radiofree.asia

Category: Media

  • Two French journalists flee Yemeni island of Socotra after questioning, house arrest

    On May 28, 2023, five armed soldiers and three police chiefs on the Yemeni island of Socotra arrested freelance journalist Quentin Müller and Sylvain Mercadier, co-founder and director of the independent Iraqi news website The Red Line, at their apartment, according to tweets by Müller and Mercadier, who communicated with CPJ via email. The authorities also confiscated the journalists’ passports, two laptops, two cameras, and several books.

    The soldiers and police officers were affiliated with the Southern Transitional Council, a United Arab Emirates-backed secessionist group involved in Yemen’s civil war, which aims to establish an independent state in southern Yemen. The STC has been the de facto ruler of Socotra since April 2020. 

    At the central Socotra police station, officers insinuated that the request for their arrest came from “other Gulf states” and high-ranking officials who were not Yemeni, according to those tweets and Mercadier. The officers referenced the journalists’ reporting on Yemen, specifically Socotra, demanded the journalists disclose the names of their sources and reveal meeting places, and told the journalists that their reporting on Yemen did not sit well with those Gulf countries.

    French journalist Sylvain Mercadier was placed under house arrest in Socotra, Yemen between May 28 and June 1, 2023. (Photo Credit: Sylvain Mercadier)

    Officers questioned Müller about his August 2021 article regarding the UAE’s interference in Yemen and the brutality of its proxies, and an October 2021 Al Jazeera documentary about Socotra and the UAE’s attempts to gain control of the island, which features interviews with Müller, according to Mercadier. 

    The officers also said Müller’s photo had been circulating in WhatsApp groups involving individuals working in security coordination between the STC and those Gulf countries. Officers compelled the journalists to unlock their laptops and searched them and their cameras for interviews with political figures who were anti-UAE or anti-STC, Mercadier said.

    Müller has extensively reported on the political tensions in Socotra and the broader Middle East in media outlets, including the French monthly newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique, the U.K. newspaper The Independent, and the French website Orient XXI, which denounced the arrest of the two journalists.

    Mercadier has also reported on the region for outlets including the U.K. newspaper The Guardian, the London-based website Middle East Eye, and Orient XXI.

    The journalists were placed under house arrest and questioned several times about their reporting between May 28 and June 1, according to Mercadier. On June 1, authorities returned the journalists’ equipment after requiring them to sign a document saying they had written politically sensitive articles that jeopardized the stability of Socotra without prior authorization from authorities.

    On June 4, a national security officer affiliated with the STC pressured the journalists to leave the island, which they did, abandoning their reporting plans and returning to France, according to Mercadier. The officer presented it as “a sort of concern for our safety, but all they wanted was to prevent us from having any opportunity to work in Socotra. There was no danger to our safety apart from the local authorities,” Mercadier added.

    “The French journalists were questioned in Socotra due to their lack of proper credentials,” Summer Ahmed, the STC’s U.S.-based representative, told CPJ via email. “We have advised them to register properly as journalists with the National Southern Media Authority (NSMA).”

    The NSMA operates in all areas under STC control, including Socotra and the south of Yemen, and functions as an “arm of the STC,” Ahmed told CPJ.

    Mercadier told CPJ that he believes their detention was “politically motivated,” adding that NSMA insists on being informed about all meetings and interviews before they occur, calling the request “drastic measures completely incompatible with the conduct of independent journalism.”

    Following the arrest of the two journalists, NSMA issued a directive on June 7 urging all media outlets to register their outlets and journalistic employees. On June 13, a second directive urged foreign journalists and international media outlets to register and obtain licenses from NSMA before conducting any reporting activities. 

    Local journalists and press freedom advocates have named NSMA as one of the factors contributing to the deterioration of press freedom in Yemen. In September 2022, the Yemeni Journalists Syndicate denounced the NSMA’s decision to prohibit certain journalists from conducting interviews with specific media channels.

    Journalists reporting in areas under the control of the STC have faced assault and prolonged detention, especially when they report on abuses allegedly committed by militias loyal to the STC or critically report on the UAE. 

    In August 2022, STC security forces detained freelance Yemeni journalist Ahmed Maher and his brother in Aden. Maher remains in custody, has endured harsh interrogations, and was banned multiple times from attending his own trial.

    In February 2023, security forces affiliated with the STC took control of the Yemeni Journalists Syndicate’s headquarters in Aden and transferred control to a newly established STC entity known as the Southern Media and Journalists’ Syndicate, according to a statement by the syndicate. On June 9, the Yemeni Journalists Syndicate issued a statement that condemned the ongoing control of their headquarters by the STC and demanded its restoration.

    On June 18, STC security forces arrested and detained journalist Akram Karem in Aden for criticizing the local authorities in the Al-Tawahi district and exposing corruption on his Facebook page. He was released on June 20 on the orders of the governor of Aden.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Right-Wing Backlash Against the LGBTQ Community [& How Media Plays A Part] | Pride Month 2023

    This content originally appeared on The Laura Flanders Show and was authored by The Laura Flanders Show.

  • As Media Spotlights Titanic Sub, Hundreds of Migrants Who Died in Greek Shipwreck Get Scant Coverage


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Glastonbury’s Cancelling of a Powerful Film about Jeremy Corbyn

    The Soviet dissident Yevgeny Yevtushenko famously said that: ‘When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie.’

    In this country, as in other western ‘democracies’, important truths are effectively being silenced. As we have written on many occasions, antisemitism was used as a weapon to destroy the chances of Jeremy Corbyn becoming the British Prime Minister. Labour HQ staffers, and even Labour MPs, actively conspired against him. Al Jazeera’s powerful series, The Labour Files, which was blatantly blanked by the establishment media, has documented all this in considerable detail.

    And now the Glastonbury Film Festival has succumbed to similar pressure and cancelled a screening of a new film, Oh Jeremy Corbyn: The Big Lie.

    The Board of Deputies of British Jews (BDBJ), a right-wing establishment organisation that claims to represent the British Jewish ‘community’, had written to Glastonbury organisers Michael and Emily Eavis, saying it would be ‘profoundly sinister’ if the festival platformed the film. Marie van der Zyl, president of BDBJ, said in a letter to the festival organisers:

    ‘It seems profoundly sinister for it to be providing a platform to a film which clearly seeks to indoctrinate people into believing a conspiracy theory effectively aimed at Jewish organisations.

    ‘We would request that you not allow your festival to be hijacked by those seeking to promote hatred with no basis in fact, in the same way as we would hope that your festival would not screen films seeking to promote other conspiracy theories, such as anti-vaccination, 9/11 truthers or chemtrails.’

    The makers of the film, first shown in London in February, describe the film thus:

    ‘Produced by award-winning radical film-maker Platform Films, with contributions from Jackie Walker, Ken Loach, Andrew Murray, Graham Bash and Moshe Machover, and narrated by Alexei Sayle, this feature-length documentary film explores a dark and murky story of political deceit and outrageous antisemitic smears. It also uncovers the critical role played by current Labour leader, Keir Starmer and asks if the movement which backed Corbyn could rise again.’

    Reviewer Diane Datson wrote:

    ‘The real message conveyed in this film is that the Labour Party is no alternative to the Conservatives – it serves the ruling class and is led by someone every bit as devious as Boris Johnson, if not more so.’

    She added:

    ‘However, I for one felt uplifted, as the film ended optimistically. Many of the interviewees think that all is not lost – those millions of people who were inspired and given hope by the Corbyn project haven’t gone away – they are to be found supporting the picket lines, protesting and fighting for many causes such as public ownership of the NHS and the right to strike and the establishment is STILL petrified.’

    But Paul Mason, formerly of BBC Newsnight and Channel 4 News, and now a would-be Labour MP under Starmer, attacked the film as presenting:

    ‘a full-blown conspiracy theory about Corbyn’s opponents, conflating Zionists, Jews and Israel as part of a force that “orchestrated” his overthrow.’

    Mason gave a specific example:

    ‘Seventeen minutes in, after presenting evidence of an “orchestrated campaign” against Corbyn, the narrator, Alexei Sayle asks: “But if it was an orchestrated campaign, who was in the orchestra?” There follows a silent montage showing the Jewish Board of Deputies, the Jewish Labour Movement, Labour Friends of Israel, and the Israel Advocacy Movement.

    ‘As a professional film-maker I recognise this wordless presentation of a controversial idea not as an accident but as a technique: using captions and pictures to state what, if spoken aloud, could be accused of anti-Semitism.’

    Mason’s description is a gross distortion. This section of the film does indeed address the role of the pro-Israel lobby in the UK, with the montage indicating key players. But prior to this section, The Big Lie already emphasises the crucial point that it was the establishment as a whole that worked tirelessly to bring Corbyn down, even to the extent of an unnamed acting British army general threatening that the army would ‘mutiny’ and that ‘people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul’ to get rid of Corbyn (Sunday Times, 20 September 2015).

    Sayle, as narrator, stated unequivocally that: ‘For the establishment, the sudden rise of Corbyn was terrifying.’

    He continued: ‘Corbyn was anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-nuclear weapons. A socialist, even.’

    Mike Cowley, a Labour Party member, said:

    ‘I guess that’s what gave the establishment such a fright, to a degree, because they saw the numbers he was mobilising. And, as we began to see, it’s not actually Corbyn they’re afraid of. It’s us – he’s only one man. It’s us, they’re afraid of.’

    Sayle then pointed out that:

    ‘From the start, Jeremy Corbyn’s biggest threat was from his own Labour MPs.’

    After the 1917 election, the campaign against Corbyn ‘went into overdrive’:

    ‘The Tory press threw its all at Jeremy Corbyn. They tried smear after smear [front-page press montage]. But in the end, only one stuck [alleged antisemitism].’

    In other words, the film overwhelmingly makes clear that the pro-Israel lobby was only one player in a much larger orchestra that was fundamentally establishment, not Jewish, in nature. Mason chose to ignore this in his review. And yet, he had himself accepted the wider conspiracy in 2020:

    ‘A senior group of Labour staffers actively conspired for the party to lose the 2017 election… this is a Watergate moment, not just for Labour but for British politics’

    On Twitter, leftist singer Billy Bragg joined the attack on the film:

    ‘The problem with the film is that it implies there is a Jewish conspiracy behind Corbyn’s defeat. The fact that the film’s supporters have been blaming the Israeli lobby for the ban rather than the content of the film kinda underlines their lack of understanding of that problem’

    As evidence, Bragg then cited Mason’s misleading quote (presumably, and ill-advisedly, because Bragg had not himself seen the film) as an attempted ‘Gotcha!’

    Jackie Walker, a Jewish activist who is interviewed in The Big Lie, made an additional, relevant point when she responded to Bragg:

    ‘Labour Friends of Israel are overwhelmingly not Jewish, the Board of deputies do not hide their commitment to Israel, and the IAM [Israel Advocacy Movement] are exactly what they say on the tin – they ADVOCATE for Israel’

    The Big Lie is, of course, right to address the important part played by the pro-Israel lobby. It includes clips from the Al Jazeera film, The Lobby, which exposed Israel’s determined attempts to interfere in Britain’s politics. In particular, Israeli embassy official Shai Masot was caught on film boasting that he could help ‘bring down’ pro-Palestinian MPs. A clip of Peter Oborne, former political editor of the Telegraph, from the same Al Jazeera film, is also shown in which he says:

    ‘It [the actions of the Israel lobby] is outrageous interference in British politics. It shouldn’t be permitted.’

    On Twitter, Ben Sellers observed that:

    ‘I have worked in Parliament & been an anti-racist activist all my adult life. I’m not naive about these things. I watched the film very carefully for anything that could be deemed antisemitic. The idea that it implies a “Jewish conspiracy” defeated Corbyn is a distortion.’

    He continued:

    ‘What it does is explain that organisations (with their own centrist & right-wing politics) inside & outside the party, worked to create a crisis for Corbyn’s leadership & in order to defeat the left in the party. This is well documented & evidenced (e.g in the Al Jazeera docs).’

    Sellers concluded:

    ‘It’s not a conspiracy theory – it’s an argument. And what people [like Mason and Bragg] don’t like is that argument. They don’t want to hear it. So they’ve manage[d] to silence the voice of left-wing Jews (on the basis that the Jewish community is some sort of monolith). That’s dangerous & undemocratic.’

    ‘Anti-Racists Accused of Racism by Racists’

    ‘The Big Lie’ also highlights the incessant establishment media attacks on Corbyn, particularly after the 2017 General Election which he came so close to winning. The ‘smear that stuck’ was the myth that antisemitism was supposedly rife in Labour under Corbyn. A ‘cancer’, as one despicable newspaper headline put it.

    In his distorted review of the documentary, Mason raised the spectre of legal action on the grounds that the film supposedly breaches the politically biased and much-disputed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Simply put, the film dares to criticise the apartheid state of Israel, its lobbyists and the media acolytes who campaigned to smear Corbyn and his supporters, including long-time grassroots Labour activists.

    As journalist Jonathan Cook observed in 2021, a five-year campaign by highly partisan, pro-Israel lobby groups was able to mislead the international community about the nature of what has been wrongly described as the ‘gold standard’ definition of antisemitism. The definition has now become ‘a cudgel’ with which to beat critics of Israel and to suppress the rights of Palestinians.

    Avi Shlaim, an emeritus professor at Oxford University, observed in the foreword of a 2021 report on how the definition of antisemitism has been misrepresented:

    ‘[A] definition intended to protect Jews against antisemitism was twisted to protect the State of Israel against valid criticisms that have nothing to do with anti-Jewish racism.’

    In September 2018, Alexei Sayle had told a packed fringe meeting at the Labour party conference that:

    ‘There can be no greater injustice than anti-racists being accused of racism by racists.’

    That is a precise and succinct summary of what has been happening in recent years.

    Having watched the complete documentary, Oh Jeremy Corbyn: The Big Lie, it is clear that it is thoroughly researched, relies on credible and articulate interviewees, and its arguments are expertly marshalled and presented. The notion that it is in any way ‘antisemitic’ is just a sign of how far down the road of totalitarian censorship we have travelled in this country.

    Glastonbury Capitulates

    Rather than spring to the film’s defence, Michael Walker of Novara Media criticised the film’s title:

    ‘Normally I’m v against clamping down on any open discussion about what happened in and to labour between 2015 and 2019. But calling your film “the big lie” is, at best, really really dumb.’

    Why? Because Hitler had used the same phrase, ‘the big lie’. But, as several people pointed out in response to Walker’s ‘really really dumb’ comment, so have many others. In fact, ‘the big lie’ comes from one of the Jewish contributors to the film, Moshé Machover, in describing the smears against Corbyn. Moreover, Walker admitted he had not even seen the film.

    This continued the shameful record of Novara – remember, supposedly an ‘alternative’ to the corporate media – in failing to critically appraise the weaponising of antisemitism; indeed, accepting the myth that antisemitism was endemic under Corbyn-led Labour.

    Once they had caved in to pro-Israel pressure to cancel the film, the Glastonbury festival organisers then issued a statement in which they said:

    ‘Although we believe that the Pilton Palais [cinema] booked this film in good faith, in the hope of provoking political debate, it’s become clear that it is not appropriate for us to screen it at the festival.

    ‘Glastonbury is about unity and not division, and we stand against all forms of discrimination.’

    What a contrast from 2017 when Corbyn had addressed a massive, appreciative crowd at Glastonbury, proclaiming a message of ‘unity, and not division’ and ‘standing against all forms of discrimination’.

    The BDBJ crowed that the film had now been cancelled:

    ‘We are pleased that in the wake of a letter we sent earlier today, @glastonbury have announced the cancellation of the screening of this film. Hateful conspiracy theories should have no place in our society.’

    Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a founding member of Jewish Voice for Labour who was expelled from Starmer’s Labour Party for being the ‘wrong type of Jew’, said on Twitter:

    ‘Unbelievable that @glastonbury has bowed to demands from fans of Starmer’s @uklabour, banning a film exposing demonisation of @jeremycorbyn. The censors say the film conflates Zionists, Jews & Israel. No, actually, that’s what they do. See it & judge for yourself.’

    US journalist Glenn Greenwald noted:

    ‘The @glastonbury Film Festival capitulated to pressure and cancelled the Corbyn documentary.

    ‘This illustrates the great crisis in the democratic world: an intense fixation on suppressing and silencing, rather than engaging, dissenting views.

    ‘Every solution now is censorship.’

    It is indeed the ‘solution’ seen by established power, and it is utterly wrong.

    There was minimal reporting by the British state-corporate media and, crucially, no uproar about censorship and yet another step being taken towards suppression of free speech. There was a handful of short news reports, including in the Independent, the Evening Standard, the Guardian (passed over in just three lines), the Times, Daily Mail and Telegraph.

    These mainly led with the charges of ‘antisemitism’ and ‘conspiracy theory’. The Evening Standard also carried a smear piece, ‘Oh Jeremy Corbyn: Glasto myth and a poisonous conspiracy theory’, by Tanya Gold.

    The single significant piece refuting the specious, cynical charges was an article in the Independent reporting the reaction of Norman Thomas, the film’s producer. He said that the film’s cancellation had been caused by ‘vicious outside pressure’. He added:

    ‘An outside pressure group [BDBJ] has declared war on our film. They wrote to the festival’s sponsors… and whipped up huge storm of complaints about the film claiming, without any foundation whatsoever, that the film is antisemitic.’

    He continued:

    ‘The claim that the film is antisemitic is a total smear.

    ‘The festival organisers even had a lawyer examine the film who pronounced it totally devoid of antisemitism. [Our emphasis]’

    As we have also seen with the cruel persecution of Julian Assange and the treatment of Roger Waters, co-founder of Pink Floyd, the establishment is becoming ever fiercer in its attacks on those who challenge power.

    It is ironic indeed that Glenn Greenwald, a US journalist, is far more vocal in defending UK freedom of speech than British journalists. A great silence has fallen over the media in this country.

  • As Media Spotlights Titanic Sub, Hundreds of Migrants Who Died in Greek Shipwreck Get Scant Coverage

    Seg1 migrant ship

    As many as 700 migrants are feared to have died after an overloaded fishing vessel capsized last week off the coast of Greece. As search and rescue efforts continue with dwindling expectations, the Greek Coast Guard is facing backlash over its failure to help rescue passengers before the boat sank. Most of the migrants were women and children; many were from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria and Palestine. They are presumed victims of what may be one the deadliest migrant shipwrecks ever recorded, yet the story has received far less public attention than the search for five passengers aboard a submersible to view the wreck of the Titanic. All five of those passengers were confirmed by the U.S. Coast Guard to have likely died Sunday, days before wall-to-wall media coverage began to speculate about their plight.

    We discuss this disparity and the European refugee crisis at large with two guests: Giorgos Kosmopoulos, a senior migration campaigner for Amnesty International, and Laurence Bondard, spokesperson and operations communications manager for SOS Méditerranée, a nongovernmental rescue organization that operates in the central Mediterranean. Bondard has sailed on seven rescue missions with the NGO, part of a growing necessity in the region, where European countries have withheld the resources available for sea rescue. In the last decade, more than 30,000 refugees are estimated to have drowned in the Mediterranean.

    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

  • Donna Miles-Mojab: Is there such a thing as unbiased reporting?

    COMMENTARY: By Donna Miles-Mojab

    Recently, there was a serious revelation that some wire service reports were edited, without attribution, by an individual employee of our national broadcaster, RNZ.

    Now, let’s examine the way I composed the above sentence.

    I included the word “serious” to signal to readers that this news is of significant importance. The reason is that I believe there is already extensive frustration at media coverage of news — and therefore anything that erodes trust in our major media should be taken seriously.

    Later in the sentence, I used the word “edited”. Initially, I had used the word “altered” but I made a conscious decision to change it to “edited”. I did this because I thought the word “altered” might suggest a higher type of wrongdoing — one that could be linked to fraud and criminality, such as being paid by a foreign agent to alter documents.

    There is no evidence that this was the case at RNZ. The word “edited” suggests the use of some sort of journalistic judgment which, in this particular case, regardless of the factuality or falsehood of the edits, were clearly unethical because they were unauthorised and undeclared.

    The reference to “an individual employee” was to ensure that other journalists at RNZ, and the organisation as a whole, were not implicated in the revelation. If I had thought RNZ was systematically biased in its reporting, I probably would have just written that RNZ had been found to be altering wire service news.

    So my choice of words to form the first sentence of this column was informed by my personal perspectives, as well as the impression I hoped to create in the minds of those reading it.

    The subject of this column isn’t about what happened at RNZ. We will be informed of this, in time, when the result of the ongoing inquiry is made public.

    Unbiased reporting?
    The question I intend to explore here is if there is such a thing as unbiased reporting.

    I went back to university later in life to study journalism because it was important to me to understand how the news was produced. My course placed a lot of emphasis on the importance of objectivity and impartiality as ideal standards of news reporting, without much discussion about the limits of achieving such unrealistic standards.

    News is produced by reporters and shaped by editors who cannot help but inject their own perspectives and personal experiences into the final product. Even when reporting live from the scene, journalists often have to form a judgment as to what is newsworthy, and so depending on who is reporting the story, the information we receive may alter.

    In general, the idea of “unbiased”, “objective” or “neutral” reporting cannot be entirely divorced from the editorial guides journalists use to determine what information to report, and also what they believe is the truth.

    Omitting context or the decision to exclude some key words can, in some instances, produce a misleading report.

    For instance, my interest in the Palestinian cause has meant that I notice the journalistic language used in reporting on Palestine. I consider that Gaza and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) should always be referred to as “occupied Gaza” and “occupied West Bank” because this is their legal status under international law.

    But in many articles about Palestine, the word “occupied” is often dropped even though its use matters because it gives relevant context to reporting of political and military events there.

    Impartial presentation
    Some journalistic codes refer to “balanced” and “fair” reporting. The idea here is that, where there is controversy, there should be an impartial presentation of all facts as well as all substantial opinions relating to it.

    A fair report, it is said, should avoid giving equal footing to truths and mistruths and should provide factual context to any inaccurate or misleading public statement.

    In recent years, The New York Times has used a series of articles known as Explainers to, as they describe it, “demystify thorny topics”.

    Stuff’s Explained follows a similar format to help deconstruct topics that are complex and challenging to understand.

    The notion of bias in news writing has become the most common criticism of the media.

    Ultimately, the solution to increasing trust in journalism lies in transparency and disclosure of the standards, judgments and systems used to produce and edit news. It is therefore right that RNZ has announced an external review of its processes for the editing of online stories.

    But there should also be a mind shift in our understanding of the notions of unbiased and objective reporting — namely that these notions have always existed and continue to operate within power dynamics that give privilege to certain perspectives.

    The best approach, therefore, is to always allow for an element of doubt — and only believe something to be true just so long as our active efforts to disprove it have been unsuccessful.

    Donna Miles-Mojab is an Iranian New Zealander interested in justice and human rights issues. She lives in Christchurch and works as a freelance journalist and a columnist for The Press. This article is republished with the author’s permission.

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

  • Kenyan government minister Moses Kuria insults, threatens Nation Media Group

    Nairobi, June 21, 2023—In response to Kenyan Cabinet Secretary for Trade and Industry Moses Kuria’s derogatory remarks and threats of economic sanctions against the privately owned Nation Media Group, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued the following statement:

    “The vile insults and threats that Kenya’s trade minister Moses Kuria hurled at the Nation Media Group over the last few days undermine the dignity of the minister’s taxpayer-funded office and expose a disturbing disregard for constitutionally protected freedoms of the press,” said CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Angela Quintal, from New York. “Kuria should retract his threats, and the government should guarantee media outlets do not face retaliatory economic sanctions for their reporting.”

    In a video posted on Twitter on June 18, Kuria threatened to fire government officials who advertised with the Nation Media Group, a corporation that owns a number of local and regional newspapers and broadcasters. The following day, he posted pictures of advertisements in the company’s newspapers and said the ads were “not good.”

    In a series of tweets between June 18 and June 20, Kuria called the company’s employees “prostitutes,” accused its journalists of corruption and bias, and promised to publish the names of “Nation Media Group writers who have confessed to being coerced to write anti government stories” in a “scheme” by editors, management, and “a former president.”

    The actions came after Nation Media Group’s print publications and its broadcaster NTV carried reports alleging government officials’ involvement in a corrupt scheme to import duty-free cooking oil that cost taxpayers billions of shillings. 

    On Wednesday, June 21, Kuria told journalists he would not apologize for his comments and said, “There is no one who is more pro-media than me.” 

    Also on Wednesday, the High Court in Nairobi issued an injunction against Kuria, barring him from insulting or vilifying the media, pending the hearing of a petition alleging the minister had breached values of governance and leadership as outlined by the Kenyan constitution. The case is expected to be heard on July 24.

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

  • The Late Daniel Ellsberg’s Wish: Free Julian Assange, Encourage Whistleblowers

    Whistleblower Dan Ellsberg joined us after the Justice Department charged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act for publishing U.S. military and diplomatic documents exposing U.S. war crimes. Assange is locked up in London and faces up to 175 years in prison if extradited and convicted in the United States. Ellsberg died Friday, and as we remember his life…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • USP signs ‘milestone Pacific MOUs’ for enterprising journalism initiatives

    By Viliame Tawanakoro in Suva

    The University of the South Pacific’s regional journalism programme has penned three milestone Memorandums of Understanding that will usher in greater collaboration with media industry partners over student upskilling and training, joint workshops and seminars, and publication of the award-winning training newspaper Wansolwara.

    Papua New Guinea’s National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) and the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) have formalised three-year MOU partnerships with the region’s longest running journalism programme at Laucala campus.

    They were signed by NBC managing director Kora Nou and PINA managing editor Makereta Komai respectively.

    The signing ceremony was witnessed by PNG’s Minister for Communication and Information Technology Timothy Masiu — a former journalist — and USP’s deputy vice-chancellor (regional campuses and global engagement) Dr Giulio Paunga.

    “It is indeed history because we have never had such an MOU between this prestigious university and our National Broadcasting Corporation, which is a flagship of PNG,” said  Masiu.

    “The intention of this MOU is basically threefold — student training, staff exchanges and joint workshops, seminars, research activities. We are really looking forward to this; very interesting times ahead for NBC and your university.”

    To further strengthen the MOU, Masiu announced a F$10,000 funding support for the journalism programme through the PINA office. NBC’s managing director is also current chair of PINA.

    Masiu as a journalist
    Masiu also shared his excitement and delight at being part of the signing ceremony and reminisced about his time as a broadcaster for NBC, and later a journalist for The National daily newspaper in Port Moresby.

    Dr Paunga said the university was also currently working closely with the PNG government and the progress of this collaboration demonstrated great things to come between the two countries, its people and future students.

    USP Journalism programme coordinator Associate Professor Shailendra Singh said the programme was doing some good work in journalism in Fiji and the region. He commended Komai and Nou for their cooperation and vision over the MOU.

    “The MOU we have signed is going to take the training and development of our journalists to another level,” he said.

    “We have been training journalists for a long time. Under this MOU, we will be able to decide our own agenda when it comes to training and research, instead of everything being designed from someplace else and us merely implementing it.

    “We know PNG will be sending students to study at USP. Talks are underway and if that happens then there will be greater collaboration and interaction between students coming from PNG.”

    Dr Singh said USP had 12-member countries and PNG was set to become the 13th member if talks went according to plan.

    Fiji Times partnership

    The latest 32-page Wansolwara
    The latest 32-page Wansolwara . . . published as a Fiji Times insert thanks the new MOU.

    Earlier, on May 3 — World Press Freedom Day — USP Journalism signed the first MOU with Fiji Times Limited. The partnership includes, among other supportive initiatives, the publication of Wansolwara, twice a year.

    The first Wansolwara edition for 2023 was published in The Sunday Times last week and featured 32 pages of news, sports and special reports written and produced by USP journalism students across Fiji and the region.

    Dr Singh said the partnership with Fiji Times Ltd was also a boost for the programme.

    “This is a historic moment, not just for us but also for our students, as this will give them the exposure they need to contribute and improve the standard of journalism in our region,” he said.

    “Fiji Times Ltd has been supportive of the USP Journalism Programme for many years, and this partnership will strengthen their commitment to promote a free and fair environment for journalists.”

    Fiji Times Pte Ltd general manager Christine Lyons said the company would cover the printing of Wansolwara twice in the academic year. This amounted to one publication per semester.

    “It will be circulated as an insert in The Fiji Times as part of its corporate social responsibility,” she said.

    Fiji Times Ltd was represented by editor-in-chief Fred Wesley at the May MOU signing.

    Viliame Tawanakoro is a final-year student journalist at USP’s Laucala Campus. He is also the 2023 student editor for Wansolwara, USP Journalism’s student training newspaper and online publication.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Chris Licht Firing Won’t Save Dying CNN Network

    CNN fired their CEO Chris Licht last week after just 13 months on the job. Licht’s performance wasn’t great, but firing him isn’t going to fix any of the lingering problems that the dying corporate media outlet is still facing. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so […]

    The post Chris Licht Firing Won’t Save Dying CNN Network appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Pacific journos urged not to let geopolitics ‘skew their narratives’

    RNZ Pacific

    The editor of the Marshall Islands Journal, Giff Johnson, is urging Pacific journalists not to be swayed by geopolitical narratives and to stay true to reporting stories that affect people in their daily lives.

    Held last Friday in Majuro, Johnson, who is also the co-founder of the Pacific Media Institute, hosted Pacific journalists and media trainers for a workshop and summit on democracy.

    Increased competition between the United States and China in the Pacific has dominated headlines and political discourse over the past few years but Johnson said that while it is important to stay on top of such developments they were far removed from the day-to-day realities of island living.

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

  • Mediawatch: Further fallout as RNZ takes out the ‘Kremlin garbage’

    External experts are poring over the “inappropriate editing” of international news published online by RNZ. It has already tightened editorial checks and stood down an online journalist. Will this dent trust in RNZ — or news in general? Were campaigns propagating national propaganda a factor? Mediawatch asks two experts with international experience.

    MEDIAWATCH: By Colin Peacock, RNZ Mediawatch presenter

    The comedians on 7 Days had a few laughs at RNZ’s expense against a backdrop of the Kremlin on TV Three this week.

    “A Radio New Zealand digital journalist has been stood down after it emerged they’d been editing news stories on the broadcaster’s website to give them a pro-Russian slant, which is kind of disgusting,” host Jeremy Corbett said.

    “You’d never get infiltration like that on 7 Days. Our security is too strong. Strong like a bear. Strong like the glorious Russian state and its leader Putin,” he said.

    “I love this Russian strategy: ‘First, we take New Zealand’s fourth best and fourth most popular news site — then the world!” said Melanie Bracewell, who said she had not kept up with the news.

    Just a joke, obviously, but this week some people have been asking if Kremlin campaigns played a role in the inappropriate editing of online world news.

    It was on June 9 that the revelation of it kicked off a media frenzy about propaganda, misinformation, Russia, Ukraine, truth, trust and editorial standards that has been no laughing matter at RNZ.

    The story went up a notch last weekend when TVNZ’s Thomas Mead revealed Ukrainian New Zealander Michael Lidski — along with 20 others — had complained about a story written by the journalist in May 2022, which RNZ had re-edited on the day to add alternative perspectives after prompting from an RNZ journalist who considered it sub-standard.

    The next day on RNZ’s Checkpoint, presenter Lisa Owen said the suspended RNZ web journalist had told her he edited reports “in that way for five years” — and nobody had ever queried it or told him to stop.

    RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson, who is also editor-in-chief, then told Checkpoint he did not consider what he had called “pro-Kremlin garbage” a resignation-worthy issue.

    “I think this is a time for us actually working together to fix the problem,” he said.

    RNZ had already begun taking out the trash in public by listing the corrupted (and now corrected) stories on the RNZ.co.nz homepage as they are discovered.

    Thompson said the problem was “confined to a small area of what RNZ does” but by the following day,  RNZ found six more stories — supplied originally by the reputable news agency Reuters — had also been edited in terms more favourable to the ruling regimes.

    “RNZ has come out with a statement that said: ‘In our defence, we didn’t actually realise anyone was reading our stories’,” said 7 Days’ Jeremy Corbett.

    That was just a gag — but it did actually explain just how it took so long for the dodgy edits to come to light and become newsworthy.

    7 Days' comedians have a laugh at RNZ against the backdrop of the Kremlin
    7 Days’ comedians have a laugh at RNZ against the backdrop of the Kremlin in last Thursday night’s episode. Image: TV Three screenshot RNZ/APR

    Where the problem lay
    Last Wednesday’s cartoon in the Stuff papers — featuring an RNZ radio newsreader with a Pinocchio-length nose didn’t raise any laughs there either — because none of the slanted stories in question ever went out in the news on the air.

    They were only to be found online — and this was a significant distinction as it turned out, because the checks and balances are not quite the same or made by the same staff.

    “In radio, a reporter writes a story and sends it to a sub-editor who will then check it. And then a news reader has to read it so there’s a couple of stages. Maybe even a chief reporter would have checked it as well,” Corin Dann told RNZ Morning Report listeners last Monday.

    “What I’m trying to establish is what sort of checks and balances were there to ensure that that world story was properly vetted,” he said.

    That question — and others — will now be asked by the external experts appointed this week to run the rule of RNZ’s online publishing procedures for a review that will be made public.

    On Thursday a former RNZer Brent Edwards made a similar point in the National Business Review where he’ is now the political editor.

    “For a couple of years, I was the director of news gathering. I had a large responsibility for RNZ’s news coverage but technically I had no responsibility whatsoever for what went on the web,” he said.

    “Done properly the RNZ review panel could do all news media a favour by providing a template for how online news should be curated. It should reinforce the importance of quality, ethical journalism,” Edwards added.

    His NBR colleague Dita di Boni said “there but for the grace of God go other outlets” which have “gone digital” in news.

    “I worked at TVNZ and there was a rush to digital as well with lots of resources going in but little oversight from the main newsroom.”

    Calls for political action
    Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has made it clear he doesn’t want the government involved in RNZ’s editorial affairs.

    David Seymour of the ACT party wanted an inquiry — and NZ First leader Winston Peters called for a Royal Commission into the media bias and manipulation.

    Former National MP Nathan Guy told Newshub Nation this weekend “heads need to roll” at RNZ.

    “If I was the broadcasting minister, I would want the chair in my office and to hold RNZ to account. I want timeframes. I want accountability because we just can’t afford to have our public broadcaster tell unfortunate mistruths to the public,” he said.

    In the same discussion, Newsroom’s co-editor Mark Jennings reminded Guy that RNZ’s low-budget digital news transition happened under his National-led government which froze RNZ’s funding for almost a decade.

    “This is what happens when you underfund an organisation for so long,” he said.

    Jennings also said “trust in RNZ has been hammered by this” — and criticised RNZ chairman Dr Jim Mather for declining to be interviewed on Newshub Nation.

    Earlier — under the headline Media shooting itself in the foot — Jennings said surveys have picked up a decline and trust and news media here.

    “And the road back for the media just had a major speed bump,” he concluded.

    How deep is the damage to trust?

    The Press front page is dominated by the RNZ story.
    The Press front page is dominated by the RNZ story. Image: The Press/RNZ Pacific

    While the breach of editorial standards is clear, has there been an over-reaction to what may be the actions of just one employee, which took years to come to light?

    Last week the think-tank Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Futures at Auckland University hosted a timely “disinformation and media manipulation” workshop attended by executives and editors from most major media outlets.

    It was arranged long before RNZs problems arose — but those ended up dominating discussion on this theme.

    Among the participants was media consultant and commentator Peter Bale, who has previously worked overseas for Reuters, as well as The Financial Times and CNN.

    “I really feel for RNZ in this, for the chief executive and everybody else there who does generally a great job. The issue of trust here is in this person’s relationship with their employer and their relationship with the facts.”

    Bale is also the newsroom initiative leader at the International News Media Association, which promotes best practice in news and journalism publishing.

    The exposure of the “inappropriate editing” undetected for so long has created the impression a lot of content is published online with no checking. That is sometimes the case when speed is a priority, but the vast majority of stuff does go past at least two eyes before publication.

    “I think it is true also that editing has been diminished as a skill. But I don’t think it’s necessarily a failure of editing here but a failure of this person’s understanding of what their job is,” Bale told Mediawatch.

    “You shouldn’t necessarily need to have a second or third pair of eyes when processing a Reuters story that’s already gone through multiple editors. The critical issue for RNZ is whether they took the initial complaints seriously enough,” he said.

    ‘Pro-Kremlin garbage’?

    Peter Bale, editor of WikiTribune.
    Peter Bale, editor of WikiTribune . . . “This person has inserted what are in some people’s views genuine talking points [about] the Russian view . . . But it was very ham-fisted.” Image: RNZ Pacific

    There have been many reports in recent years about Russia seeding misinformation and disinformation abroad.

    Last Tuesday, security and technology consultant Paul Buchanan told Morning Report that RNZ should be better prepared for authoritarian states seeking to mess with its news.

    “This incident that prompted this investigation may or may not be just one individual who has certain opinions about the war between Russia and Ukraine. But it is possible that . . . stories were manipulated from abroad,” he said.

    Back in March the acting Director-General of the SIS told Parliament: “States are trying, in a coercive disruptive and a covert way, to influence the behaviors of people in New Zealand and influencing their decision making”.

    John Mackey named no nations at the time, but his GCSB counterpart Andrew Hampton told MPs research had shown Russia was the source of misinformation many Kiwis were consuming.

    Is it really likely the Kremlin or its proxies are pushing propaganda into the news here? And if so, to what end?

    “I think there’s been a little bit of ‘too florid’ language used about this. This person has inserted what are in some people’s views genuine talking points from those who . . . want to have expressed what the Russian view is. But it was very ham-fisted,” said Bale.

    “There are ways to do this. You could have inserted the Russian perspective to highlight the fact that there is a different view about things like the Orange Revolution when the pro-Kremlin leader in Kyiv was overthrown,” he said.

    Not necessarily ‘propaganda’
    “I don’t think it is necessarily ‘Kremlin propaganda’ as it’s been described. It was just a misguided attempt to bring another perspective, I suspect, but it still represents a tremendous breach of trust,” he said.

    “I write a weekly newsletter for The Spinoff about international news, and I try sometimes to show . . . there are other perspectives on these stories. Those things are legitimate to address — but not just surreptitiously squeeze into a story in some sort of perceived balance.

    “I don’t think in this particular case that it is to do with the spread of disinformation or misinformation by Russia. I think this is a different set of problems. But I agree (there’s a) threat from the kind of chaos-driving techniques that Russia is particularly brilliant at. They’re very skilled at twisting stories . . . and I think we need to be ready for it,” he said.

    The guest speaker at that Koi Tū event last Wednesday was Dr Joan Donovan, the research director of the Shorenstein center on Media and Politics at Harvard University in the US, where she researches and tracks the sources of misrepresentation and misinformation in the media, and the impact they have on public trust in media — and also how media can prepare for it.

    At the point where 15 supplied news stories had been found to be “inappropriately edited” by RNZ, she took to Twitter to say: “This is wild. Fake news has reached new heights.”

    Set against what we’ve seen in US politics — and about Russia and Ukraine — is it really that bad?

    “Usually what you see is the spoofing of a website or a URL in order to look like you’re a certain outlet and distribute disinformation that way. It’s very unlikely that someone would go in and work a job and be editing articles without proper oversight,” said Donovan  — who is also the co-author of recently published book, Meme Wars, The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy. 

    “I think when it comes to one country, wanting to insert their views into another country — even though New Zealand is very small — it does track that this would be a way to influence a large group of people.

    “But I don’t think if any of us know the degree to which this could be an international operation or not,” she told Mediawatch.

    “What you learn is that their pattern is that they happen over and over and over again until a news agency or platform company figures out a mitigation tactic, whether it’s removing that link from search or writing critical press or debunking those stories.

    “When I think about the fallout of it . . . using the legitimacy of RNZ in a parasitical kind of way and that legitimacy to spread propaganda is one of the most important pieces of this puzzle that we would need to explore more,” she said.

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

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

  • Bangladeshi journalist Golam Rabbani Nadim beaten to death after reporting on local politician

    New York, June 16, 2023—Bangladesh authorities must investigate the killing of journalist Golam Rabbani Nadim and bring those responsible to justice, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Friday.

    At around 10 p.m. on Wednesday, June 14, a group of men ambushed Nadim, a correspondent for privately owned website Banglanews24 and broadcaster Ekattor TV, while he was traveling home on his motorcycle in the Bakshiganj area in the Jamalpur district of northern Mymensingh division, according to news reports, security footage of the incident published by Ekattor TV, and a witness account by Al Mujaheed, a journalist present at the scene.

    A group of 15 to 20 men dragged Nadim to a dark alley, where they severely beat him and left him unconscious before he was taken to the hospital by bystanders. The journalist died the next day from excessive blood loss caused by a severe head injury.

    Nadim’s family believes he was targeted in retaliation for his May 2023 series of reports for Banglanews24 about Mahmudul Alam Babu, chair of a local government unit and member of the ruling Awami League party, according to those reports. Babu denied any involvement in the attack.

    Sohel Rana, officer-in-charge of the Bakshiganj police station, said six people had been arrested in connection with the attack, Prothom Alo reported Friday.

    “We condemn the killing of Bangladeshi journalist Golam Rabbani Nadim in apparent retaliation for his reporting on a local politician,” said Beh Lih Yi, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “Bangladesh authorities must ensure that all those involved in this attack are brought to justice and end the country’s appalling record of impunity pertaining to violence against journalists.”

    Al Mujaheed said in his witness account that Babu was at the scene and directing the attackers from a distance. CPJ’s calls to Babu, who was reported to be in hiding as of Friday evening, did not connect. CPJ’s text message to Babu did not immediately receive a response.

    Nadim’s May articles concerned issues in Babu’s marriage, including a press conference by a woman who alleged the politician secretly married her, then abused and divorced her. Nadim also posted about the allegations on Facebook.

    In mid-May, Babu filed a complaint against Nadim under the Digital Security Act for that reporting. Hours before the attack, Nadim posted on Facebook that a court had dismissed the case.

    The Rapid Action Battalion, a paramilitary unit of the Bangladesh police, has joined the probe into Nadim’s death. CPJ’s calls and messages to Rana and Khandaker Al Moyeen, director of the legal and media wing of the Rapid Action Battalion, did not immediately receive a reply.

    Local press groups, the Bangladeshi Journalists in International Media and the Bakshiganj Press Club, both condemned the killing, saying Nadim, who was also vice president of the Jamalpur District Online Journalists Association, was targeted due to his reporting.

    Al Mujaheed told CPJ via messaging app, and Raju, Nadim’s brother-in-law, told CPJ by phone separately that they were unable to immediately comment.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Myanmar military revokes media license of Ayeyarwaddy Times

    Bangkok, June 16, 2023—Myanmar’s junta regime should reverse the ban imposed on the Ayeyarwaddy Times and stop harassing local media groups over their independent news coverage, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Friday.

    On June 10, Myanmar military authorities revoked the Ayeyarwaddy Times’ media license for allegedly breaching Article 8 of the Publishing Act, which bans disseminating information that disrupts public peace and tranquility, according to Salai Thant Sin, the outlet’s editor-in-chief who communicated with CPJ by email, and a report by local independent media group Democratic Voice of Burma. 

    Since staging a coup on February 1, 2021, the junta has banned 14 news publications, the DVB report said. Salai Thant Sin told CPJ that military authorities have singled out his news website’s journalists since the coup, arresting reporter Aung Mya Than twice for his reporting.

    “Myanmar’s military regime will stop at nothing to block, censor, and ban independent reporting about its junta government’s rule,” said Shawn Crispin, CPJ’s senior Southeast Asia representative. “Authorities should reverse their unjust ban on the Ayeyarwaddy Times, cease harassing its reporters, and let all independent media outlets work freely.”

    Salai Thant Sin said his publication, which operates mainly from underground due to persistent threats to its reporters, would continue to publish despite the ban. As of Friday, June 16, the publication was still online and actively publishing.

    Salai Thant Sin told CPJ that Ayeyarwaddy Times editor Myo Min Tun was recently released, after a court sentenced him in October 2022 to two years in prison under the penal code’s Article 505(a), a broad provision that criminalizes incitement and the dissemination of false news. Police and military authorities arrested the journalist at his home in Pathein on October 22, 2021.

    Salai Thant Sin, who faces a warrant for his arrest and lives in exile, said authorities have questioned several other Ayeyarwaddy reporters, some of whom have stopped working as journalists due to personal safety concerns and fear of imprisonment.

    CPJ’s email to Myanmar’s Ministry of Information did not receive a response. Myanmar was the world’s third-worst jailer of journalists, with at least 42 members of the press behind bars, at the time of CPJ’s December 1, 2022, prison census. 


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Mr Speaker, we’re not your enemies. We’re reporting without fear or favour

    EDITORIAL: PNG Post-Courier

    Mister Speaker, our collective question without notice is to you mister Speaker. We want the Prime Minister and his deputy to take note Sir.

    Our question from the Media Gallery is specifically directed to you, Mr Speaker, because of events that have transpired in the last 48 hours in which the freedom of the media in the people’s house has been once again curtailed.

    Mr Speaker, we are aware of proposed changes to laws that are yet to reach the House that have been circulated by the Minister for Communications for consultation with all stakeholders in the media industry on the media development policy document, we are still concerned about what these will further impinge on the operations of mainstream media in PNG in covering, questioning and investigating Parliament, politicians and government departments and their activities.

    PNG POST-COURIER
    PNG POST-COURIER

    Last week, our members’ movements in and around the National Parliament at Waigani was further restricted by members of the Parliamentary Security Services.

    We are now restricted to the press gallery and cannot further venture around the House in search of news. Mr Speaker, is the media really a serious threat to you and the members of the House that you have to apply such stringent measures to curtail our movements?

    Parliament is an icon of our democracy. It is rightfully the people’s House, might we remind you mister Speaker, that we are guaranteed freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom to engage with all leaders mandated by the people to represent them here.

    What then is the reason for you to set up barriers around the hallways, offices of MPs and public walkways, Mr Speaker?

    Your Parliamentary Clerk is lost, Mr Speaker. In our queries not aware of any order to gag the media in the people’s House. His deputy is muted and cannot find a reason for this preposterous decision to restrict our movements in the House.

    Acting Speaker's defiant reply to the Post-Courier
    Acting Speaker’s defiant reply to the Post-Courier about his media restrictions . . . “the Speaker is responsible for upholding the dignity of Parliament.” Image: The National screenshot APR

    Mr Speaker, we consider this a serious impingement on the freedom of journalists to access Parliament House, report on the proceedings, seek out and question MPs on the spot.

    Sir, Mr Speaker, we are well aware of the processes, procedures and decorum of the house, and where we as political reporters and photographers can traverse and that we always stay on our side of the fence.

    Mr Speaker, let us remind you once again that Parliament belongs to the people. Their voice must be heard. Their MPs must be on record to deliver their needs and wants and their views.

    The people cannot be denied. This will be a grave travesty Mr Speaker, if you deny the people their freedom to know what is transpiring in Parliament by silencing the media.

    In the past, the media had a very good relationship with your office and we are pleased to say that the Speaker has on more than one occasion, assisted the members of the media with accreditation, and even transportation.

    But Mr Speaker, don’t entertain any point of order from other Members on our question. They have had their day on the floor.

    Mister Speaker, we members of the media are not primitives. Far from it, we are just the messengers of the people.

    One last friendly reminder Mr Speaker. The very people that you are trying to restrict are the ones that you will need to get the message out to the people and to the world.

    We are not your enemies. We are here to ensure your all 118 MPs do a proper job transparently without fear or favour.

    Thank you Mr Speaker.

    This PNG Post-Courier editorial was published under the headline “A Question without Notice” on 12 June 2023. Republished with permission.

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

  • Killing the Story: Bakhmut, Nick Cohen, Kakhovka, Nord Stream, and Piers Morgan

    The late writer, broadcaster and wit Clive James formulated what he called the ‘Barry Manilow Law’:

    ‘Everyone you know thinks Barry Manilow is absolutely terrible. But everyone you don’t know thinks he’s great.’ (James, cited Martin Amis, Inside Story, Vintage, 2020, e-book, p.74)

    A Media Lens version of this might read:

    ‘Everyone you know thinks BBC News is absolutely terrible. But everyone you don’t know thinks it’s great.’

    The BBC wasn’t always quite this bad. When we started out in 2001, people like Director of News Richard Sambrook and Newsnight editor Peter Barron sent us long, respectful replies to our analysis. We were invited to appear on BBC One, BBC Two and BBC radio (we were interviewed by BBC Radio Five Live). Barron even blogged about us positively on the BBC website.

    All of this has gone. Our criticisms, now, are met with paranoid silence. And there is much for BBC journalists to be paranoid about, for they are now clearly operating as de facto agents of state.

    When the US targeted Syria for ‘regime change’ in 2011, a flood of anti-Assad atrocity claims and pro-‘rebel’ propaganda washed across the BBC’s news pages. The BBC’s campaign ended the moment the US campaign for regime change ended. When Iran, Venezuela and Libya fell under the US crosshairs, the same BBC propaganda machine cranked into action. Similarly, anyone measuring BBC performance 2022-2023, will find hundreds of reports and comment pieces favouring the Ukraine/Nato version of events, against one or two favouring the Russian version of events. This, even though our country is technically not at war with Russia – certainly Russia is not attacking us. It couldn’t be more obvious that when the green light for war and ‘regime change’ is on, the BBC is expected to host daily propaganda pieces to generate public support.

    In his superb book, Falsehood in Wartime: Propaganda Lies of the First World War, published in 1928, Lord Arthur Ponsonby analysed the key propaganda techniques that had been used to deceive the public during the catastrophic war of 1914-1918:

    1. We do not want war.
    2. The opposite party alone is guilty of war.
    3. The enemy is inherently evil and resembles the devil.
    4. We defend a noble cause, not our own interests.
    5. The enemy commits atrocities on purpose; we make ‘mistakes’.
    6. The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
    7. We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
    8. Recognised artists and intellectuals back our cause.
    9. Our cause is sacred.
    10.  All who doubt our propaganda are traitors.

    Most BBC, Guardian and other ‘mainstream’ war coverage is a cocktail of these ten forms of bias. As the renowned US economist Jeffrey Sachs said recently:

    ‘I used to read The Guardian; now I can’t even go to the website. By the way, that’s how our New York Times is: it’s unreadable, it’s phony. It’s propaganda from morning till night.’

    Consider point 7: ‘We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.’

    On May 20, the BBC tried mightily not to report that the long and bloody Battle for Bakhmut had ended with a Russian victory. The first BBC attempt to report the truth read: ‘Zelensky appears to confirm Russia controls Bakhmut’.

    To control a city is not the same as conquering a city – had Bakhmut actually fallen? Was this a triumph for Russia? A day later, the BBC tried again: ‘Bakhmut is completely destroyed Zelensky says’.

    Again, a city can be ‘destroyed’ without being conquered. Stalingrad was destroyed in 1942, but it never completely fell to the German army.

    The New York Times did somewhat better:

    ‘What Does Russia’s Success in Bakhmut Mean for the War in Ukraine?

    ‘Moscow has declared victory in its long, bloody assault.’

    Again, ‘success’ does not mean complete victory. And NYT readers aren’t going to believe a word that comes out of Moscow. But Bakhmut had fallen to Russian forces.

    With point 7 still in mind, Lord Ponsonby would have enjoyed the BBC’s post-battle summary:

    ‘Western officials estimate between 20,000 and 30,000 Russian troops have been killed or wounded in Bakhmut, while Ukraine’s military has also paid a heavy price.’

    ‘Their’ losses are enormous – ‘ours’ are vaguely indicated. Ponsonby would also have recognised this familiar theme: ‘Analysts say the city is of little strategic value to Moscow…’

    Which analysts? Other analysts have argued that Bakhmut was important, even a lynchpin.

    Offering further examples on Ukraine seems pointless – any reader can witness the bias for themselves on a daily basis. Not only is there no semblance of balance; it’s clear that such balance would be viewed as an outrageous capitulation to ‘Putin talking points’. Instead, there is a fierce determination to exploit the public’s trust in the BBC as a means of controlling public opinion. The impression given is of an essentially fascist media operating in plain sight in an ostensibly democratic society.

    The FT’s ‘Rigorous Standards’ – The Nick Cohen Sex Abuse Claims

    Equally disturbing is the BBC’s now reflexive habit of burying stories being buried by the Guardian.

    Guardian editor Kath Viner buried the OPCW whistleblowers exposing the chemical weapons atrocity claim in Douma targeting the Syrian government. Why would the Guardian cover ‘alternative’ news reports by the likes of Grayzone? Viner buried Al Jazeera’s ‘The Labour Files’ documentary series exploding the anti-semitism smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn – Al Jazeera is deemed unbearably ‘biased’ by UK journalists. Viner also buried Seymour Hersh’s report blaming the US for the September 2022 terrorist attack on the Nord Stream pipeline – Hersh is now dismissed as a ‘blogger’.

    But for UK journalists media don’t come much more ‘respectable’ or ‘credible’ than the New York Times. How, then, do we explain the fact that both the Guardian and the BBC buried a front-page NYT report exposing how Guardian newsrooms were afflicted by star, pro-war columnist Nick Cohen’s sex pestilence for two decades. In the NYT on May 30, Jane Bradley explained:

    ‘Inside the Financial Times newsroom this winter, one of its star investigative reporters, Madison Marriage, had a potentially explosive scoop involving another newspaper.

    ‘A prominent left-wing columnist, Nick Cohen, had resigned from Guardian News & Media, and Ms. Marriage had evidence that his departure followed years of unwanted sexual advances and groping of female journalists.

    ‘Ms. Marriage specialized in such investigations. She won an award for exposing a handsy black-tie event for Britain’s business elite. A technology mogul got indicted on rape charges after another article.

    ‘But her investigation on Mr. Cohen, which she hoped would begin a broader look at sexual misconduct in the British news media, was never published. The Financial Times’ editor, Roula Khalaf, killed it, according to interviews with a dozen Financial Times journalists.’

    Seven women told the NYT that Cohen ‘had groped them or made other unwanted sexual advances over nearly two decades. Four insisted on anonymity, fearing professional repercussions. In each case, The Times reviewed documents or otherwise corroborated their accounts’.

    The NYT added:

    ‘Mr. Cohen’s reputation was widely known in the newsroom, according to 10 former colleagues, both male and female. One former colleague said she and other female journalists had used a different entrance to a pub to avoid being groped by him.’

    In 2018, Freelance journalist and BBC One Show reporter Lucy Siegle – who wrote an Observer column on ethical living and launched the newspaper’s Ethical Awards – reported Cohen to the Guardian for groping her in the newsroom, but ‘nothing had happened’. Siegle described her 1 February 2018 meeting with senior Guardian management as ‘aggressive’, an ‘absolute car crash’, in which she felt ‘gaslit’ and that they ‘basically spent half the time trying to diminish what I was saying and then the other half of the time sort of putting their fingers in their ears and almost going “la la la”.’

    The Guardian finally investigated Cohen, but only after Siegle had written about her experiences on Twitter in 2021. The NYT commented:

    ‘Even then, it was a story that few in the British news media wanted to tell. The Guardian signed a confidentiality agreement with Mr. Cohen. The Financial Times spiked its story. Even the investigative magazine Private Eye did not cover his departure. When a reader emailed asking why, the editor replied: “Coverage of Nick Cohen’s departure from The Observer is obviously more problematic for The Eye than the others that you mention due to the fact that he used to write a freelance column for the magazine.”’

    Cohen took ‘sick leave’ in September 2022 and resigned on ‘health’ grounds in January:

    ‘Secretly, the newspaper group paid him a financial settlement for quitting and agreed to confidentiality, according to three colleagues and an editor with whom Mr. Cohen spoke.’

    If this scandal is unknown to our readers, it is because it has been censored by the UK press. The Guardian, Observer and the BBC have not reported it at all. The ProQuest newspaper database finds single articles in the i newspaper, the Independent and the Evening Standard, and a couple of pieces in the Telegraph. One of the Telegraph pieces cited this shameful comment from an FT spokesman:

    ‘We were dismayed by today’s article in the NYT. The FT has a strong reputation for exposing abuse of power and harassment…

    ‘Not all filed pieces meet the rigorous standards of the FT and/or move a story along significantly. These judgments are made daily by the editor and her team and never lightly.’

    On Twitter, Susanna Richards, a senior sub-editor at the Independent, wrote of Cohen:

    ‘There have been a number of times since my encounter with him when I have been so overwhelmed by the knowledge of the potential repercussions that I considered ending my life.’

    Richards added:

    ‘My family have suffered for him, my children have suffered for him. And I don’t know if he has any idea about that, about the panic attacks, the sleepless nights, the fear. I can only hope he does not know what his actions have done, because I want to believe he is not that bad.’

    Responding to claims that Cohen’s abuse happened only when he was an alcoholic, and that he has since stopped drinking, Richards commented:

    ‘He had been “clean” for two years when he propositioned me. And he has never once apologised.’

    In the age of #MeToo, how on earth could this story not be covered at all by the BBC? As Lucy Siegle said of the media more generally: ‘The silence on its own industry is just really conspicuous.’

    The silence on Cohen makes for a shocking comparison with the vast coverage devoted to the sex scandal that has engulfed high-profile This Morning presenter Phillip Schofield. Schofield admitted to an affair with a much younger man and that ‘he had lied about the relationship to his employer, broadcaster ITV, and his wife, agent and lawyer’. Schofield has faced accusations that he groomed the younger man, having helped him find work in the industry.

    The NYT’s report on Nick Cohen was published on May 30. Our ProQuest media database search (June 15) of newspaper mentions after May 29 gave the following results:

    ‘Nick Cohen’ = 9 mentions

    ‘Phillip Schofield’ = 1,419 mentions.

    We tweeted Guardian columnist Marina Hyde, who worked overtime to incinerate Julian Assange’s reputation after he faced claims of sexual abuse:

    ‘Hi @MarinaHyde, as a perennial, fearless defender of women’s rights against predatory men, do you have anything to say about this from the New York Times? Anything at all? Are you actually *allowed* to say anything?’

    We received no reply. The Guardian has since sent an email of apology to Lucy Siegle and other women who have accused Cohen of abuse. According to ProQuest, the apology has been reported only by the Telegraph and the NYT.

    Disappearing Nord Stream

    Censorship by omission extends down from Guardian editors to its reporters and columnists. In discussing the likely agency behind the 6 June demolition of the Kakhovka dam in Ukraine last week, star Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland pointed towards Russia:

    ‘And there is the pattern of behaviour, the record of past crimes. Russia has scarcely restrained itself from targeting Ukraine’s civil infrastructure over the last 15 months: Kakhovka would just be the latest and most wanton example.’

    Amazingly, the words ‘Nord Stream’ do not appear in Freedland’s article. This is remarkable because the attack on the ‘Nord Stream’ pipelines on 26 September 2022 was obviously a similar event to the destruction of the dam. So why did Freedland not mention it? Did it slip his mind? A likelier reason is indicated by a report last week in the Washington Post:

    ‘Biden administration officials now privately concede there is no evidence that conclusively points to Moscow’s involvement. But publicly they have deflected questions about who might be responsible. European officials in several countries have quietly suggested that Ukraine was behind the attack but have resisted publicly saying so over fears that blaming Kyiv could fracture the alliance against Russia. At gatherings of European and NATO policymakers, officials have settled into a rhythm; as one senior European diplomat said recently, “Don’t talk about Nord Stream.”’

    If Freedland is deliberately not talking about Nord Stream because it undermines his effort to blame Russia for Kakhovka, then he is a propagandist, not a journalist. But even if that is the case, it does not necessarily follow that Freedland is operating as a conscious conspirator serving state interests.

    Consider, after all, that last week Noam Chomsky was interviewed by Piers Morgan, who openly declared that Chomsky ‘is in my view one of the great minds of our generation’. Morgan even said to Chomsky:

    ‘I find it hard to believe you haven’t found the answer to everything, given how massive your brain is…’

    The interview was notable for the extreme level of respect shown by Morgan, who was clearly in awe of Chomsky’s integrity and depth of knowledge. And yet, in February, the same Piers Morgan wrote:

    ‘Take Pink Floyd rock star Roger Waters, who inexplicably addressed the UN Security Council this week to condemn the “provocateurs in the strongest possible terms.”

    ‘He wasn’t talking about Vladimir Putin and his genocidal barbarians – he was talking about those who had supposedly “provoked” Putin into illegally invading a sovereign democratic country and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people… But what a fading nutty old musical has-been says about this war is of trivial irrelevance, moronic though Waters is.’

    Morgan added:

    ‘The West cannot afford to let Putin win this war.

    ‘If we do, he will inevitably invade other countries to continue his plan to restore the former Soviet Union he believes should never have been broken up.’

    His solution:

    ‘To borrow Churchill’s words, for Ukraine to succeed, we must do what is necessary.

    ‘Right now, that means giving them fighter jets, and lots of them.’

    This is exactly the kind of mindless, World War Three-friendly twaddle that has been endlessly debunked by ‘one of the greatest minds of our generation’ – the linguist with the ‘massive’ brain.

    Something doesn’t add up. How can Morgan be so impressed by Chomsky’s ability to find ‘the answer to everything’ and yet remain completely blind to his answers on the Ukraine conflict? US author Upton Sinclair said it best:

    ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.’ (Sinclair, ‘I, Candidate for Governor, and How I Got Licked,’ Oakland Tribune, 11 December 1934)

    On some level, Morgan knows that if he spoke out like Chomsky, he would go the same way as Chomsky, Hersh, Assange and others. He would no longer have prime-time access to millions of viewers – the salary, exalted guests, champagne dinner parties, awards and plaudits would all dry up. As Chomsky has written:

    ‘Fame, Fortune and Respect await those who reveal the crimes of official enemies; those who undertake the vastly more important task of raising a mirror to their own societies can expect quite different treatment. George Orwell is famous for Animal Farm and 1984, which focus on the official enemy. Had he addressed the more interesting and significant question of thought control in relatively free and democratic societies, it would not have been appreciated, and instead of wide acclaim, he would have faced silent dismissal or obloquy.’ (Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy, Hill and Wang, 1992, p.372)

    An interesting conclusion emerges out of the mess – political views are often not impacted by hard fact and rational argument. As long as we continue to believe that personal fulfilment can be found in Fame, Fortune and Respect, we will remain slaves to our egos, and to the state-corporate organisations that indulge them.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • 3000 American Murders Okay With The PGA

    America’s Lawyer E57: Vice President Kamala Harris might be the biggest drag on President Biden’s reelection chances because the public hasn’t been happy about anything she’s done since taking office. CNN fired their CEO last week after a pathetic year, but firing Chris Licht isn’t going to do anything to fix the problems at the […]

    The post 3000 American Murders Okay With The PGA appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • When Corporate Media Fail, Independent Media Rise Up

    Right-wing media outlets such as Fox News have long pushed racist narratives to further their goals. And, outlets like the New York Times—the so-called “liberal media”—do too little, too late, to push back; it falls to the ranks of independent media outlets to create and promote counternarratives based on racial justice. This is not a More

    The post When Corporate Media Fail, Independent Media Rise Up appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Sonali Kolhatkar.

  • CPJ calls on Biden administration to press India prime minister on media freedom during visit

    New York, June 14, 2023—­­Ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the U.S. from June 21 to 24 and meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden, the Committee to Protect Journalists on Wednesday issued the following statement calling on the U.S. government to urge India to end its media crackdown and release the six journalists arbitrarily detained in retaliation for their work:

    “Since Prime Minister Modi came to power in 2014, there has been an increasing crackdown on India’s media,” said CPJ President Jodie Ginsberg. “Journalists critical of the government and the BJP party have been jailed, harassed, and surveilled in retaliation for their work. India is the world’s largest democracy, and it needs to live up to that by ensuring a free and independent media–and we expect the United States to make this a core element of discussions.”

    On Wednesday, June 14, CPJ convened an online panel, “India’s Press Freedom Crisis,” with opening remarks and moderation by Ginsberg alongside panelists Geeta Seshu, founding editor of the Free Speech Collective watchdog group; Anuradha Bhasin, executive editor of the Kashmir Times newspaper; and Shahina K.K., senior editor for Outlook magazine.

    The panelists discussed the deterioration of press freedom over the last decade, with Seshu detailing the rise in censorship and “vicious” attacks on the media, while Shahina shared her ongoing battle to fight terrorism charges filed nearly 13 years ago by the Karnataka state government, then led by Modi’s BJP party, in retaliation for her investigative reporting.

    Bhasin spoke about the “effective silence” that Kashmiri journalists have dealt with since the Modi government unilaterally revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special autonomy status in 2019, with multiple cases of reporters being detained and interrogated.

    CPJ calls on the U.S. government to urge India to act on the following press freedom violations:

    • The harassment of the domestic and foreign media, including routine raids and retaliatory income tax investigations launched into critical news outlets. In February, income tax authorities raided the BBC’s offices in Delhi and Mumbai after the government censored a critical documentary on Modi by the broadcaster. Foreign correspondents say they have faced increasing visa uncertainties, restricted access to several areas of the country, including Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, and even threats of deportation in retaliation for critical reporting in recent years.
    • Ongoing impunity in cases of killed journalists. At least 62 journalists have been killed in India in connection with their work since 1992. India ranked 11th on CPJ’s 2022 impunity index, with unsolved cases of at least 20 journalists killed in retaliation for their work from September 1, 2012, to August 31, 2022.
    • Digital media restrictions, including using the IT Rules, 2021, to censor critical journalism, including the BBC documentary on Modi. India led the world in internet shutdowns for the fifth year in 2022, impeding press freedom and the ability of journalists to work freely.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ChatBot Creators Are Sounding Alarms Over A.I. Expansion

    Leaders in the tech industry are sounding the alarm bells about the dangers of Artificial Intelligence, with some going as far as to say that the development of A.I. could eventually lead to humanity’s extinction. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos. Mike […]

    The post ChatBot Creators Are Sounding Alarms Over A.I. Expansion appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Gavin Ellis: Proof our newsrooms need a ‘second pair of eyes’

    COMMENTARY: By Gavin Ellis

    Own goals by two of our top news organisations last week raised a fundamental question: What has happened to their checking processes?

    Both Radio New Zealand and NZME acknowledged serious failures in their internal processes that resulted in embarrassing apologies, corrections, and take-downs.

    The episodes in both newsrooms suggest the “second pair of eyes” that traditionally acted as a final check before publication no longer exists or is so over-worked in a resource-starved environment that they are looking elsewhere.

    The RNZ situation is the more serious of the two episodes. It relates to the insertion of pro-Russian content into news agency stories about the invasion of Ukraine that were carried on the RNZ website.

    The original stories were sourced from Reuters and, in at least one case, from the BBC. By today 22 altered stories had been found, but the audit had only scratched the surface. The alleged perpetrator has disclosed they had been carrying out such edits for the past five years.

    RNZ was alerted to the latest altered story by news watchers in New York and Paris on Friday. It investigated and found a further six, then a further seven, then another, and another. This only takes us back a short way.

    A number of the stories were altered only by the inclusion of a few loaded terms such as “neo-Nazi” and “US-backed coup”, but others had material changes. Some are spelt out in the now-corrected stories on the site. Here are two examples of significant insertions into the original text:

    An earlier edit to this story said: “Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February last year, claiming that a US-backed coup in 2014 with the help of neo-Nazis had created a threat to its borders and had ignited a civil war that saw Russian-speaking minorities persecuted.”

    An earlier edit to this story said: “The Azov Battalion was widely regarded as an anti-Russian neo-Nazi military unit by observers and western media before the Russian invasion. Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused the nationalists of using Russian-speaking Ukrainians as human shields.”

    Hot water with Reuters
    The scale and nature of the inappropriate editing of the stories is likely to get RNZ into very hot water with Reuters. The agency has strict protocols over what forms of editing may take place with its copy and even the most cursory examination of the altered RNZ versions confirms that the protocols have been breached.

    It is unsurprising that RNZ’s chief executive Paul Thompson has told staff he is “gutted” by what has occurred.

    Both security analyst Dr Paul Buchanan and AUT journalism professor Dr Verica Ruper have cautioned against speculating on how the material came to be appear on the RNZ website and I agree that to do so is premature. Clearly, however, it amounts to much more than a careless editing mistake.

    Paul Thompson has acted promptly in ordering an external independent enquiry into the matter and in standing down the individual who apparently handled the stories. It is likely that the government’s security services are also taking an interest in what has occurred.

    What we can speculate on is the possibility that RNZ’s internal processes are deficient to the point that there is no post-production vetting of some stories before publication — that “second pair of eyes”.

    We might also speculate that the problem is faced by The New Zealand Herald newsroom, following the publication of an eight-line correction at the top of page 3 of the Herald on Sunday, and carried equally sparingly on the Herald website.

    “A story published last Sunday about a woman who triumphed over a difficult background to become a lawyer had elements that were false. In publishing the article, we fell short of the high standards and procedures we hold ourselves to.”

    Puzzled by correction
    Many readers would have been puzzled by the correction, which gave no details of the story concerned, nor did it identify those elements that were false.

    There may have been legal reasons for omitting which details were incorrect, but not for leaving readers to puzzle over the story to which they referred.

    It appears to relate to a three-page story in the Review section of the previous Sunday’s edition that was headed “From mob terror to high flyer”. The story related to the daughter of a woman jailed for selling methamphetamine. The daughter had gone on to a legal career in the United States.

    I recall having some undefined concern about the story when I read it and still can’t quite put my finger on why the old alarm bell in the back of my head tinkled. Perhaps it was that — apart from previously published material — the story appeared to rely on a single interview. There also appeared to be a motive in telling the story to the Herald on Sunday — a forthcoming book.

    The article seems to have been removed from the Herald website, but the short correction suggests that checks were missed. The same seems to have been the case with RNZ.

    It is, of course, sheer coincidence that both RNZ and the Herald on Sunday should face such shortcomings in the same week. However, the likely root causes of their embarrassment are issues that all news media face.

    First, the pressure on newsroom resources has increased the workload of all staff, from reporters in the field to duty editors. Time pressures are a daily, and nightly, reality and multi-tasking has become the norm.

    Checking comes second
    In such an environment, checking the work of other well-trained staff may come second to more pressing demands.

    As an editor, I slept better knowing that each story had passed through the hands of a news editor, sub-editor and, finally, a check sub with a compulsive attention to detail who checked each completed page before it was transmitted to the printing plant. I fear our newsrooms are now too bare for that multi-layered system of checks.

    If the demands of newspaper deadlines are tough, the pressures are manifestly greater in a digital environment where websites have become voracious beasts that cry out to be fed from dawn to midnight. New stories are added throughout the protracted news cycle, pushing older stories down the home page, then off it to subsidiary pages on the site tree.

    The technology to satisfy the hunger has advanced to the point where reporters publish direct to the web using Twitter-like feeds. We saw it last week during the Auckland City budget debate when news websites were recording the jerk dancing minute by minute.

    Clay Shirky, in his influential 2008 book Here Comes Everybody, popularised the term “publish, then filter”. It referred to a change from sifting the good from the mediocre before publication, to a digital environment in which users determined worth once it had been published.

    However, increasingly, the phrase has taken on additional meaning. The burden of work created by digital appetites has seen mainstream media foreshortening the production process by removing some of the old checks and balances because they can always go back later and make changes on the website.

    The abridgement may, for example, mean a pre-publication check is limited to headline, graphic, and the first couple of paragraphs. Or, in the case of “pre-edited” agency or syndication content, it may mean foregoing post-production text checks altogether (I hasten to add that I do not know whether this was the case with the RNZ stories).

    Editorial based on trust
    Editorial production has always been based on trust. It works both down and up. Editors trust those they rely on to carry out processes from content creation to post-production, and those responsible for one phase trust their work will subsequently be handled with care.

    Individual shortcomings should not erode trust in the newsroom, but such episodes do point to a need to re-examine whether systems are fit for purpose.

    Over a decade ago, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel wrote a book called Blur. It was about information overload. In it they state that, as journalism becomes more complicated, the role of the editor becomes more important, and verification is a bigger part of the editor’s role.

    Incidents such as those that came to light last week reinforce that view. They also suggest that mainstream media organisations should leave Clay Shirky’s mantra to social media and bloggers. Instead, they should (thoroughly) filter, then publish.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ appoints panel to investigate inappropriate editing of online stories

    RNZ News

    RNZ has appointed a group of experts to carry out an investigation over how pro-Russian edits were inserted into international stories online.

    An RNZ digital journalist has been placed on leave after it came to light he had changed news agency stories on the war in Ukraine.

    RNZ has since been auditing hundreds of stories the journalist edited for its website over a five-year period.

    RNZ board chairman Dr Jim Mather
    RNZ board chairman Dr Jim Mather speaking to a select committee in 2020 . . . “Policy is one thing but ensuring it’s put into practice is another.” Image: Dom Thomas/RNZ

    Twenty-one stories from news agency Reuters and one BBC item have so far been found to be inappropriately edited, and have been corrected. Most relate to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but others relate to Israel, Syria and Taiwan.

    Media law expert Willy Akel, will chair a three-person panel. The other members are public law expert and former journalist Linda Clark, and former director of editorial standards at the ABC, Alan Sunderland.

    RNZ board chairman Dr Jim Mather told RNZ’s Morning Report the board had also agreed on the review’s terms of reference.

    “The terms of reference are specific about reviewing the circumstances around the inappropriate editing of wire stories discovered in June 2023 identifying what went wrong and recommending areas for improvement.

    Specific handling of Ukraine complaint
    “We’re also going to look at the specific handling of the complaint to the broadcasting minister from the Ukrainian community in October 2022 and then it’s going to broaden out to review the overall editorial controls, systems and processes for the editing of online content at RNZ.”

    The review would also look at total editorial policy and “most importantly” practice as well, Mather said.

    No stone would be left unturned, he said.

    “Policy is one thing but ensuring it’s put into practice is another.

    “We have specifically and purposefully decided not to limit it in any way shape or form but to allow it to broaden as may be required to ensure we restore public confidence in RNZ.

    “We’re prepared as a board to support the panel going where they need to, to give us all confidence that we are ensuring that robust editorial process are being followed.

    “I’m making no pre-determinations whatsoever, I’m waiting for the review to be conducted.”

    The investigation was expected to take about four weeks to complete.

    Dr Mather said he retained confidence in RNZ chief executive and editor-in-chief Paul Thompson.

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


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Meta Threatens To Remove News Articles From Platform

    Facebook’s parent company META is threatening to remove News articles from the Facebook feeds of users in California if the state passes a law that would require the company to actually pay outlets for their content. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos. […]

    The post Meta Threatens To Remove News Articles From Platform appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • RNZ board to begin setting up independent review of pro-Russia edits to stories

    RNZ News

    The RNZ board is meeting tonight to begin setting up an independent review on how pro-Russian sentiment was inserted into a number of its online stories.

    An RNZ digital journalist has been placed on leave after it came to light he had changed copy from news agency Reuters on the war in Ukraine to include pro-Russian views.

    Since Friday, hundreds of stories published by RNZ have been audited, and 16 Reuters stories and one BBC item had to be corrected, with chief executive Paul Thompson saying more would be checked “with a fine-tooth comb”.

    The journalist told RNZ’s Checkpoint he had subbed stories that way for a number of years and nobody had queried it. Thompson said those comments appeared to be about the staffer’s overall role as a sub-editor.

    Board chairperson Dr Jim Mather said the public’s trust had been eroded by revelations and it was going to take a lot of work to come back from what had happened.

    “We see ourselves as guardians of a taonga and that taonga being the 98 years of history that RNZ has in terms of trusted public media and high standards of excellent journalism and so it is fair to say we are extremely disappointed,” he told RNZ’s Checkpoint on Monday.

    “We need to demonstrate that we are prepared to review every aspect of what has occurred to actually start the restoration process in terms of confidence in RNZ.”

    The board would discuss who will run the investigation and its terms of reference, and would make a decision “very soon”.

    Currency is trust
    “The role the board is going to take is we are going to appoint the panel of trusted individuals, experienced journalists, those that do have editorial experience to undertake the review. This is going to be done completely separate from the other work being undertaken by management,” he said.

    Dr Mather said the currency of the public broadcaster was trust, and the revelations had impacted the organisation’s journalists.

    “I know that we pride ourselves as having the highest standards of journalistic quality so I can just say that it’s had a significant impact also on our journalism team.”

    Reuters said it had “addressed the issue” with RNZ, noting in a statement that RNZ had initiated an investigation.

    “As stated in our terms and conditions, Reuters content cannot be altered without prior written consent,” the spokesperson’s statement said.

    “Reuters is fully committed to covering the war in Ukraine impartially and accurately, in keeping with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.”

    ‘Important that politicians don’t interfere’ – Hipkins
    Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said while he would never rule out a cross-party parliamentary inquiry, he had not seen anything so far to suggest the need for an wider action.

    Hipkins told RNZ’s Morning Report he was not sure a cross-party parliamentary inquiry on issues around editorial decisions would be a good way of protecting the editorial independence of an institution like RNZ.

    “Having said that, we always monitor these kinds of things to see how they are being handled, it’s really important that politicians don’t interfere in that,” he said.

    “I think if it reached a point where public confidence in the institution was so badly tarnished that some degree of independent review was required, I’d never take that off the table.”

    But in the first instance, it was important to allow RNZ’s management and board to deal with it with the processes that they had in place, Hipkins said.

    “I haven’t seen anything in the last few days that would suggest that there’s any case for us to trigger something that’s more significant than what’s being done at the moment.”

    Hipkins said he had not sought, nor had, any briefings from New Zealand’s security services in relation to the incident because it was a matter of editorial independence and it was important that politicians did not get involved in that.

    “RNZ, while it’s a publicly-funded institution, must operate independently of politicians.”

    Not an issue for politicians – Willis
    National Party deputy leader Nicola Willis agreed that it was not an issue for politicians to be involved in.

    She said it was important the investigation was carried out, and the concern was about editorial standards that let the situation go unnoticed for such a long time.

    Trust in media was important and people reading mainstream media expected stories to go through a fact-checking process and reflect appropriate editorial independence, she told RNZ’s First Up.

    “I think it will be a watch for newsrooms around the country, and I hope that it’s a thorough investigation that comes out with robust recommendations.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ chief executive apologises after pro-Russian sentiment added to stories

    RNZ News

    RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson says the New Zealand public has been let down after pro-Russian sentiment was added to a number of its online stories without senior management realising.

    It comes after readers noticed the text of a Reuters story about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine published on RNZ was changed.

    It has since come to light that a staff member altered the text, and Russian propaganda has been found on more than a dozen other stories.

    So far, 250 stories published by RNZ have been audited, with chief executive Paul Thompson saying thousands more would be checked “with a fine-tooth comb”.

    Fourteen of the 15 altered articles were from the Reuters wire service, and one was from BBC.

    An independent review of the editing of online stories has been commissioned by RNZ.

    On Monday, Thompson told RNZ’s Nine to Noon it was a “serious breach” of the organisation’s editorial standards and “really, really disappointing”.

    One area of operation
    It was one area of the company’s operation and one staff member was under an employment investigation for alleged breaches to RNZ’s policy, he said.

    Thompson apologised to RNZ’s audience, the New Zealand public and the Ukrainian community.

    “It’s so disappointing that this pro-Kremlin garbage has ended up in our stories,” Thompson said, labelling the act inexcusable.

    Thompson said it raised issues with RNZ’s editing process of online news, and showed they were not as robust as they needed to be.

    When asked how it happened and no one noticed, Thompson simply said: “I don’t know.”

    Most wire copy was only edited by one person, Thompson said, and most of the stories found to have issues only had one or two words changed, making it “very hard” to detect.

    However, all added material was “really, really serious”.

    ‘We have to get to the bottom of what happened’
    “I am gutted. It’s painful, it’s shocking and we have to get to the bottom of how it happened,” he said.

    Since the weekend, Thompson said a new policy had been put in place where all wire copy needed to be checked twice before publishing, as RNZ required for any other stories being published on its website.

    Thompson said he expected to be able to give further information about the external review in the coming days.

    He confirmed it would be entirely independent to the organisation and the finding of the review would go straight to RNZ’s board – not him.

    Findings would then be released to the public to keep everything fully transparent – as RNZ was doing with its current audit.

    Thompson said the situation was a “blow” to RNZ’s reputation.

    “We are responding as well as we can and as openly as we can. The really sad thing is how much great work that we do.

    ‘Fierceness’ of RNZ editorial standards
    “The best part of working in RNZ is the fierceness with which we defend our editorial standards and it’s galling that the activity in a very small area of the organisation can affect us all.”

    Thompson confirmed RNZ received the complaint from Michael Lidski in October last year, but the email was directed at Broadcasting Minister Willie Jackson. The company was cced in, as well as other media organisations.

    He confirmed RNZ does not typically respond to complaints directed at the minister.

    In hindsight, Thompson said the organisation could have done something about it at the time.

    Thompson said he had contacted both Reuters and BBC and was keeping the organisations updated as to its audit.

    Neither had asked anything of him at this time.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ‘We are in the war’: Ukrainian man says RNZ altered news stories must be taken seriously

    RNZ News

    A Ukrainian man who complained about an RNZ story last year having Russian propaganda says his concerns are only now being noticed.

    It comes after the revelation a staff member altered Reuters copy to include pro-Russian sentiment.

    Since Friday, 250 articles published on RNZ back to January last year have been audited.

    Of those articles, 15 are now known to have been altered, and an RNZ employee has been placed on leave. Fourteen of the articles were from the Reuters wire service, and one was from BBC.

    An independent review of the editing of online stories has been commissioned by RNZ.

    Michael Lidski, who wrote the complaint, signed by several Ukrainian and Russian-born New Zealanders said the article he complained about appeared not only on RNZ, but The New Zealand Herald and Newshub as well.

    Lidski said it took some time after the article was published to send the complaint letter to RNZ to make sure everyone who signed it was happy with what it said.

    It was received by RNZ on the evening of Labour Day, October 24.

    Russian ‘behavior similar to Nazi Germany’
    “Obviously Russia is the aggressor and behaving very similar to what the Nazi Germany did in the beginning of the Second World War,” Lidski said.

    “Luckily”, he said, Russia was much less “efficient” and “successful on the front” but not so luckily, they were “very efficient” in their propaganda.

    Lidski said he also sent the complaint to Broadcasting Minister Willie Jackson and other media outlets – but Jackson was the only one to provide any response.

    Lidski said Jackson’s response essentially said the government could not interfere with the press and refrained from “taking sides”.

    One of the 15 online articles that have been the subject of RNZ's audit
    One of the 15 online articles that have been the subject of RNZ’s audit on coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine . . . originally published on 26 May 2022; it was taken down temporarily this week and then republished with “balancing” comment. Image: RNZ screenshot APR

    As part of the audit, RNZ reviewed the story published on rnz.co.nz on May 26, 2022 relating to the war in Ukraine, which it said was updated later that day to give further balance after an editorial process was followed.

    When Lidski sent his letter, he said he received no response from RNZ.

    Awaiting external review
    He said he would be waiting to see what comes of the external review.

    “I just want to stress that we are not dealing with a situation where someone just made a mistake.

    “We are in the war, the enemy is attacking us, it’s very important that, you know, we take it seriously.”

    RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson declined to speak with Morning Report today, describing the breaches of editorial standards as extremely serious.

    In a statement, Thompson said it was a “very challenging time for RNZ and the organisations focus is on getting to the bottom of what happened and being open and transparent”.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ investigating series of ‘Kremlin-friendly’ story edits in audit

    RNZ MEDIAWATCH: By Hayden Donnell, RNZ Mediawatch producer

    RNZ is investigating how online stories about the war in Ukraine, supplied by an international news agency, were edited to align with the Russian view of events.

    A staff member has been stood down while other stories are audited. It has also prompted an external review of RNZ’s online news publishing.

    The alarm was raised after a story was published by RNZ on Friday about the escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict which contained significant amendments to the original copy by the international wire service Reuters.

    The alarm was raised after a story was published by RNZ on Friday about the escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict which contained significant amendments to the original copy by the international wire service Reuters.

    The original story by its Moscow bureau chief Guy Faulconbridge said:

    “The conflict in eastern Ukraine began in 2014 after a pro-Russian president was toppled in Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution and Russia annexed Crimea, with Russian-backed separatist forces fighting Ukraine’s armed forces.”

    But when republished on RNZ.co.nz, that passage adopted a more “Kremlin-friendly” framing.

    “The conflict in Ukraine began in 2014 after a pro-Russian elected government was toppled during Ukraine’s violent Maidan colour revolution. Russia annexed Crimea after a referendum, as the new pro-Western government suppressed ethnic Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine, sending in its armed forces to the Donbas.”

    RNZ's edits to a story about an escalation in the war in Ukraine.
    RNZ’s edits to a 9 June 2023 story about an escalation in the war in Ukraine. Image: BusinessDesk/RNZ

    ‘False account of events’
    RNZ’s 4pm news bulletin on Friday said the version published by RNZ “included a false account of events” and RNZ was investigating how the story was “changed to reflect a pro-Russian view”.

    RNZ corrected the story online, adding a footnote which said it was “taking the issue extremely seriously.”

    The "war talk" Reuters article on 9 June 2023 bylined Guy Faulconbridge that sparked the inquiry
    The “war talk” Reuters article on 9 June 2023 bylined Guy Faulconbridge that helped spark the RNZ inquiry. Image: RNZ screenshot APR

    Late on Friday, RNZ said an investigation was under way into “the alleged conduct of one employee” who had been “placed on leave while we look into these matters”.

    “We are auditing other articles to check whether there are further problems,” the statement said.

    RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson said the inappropriate editing of the stories to reflect a pro-Moscow perspective was deeply concerning and would be addressed accordingly.

    Other stories in the spotlight
    Another RNZ.co.nz story on the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam described the 2014 Maidan Revolution as a “coup” — pro-Russian language which did not appear in the original Reuters text.

    These stories repeat false claims that Russia’s annexation of Crimea happened after a referendum on the move. The invasion was underway before the vote was held.

    “Colour revolution” is sometimes used to describe protest movements backed by foreign powers with the intention of regime change.

    Describing the 2014 revolution in those terms or as a “coup” aligns with the official Russian perspectives, but contradicts the Ukrainian view.

    The assertion that ethnic Russian citizens were suppressed by the Ukrainian government has also been used by Russia to justify the invasion of Ukraine, but there is scant evidence for his claim. The BBC’s Kyiv correspondent called it “demonstrably false” in 2014.

    One of the RNZ disclaimer editorial notes on audited reports
    One of the RNZ disclaimer editorial notes on audited reports . . . this one was on the report originally published on 26 May 2022 and republished today with “balanced” quotes. Image: RNZ screenshot APR

    An RNZ News footnote now says the story was “edited inappropriately and has been corrected” and “we are investigating.”

    Other Reuters stories on rnz.co.nz with similar editorial alterations came to light on Friday. RNZ added footnotes explaining they had been “edited inappropriately and had been corrected.”

    One about the first large-scale air strikes in nearly two months had said “Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine claiming that a US-backed coup in 2014 with the help of neo-Nazis had created a threat to its borders — and had ignited a civil war that saw Russian-speaking minorities persecuted.”

    That example was from late-April — and it is surprising no-one noticed the inflammatory additions to it until Friday’s revelations prompted a look-back.

    RNZ confirmed late on Friday night “the alleged conduct of one employee” was under investigation. Mediawatch understands this is a member of RNZ’s digital team.

    The statement said the staffer had been “placed on leave while we look into these matters – and audit other articles to check for further problems”.

    In a further statement in Saturday evening, RNZ said 15 inappropriately edited stories had been identified and corrected so far.

    Chief executive Paul Thompson said an external review of RNZ’s online news publishing processes would now be carried out by experts “to ensure these are robust”. The results of the review would be made public, he said.

    Outside sources
    Reuters is aware of the issue but has not responded to a request for comment.

    An online user in the US who noted “Russian propaganda . . . on the Reuters wire today under the byline of its Moscow bureau chief” said a Reuters representative told them language appearing on RNZ’s site “was not written by Reuters or Guy Faulconbridge.”

    Reuters’ website terms and conditions warns: “You may not remove, alter, forward, scrape, frame, in-line link, copy, sell, distribute, retransmit, create derivative works . . . without our prior written consent.”

    Mediawatch also asked RNZ if it was permitted to alter copy supplied by Reuters.

    “There will be no comment until that investigation is completed and any appropriate action taken,” RNZ replied.

    International news agencies such as Reuters supply news on a commercial basis to clients.

    The terms of agreements with media organisations vary, but commonly allow media customers to edit text for length and to permit the addition of relevant details specific to the territory in question.

    Significant changes not permitted
    Passages of text can usually be included in or added to stories published by client media companies, but significant editorial changes are generally not permitted where the published story is attributed to the agency.

    RNZ’s editorial policy contains a section on material from “external sources” but doesn’t specify news agency suppliers.

    “Staff may not ‘lift’ material from other news organisations with which we have no supply contract without independently authenticating the information before use,” it says.

    “We should be aware of the dangers involved, particularly if the material is controversial.”

    RNZ’s editorial policies also say audiences “should not be able to detect a presenter or journalist’s personal views”

    “Staff will have opinions of their own, but they must not yield to bias or prejudice. To be professional is not to be without opinions, but to be aware of those opinions and make allowances for them, so that reporting is judicious and fair.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • New NZ theatre production highlights Fiji Girmityas’ struggles

    By Blessen Tom, RNZ journalist

    A new production called Coolie: The Story of the Girmityas is shedding light on the lesser-known history of the Indian indentured labourers.

    Poet and music producer Nadia Freeman’s latest work gives life to the hidden voice of her Indo-Fijian ancestors through electronic music and theatre.

    “I just felt like I was losing more of my ancestry and my ethnicity, and I wanted to look more into it to understand,” Freeman says.

    Nadia Freeman created Coolie: The Story of the Girmityas. Photo: Supplied
    Nadia Freeman . . . “I just felt like I was losing more of my ancestry and my ethnicity.” Image: RNZ

    The show opened on Thursday at the Kia Mau contemporary Māori, Pasifika and indigenous arts festival.

    “Coolie”, which is used in the production’s title, was a derogatory term used by British colonial supervisors when addressing the workers in Fiji.

    “I want people who are outside that community to know what happened, to know more about,” she said.

    Who were the Girmityas?
    The Indian workers were called the Girmityas, which in Hindi means “agreement”. The agreement was initially for five years, but it was extendable.

    On finishing five years abroad, they were permitted to return to India at their own expense or serve 10 more years and return at the expense of the British colonial government.

    Some workers returned home, but many could not afford the return journey and were stuck in Fiji.

    M.N. Naidu (sitting second from the left) with his family Photo: Courtesy of Nik Naidu
    M.N. Naidu (sitting second from the left) with his family . . . “We are still quite an angry community … angry because we haven’t healed.” Image: Nik Naidu/RNZ

    “We are still quite an angry community … angry because we haven’t healed,” says businessman and community advocate Nik Naidu.

    His grandfather, M.N. Naidu, was an indentured labourer who was on a ship to Fiji in the early 1900s.

    Like many Indians who were sent to Fiji, Naidu’s grandfather was also looking for a better life.

    “They were living in dire poverty and were looking for money to support their families, so that’s how my grandfather got on the ship,” Naidu says.

    Challenging life
    Life in Fiji was challenging.

    The journey took months, and many did not even make it to Fiji. That was not the end of their struggles.

    “There was hardship and there were difficulties,” Naidu says.

    “In the beginning, it was the harshness of plantation life, poor living conditions, you know, resettlement, displacement, realisation of not being able to return, inability to participate in their religion properly, and, you know, the caste system that existed, the difficulties and, of course, lack of women.”

    Finding a companion was a challenge for many young Girmits. The disproportionate sex ratio meant there were only 40 women for every 100 men.

    Journalist Sri Krishnamurthi has also heard many stories about the Girmityas from his grandparents.

    Sri Krishnamurthi Photo: Supplied
    Journalist Sri Krishnamurthi . . . “It was basically slavery in all but name.” Image: RNZ

    Working sugar canefields
    “My grandmother, Bonamma, came from India with my grandfather and came to work in the sugar canefields under the indentured system,” Krishnamurthi says.

    “They lived in ‘lines’ — a row of one-room houses. They worked the cane fields from 6am to 6pm largely without a break. It was basically slavery in all but name.”

    Krishnamurthi remembers the story about his grandfather, who was sent back to India, “because he thumped a coolumbar sahib” (a white man on horseback who made sure the work was done) who was whipping the workers.

    Naidu says: “I wasn’t fortunate enough to meet my grandfather. I was 2 years old when he passed away and he went back to India and passed away in India.”

    His family is now running the organisations that his father started, including schools.

    “The colonial administration at the time did not want to educate the Fijian Indians,” he says.

    “They wanted them to stay in servitude, as small farmers who were always dependent on the sugar cane plantations and uneducated.”

    Addressing new challenges
    A few weeks ago, the community celebrated the 144th Girmit Remembrance Day in New Zealand.

    “We remembered our forefathers, who had contributed towards this development of the Fiji Indian community,” says Krish Naidu, president of the Fiji Girmit Foundation.

    “It is a day where we honour and remember their struggles and sacrifices, but we also celebrate their resilience.

    “It’s important our young people in particular actually understand who we are, where we come from.”

    In 2023, a new challenge emerged for the Indo-Fijian community in New Zealand. The government’s decision to classify them as Asians rather than Pacific Islanders is stirring criticism within the community.

    “Because we, as people with Indian biological traits, are not considered by the Ministry of Pacific,” Naidu says.

    Naidu thinks that the government’s move is “unfair”.

    “We get emails and messages from students because they miss out on specific scholarships,” he says.

    However, he was delighted for the newly announced Girmit Day, a national holiday in Fiji.

    “We were the actual architects of it because we’ve been pushing for the holiday since 2015 in Fiji,” he says.

    “We are absolutely overjoyed.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Why Has WSJ Become a “Professional Rumormonger” against China?

    Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

    Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

    On June 8, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an “exclusive report” citing anonymous US officials, stating that China agreed to pay cash-strapped Cuba several billion dollars to allow it to build an eavesdropping station. To understand what this news means to Washington, which has become so sensitive about China-related issues, we can refer to the “Chinese made cranes,” “corn factories,” and “balloon incident” that the US hyped up earlier this year. The nature of these events is somewhat similar, though the severity cannot be compared with the “Cuban eavesdropping station,” but they have all caused a stir in the US.

    Cuba is only about 160 kilometers from Florida. If China really builds surveillance facilities there, will Washington’s politicians still be able to sleep? The WSJ called it “a brash new geopolitical challenge by Beijing to the US,” which immediately reminded people of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War – the Cuban missile crisis. Other US media outlets quickly followed suit, and the members of Congress who have made being anti-China their political careers also took action. The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued a joint statement solemnly stating that building a spy base will pose a “serious threat to our national security and sovereignty.” As a result, the tension suddenly increased, and these people obviously wanted to escalate the situation.

    John Kirby, spokesperson for the US National Security Council, said before the WSJ article was published that he couldn’t comment on the details of the report, but stated that the US was monitoring the situation and taking steps. After the article was published, Kirby clearly stated that “this report is not accurate,” so there were obvious contradictions. The Pentagon also said that the media reports are “not accurate.” To be honest, the denials by the White House and the Pentagon were somewhat surprising. It may be that the quality of the WSJ’s information is so poor that officials cannot publicly endorse it. Cuba stated that the article was “totally mendacious and unfounded information,” and China pointed out that “spreading rumors and slander” is a common tactic of “hacker empire” the US.

    The WSJ is a habitual and repeat offender when it comes to spreading rumors about China. Not long ago, it created a major international rumor by saying that China proposed recognizing the “occupied territories of Ukraine as part of Russia.” Because it was so absurd, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba immediately refuted the claim and clarified it. There are many such examples. However, not only does the WSJ not take responsibility or pay the price for these false accusations, it instead thrives in stirring American public opinion and goes further down the road of spreading rumors. It is hard to believe that there was no US official tolerance, encouragement, or feeding of these rumors. People suspect that this is a case of one person playing the good guy and the other playing the bad guy. In fact, rumors have become a handy tool and weapon for the US to contain and suppress China, and they are very cheap.

    These rumors and hype often appeared at a moment when a turning point in China-US relations seems imminent. Just as the US media revealed that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken might visit China in the next week or two, the WSJ’s rumors came out, as was the case with the “balloon incident” in February. This once again made people realize that there is a force, a black hand, secretly causing damage to bilateral relations and pushing the two countries toward confrontation. When the US government uses rumors, rumors in turn also manipulate and influence the US government. The reason why the White House and the Pentagon refuted the story this time may be because they are afraid that if the rumors are allowed to ferment, they will lose control and become passive. However, the US government’s ability to control this dark political force is becoming weaker and weaker.

    From this incident, it can also be seen how difficult it is to bring the US back to a normal and rational state of understanding toward China. In fact, the US has been carrying out activities such as global surveillance, building military bases near China’s territory, and conducting close reconnaissance along China’s coast in recent years. After the false news that “China is building an eavesdropping station in Cuba” came out, some American scholars even said that China is prepared to do the same in America. This is very ironic. If those lawmakers who get nervous and lose sleep at any sign of “China wanting to cause trouble near the US” can show a little empathy and think about how the US’ actions would make Chinese people feel, China-US relations would not have reached the current difficult situation.

    The US has repeatedly expressed its hope of avoiding conflict and confrontation with China, but if something goes wrong internally every time there is a sign of an easing in bilateral relations, then this has become a major uncertainty that China-US relations face, and it is also a huge risk that the US cannot avoid. The WSJ has become a professional rumormonger against China, which is not only a media outlet degrading itself, but also a footnote to the pathological environment in Washington.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • 20 MPs walk out as PNG’s Tkatchenko apologises for ‘media trolls’ comment

    By Miriam Zarriga in Port Moresby

    The last time Papua New Guinea heard “there is a stranger in the house” was when two men walked into Parliament saying they were members of a district after the 2017 national general election.

    After six years the word “stranger” has again been mentioned, this time by a fiery Vanimo-Green MP Belden Namah, who voiced his displeasure when Member for Moresby South Justin Tkatchenko — the stood down Foreign Minister — stood to make his apology in Parliament yesterday.

    As Tkatchenko spoke, 20 MPs walked out of the chamber in protest.

    Namah, who is known to not mince his words, stood saying, “This House is the House of useless people and primitive animals. Why is this stranger allowed parliamentary privileges to make a statement?”

    “He made a statement to international media. He should not be allowed to make a statement today, he should resign in disgrace and get out of this Parliament,” Namah yelled on the floor of Parliament.

    As the acting Speaker Koni Iguan called for Namah to allow Tkatchenko to speak, Namah said: “ Mr Acting Speaker, he should not be allowed to speak in this Parliament.”

    The public gallery was on the edge as people watched the fiery interaction between Namah, Tkatchenko and Iguan.

    Ministers interjected
    Several ministers interjected when Namah called Tkatchenko a “stranger”, saying that “he is a member of Parliament, he had been elected by the people of Moresby South”.

    Finally Iguan reminded Namah that Tkatchenko was not a “stranger” but the MP of Moresby South.

    With that final response and as Tkatchenko stood to apologise, Namah walked out followed by several governors and members of Parliament.

    Tkatchenko reiterated that his comments had not been made towards the country and its people, but to individuals who are better known as “social media trolls”.

    “The people of our nation want to know the truth of what was said, how this was intended, how this was manipulated and what was actually meant by my words. I made comments in a media interview that were targeted at what are better known as social media trolls,” he said.

    These were “faceless people” who spent their days on social media hidden behind false names.

    “They say the most disgusting things and make the most vile threats on social media,” he said.

    “Regardless of any office that I represent or position that I might hold, above all else in life, first and foremost, I am the father of my children. And when I saw the vile and disgusting things that were being said about my daughter, I did have a burst of blind fury at these horrible individuals,” he added.

    These disgusting individuals, some in Papua New Guinea, as well as in Australia, the UK and other places, were making sexual threats against my daughter, threatening her with “all manner of disgusting remarks”, Tkatchenko said.

    “I speak with every parent in this House, and every parent in our Nation today – and seek your understanding of how angry and frustrated I was, — and still am — at these trolls.”

    Miriam Zarriga is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.