chlöe about her stance on an apology.
The news Chlöe would be back next week at Parliament probably shocked Duncan Garner but there was precious little coverage of what was said in protest speeches because the limitations of broadcasting news concision (a sequence of soundbites) prevent the New Zealand public from hearing too much about Gaza from our own mainstream news services.
Gordon’s action list
Over on social media many people are sharing Gordon Campbell’s article around — where he details the actions you could take and points out how the people of Gaza don’t have time for symbolic stances and the kinds of actions that might help — like sanctions and UN peacekeeping intervention on the ground.
Gordon Campbell has “a go at” the stance taken by the NZ government that “it’s not a matter of if, but when” by adding “but not now” and why not now?
One reason for “but not now” pitched by Campbell is that with Todd McClay now heading over to the US to beg for a return to 10 percent tariffs, New Zealand is stalling and playing a wait and see game — watching whether Australia will be punished for backing a Palestinian state and whether tariffs will be part of the game.
G News on yesterday’s Palestine solidarity rally in Te Komititanga Square, Auckland.
A map of the nations in the world who support a Palestinian state shows most of it in green — and the holdouts in white — with New Zealand holding out in white as we recite “Not if, but when, but not now”.
The editorial at The New Zealand Herald this morning is about how Labour MPs should have shown up and performed publicly at the Covid Circus Phase 2 Royal Commission of Inquiry in the opinion of the Herald (run by Steven Joyce and cookers from The Centrist) — because an urgent Taxpayers’ Union Poll claims 53 percent say so with a giant margin for error not even mentioned — nor how the Royal Commission has all the information it needs from the previous government but it needs the same questions answered in public.
The priorities and partisanship of The NZ Herald are on show as it campaigns hard against Labour and the left bloc even while there’s an unfolding genocide taking place in the world and it’s “World” pages are empty about this — while decent people cancel their subscriptions.
Many of us are still aghast at the way senior political correspondent Audrey Young wished Chlöe would go away when all she was doing was asking National MPs to act with their conscience and Speaker Gerry Brownlee had taken offence and dished out injustice — which now has backfired at grassroots level across the nation and media starve us all of the real content in those speeches.
Chlöe has said from the start this is not about her and she was telling people this again yesterday as folks thanked her for taking an unapologetic stand.
Green Party’s Chlöe Swarbrick has said from the start this is not about her and she was telling people this again yesterday as folks thanked her for taking an unapologetic stand. Image: Stuff screenshot APR
Who controls the spotlight? Media!
We wanted to hear from Chlöe and we wanted to hear those speeches.
I personally felt I had let down the show yesterday because my cell and sound gear seized up in the bitter cold wind and rain so I missed Chlöe’s speech and some of the other messages — Hey Now Don’t Dream it’s Over — but with no umbrella, no raincoat and standing in the rain my frozen fingers took some time to come right and I sat on a ferry in cold wet clothes like a failure afterwards but it is what it is.
My apologies for not being better prepared.
It was pointed out in speeches at the rally (there has almost been 100 of them now) how NZ journalists do not support their colleagues who are being murdered for doing their jobs in Gaza and when I got home and warmed up we discussed the way Al Jazeera is a good news channel and how crap things are in New Zealand media.
Gordon Campbell and a few other notable exceptions keep the faith and his observation “but not now” has done the thinking for many of us about the spineless government who are stalling and pretending this is complex and needs to take weeks while every day more people starve to death, get shot going for food. And it all just happens as if — it’s “a mystery” – while our government names Hamas strongly but nobody else.
Criticism of State Terror is more toned down and we care more about our US relationship than anything much else it seems — putting our own interests first and not reporting much about the facts.
RNZ has finally published “Spine and Punishment: A review of Swarbrick v Brownlee” because the media spotlight was on this local issue and the history of Speakers’ rulings versus “a new decency” because Gerry was offended and overreached.
Gerry must withdraw In my opinion, Gerry has got to withdraw and apologise or step down and any more stick about this towards Chlöe is going to further the focus on National MPs who are silent and hiding behind “But not now”.
If only six of 68 National MPs voted with their conscience and not their party “but not now” instructions then we’d be actively progressing a new law to sanction Israel — and our actions would speak louder than merely words and symbolic gestures.
The unfolding genocide in Gaza seems to be going to plan as NZ news media also lack a spine and any kind of support for their dead colleagues while this one term government clings to “Not if, but when — but not now”.
Might as well carry on starving until September.
“He’s lost the plot” – “but not now”.
Because this government and its sycophantic media need more time to argue about this very “complex” issue.
Gerard Otto is a digital creator and independent commentator on politics and the media through his G News column and video reports. Republished with permission.
A New Zealand policeman pushed over an elderly man who was doing nothing but waving a Palestinian flag at a solidarity rally in Ōtautahi yesterday.
Yes the man employed to protect the public committed a violent assault. Not a wee shove, a great big push that caused the man to fall the ground – onto hard tarmac.
It comes on top of a woman being fatally shot this week by police and her partner being shot and injured. In that case a knife was involved but it’s kind of like paper-scissors-rock, is it not?
I have experienced their brutality directly while filming their brutality. Like the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) they see journalists who film their offensive actions as the enemy.They used pepper spray against me illegally to stop me filming their perversity.
But look, it’s a hard job so they need how-not-to-be-thugs training.
Pre-trained as thugs
Some young men are already pre-trained to be thugs and they seem to be out at the front. They feel great in this mostly white gang.
I have witnessed police haul people off the pavement, beat them up, and then arrest the victims of their assaults “for assault”.
False accusations to protect themselves? Twisting the narrative completely to hide their own violence?
False arrests when they themselves should face arrest.
I think we’ve had enough.
Some of the boys in blue really really need to grow up.
They need training that teaches them that manning or womaning up (some women cops play the thug game too) doesn’t mean training to be a wanker white supremacist.
Self awareness
Good training means teaching police to be self aware, aware of thoughts and feelings, not just learning cognitive behavioural tools but applying them.
They are in the community to protect the community. They should not see people who are supporting human rights or kids attending a party as their opposition, their enemy.
These thug police need to unlearn their thuggery and learn instead, how to relate to the people. They are not defending themselves against the public. They must not view people — real human beings — as their enemy.
The thug cops are adept at dehumanising others. They need to learn to see people as individuals and this includes people attending group functions like parties or protests or club activities. People have human rights.
This includes the right to be respected and treated with dignity.
The perpetrators of violent crime are — far too often — the police. I’ve seen it happen with no provocation time and again. Too many times to count.
They don the black gloves and black sunnies and wear bullet proof vests and feel what?How do they feel when they gear up? Threatened or threatening?
Public protection
Questions need to be asked.
The public needs protection from some — not all — of our police.
And the legal system, the justice system — (I’m trying not use an ironic tone here) needs to be applied to violent crimes, including the police crims who assault members of the public.
I worry for unseen victims too. I worry for their wives and children because if they assault with no provocation on the street what do they do at home?
Do people who behave like street devils turn into angels at home?
Investigations must be held about why our police are assaulting bystanders and peaceful protesters.
Tragedy investigation
I guess there wll be an investigation into the bullets against knife tragedy. But we need other investigations too.
I know the footage of what happened to our innocent elderly protester will be posted on social media.
New footage emerges of policeman pushing partygoer (2021 1News video)
In the meantime, here’s other footage above of Christchurch police doing what they are in danger of doing best.
This footage is four years ago but this alarming, aggressive behaviour continues as demonstrated yesterday by a cop shoving to the ground an unarmed, unprotected, elderly man waving a Palestinian flag whom they then — so wrongly — charged with assault!
Saige England is an Aotearoa New Zealand journalist, author, and poet, member of the Palestinian Solidarity Network of Aotearoa (PSNA), and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. This commentary was first published on her social media.
President Donald Trump has now put troops on the District of Columbia’s streets in both of his terms. This time around, the Washington Post is less alarmed.
In addition to calling up 800 DC National Guard troops—which Trump can do because DC isn’t a state—he also seized control of DC’s police force in the name of a “crime emergency,” despite the city experiencing its lowest violent crime rate in 30 years.
With DC’s self-governance under threat, the city’s paper of record is positioned to play a critical role. Right off the bat, Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher sounded the alarm about Trump’s actions, telling the New Yorker (8/11/25), “This is troops-in-the-streets, shades-of-authoritarian-rule bad.”
“Grow a spine for Palestine!” was a frequent theme among about 5000 people protesting in the heart of New Zealand’s largest city today as the protesters demanded that the coalition government should recognise the state of Palestine and stop supporting impunity for Israel.
More than 62,000 people, mostly women and children, have been killed in Israel’s war on Gaza in the past 22 months and the country’s military have doubled down on their attacks on residential areas in the besieged enclave.
Several speakers, including opposition parliamentarians, spoke at the rally, strongly condemning Israel for its genocidal policies and crimes against humanity.
Many children took part in the rally at Te Komititanga Square and the return march up Queen Street in spite of the bitterly wet and cold weather. Many of them carried placards and Palestinian flags like their parents.
One young boy carried a placard declaring “Just a kid standing in front of his PM asking him to grow a heart and a spine”. The heart was illustrated as a Palestinian flag.
Other placards included slogans such as “Wanted MPs with a spine” and “Grow a spine for Palestine”, and “They try to bury us forgetting we are seeds” with the resistance watermelon symbol.
Many placards demanded sanctions and condemned Israel, saying “Gaza is starving. Words won’t feed them — sanction Israel now”, “NZ government: Your silence is complicity with Israeli genocide” and “Free Palestine now”.
Disillusionment with leaders
One poster expressed disillusionment with both the coalition government and opposition Labour Party leaders, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins, denouncing “apologists for genocide”.
Another poster challenged both Hipkins and Luxon over “what values” they stood for. It said:
“Our ‘leaders’ have refused to call for a ceasefire even after 10,000+ innocent civilians have been brutally murdered in their own homes, including 4000+ CHILDREN all under the name of “Kiwi values”.
“They, like a lot of other world politicians, are apologists for genocide.”
A “Palestine forever” banner at the head of the Auckland march today as it prepares to walk up Queen Street. Image: APR
Frustration has been growing among the public with the government’s reluctance to declare support for Palestinian statehood after 96 consecutive weeks of protests organised by the Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) and other groups, not just in the largest city of Auckland and the capital Wellington, but also in Christchurch and in at least 20 other towns and communities across the motu.
The “spine” theme in chants and posters followed just days after Parliament suspended Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick following a fiery speech about Gaza when she said government MPs should grow a spine and sanction Israel for its atrocities.
She had refused to apologise to the House and supporters at the rally today gave her rousing cheers in support of her defiance.
‘We need your help’
Te Pati Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer told the crowd: “We need you to help her put the pressure on so that we can fight together in that place [Parliament] for our people to free, free Palestine; from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
“Return our dignity Aotearoa. Stand up for what is right. There is only one side to support in genocide, only one side. And Te Pati Māori will only work with those.”
When Swarbrick spoke to the crowd, she repeated her goal to find six government MPs “with a spine” to support her bill to “sanction Israel for its war crimes”.
She also said the Palestinian people were being “starved and slaughtered by Israel” in Gaza, adding that their breath was being “stolen from them” by the IDF (Israeli “Defence” Force).
“It is our duty, all human beings with breath left in our lungs, with the freedom to chant and to move and to demand action from our politicians, to do all that we can to fight for liberation for all peoples,” she said.
Other politicians speaking were Orini Kaipara, the Te Pati Māori candidate for the Tāmaki Mākaurau byelection, and Kerrin Leoni, mayoral candidate for Tamaki.
Targeted assassinations
Earlier, the targeted assassinations of six journalists by the Israeli military last Sunday — taking the toll to 272 — was condemned by independent journalist and Asia Pacific Report editor Dr David Robie. He also criticised the NZ media silence.
Noting that New Zealand journalists had not condemned the killings or held a vigil as the Media Alliance (MEAA) had done in Australia, he cited an Al Jazeera journalist, Hind Khoudary, whose message to the world was:
“We are being hunted and killed in Gaza while you watch in silence. For two years, your fellow journalists here have been slaughtered.
What did you do? Nothing.”
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick (left) and Te Pati Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at today’s rally in Te Komitanga Square, Auckland. Image: APR
A recent poll on whether New Zealanders want sanctions to be imposed on Israel, showed that of those who gave an opinion, 60 percent favoured sanctions.
The PSNA commissioned survey by Talbot Mills in July with 1216 respondents gave a similar result to one commissioned by Justice for Palestine a year ago.
Popular support for sanctions
PSNA co-chair John Minto said the numbers showed strong popular support for sanctions. The 60 percent overall rose to 68 percent for the 18–29 year category.
“The government is well out of step with public opinion and ignores this message at its peril. There is popular support for sanctions against Israel,” he said.
“People see that Israel is committing the worst atrocities of the 21st century with impunity. It is starving a whole population.
“It has destroyed just about every building in Gaza. It is assassinating journalists. It holds 7000 Palestinian hostages in its jails without charge. Its goal of occupying all of Gaza and ethnically cleansing its people into the Sudan desert, is all public knowledge.”
Minto said Israel’s “depraved Prime Minister” who was wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICJ) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, had boasting that if Israel was really committing genocide, “it could have killed everyone in Gaza in a single afternoon”.
“The poll shows New Zealand First supporters are most opposed to sanctions against Israel (59 percent of those who gave an opinion were opposed) so it’s little surprise Winston Peters is dragging the chain.”
“Just a kid” with his blunt message to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Image: APR
On this episode of the MintCast, hosts Mnar Adley and Alan MacLeod speak with Ahmed Kaballo, the man behind the viral media outlet that the U.S. government has been trying to silence.
In September, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave a speech smearing media platform African Stream as secretly funded and controlled by Vladimir Putin himself. As Blinken said:
According to the outlet’s website, ‘African Stream is’ – and I quote ‘a pan-African digital media organization based exclusively on social media platforms, focused on giving a voice to all Africans, both at home and abroad.’ In reality, the only voice it gives is to Kremlin propagandists.”
Blinken provided no evidence to support these assertions. Yet, within hours, Silicon Valley reacted and crushed Kaballo’s organization. African Stream’s YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook pages were permanently deleted, while its Twitter account was demonetized.
The word “Gaza” is taking on similar connotations to what the word “Auschwitz” meant to a previous generation. It signifies a deliberate and systematic attempt to erase an entire people from history on the basis of their ethnic identity.
On Monday night a five-year-old disabled child starved to death. Reportedly, he weighed only three kilograms when he died. Muhammad Zakaria Khudr was the 101st child among the 227 Palestinians now reported to have died from starvation.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters keep on saying that with regard to New Zealand recognising a Palestinian state, it is a matter of “Not if, but when.” Yet why is “ but not now” still their default position?
At this rate, a country that used to pride itself on its human rights record — New Zealand has never stopped bragging that this is where women won the right to vote, before they did anywhere else — will be among the last countries on earth to recognise Palestine’s right to exist.
What can we do? Some options:
Boycott all Israeli goods and services;
Engage with the local Palestinian community, and support their businesses, and cultural events;
Donate financial support to Gaza. Here’s a reliable link to directy support pregnant Gaza women and their babies;
Lobby your local MP, and Immigration Minister Erika Stanford — to prioritise the inclusion of hundreds of Gazans in our refugee programme, just as we did in the wake of the civil war in Syria, and earlier, in Sudan;
Write and phone your local MP, and urge them to support economic sanctions against Israel. These sanctions should include a sporting and cultural boycott along the lines we pursued so successfully against apartheid South Africa
Contact your KiwiSaver provider and let it be known that you will change providers if they invest in Israeli firms, or in the US, German and UK firms that supply the IDF with weapons and targeting systems. Contact the NZ Super Fund and urge them to divest along similar lines;
Identify and picket any NZ firms that supply the US/Israeli war machines directly, or indirectly;
Contact your local MP and urge him or her to support Chloe Swarbrick’s private member’s bill that would impose economic sanctions on the state of Israel for its unlawful occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Swarbrick’s Bill is modelled on the existing Russian sanctions framework.If 61 MPs pledged support for Swarbrick’s Bill, it would not have to win a private members ballot before being debated in Parliament. Currently 21 MPs (the Greens and TPM) formally support it. If and when Labour’s 34 MPs come on board, this will still require another six MPs (from across the three coalition parties) to do the right thing. Goading MPs into doing the right thing got Swarbrick into a world of trouble this week. (Those wacky Greens. They’re such idealists.);
We should all be lobbying our local MPs for a firm commitment that they will back the Swarbrick Bill. Portray it to them as being in the spirit of bi-partisanship, and as them supporting the several UN resolutions on the status of the occupied territories. And if they still baulk ask them flatly: if not, why not?
Email/phone/write to the PM’s office, and ask him to call in the Israeli ambassador and personally express New Zealand’s repugnance at Israel’s inhumane actions in Gaza and on the West Bank. The PM should also be communicating in person New Zealand’s opposition to the recently announced Israeli plans for the annexation of Gaza City, and expansion of the war in Gaza.
Write to your MP, to the PM, and to Foreign Minister Winston Peters urging them to recognise Palestinian statehood right now. Inquire as to what further information they may need before making that decision, and offer to supply it. We need to learn how to share our outrage; and
Learn about the history of this issue, so that you convince friends and family to take similar actions.
This map showing (in white) the countries that are yet to recognise Palestinian statehood speaks volumes:
Those holdout nations in white tend to have been the chief enablers of Israel’s founding in 1948, a gesture of atonement driven by European guilt over the Holocaust.
This “homeland” for the Jews already had residents known to have had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Yet since 1948 the people of Palestine have been made to bear all of the bad consequences of the West’s purging of its collective guilt.
Conditional justice The same indifference to the lives of Palestinians is evident in the belated steps towards supporting the right of Palestinians to self-determination. Even the recognition promised by the UK, Canada, France and Australia next month is decked out with further conditions that the Palestinians are being told they need to meet. No equivalent demands are being made of Israel, despite the atrocities it is committing in Gaza.
There’s nothing new about this. Historically, all of the concessions have been made by the Palestinians, starting with their original displacement. Some 30 years ago, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) formally recognised Israel’s right to exist. In response, Israel immediately expanded its settlements on Palestinian land, a flagrant breach of the commitments it made in the Oslo Accords, and in the Gaza-Jericho Agreement.
In a 1993 exchange of letters, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s chairman, Yasir Arafat, recognized the “right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and committed the PLO to peaceful negotiations, renouncing terrorism and amending the Palestinian charter to reflect these commitments. In return, Israel would merely recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people — and only “in light of” Mr Arafat’s commitments. Palestinian sovereignty remained remote; Israeli occupation continued apace.
This double standard persists:
This fundamental unfairness has informed every diplomatic effort since. The rump Palestinian government built the limited institutions it was permitted under the Oslo Accords, co-operated with Israeli security forces and voiced support for a peace process that had long been undermined by Israel. Led by then-Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Authority’s statehood campaign in the 2000s was entirely based on playing the game according to rules set by Israel and the Western-dominated international community. Yet recognition remained stalled, the United States blocked Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations — and still, no conditions were placed on the occupying power.
That’s where we’re still at. Luxon, Peters and David Seymour are demanding more concessions from the Palestinians. They keep strongly denouncing the Hamas October 7 atrocities — which is valid — while weakly urging Israel to abide by the international laws and conventions that Israel repeatedly breaches.
When a state deploys famine as a strategic weapon, doesn’t it deserve to be condemned, up front and personal?
Instead, the language that New Zealand uses to address Israel’s crimes is almost invariably, and selectively, passive. Terrible things are “happening” in Gaza and they must “stop.” Children, mysteriously, are “starving.” This is “intolerable.”
It is as if there is no human agent, and no state power responsible for these outcomes. Things are just somehow “happening” and they must somehow “cease.” Enough is enough, cries Peters, while carefully choosing not to name names, beyond Hamas.
As mentioned, Israel is publicly discussing its plans for Gaza’s “voluntary emigration” and for the permanent annexation of the West Bank. Even when urged to do so by Christopher Luxon, it seems that Israel is not actually complying with international law, and is not fulfilling its legal obligations as an occupying power. Has anyone told Luxon about this yet?
Two state fantasy, one state reality At one level, continuing to call for a “two state” solution is absurd, given that the Knesset formally rejected the proposal a year ago. More than once, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly denounced it while also laying Israel’s claim to all of the land west of Jordan, which would include the West Bank and Gaza.
Evidently, the slogan “ from the river to sea” is only a terrorist slogan when Hamas uses it. Yet the phrase originated as a Likud slogan.Moreover, the West evidently thinks it is quite OK for Netanyahu to publicly call for Israeli hegemony from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
Basic rule of diplomacy: bad is what they do, good is what we do, and we have always been on Team Israel.
Over the course of the three decades since the Oslo Accords were signed, the West has kept on advocating for a two state solution, while acting as if only one of those states has a right to exist. On what land do Luxon and Peters think that a viable Palestinian state can be built?
One pre-condition for Palestinian statehood that Luxon cited to RNZ last week required Israel to be “not undermining the territorial integrity that would then undermine the two state solution.” Really? Does Luxon not realise that this is exactly what Israel has been doing for the past 30 years?
Talking of which . . . are Luxon and Peters genuinely expecting Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders? That land was agreed at Oslo and mandated by the UN as the territory needed for a viable Palestinian state. Yet on the relatively small area of the West Bank alone, 3.4 million Palestinians currently subsist on disconnected patches of land under occupation amid extreme settler violence, while contending with 614 Israeli checkpoints and other administrative obstacles impeding their free movement.
Here’s what the land left to the Palestinians looks like today:
A brief backgrounder on Areas A, B and C and how they operate can be found here. Obviously, this situation cannot be the template for a viable Palestinian state.
What is the point? You might well ask . . . in the light of the above, what is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? Given the realities on the ground, it can only be a symbolic gesture. The reversion to the 1967 borders (a necessary step towards a Palestinian state) can happen only if the US agreed to push Israel in that direction by withholding funds and weaponry.
That’s very hard to imagine. The hypocrisy of the Western nations on this issue is breath-taking. The US and Germany continue to be Israel’s main foreign suppliers of weapons and targeting systems. Under Keir Starmer’s leadership as well, the UK sales of military equipment to Israel have sharply increased.
New export licensing figures show that the UK approved licenses for £127.6 million worth of military equipment to Israel in single issue licenses between October to December 2024. This is a massive increase, with the figure in this three-month period totaling more than 2020-2023 combined.
Thanks to an explicitly enacted legal exemption, the UK also continues to supply parts for Israel’s F-35 jets.
UK industry makes 15% of every F-35 in contracts [estimated] to be worth at least £500 million since 2016, and [this] is the most significant part of the UK arms industry [relationship]with Israel . . . at least 79 companies [are] involved in manufacturing components.
These are the same F-35 war planes that the IDF has used to drop 2000 pound bombs on densely populated residential neighbourhoods in Gaza. Starmer cannot credibly pose as a man of peace.
So again . . . what exactly is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? No doubt, it would boost Palestinian morale if some major Western powers finally conceded that Palestine has a right to exist. In that narrow sense, recognition would correct a historical injustice.
There is also optimistic talk that formal Palestinian statehood would isolate the US on the Security Council (Trump would probably wear that as a badge of honour) and would make Israel more accountable under humanitarian law. As if.
Theoretically, a recognition of statehood would also enable people in New Zealand and elsewhere to apply pressure to their governments to forthrightly condemn and sanction Israel for its crimes against a fellow UN member state. None of this, however, is likely to change the reality on the ground, or prevent the calls for Israel’s “accountability” and for its “compliance with international law” from ringing hollow.
As the NYT also says:
After almost two years of severe access restrictions and the dismantling of the UN-led aid system in favour of a militarised food distribution that has left more than 1300 Palestinians dead, [now 1838 dead at these “aid centres” since late May, as of yesterday] . . . The 15 nations [at a UN meeting in late July that signed a declaration on Gaza] still would not collectively say “Israel is responsible for starvation in Gaza”. If they cannot name the problem, they can hardly hope to resolve it.
In sum . . . the world may talk the talk of Palestinian statehood being a matter of “not if, but when” and witter on about the “irreversible steps” being taken toward statehood, and finally — somewhere over the rainbow — towards a two state solution. Faint chance:
“For those who are starving today, the only irreversible step is death. Until statehood recognition brings action — arms embargoes, sanctions, enforcement of international law — it will remain a largely empty promise that serves primarily to distract from Western complicity in Gaza’s destruction.
Exactly. Behind the words of concern are the actions of complicity. The people of Gaza do not have time to wait for symbolic actions, or for sanctions to weaken Israel’s appetite for genocide. Consider this option: would New Zealand support an intervention in Gaza by a UN-led international force to save Gaza’s dwindling population, and to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected, however belatedly?
Would we be willing to commit troops to such a force if asked to do so by the UN Secretary-General? That is what is now needed.
Footnote One: On Gaza, the Luxon government has a high tolerance for double standards and Catch 22 conditions. We are insisting that the Palestinians must release the remaining hostages unconditionally, lay down their arms and de-militarise the occupied territories. Yet we are applying no similar pre-conditions on Israel to withdraw, de-militarise the same space, release all their Palestinian prisoners, allow the unrestricted distribution of food and medical supplies, and negotiate a sustainable peace.
Understandably, Hamas has tied the release of the remaining hostages to the Israeli cessation of their onslaught, to unfettered aid distribution, and to a long-term commitment to Palestinian self-rule. Otherwise, once the Israeli hostages are home, there would be nothing to stop Israel from renewing the genocide.
We are also demanding that Hamas be excluded from any future governing arrangement in Gaza, but – simultaneously – Peters told the House recently that this governing arrangement must also be “representative.” Catch 22. “Representative” democracy it seems, means voting for the people pre-selected by the West. Again, no matching demands have been made of Israel with respect to its role in the future governance of Gaza, or about its obligation to rebuild what it has criminally destroyed.
Footnote Two: There is only one rational explanation for why New Zealand is currently holding back from joining the UK, Canada, France and Australia in voting next month to recognise Palestine as a full UN member state. It seems we are cravenly hoping that Australia’s stance will be viewed with such disfavour by Donald Trump that he will punish Canberra by lifting its tariff rate from 10%, thereby erasing the 5% advantage that Australia currently enjoys oven us in the US market.
At least this tells us what the selling price is for our “independent” foreign policy. We’re prepared to sell it out to the Americans – and sell out the Palestinians in the process – if, by sitting on the fence for now, we can engineer parity for our exports with Australia in US markets. ANZAC mates, forever.
In a time of polarized politics, independent community media plays an increasingly important role. Big media are owned and controlled by large corporations. Their salient interest? To make as much profit as possible for their shareholders. That is its political economy. Given that acute limitation, it makes it difficult for most people to get information that challenges mainstream perspectives. By featuring diverse voices and views that are largely excluded, community-based media provide an alternative to corporate McNews.
This content originally appeared on AlternativeRadio and was authored by info@alternativeradio.org.
Union members of Australia’s Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) have made a video honouring the 242 Palestinian journalists and media workers killed by the Israeli military since October 2023 — many of them targeted.
The death toll has been reported by the Gaza Media Office since the latest killing of six media workers last Sunday, four of them from the Qatar-based global television channel Al Jazeera.
This figure is higher than the 180 deaths recorded by the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and other media freedom agencies.
“While international media remains locked out of Gaza, Palestinian journalists work under fire, starvation and sickness to report the reality on the ground,” says the MEAA.
“Targeting journalists is a war crime.
“As colleagues, we remember them.”
In this video, MEAA members say the names of many Gazan journalists who have been killed by the Israeli military.
Music in the MEAA “Stop Killing Journalists” video is composed by Connor D’Netto and performed by Jayson Gillham. The video is edited by Jack Fisher and (A)manda Parkinson for MEAA and was released on YouTube yesterday.
Stop Killing Journalists Video: MEAA
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.
Netanyahu’s mass ethnic cleansing strategy pulls the rug out from under the West’s cherished pretext for supporting Israeli criminality: the fabled two-state solution.
ANALYSIS:By Jonathan Cook
If you thought Western capitals were finally losing patience with Israel’s engineering of a famine in Gaza nearly two years into the genocide, you may be disappointed.
As ever, events have moved on — even if the extreme hunger and malnourishment of the two million people of Gaza have not abated.
Western leaders are now expressing “outrage”, as the media call it, at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to “take full control” of Gaza and “occupy” it.
At some point in the future, Israel is apparently ready to hand the enclave over to outside forces unconnected to the Palestinian people.
The Israeli cabinet agreed last Friday on the first step: a takeover of Gaza City, where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are huddled in the ruins, being starved to death. The city will be encircled, systematically depopulated and destroyed, with survivors presumably herded southwards to a “humanitarian city” — Israel’s new term for a concentration camp — where they will be penned up, awaiting death or expulsion.
At the weekend, foreign ministers from the UK, Germany, Italy, Australia and other Western nations issued a joint statement decrying the move, warning it would “aggravate the catastrophic humanitarian situation, endanger the lives of the hostages, and further risk the mass displacement of civilians”.
Germany, Israel’s most fervent backer in Europe and its second-biggest arms supplier, is apparently so dismayed that it has vowed to “suspend” — that is, delay — weapons shipments that have helped Israel to murder and maim hundreds of thousands of Palestinians over the past 22 months.
Netanyahu is not likely to be too perturbed. Doubtless, Washington will step in and pick up any slack for its main client state in the oil-rich Middle East.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu has once again shifted the West’s all-too-belated focus on the indisputable proof of Israel’s ongoing genocidal actions — evidenced by Gaza’s skeletal children — to an entirely different story.
Now, the front pages are all about the Israeli prime minister’s strategy in launching another “ground operation”, how much pushback he is getting from his military commanders, what the implications will be for the Israelis still held captive in the enclave, whether the Israeli army is now overstretched, and whether Hamas can ever be “defeated” and the enclave “demilitarised”.
We are returning once again to logistical analyses of the genocide — analyses whose premises ignore the genocide itself. Might that not be integral to Netanyahu’s strategy?
Life and death It ought to be shocking that Germany has been provoked into stopping its arming of Israel — assuming it follows through — not because of months of images of Gaza’s skin-and-bones children that echo those from Auschwitz, but only because Israel has declared that it wants to “take control” of Gaza.
It should be noted, of course, that Israel never stopped controlling Gaza and the rest of the Palestinian territories — in contravention of the fundamentals of international law, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled last year. Israel has had absolute control over the lives and deaths of Gaza’s people every day — bar one — since its occupation of the tiny coastal enclave many decades ago.
On 7 October 2023, thousands of Palestinian fighters briefly broke out of the besieged prison camp they and their families had endured after Israel momentarily dropped its guard.
Gaza has long been a prison that the Israeli military illegally controlled by land, sea and air, determining who could enter and leave. It kept Gaza’s economy throttled, and put the enclave’s population “on a diet” that saw rocketing malnourishment among its children long before the current starvation campaign.
Trapped behind a highly militarised fence since the early 1990s, unable to access their own coastal waters, and with Israeli drones constantly surveilling them and raining down death from the air, the people of Gaza viewed it more as a modernised concentration camp.
But Germany and the rest of the West were fine supporting all that. They have continued selling Israel arms, providing it with special trading status, and offering diplomatic cover.
Only as Israel carries through to a logical conclusion its settler-colonial agenda of replacing the native Palestinian people with Jews, is it apparently time for the West to vent its rhetorical “outrage”.
Two-state trickery Why the pushback now? In part, it is because Netanyahu is pulling the rug out from under their cherished, decades-long pretext for supporting Israel’s ever-greater criminality: the fabled two-state solution.
Israel conspired in that trickery with the signing of the Oslo Accords in the mid-1990s.
The goal was never the realisation of a two-state solution. Rather, Oslo created a “diplomatic horizon” for “final status issues” — which, like the physical horizon, always remained equally distant, however much ostensible movement there was on the ground.
Lisa Nandy, Britain’s Culture Secretary, peddled precisely this same deceit last week as she extolled the virtues of the two-state solution. She told Sky News: “Our message to the Palestinian people is very, very clear: There is hope on the horizon.”
UK Government Minister Lisa Nandy:
‘Our message to the Palestinian people is very clear. There is hope on the horizon.’
Palestinians are expected to believe words of ‘hope’ from a Minister of a government that has aided and supported Israel’s genocide against them pic.twitter.com/appizVm0QY
Every Palestinian understood her real message, which could be paraphrased as: “We’ve lied to you about a Palestinian state for decades, and we’ve allowed a genocide to unfold before the world’s eyes for the past two years. But hey, trust us this time. We’re on your side.”
In truth, the promise of Palestinian statehood was always treated by the West as little more than a threat — and one directed at Palestinian leaders. Palestinian officials must be more obedient, quieter. They had to first prove their willingness to police Israel’s occupation on Israel’s behalf by repressing their own people.
Hamas, of course, failed that test in Gaza. But Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the occupied West Bank, bent over backwards to reassure his examiners, casting as “sacred” his lightly armed security forces’ so-called “cooperation” with Israel. In reality, they are there to do its dirty work.
Nonetheless, despite the PA’s endless good behaviour, Israel has continued to expel ordinary Palestinians from their land, then steal that land — which was supposed to form the basis of a Palestinian state — and hand it over to extremist Jewish settlers backed by the Israeli army.
Former US President Barack Obama briefly and feebly tried to halt what the West misleadingly calls Jewish “settlement expansion” — in reality, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians — but rolled over at the first sign of intransigence from Netanyahu.
Israel has stepped up the process of ethnic cleansing in the occupied West Bank even more aggressively over the past two years, while global attention has been on Gaza — with the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretzwarning this week that settlers have been given “free rein”.
A small window into the impunity granted to settlers as they wage their campaign of violence to depopulate Palestinian communities was highlighted at the weekend, when B’Tselem released footage of a Palestinian activist, Awdah Hathaleen, inadvertently filming his own killing.
Extremist settler Yinon Levi was released on grounds of self-defence, even though the video shows him singling out Hathaleen from afar, taking aim and shooting.
Alibi gone It is noticeable that, having stopped making reference to Palestinian statehood for many years, Western leaders have revived their interest only now — as Israel is making a two-state solution unrealisable.
That was graphically illustrated by footage broadcast this month by ITV. Shot from an aid plane, it showed the wholesale destruction of Gaza — its homes, schools, hospitals, universities, bakeries, shops, mosques and churches gone.
Apocalyptic scenes in Gaza Video: ITV News
Gaza is in ruins. Its reconstruction will take decades. Occupied East Jerusalem and its holy sites were long ago seized and Judaised by Israel, with Western assent.
Suddenly, Western capitals are noticing that the last remnants of the proposed Palestinian state are about to be swallowed whole by Israel, too. Germany recently warned Israel that it must not take “any further steps toward annexing the West Bank”.
US President Donald Trump is on his own path. But this is the moment when other major Western powers — led by France, Britain and Canada — have started threatening to recognise a Palestinian state, even as the possibility of such a state has been obliterated by Israel.
Australia announced it would join them this week after its foreign minister, a few days earlier, said the quiet part out loud, warning: “There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the international community don’t move to create that pathway to a two-state solution.”
That is something they dare not countenance, because with it goes their alibi for supporting all these years the apartheid state of Israel, now deep into the final stages of a genocide in Gaza.
That was why British Prime Minister Keir Starmer desperately switched tack recently. Instead of dangling recognition of Palestinian statehood as a carrot encouraging Palestinians to be more obedient — British policy for decades — he wielded it as a threat, and a largely hollow one, against Israel.
He would recognise a Palestinian state if Israel refused to agree to a ceasefire in Gaza and proceeded with the West Bank’s annexation. In other words, Starmer backed recognising a state of Palestine – after Israel has gone ahead with its complete erasure.
Extracting concessions Still, France and Britain’s recognition threat is not simply too late. It serves two other purposes.
Firstly, it provides a new alibi for inaction. There are plenty of far more effective ways for the West to halt Israel’s genocide. Western capitals could embargo arms sales, stop intelligence sharing, impose economic sanctions, sever ties with Israeli institutions, expel Israeli ambassadors, and downgrade diplomatic relations. They are choosing to do none of those things.
And secondly, recognition is designed to extract from the Palestinians “concessions” that will make them even more vulnerable to Israeli violence.
According to France’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Jean-Noel Barrot: “Recognising a State of Palestine today means standing with the Palestinians who have chosen non-violence, who have renounced terrorism, and are prepared to recognise Israel.”
In other words, in the West’s view, the “good Palestinians” are those who recognise and lay down before the state committing genocide against them.
Western leaders have long envisioned a Palestinian state only on condition that it is demilitarised. Recognition this time is premised on Hamas agreeing to disarm and its departure from Gaza, leaving Abbas to take on the enclave and presumably continue the “sacred” mission of “cooperating” with a genocidal Israeli army.
As part of the price for recognition, all 22 members of the Arab League publicly condemned Hamas and demanded its removal from Gaza.
Boot on Gaza’s neck How does all of this fit with Netanyahu’s “ground offensive”? Israel isn’t “taking over” Gaza, as he claims. Its boot has been on the enclave’s neck for decades.
While Western capitals contemplate a two-state solution, Israel is preparing a final mass ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza.
Starmer’s government, for one, knew this was coming. Flight data shows that the UK has been constantly operating surveillance missions over Gaza on Israel’s behalf from the Royal Air Force base Akrotiri on Cyprus. Downing Street has been following the enclave’s erasure step by step.
Netanyahu’s plan is to encircle, besiege and bomb the last remaining populated areas in northern and central Gaza, and drive Palestinians towards a giant holding pen — misnamed a “humanitarian city” — alongside the enclave’s short border with Egypt. Israel will then probably employ the same contractors it has been using elsewhere in Gaza to go street to street to bulldoze or blow up any surviving buildings.
The next stage, given the trajectory of the last two years, is not difficult to predict. Locked up in their dystopian “humanitarian city”, the people of Gaza will continue to be starved and bombed whenever Israel claims it has identified a Hamas fighter in their midst, until Egypt or other Arab states can be persuaded to take them in, as a further “humanitarian” gesture.
Then, the only matter to be settled will be what happens to the real estate: build some version of Trump’s gleaming “Riviera” scheme, or construct another tawdry patchwork of Jewish settlements of the kind envisioned by Netanyahu’s openly fascist allies, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir.
There is a well-established template to be drawn on, one that was used in 1948 during Israel’s violent creation. Palestinians were driven from their cities and villages, in what was then called Palestine, across the borders into neighbouring states. The new state of Israel, backed by Western powers, then set about methodically destroying every home in those hundreds of villages.
Over subsequent years, they were landscaped either with forests or exclusive Jewish communities, often engaged in farming, to make Palestinian return impossible and stifle any memory of Israel’s crimes. Generations of Western politicians, intellectuals and cultural figures have celebrated all of this.
Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and former Austrian President Heinz Fischer are among those who went to Israel in their youth to work on these farming communities. Most came back as emissaries for a Jewish state built on the ruins of a Palestinian homeland.
An emptied Gaza can be similarly re-landscaped. But it is much harder to imagine that this time the world will forget or forgive the crimes committed by Israel — or those who enabled them.
Jonathan Cook is a writer, journalist and self-appointed media critic and author of many books about Palestine. Winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. This article was first published Middle East Eye and republished from the author’s blog with permission.
Anas al-Sharif, killed in an Israeli strike in Gaza, last Sunday has triggered protests around the world, including journalists in Israel. He left behind a powerful farewell message — his final testament to his people, his family, and the world.
Palestine Chronicle staff
Palestinian journalists Anas al-Sharif and Mohammed Qraiqea were killed last Sunday in an Israeli bombardment that struck a journalists’ tent near Gaza City’s Al-Shifa Hospital.
Cameramen Ibrahim Zaher and Mohammed Noufal also died in the attack, which was carried out by an Israeli drone. The Israeli army admitted targeting al-Sharif shortly after the strike.
Al-Sharif, 28, from Jabaliya refugee camp, was an award-winning journalist who became a leading global voice from Gaza during the war. He inspired thousands.
Protest and vigils have been held around the world from South Africa’s Cape Town to Manila in the Philippines and London in the UK to honour al-Sharif and his colleagues in condemnation of this targeted murder.
Less than two weeks ago, the Committee to Protect Journalists had warned that his life was in “acute” danger due to repeated threats from an Israeli military spokesperson.
Before his death, al-Sharif prepared a farewell message to be shared if he was killed. His family and colleagues posted it to his social media accounts after the news of his death.
Below is the full English translation of that message.
Anas al-Sharif’s final message “This is my will and my final message.
“If my words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice.
“First, peace be upon you and God’s mercy and blessings.
“God knows I gave all I had — strength and effort — to be a support and a voice for my people, ever since I opened my eyes to life in the alleys of Jabaliya refugee camp. My hope was to live long enough to return with my family and loved ones to our original town, Asqalan (al-Majdal), now under occupation.
هذه وصيّتي، ورسالتي الأخيرة.
إن وصلَتكم كلماتي هذه، فاعلموا أن إسرائيل قد نجحت في قتلي وإسكات صوتي.
بداية السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
يعلم الله أنني بذلت كل ما أملك من جهدٍ وقوة، لأكون سندًا وصوتًا لأبناء شعبي، مذ فتحت عيني على الحياة في أزقّة وحارات مخيّم جباليا للاجئين،…
— أنس الشريف Anas Al-Sharif (@AnasAlSharif0) August 10, 2025
“But God’s will came first, and His decree is final.
“I have lived pain in all its details and tasted loss many times. Yet I never stopped telling the truth as it is, without falsification or distortion — so that God may bear witness over those who stayed silent, accepted our killing, and did nothing to stop the massacre our people have endured for more than a year and a half.
“I entrust you with Palestine — the jewel of the Muslim crown and the heartbeat of every free person in this world. I entrust you with its people and children, whose pure bodies have been crushed under Israeli bombs and missiles.
Australian journalists protest over the killings. Video: MEAA
“Do not let chains silence you or borders restrain you. Be bridges toward the liberation of the land and its people, until the sun of dignity and freedom rises over our stolen homeland.
“I entrust you with my family: my beloved daughter Sham; my dear son Salah; my mother, whose prayers were my fortress; and my steadfast wife Bayan (Umm Salah), who carried the responsibility in my absence with strength and faith. Stand by them after God.
Two more journalists, Anas Al-Sharif and Mohammed Qaryaq, have been killed in Gaza. These brilliant young reporters were known for their courage and powerful commitment to the truth.
Israel’s strategy is clear: silence the truth by murdering those who report it. They accuse… pic.twitter.com/G0I3xny1IV
“If I die, I die steadfast in my principles. I bear witness that I am content with God’s decree, certain of our meeting, and convinced that what is with God is better and everlasting.
“O God, accept me among the martyrs, forgive me my sins, and make my blood a light that illuminates the path of freedom for my people. Forgive me if I fell short, and pray for me with mercy, for I have kept my pledge and never changed.
“Do not forget Gaza… and do not forget me in your prayers.”
Anas Jamal al-Sharif
April 6, 2025
Palestinian journalist Anas al-Sharif with his daughter Sham and his son Salah. Image: via social media
On November 9, 2023, just over one month into Israel’s genocide in Gaza, a group of U.S.-based journalists published an open letter. “We stand with our colleagues in Gaza and herald their brave efforts at reporting in the midst of carnage and destruction,” the letter’s authors wrote. “We also hold Western newsrooms accountable for dehumanizing rhetoric that has served to justify ethnic cleansing…
New York, 13 August 13, 2025—In four years, the Taliban have annihilated Afghanistan’s independent media sector and supplanted it with their own propaganda empire and sophisticated digital bots that flood social media with pro-Taliban content.
CPJ interviewed 10 Afghan journalists, inside and outside the country, who said that independent media, which used to reach millions of people, have largely beenbanned,suspended, orshuttered while key outlets have beentaken over by the Taliban. None would publish their names, citing fear of reprisals.
The Taliban now run about 15 major television and radio stations, newspapers, and digital platforms, including onYouTube,X, andTelegram — tightly aligned with their radical Islamist ideology.
“The ruling authority enforces a monolithic media policy, rejecting any news, narrative, or voice that deviates from what they deem the truth. Even personal opinions expressed on platforms like Facebook are treated as propaganda andpunished accordingly,” Ahmad Quraishi, director of the exiled Afghanistan Journalists Center, told CPJ.
Exiled journalists offer one of thelast remaining sources of independent information broadcast into Afghanistan. But even they facesafety concerns and hardships, as well as job losses and potential forced return due to theU.S. funding cuts to the Congress-funded Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) outlets.
Turning fearful journalists into spies
In September 2020, a year before the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, a radio presenter reads the news during a broadcast at the Merman radio station in Kandahar. Women journalists have been largely sidelined by the Taliban. (Photo: AFP/ Wakil Kohsar)
As Afghanistan marks the fourth anniversary of the Taliban’s August 15, 2021, takeover, most journalists who spoke with CPJ said they were fearful, and either jobless or heavily censored. Several described the relentless surveillance,control, andintimidation as living under a “media police state.”
“Taliban intelligence agents have launched a policing system where every journalist is expected to spy on others,” a media executive who led a TV station in eastern Afghanistan told CPJ.
“They demand complete personal information on all staff: names, fathers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, emails, WhatsApp numbers … We must report everything.”
Intelligence agentsmonitor and detain reporters over their social media content, while the morality policearrest those who violate their stringent interpretation of Sharia law, which includes a ban on music, soap operas, and programs co-hosted by male and female presenters.
Two media owners from northern and eastern Afghanistan told CPJ that they had been subjected to invasive revenue audits and administrative delays because they were perceived as insufficiently compliant.
“Taliban agents reach out to journalists privately, pressuring them to spy on their colleagues or push specific narratives,” one of the owners said. “If someone refuses, they call the media manager and demand the journalist be fired. We comply, or we face licensing issues from the Ministry of Information and Culture or financial penalties from the Ministry of Finance.”
In May, a spokesperson for the Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice said it had held over1,000 meetings with the media over the last year to “coordinate in promoting Islamic Sharia values” — a term understood locally to mean morality police enforcement meetings.
Two female journalists from western Afghanistan said they were each summoned over 10 times in the past two years.
“Once they interrogated me for three hours in the office of the Directorate of Virtue and Vice, asking why I worked instead of staying home,” one woman told CPJ, referring to the ministry’s provincial office.
“They said that if I were found working with exiled media, it would be wajib al-qatl [permissible to kill me]. One official said, ‘We forgive you this time, you thank God for this. But under Sharia, we could bring any calamity upon you.’ Another time, they said they could detain me for a week just to extract a confession, and no one would even know.”
Inside the Taliban’s media empire
The Taliban flag flutters over a provincial branch building of National Radio Television of Takhar (RTA) in Taloqan, in northeastern Takhar province in 2024. (Photo: AFP)
Three active, independent Kabul-based journalists explained the Taliban’s new media landscape to CPJ:
With over 500 staff nationwide and a budget of about 600 million Afghanis (US$8.8 million), RTA reports often promote Taliban achievements, such as supportingrefugees anddiplomacy.
Bakhtar News Agency, founded in 1939, employs around 60 staff in Kabul and four reporters in each of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. Run by the information ministry, it is the Taliban’s official news source and publishes ineight languages, includingMandarin andTurkish.
The information ministry also runs several daily newspapers, including Dari-languageAnis, Pashto-languageHewad, and English-languageThe Kabul Times in print and online. These newspapers werefounded severaldecades ago.
The three journalists said security agencies operate three radio stations:
Hurriyat Radio has awebsite,YouTube channel, and localradio stations that areexpanding across the provinces, broadcasting in multiple languages, with 26 Kabul staff plus provincial correspondents.
Hurriyat Radio was launched in 2022 by the General Directorate of Intelligence (GDI) — the Taliban’s notorious intelligence agency behind a series of media crackdowns — and is managed by the agency’s directorate of media and publications.
Radio Omid, started in 2023 by the defense ministry, employs 45 staff in Kabul and provincial reporters, andreports on the ministry’sachievements. The radio station is managed by the office of spokesperson of the defense ministry.
Radio Police,relaunched in 2021 by the interior ministry, broadcasts news about police activities across key provinces like Kabul and southern Kandahar.
The Taliban has four news sites, at least three of which are run by the intelligence agency:
The flagship project is the multi-lingualAl Mirsad news site, launched in 2023 tochallenge IS-K narratives. Itdownplays the group’s presence in Afghanistan while reporting Taliban successes, using multiplesocial media channels, includingYouTube.
It is funded and operated by the GDI’s directorate of media and publications and its senior managers are linked to the interior minister Sirajuddin Haqqani.
YouTube-basedMaihan discredits the Taliban’sopponents, with 12 staff, led by Jawad Sargar, former deputy director of the GDI’s directorate of media and publication.
When contacted via messaging app, Sargar asked CPJ to stop contacting him, adding, “These matters are not related to you.”
The multi-lingualAlemarah news site, activebefore 2021, is the Taliban’s official outlet, run by Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid.
Disinformation campaign
Intelligence officials have four offices from which they direct disinformation campaigns. Dozens of creators are paid 6,000 to 10,000 Afghanis (US$88 to 146) a month to run fake social media accounts that troll critics, smear activists, and simulate grassroots support, two Afghan journalists told CPJ.
The project is led by senior GDI figures like deputy director of media and publication, Jabir Nomani, former GDI spokespeople Jawad Amin and Sargar – who runs Maihan – and Kabul-based political analyst Fazlur Rahman Orya, the journalists said.
Orya, who is also director of the Sahar Discourse Center, which advises the Taliban on policy, denied that he was involved in disinformation, telling CPJ via messaging app, “You make a big mistake about me.”
Nomani did not respond to CPJ’s requests for comment via messaging app.
Qais Alamdar, exiled founder of the open source investigative platformIntelFocus, hasdocumented the activities of these bots, which often post near-identical tweets within minutes of each other to bolster the government’s legitimacy or prevent internet users finding other news, such as an attack on the Taliban.
“Only someone with consistent access to electricity, internet, and time could maintain that kind of operation in Afghanistan,” he told CPJ.
Traffic accidents are only news allowed
A destroyed bus is lifted after it plunged off a road north of Kabul in 2010. (Photo: Reuters/stringer)
As a result of these repressive measures, many media outlets have shut down or have been banned entirely.
In the northeastern Panjshir Valley, once the heart of resistance to the Taliban, no media outlets remain active, Ahmad Hanayesh, who used to own two radio stations in the province, told CPJ fromexile.
Four journalists from Herat, Nangarhar, Faryab, and Bamiyan told CPJ that aside from education and health stories, the only serious news they were permitted to cover was traffic accidents. Even crime reporting was banned.
GDI’s media and publications director Khalil Hamraz and Taliban spokesperson Mujahid did not respond to CPJ’s requests for comment via messaging app.
The founder of Hong Kong’s now shuttered Apple Daily newspaper, Lai, 77, who is also a British citizen, has been in jail since December 2020.
Lai is currently standing trial for “collusion with foreign forces” under Hong Kong’s National Security Law.
Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien has warned that “time is running out” for his father’s health, and called on Britain and the United States to push for his release.
Human rights groups say Lai’s trial is a “sham” and part of a broad crackdown on dissent in Hong Kong.
The hearings are scheduled to last eight days.
Jimmy Lai walks through the Stanley prison in Hong Kong, on July 28, 2023.(Louise Delmotte/AP)Jimmy Lai, owner of the Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily, poses next to dry runs of a soon to be launched Taiwanese newspaper taped to his office wall, April 7, 2003, in Taipei.(Jerome Favre/AP)This photo taken on Feb. 7, 2011, shows Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai outside his company’s headquarters in Hong Kong.(Mike Clarke/AFP)Media tycoon Jimmy Lai, attends a pro-democracy protesters march in Admiralty on Aug. 31, 2019 in Hong Kong.(Billy H.C. Kwok/Getty Images)Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai poses during an interview at the Next Digital offices in Hong Kong, June 16, 2020.(Anthony Wallace/AFP)Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai and a copy of Apple Daily’s July 1, 2020, edition during an interview in Hong Kong, July 1, 2020.(Vincent Yu/AP)Hong Kong police officers block the entrance to Apple Daily newspaper on Aug. 10, 2020.(Apple Daily via Getty Images)Hong Kong police officers search the office of Apple Daily newspaper on Aug. 10, 2020.(Apple Daily via Getty Images)Hong Kong police officers search the office of Apple Daily newspaper on Aug. 10, 2020.(Apple Daily via Getty Images)Jimmy Lai is escorted by Hong Kong police officers as they search the office of Apple Daily newspaper on Aug. 10, 2020.(Apple Daily via Getty Images)Hong Kong media tycoon and Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai is escorted by the police for evidence collection on Aug. 11, 2020 in Hong Kong.(Anthony Kwan/Getty Images)Copies of the Apple Daily newspaper, with front pages featuring Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai, are displayed for sale at a newsstand in Hong Kong, Aug. 11, 2020.(Kin Cheung/AP)Jimmy Lai, center, who founded the Apple Daily tabloid, is escorted by Correctional Services officers to get on a prison van before appearing in a court, in Hong Kong on Dec. 12, 2020.(Kin Cheung/AP)Copies of the last issue of Apple Daily arrive at a newspaper booth in Hong Kong on June 24, 2021.(Vincent Yu/AP)In this image provided by The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong, an artist projection by Robin Bell protests China’s crackdown on dissidents ahead of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics in Washington, Jan. 31, 2022.(Andre Chung/Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong via AP)
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.
Allen Forrest is writer, painter, graphic artist and activist who produces many cartoons illustrating the regressivism of capitalist societies. One cartoon by Forrest depicted a man and woman swimming in a shark-patrolled sea of MSM (aka mainstream media) lies. But why call it MSM or mainstream media?
