In a meeting on Monday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told a group of U.S. Jewish community leaders that he has urged the Qatari government to suppress coverage of Gaza from major Middle East outlet Al Jazeera, according to an Axios report. Three people who attended the meeting told Axios that Blinken said that he has asked the Qatari prime minister to “turn down the volume on Al Jazeera’s…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Global media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has called on Israeli authorities to end military pactices that “violate international law” with the deaths of civilians, including journalists.
This came in the wake of seven journalists being killed by Israeli security forces in the space of a week — six in the besieged Gaza Strip and the seventh in Lebanon.
“We’re stunned by this sad record of seven journalists killed in seven days during this bloody week, as a result of Israel’s indiscriminate response to the horrific massacre committed by Hamas,” said Christophe Deloire, the secretary-general of RSF, in a statement.
On Saturday, 14 October 2023, reporter Issam Abdallah was buried in the Lebanese town of El Khayam, where he was born and grew up.
The videographer was killed the day before while reporting for the British news agency Reuters with several colleagues.
The group of journalists, clearly identifiable according to several sources, was stationed near Alma al Chaab, in southern Lebanon on the border with Israel, to cover the clashes between Israeli military forces and those of the Islamist armed group Hezbollah in Lebanon.
In total, around 10 journalists were killed in the region within a week, including seven in Gaza and Lebanon under Israeli bombardment and fire.
Protest to Israel
These include photojournalists Mohammed Soboh of the Palestinian news agency Khabar, Hisham al-Nawajha of the independent Palestinian news channel Al Khamissa, Ibrahim Lafi of the production company Ain Media, and Mohammad al-Salihi of the Palestinian news agency al-Sulta al-Rabia, as well as Saïd al-Tawil, editor-in-chief of Al Khamissa, and Mohammed Abou Matar, correspondent for Roya News.
“We solemnly call on the Israeli authorities to put an end to military practices that violate international law and result in the deaths of civilians, including journalists,” said RSF’s Deloire.
“RSF calls on the parties involved to implement their obligations to protect journalists during conflicts, and on international institutions to ensure that these protection measures are respected.”
Issam Abdallah, 37, had worked for Reuters in Beirut for 16 years.
A videographer in areas of tension, he has covered the conflict in Ukraine in recent months and, in 2020, the explosion in the port of Beirut.
In his last photo posted on his Instagram account on October 7, the reporter paid tribute to Shireen Abu Akleh, a journalist from Al Jazeera and correspondent in Palestine, who was killed by an Israeli sniper in May 2022 while covering an Israeli army raid in Jenin on the West Bank.
Six other journalists were wounded on Friday, October 13: two members of the Reuters team, Thaer Al-Sudani and Maher Nazeh, an image reporter (Dylan Collins), and a photographer (Christina Assi) from Agence France-Presse (AFP), as well as two journalists from the Qatari television channel Al Jazeera, Carmen Jokhadar and cameraman Elie Barkhya.
They were taken to the American University of Beirut hospital. Their lives are out of danger, but Christina Assi was still in intensive care.
Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
CPJ (10/18/23) tallied 17 journalists killed in the first 11 days of the Gaza crisis—the same number as have been killed in Ukraine in the 20 months since the Russian invasion.
The Israeli communications minister’s attempt to shut down Al Jazeera’s bureau in Jerusalem—on the grounds that the Qatari news outlet is biased in favor of Hamas and is actively endangering Israeli troops (Reuters, 10/15/23)—should inspire some déjà vu. In the last war in Gaza, an Israeli air strike destroyed a Gaza building housing both Al Jazeera and Associated Press offices (AP, 5/15/21). And just months ago, Al Jazeera (5/18/23) reported that “the family of Shireen Abu Akleh,” a Palestinian-American AJ journalist killed by Israeli fire while on assignment, “has rebuked Israel for saying it is ‘sorry’ for the Al Jazeera reporter’s death without providing accountability or even acknowledging that its forces killed her.”
Since the launch of the network’s English service, Americans interested in Middle East news beyond what can be found in US broadcasting have often turned to Al Jazeera, and even more so as the BBC’s foreign service has declined (Guardian, 9/29/22).
But the ability of Al Jazeera and other Arab reporters to cover the assault on Gaza is jeopardized by the alarming number of newspeople Israel has killed since the crisis began. The Committee to Protect Journalists (10/18/23) has counted 13 Palestinian journalists killed by Israel in Gaza since the crisis began, with two more missing or detained. Three Israeli journalists were also killed in Hamas’s October 7 attack, with another taken prisoner.
A BBC News Arabic team “was stopped and assaulted last night by Israeli police,” the BBC (10/15/23) reported.
While the primary focus of this conflict is Gaza, journalists have wondered if a second northern front would open between Israel and the Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah, creating a multifaceted regional war (New York Times, 10/17/23; CNN, 10/17/23). Israeli fire in southern Lebanon injured Al Jazeera staffers, along with Agence France-Presse personnel, and killed a Reuters journalist (Reuters, 10/14/23). Lebanon has planned to file a complaint with the United Nations over the incident (TRT World, 10/14/23), calling the attack deliberate (Telegraph, 10/14/23).
Press advocates fear those numbers will rise, and it is all happening as the humanitarian situation in Gaza worsens (UN News, 10/13/23).
The BBC (10/15/23) reported that its own journalists “were assaulted and held at gunpoint after they were stopped by police in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv,” and that they were “dragged from the vehicle—marked ‘TV’ in red tape—searched and pushed against a wall.”
In addition, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate said in a statement that the Israeli military caused “severe damage to 48 centers of press institutions,” including “the Palestine and Watan towers, and other buildings that include media institutions,” including the AFP office. It said that the army had also “completely or partially demolished the homes of dozens of journalists.”
“It is clear that there was a decision from occupying forces to prevent journalists from covering what was happening in the camp,” reporter Ali Al-Samoudi said in July after Israeli snipers killed three newspeople and destroyed TV equipment on the West Bank (International Federation of Journalists, 7/4/23).
War reporting always carries risk. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented the deaths of media workers in the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria. Middle East conflicts have always been dangerous places for journalists; it’s hard to ignore high-profile deaths of journalists like Marie Colvin of London’s Sunday Times in Syria (CNN, 2/1/19), or freelance photographers Chris Hondros and Tim Hetherington in Libya (Washington Post, 4/21/11). In that sense, the war in Gaza and a possible war in southern Lebanon are no exceptions.
But as FAIR (5/19/21) documented during the previous Israeli military operation against Gaza, Israel has a long history of targeting Palestinian journalists, as well as harassing foreign journalists and human rights activists entering the country. Over the summer, the International Federation of Journalists (7/4/23) reported that “several journalists have been directly targeted by Israeli snipers as they were reporting on Israel’s large-scale military operation in Jenin.”
Inside Israel, the situation for journalists is relatively safer, but the far-right government has—like authoritarian governments in Poland and Hungary—attacked journalists and the ability to critically cover institutions in power. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2019 accused the owners of Israel’s Channel 12 of committing a “terror attack against democracy” for reporting on the corruption charges against him (Times of Israel, 9/1/19).
In 2020, Netanyahu (Ha’aretz, 6/11/20) indicated that “Channel 13 journalist Raviv Drucker should be arrested and jailed” for airing “recordings of Netanyahu crony Shaul Elovich and his wife, which demonstrated how they sought to tilt news coverage in the prime minister’s favor.”
Galit Distel-Atbaryan, who recently resigned from her role as public diplomacy minister (Jerusalem Post, 10/14/23), reportedly said this summer that she wanted the “authority to deny press credentials to foreign journalists critical of Israel” (Ha’aretz, 8/30/23).
An Israeli security officer threatens an Al-Araby reporter (Arab News, 10/15/23): “If you don’t report the truth, woe is you.”
The threat to journalism has only become more explicit as Israel’s assault on Gaza escalates. An Israeli security officer interrupted a live report by Ahmed Darawsha, correspondent for Qatar-based Al-Araby news (Arab News, 10/15/23):
What are you saying? I don’t care if you are live…. You better be saying good things. Understood? And all of these Hamas should be slaughtered. Am I clear? If you don’t report the truth, woe is you.
The officer then shouted at the camera: “Detestable! We’ll turn Gaza to dust. Dust, dust, dust.”
Israel’s siege of Gaza becomes more nightmarish as the days go on, and as that happens, the ability of journalists to document the horror becomes next to impossible. Palestinian journalist Sami Abu Salem told the International Federation of Journalists (10/12/23) about working in Gaza: “We have no internet service, there is a lack of electricity, no transportation, and even the streets are damaged. That’s why we cannot tell lots of stories—thousands of stories.”
Because audiences in the US and the Anglosphere depend on Al Jazeera, as well as local journalists in Israel and the Occupied Territories, to receive news from the region, these attacks do act as filters through which the truth is diluted. In many ways, Americans can see in real time how the powers that be attempt to control information coming out of the region.
The post Israeli Attacks on Journalists Stifle Reporting on Gaza Horrors appeared first on FAIR.
This post was originally published on FAIR.
When a passenger plane was forced to land in Minsk in 2021, one man screamed: ‘They’ll kill me’. Many of his countrymen and women now realise they are also not safe, even in exile
For a few days in May 2021, the perilous reality of being a dissenting voice in Belarus was laid bare when pilots on board Ryanair flight FR4978 bound for Vilnius in Lithuania were forced to make an emergency landing in Minsk after entering Belarusian airspace.
The pilots had been told by Belarusian air traffic control that the plane had a bomb on board. When one of them announced to passengers that the plane was being diverted to Minsk, a young male passenger leapt to his feet. He shouted that if the plane landed he would be seized by the authorities. “I am wanted there, they’ll kill me,” he screamed.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has hailed the news that Narges Mohammadi — an Iranian journalist RSF has been defending for years — has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her “fight against the oppression of women in Iran,” her courage and determination.
Persecuted by the Iranian authorities since the late 1990s for her work, and imprisoned again since November 2021, she must be freed at once, RSF declared in a statement.
“Speak to save Iran” is the title of one of the letters published by Mohammadi from Evin prison, near Tehran, where she has been serving a sentence of 10 years and 9 months in prison since 16 November 2021.
She has also been sentenced to hundreds of lashes. The maker of a documentary entitled White Torture and the author of a book of the same name, Mohammadi has never stopped denouncing the sexual violence inflicted on women prisoners in Iran.
It is this fight against the oppression of women that the Nobel Committee has just saluted by awarding the Peace Prize to this 51-year-old journalist and human rights activist, the former vice-president of the Defenders of Human Rights Centre, the Iranian human rights organisation that was created by Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian lawyer who was herself awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003.
It is because of this fight that Mohammadi has been hounded by the Iranian authorities, who continue to persecute her in prison.
She has been denied visits and telephone calls since 12 April 2022, cutting her off from the world.
White Torture: The infamy of solitary confinement in Iran with Narges Mohammadi.
New charges
At the same time, the authorities in Evin prison have brought new charges to keep her in detention.
On August 4, her jail term was increased by a year after the publication of another of her letters about violence against fellow women detainees.
Mohammadi was awarded the RSF Prize for Courage on 12 December 2023. At the award ceremony in Paris, her two children, whom she has not seen for eight years, read one of the letters she wrote to them from prison.
“In this country, amid all the suffering, all the fears and all the hopes, and when, after years of imprisonment, I am behind bars again and I can no longer even hear the voices of my children, it is with a heart full of passion, hope and vitality, full of confidence in the achievement of freedom and justice in my country that I will spend time in prison,” she wrote.
She ended the letter with a call to keep alive “the hope of victory”.
RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said:
“It is with immense emotion that I learn that the Nobel Peace Prize is being awarded to the journalist and human rights defender Narges Mohammadi.
At Reporters Without Borders (RSF), we have been fighting for her for years, alongside her husband and her two children, and with Shirin Ebadi. The Nobel Peace Prize will obviously be decisive in obtaining her release.”
On June 7, RSF referred the unacceptable conditions in which Mohammadi is being detained to all of the relevant UN human rights bodies.
During an oral update to the UN Human Rights Council on July 5, the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran expressed concern over the “continued detention of human rights defenders and lawyers defending the protesters, and at least 17 journalists”.
It is thanks to Mohammadi’s journalistic courage that the world knows what is happening in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s prisons, where 20 journalists are currently detained.
They included three other women: Elaheh Mohammadi, Niloofar Hamedi and Vida Rabbani.
Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
A Radio New Zealand Pacific journalist has alleged that an Indonesian official attempted to both bribe and intimidate him following an interview at the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) leaders’ summit in the Vanuatu capital of Port Vila last month.
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and its affiliates, the Media Association Vanuatu (MAV) and the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Indonesia, have condemned the attempted bribery and harassment of the journalist and urged the relevant authorities to thoroughly investigate the incident.
On August 23, RNZ Pacific journalist Kelvin Anthony reported that a representative of the Indonesian government, Ardi Nuswantoro, attempted to bribe him outside Port Vila’s Holiday Inn Resort after Anthony conducted an exclusive interview with Indonesia’s Australian ambassador, Dr Siswo Pramono.
According to Anthony, Nuswantoro had previously expressed the Indonesian government’s displeasure at RNZ’s coverage of ongoing independence efforts in West Papua, reported the IFJ in a statement.
The journalist had advised him of the outlet’s mandate to produce “balanced and fair” coverage and was invited to the hotel for the interview, where he questioned Dr Pramono on a broad range of pertinent topics, including West Papua.
Following the interview, Anthony was escorted from the hotel by at least three Indonesian officials. After repeatedly inquiring as to how the journalist was going to return to his accommodation, Nuswantoro then offered him a “gift” of an unknown amount of money, which Anthony refused.
Anthony reported that he felt harassed and intimidated in the days following, with Nuswantoro continuing to message, call, and follow him at the conference’s closing reception.
Interview not aired
RNZ chose not to air the interview with Dr Pramno due to the incident.
In response to the claims of bribery and intimidation sent to the Indonesian government by RNZ, Jakarta’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Asia Pacific and African Affairs director-general Abdul Kadir Jailani said, “bribery has never been our policy nor approach to journalists . . . we will surely look into it.”
In a September 6 interview, New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins reiterated his government’s commitment to press freedom, stating the importance of free and independent media.
Journalists and civil society in West Papua have faced increasing threats, restrictions and violence in recent years. Indonesian media has disproportionately reflected state narratives, with state intervention resulting in the censorship of independent outlets and effective barring of local or international journalists from Indonesian-administered Papua.
In February, renowned Jubi journalist Victor Mambor was subject to a bombing attack outside his Jayapura home.
Pacific Journalism Review: How Indonesian media amplifies the state’s narrative on the Free West Papua movement. #westpapua #indonesia #humanrights https://t.co/J3Rj0Ulhzs pic.twitter.com/9ygIo6KjWN
— Human Rights Monitor (@hurimonitor) September 12, 2023
MAV said: “The Media Association of Vanuatu (MAV) is concerned about an alleged bribery attempt by foreign officials at a Melanesian Spearhead Group regional meeting.
MAV president Lillyrose Welwel denounces such actions and urges MAV members to adhere to the Code of Ethics, as journalism is a public service. She encourages international journalists to contact the association when in the country, as any actions that do not reflect MAV’s values are not acceptable.”
AJI calls for ‘safety guarantee’
AJI said:“AJI Indonesia urges the Indonesian government to investigate the incident with transparency. This action must be followed by providing guarantees to any journalist to work safely in Papua and outside.
“The Indonesian government must also guarantee the protection of human rights in Papua, including for civilians, human rights defenders, and journalists.”
The IFJ said: “Government intervention in independent and critical reporting is highly concerning, and this incident is one in an alarming trend of intimidation against reporting on West Papua.
“The IFJ urges the Indonesian government to thoroughly investigate this incident of alleged bribery and harassment and act to ensure its commitment to press freedom is upheld.”
Pacific Media Watch condemnation
Pacific Media Watch also condemned the incident, saying that it was part of a growing pattern of disturbing pressure on Pacific journalists covering West Papuan affairs.
“West Papua self-determination and human rights violations are highly sensitive issues in both Indonesia and the Pacific. Journalists are bearing the brunt of a concerted diplomatic push by Jakarta in the region to undermine Pacific-wide support for West Papuan rights. It is essential that the Vanuatu authorities investigate this incident robustly and transparently.”
According to a CNN Indonesia report on September 6, Indonesian authorities denied the attempted bribery and harassment allegation.
A Radio New Zealand Pacific journalist has alleged that an Indonesian official attempted to both bribe and intimidate him following an interview at the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) leaders’ summit in the Vanuatu capital of Port Vila last month.
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and its affiliates, the Media Association Vanuatu (MAV) and the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Indonesia, have condemned the attempted bribery and harassment of the journalist and urged the relevant authorities to thoroughly investigate the incident.
On August 23, RNZ Pacific journalist Kelvin Anthony reported that a representative of the Indonesian government, Ardi Nuswantoro, attempted to bribe him outside Port Vila’s Holiday Inn Resort after Anthony conducted an exclusive interview with Indonesia’s Australian ambassador, Dr Siswo Pramono.
According to Anthony, Nuswantoro had previously expressed the Indonesian government’s displeasure at RNZ’s coverage of ongoing independence efforts in West Papua, reported the IFJ in a statement.
The journalist had advised him of the outlet’s mandate to produce “balanced and fair” coverage and was invited to the hotel for the interview, where he questioned Dr Pramono on a broad range of pertinent topics, including West Papua.
Following the interview, Anthony was escorted from the hotel by at least three Indonesian officials. After repeatedly inquiring as to how the journalist was going to return to his accommodation, Nuswantoro then offered him a “gift” of an unknown amount of money, which Anthony refused.
Anthony reported that he felt harassed and intimidated in the days following, with Nuswantoro continuing to message, call, and follow him at the conference’s closing reception.
Interview not aired
RNZ chose not to air the interview with Dr Pramno due to the incident.
In response to the claims of bribery and intimidation sent to the Indonesian government by RNZ, Jakarta’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Asia Pacific and African Affairs director-general Abdul Kadir Jailani said, “bribery has never been our policy nor approach to journalists . . . we will surely look into it.”
In a September 6 interview, New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins reiterated his government’s commitment to press freedom, stating the importance of free and independent media.
Journalists and civil society in West Papua have faced increasing threats, restrictions and violence in recent years. Indonesian media has disproportionately reflected state narratives, with state intervention resulting in the censorship of independent outlets and effective barring of local or international journalists from Indonesian-administered Papua.
In February, renowned Jubi journalist Victor Mambor was subject to a bombing attack outside his Jayapura home.
Pacific Journalism Review: How Indonesian media amplifies the state’s narrative on the Free West Papua movement. #westpapua #indonesia #humanrights https://t.co/J3Rj0Ulhzs pic.twitter.com/9ygIo6KjWN
— Human Rights Monitor (@hurimonitor) September 12, 2023
MAV said: “The Media Association of Vanuatu (MAV) is concerned about an alleged bribery attempt by foreign officials at a Melanesian Spearhead Group regional meeting.
MAV president Lillyrose Welwel denounces such actions and urges MAV members to adhere to the Code of Ethics, as journalism is a public service. She encourages international journalists to contact the association when in the country, as any actions that do not reflect MAV’s values are not acceptable.”
AJI calls for ‘safety guarantee’
AJI said:“AJI Indonesia urges the Indonesian government to investigate the incident with transparency. This action must be followed by providing guarantees to any journalist to work safely in Papua and outside.
“The Indonesian government must also guarantee the protection of human rights in Papua, including for civilians, human rights defenders, and journalists.”
The IFJ said: “Government intervention in independent and critical reporting is highly concerning, and this incident is one in an alarming trend of intimidation against reporting on West Papua.
“The IFJ urges the Indonesian government to thoroughly investigate this incident of alleged bribery and harassment and act to ensure its commitment to press freedom is upheld.”
Pacific Media Watch condemnation
Pacific Media Watch also condemned the incident, saying that it was part of a growing pattern of disturbing pressure on Pacific journalists covering West Papuan affairs.
“West Papua self-determination and human rights violations are highly sensitive issues in both Indonesia and the Pacific. Journalists are bearing the brunt of a concerted diplomatic push by Jakarta in the region to undermine Pacific-wide support for West Papuan rights. It is essential that the Vanuatu authorities investigate this incident robustly and transparently.”
According to a CNN Indonesia report on September 6, Indonesian authorities denied the attempted bribery and harassment allegation.
Should he be deported from the U.K., Julian Assange, the Australian publisher of WikiLeaks, faces up to 175 years in a U.S. prison on charges related to his release of information that revealed U.S. war crimes and torture. His legal team has stated that they plan to appeal the extradition case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France, arguing that the British litigation…
Officials in Marion County, Kansas, announced on Wednesday that they would return items that were seized from a newspaper under highly controversial, and likely illegal, circumstances. Five police officers from the town and two sheriff’s deputies raided the offices of The Marion County Record last week, ostensibly to find evidence over whether the paper had illegally obtained information about…
A small newspaper in northern Wisconsin may be sued out of existence because a Republican lawmaker in the state is continuing to bring defamation litigation against it, over the publication’s decision nearly two years ago to publish a story about him using a derogatory and hateful slur against gay people. During a county board hearing in 2021 on promoting diversity and inclusion in Wausau…
PNG Post-Courier
Police in Papua New Guinea’s National Capital District are investigating the shooting yesterday of a woman reporter working with the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) Central during an alleged confrontation between police and settlers at 8-Mile in Port Moresby.
In the midst of the firing, allegedly aimed at each other, a stray bullet hit the reporter who was among 13 journalists reporting at the Moitaka plant.
Assistant Commissioner of Police-NCD and Central Anthony Wagambie Jr condemned the shooting, saying “I have directed Metsupt NCD to have police investigators look into this immediately.
“We have to establish what happened and where the bullet came from.
“If this was a stray bullet or intentionally fired. Everyone must respect the work of journalists and protect them as they are the voice of the people.”
The Media Council of Papua New Guinea said in a statement that while commending PNG Power representatives who ensured that an ambulance was arranged to take the wounded journalist to hospital and covered her treatment, it reminded public and corporate organisations that when the media was invited to cover an event in “potentially hostile environments”, precautions must be made to ensure their safety.
The council reaffirmed that it stood ready to work with the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary (RPNGC) and other law enforcement agencies to find ways that the media could be protected, rather than be caught in the crossfire.
This would take some time and work in sensitising both the public and the media on their equally important roles in the pursuit of truth, information, and awareness, the council statement said.
Moitaka power station progress
According to our reporters, the incident happened when the group had ended their tour of the facility organised by PPL.
The purpose of the visit was to see the progress of the Moitaka Power station and the new Edevu Hydro power construction and transmission lines undertaken by the PNG Hydro Limited and PNG Power.
While the team was at the Moitaka power station, a commotion erupted outside at the nearby residents where multiple gun shots were fired.
A stray bullet from the shootout grazed one of the cameramen and hit the female journalist on her left arm.
The stray bullet lodged into her left arm causing her to bleed as she fell to the ground in shock.
The shootout continued for about 5 minutes with other journalists and PPL staff taking cover.
The journalist was rushed to the Paradise Private Hospital for treatment.
Other reporters did not sustain any injuries. However, they were in shock and traumatised.
The team was accompanied by the PNG Power CEO, Obed Batia, PNG Hydro Ltd managing director Allan Guo, PNG Power chairman, McRonald Nale, and staff of PNG Power.
Republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
By Mackenzie Smith and Toby Mann of ABC Pacific Beat
Concerns have been raised about foreign influence in Pacific media after it was revealed Solomon Islands’ longest-running newspaper received funding from China in return for favourable coverage.
Earlier this week the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) revealed how China has been attempting to gain influence in media outlets in Palau and Solomon Islands.
In Palau, a failed media deal pushed by China has revealed how Beijing was seeking to exert its influence in the Pacific region by using political pressure and funding to capture local elites, including in the media.
The OCCRP said at least one front page story had been supplied by an initiative that was backed by investors with ties to China’s police and military.
China had even more success gaining favour in Solomon Islands, where it has steadily been increasing its presence and influence since the Pacific nation switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 2019.
There, according to the OCCRP, the Solomon Star newspaper received Chinese money after giving assurances it would push messages favourable to Beijing.
Desperate for funding, editors at the Solomon Star wrote up a proposal to China’s embassy in Honiara in July last year.
Paper struggling to keep up
The paper was struggling to keep up and needed assistance — its printing machines were deteriorating and papers were often hitting the streets a day late, according to the proposal the Solomon Star sent to China.
Its radio station, Paoa FM, was having difficulty broadcasting into remote provinces.
“Reporters obtained a July 2022 draft funding proposal from the Solomon Star to China’s embassy in Honiara in which the paper requested 1,150,000 Solomon Islands dollars ($206,300) for equipment including a replacement for its ageing newspaper printer and a broadcast tower for its radio station, PAOA FM,” OCCRP said.
“The Solomon Star said in the proposal that decrepit equipment was causing editions to come out late and ‘curtailing news flow about China’s generous and lightning economic and infrastructure development in Solomon Islands’.”
According to the proposal, seen by the ABC’s Pacific Beat programme, China stood to gain “enormously”.
“The intended outcome of this project . . . is that Solomon Star newspaper will be produced on time for the benefits of its readers, subscribers and the advertising community,” it said.
“China’s timely intervention in Solomon Islands’ infrastructure and economic development will also benefit enormously as news about this new-found partnership is published.”
OCCRP has confirmed the printing equipment the Solomon Star wanted was delivered earlier this year.
Alfred Sasako, Solomon Star’s editor, said the newspaper maintained its independence.
He told the OCCRP that any suggestion it had a pro-Beijing bias was “a figment of the imagination of anyone who is trying to demonise China”.
Sasako told the OCCRP the paper had tried unsuccessfully for more than a decade to get funding from Australia.
Financial desperation drives ailing paper to Chinese backers
Ofani Eremae, a journalist and co-founder at In-depth Solomons who used to work at the Solomon Star, said it has been struggling financially since COVID, and the majority of staff have left.
“They are really in a very, very bad financial situation, so they are desperate,” he told the ABC.
“I think this is what’s prompting them to look for finances elsewhere to keep the operation going.
“It just so happens that China is here and they [Solomon Star] found someone who’s willing to give them a lot of money.”
Taking the assistance from China has raised questions about the paper’s independence, he said.
“It’s a paper with the reputation people trust but in situations like that, you lose your credibility, you lose your independence and of course you become some kind of organisation that’s been controlled by outsiders,” Eremae told the ABC.
Government spending on advertisements in the paper could help it somewhat, but Eremae said “democratic countries, especially the US” should step in and help.
‘Have to defend democracy’
“They have to defend democracy, they have to defend freedom of the press in this country,” he told the ABC.
“Otherwise China, which seems to have a lot of money, they could just easily come in and take control of things here.”
University of South Pacific associate professor of journalism Shailendra Singh said “the Chinese offer hit the right spot” with the paper facing financial challenges due to covid and advertising revenues going to social media.
“If you look across the region, governments are shaking hands with China, making all kinds of deals and also receiving huge amounts of funds,” he told the ABC.
Dr Singh said media outlets had become part of the competition between large countries vying for influence in the region and warned other struggling Pacific media companies could be tempted by similar offers.
“They would seriously consider surrendering some of their editorial independence for a new printing press, just to keep them in business,” he said.
“Let’s just hope that this does not become a trend.”
The concerns these kind of deals bring was clear.
‘Risk of compromising editorial independence’
“This is simply because of the risk of compromising editorial independence,” Dr Singh told the ABC.
“There is concern the country’s major newspaper is turning into a Chinese state party propaganda rag.”
If China managed to sway both the Solomon Islands government and its main newspaper, that would create an “unholy alliance”, Dr Singh said.
“The people would be at the mercy of a cabal, with very little — if not zero — public dissent,” he said.
Despite the concerns, Dr Singh said there were some sound reasons for the Solomon Star to enter the deal.
“If they don’t sign the deal they will continue to struggle financially and it might even mean the end of the Solomon Star,” he told the ABC.
Only the Solomon Star publisher and editor had a full grasp of the situation and the financial challenges the paper faced, he said.
‘Makes business sense’
“From our lofty perch we have all these grand ideas about media independence in theory, but does anyone consider the business realities?”
“It may not make sense to the Americans or the Australians, but makes perfect sense to the Solomon Star from a business survival point of view.”
Solomon Islands and Pacific outlets have been funded for media development by Australia and other governments.
Third party organisations such as the ABC International Development supports the media community across the Pacific to promote public interest journalism and hold businesses, governments and other institutions to account.
But Solomon Islands opposition MP Peter Kenilorea Junior said he was concerned by direct support given to the Solomon Star by a foreign government.
“It’s totally inappropriate for any government — let alone the Chinese government — to be involved in our newspaper publications, because that is supposed to be independent,” he told the ABC.
“I don’t think standards are kept when there is this, according to the report, involvement by the Chinese to try and perhaps reward the paper for saying or passing on stories that are positive about a particular country.”
Georgina Kekea, president of the Media Association of Solomon Islands, said the financial support did not come as a surprise as most businesses were struggling.
“It’s quite difficult for us to ensure that the media industry thrives when they are really floundering, where companies are finding it hard to pay their staff salary,” she told the ABC.
!["Solomon Star condemns [unrelated] attack by US-funded OCCRP"](https://asiapacificreport.nz/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Solomon-Star-edit-1Aug23-680wide.png)
Solomon Star says ‘stop geo-politicising’ media
Following the OCCRP report, the Solomon Star on Tuesday published an response on page six headlined “Solomon Star condemns unrelated attack by US-funded OCCRP”.
“It is sad to see the US-funded OCCRP through its agent in Solomon Islands, Ofani Eremae, and his so-called ‘In-depth Solomons’ website making unrelented attempts to tarnish the reputation of the Solomon Star Newspaper for receiving funding support from China,” the paper said.
“One thing that Solomon Star can assure the right-minded people of this nation is that we will continue to inform and educate you on issues that matter without any geopolitical bias and that China through its Embassy in Honiara never attempted to stop us from doing so . . . Solomon Star also continued to publish news items not in the favour of China and the Chinese Embassy in Honiara never issued a reproachment.
“It is indeed sad to see the OCCRP-funded journalists in Solomon Islands and the Pacific trying to bring geopolitics into the Pacific and Solomon Islands media landscape and Solomon Star strongly urges these journalists and their financiers to stop geo-politicising the media.”
OCCRP said it “is funded worldwide by a variety of government and non-government donors”.
“OCCRP’s work in the Pacific Islands is currently funded by a US-government grant that gives the donor zero say in editorial decisions,” it said.
Dr Singh said whether aid came from China, the US or Australia: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
The ABC has sought comment from the Solomon Star and the Chinese Embassy in Solomon Islands.
Republished from ABC Pacific Beat with permission.
By Rakesh Kumar in Suva
The Fijian Media Association (FMA) has labelled comments made by former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama this week to media workers of Mai TV, Fijivillage and Fiji Sun outside the Suva courthouse as “distasteful, unbecoming, and unacceptable”.
Bainimarama told the Mai TV cameraman in the iTaukei language on Tuesday: “Qarauna de dua tacaqe, au na qai caqeta yani na muna.” (“Be careful no one stumbles, for I will then kick your backside.”)
The former prime minister also told the Fijivillage cameraperson “watch out, you slip, and then I will kick your backside”.
Earlier in the week, Bainimarama also told a Fiji Sun press photographer “kwan kwan”, a derogatory term commonly used to chase away dogs or animals.
In a statement, FMA said they found these comments highly offensive.
“The FMA continues to reiterate that journalists, photographers and videographers are doing an important work of informing the public, and threats of violence against them is unacceptable,” the statement read.
The FMA stated that journalists had come through a period — 17 years of media repression since the 2006 military coup — where they had been beaten, intimidated, and abused and would not let these threats to deter them from doing their duty.
Former prime minister Bainimarama and suspended police commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho are on trial on a count each of attempting to pervert the course of justice and abuse of office over an abandoned investigation relating to the University of the South Pacific in 2020.
Rakesh Kumar is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
For nearly five years, publisher and journalist Julian Assange has fought extradition to the United States where he faces 175 years in prison for revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes. Instead of protecting freedom of the press, to which he pledged allegiance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in April, Joe Biden is continuing Donald Trump’s prosecution of Assange under the infamous…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
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…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
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.
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.
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.
On a cold Christmas night in 2021 in the picturesque mountain city of Asheville, North Carolina, The Asheville Blade journalist Veronica Coit sat in a police station waiting to be booked. A police officer motioned toward Coit and said, “She says she’s press.” The magistrate responded: “Is she real press?” “In that very moment, he could’ve decided that we were press, which we were…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
New Zealand’s Media Freedom Council has called Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown’s exclusion of some media outlets from his budget speech today “unacceptable”.
In an appearance at Auckland Transport’s Viaduct headquarters, Brown took time out of pitching his plan to sell the city’s holdings in Auckland Airport to complain about road cones, his “not financially literate” councillors and target the “nasty” media.
Brown’s team invited journalists from only a few organisations to the announcement. RNZ was allowed in, but Stuff, TVNZ and Newshub were not.
Stuff reported among those allowed in were “business leaders, former politicians and former rugby league coach Sir Graham Lowe”.
Some reporters threatened to walk out of the event in protest, drawing this response from the mayor: “They weren’t invited, but some of the media have been pretty nasty. We did invite media who are sensible; and the media who are not weren’t invited, and have now decided, some of them, to bugger off — well, that’s all right with me”.
Stuff queried the mayor’s decision, and was told only a “select few journalists… we feel were best able to convey the mayor’s message” were invited.
Media Freedom Council chair Richard Sutherland — also head of news at RNZ — wrote to Brown shortly afterwards, to “express our deep concern about the attempted exclusion of journalists from today’s budget presentation in Auckland”.
In addition to RNZ, the MFC represents Newshub, Newsroom, NZME, Stuff, The Spinoff and TVNZ.
‘Today’s events troubling’
“Today’s events are troubling. The media plays a crucial role in informing the public and holding officials accountable. Denying access to journalists compromises the public’s right to be informed,” Sutherland wrote.
“Furthermore, we are aware that invitations that were issued were selectively targeted to specific journalists. It is imperative to ensure equal opportunities for all bone fide journalists to cover significant public events, irrespective of their perceived affiliations or perspectives.
“To be blunt, it’s unacceptable to cherry-pick journalists based on who you think will give you the easiest ride.”
Sutherland called Brown’s decision an “affront to the democratic process and an insult to voters”.
Brown did not take questions after his speech, saying he did not have time.
He has had a strained relationship with the media since taking the mayoral chains last year. Mediawatch in April described it as “frosty”, at best.
In January, as Auckland suffered its worst floods in living memory, he called journalists “drongos” in messages to friends, upset he had to cancel a tennis engagement to deal with the media. He later apologised.
He refused 106 media requests in his first month of office, granting only two.
‘Sell them all’
The guts of Brown’s speech was to convince his councillors that selling the city’s 18 percent stake in Auckland Airport was the only way to avoid massive cuts to services and rate hikes.
He has his deputy Desley Simpson on side. She told RNZ’s Midday Report she did not want to sell the shares at first, but had listened to advice and had been convinced.
She said the mayor’s second budget proposal was as good as it was going to get, and she hoped other councillors agreed to it.
“In my heart, I didn’t want to sell the airport shareholding. But professional staff advice has said ‘sell them all’. And you know, that’s a hard pill to swallow when in your heart, you want to keep them.
“It’s an emotional wrestle that I think a lot of people are struggling with.”
Simpson said selling shareholding was not just a short-term fix, and would save the council $100 million a year in debt interest.
The council’s debt is currently more than $11 billion.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
The following article was made possible by paid subscribers. Support independent journalism on whistleblowers and press freedom and become a subscriber with this special World Press Freedom Day offer.
For the United States government, World Press Freedom Day is an opportunity to further project an image of the U.S. as a supposed champion of journalism and human rights. But that projection is muddied greatly by the prosecution against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
An event was hosted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) at the UN headquarters in New York. It marked the 30th anniversary of World Press Freedom Day.
Dr. Agnès Callamard, the secretary general for Amnesty International, called attention to the double standard of so-called democratic countries while discussing challenges to protecting press freedom.
“It is not just what is happening in Iran or in Russia that should worry us, although it should worry us a lot. It is also what is happening here [in the U.S.],” Callamard said. “Who is imprisoning Julian Assange? Who is creating more laws to curtail the freedom to protest? All of those indicators and trends are occurring within the so-called democracies of the world.”
Callamard added, “Sadly, the playbook of autocracy, of control over conscience, of control over speech, has been well-learned by our so-called democratic leaders.”
President Joe Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have wielded the playbook of autocracy through deliberate acts of omission—by consistently dodging any attempts by reporters or civil society leaders to hold them accountable for pursuing the Assange case.
At the White House Correspondents Dinner on April 29, Biden highlighted Russia’s detention of Evan Gershkovich and the abduction of Austin Tice in Syria over a decade ago.
Then Biden proclaimed, “Tonight, our message is this: Journalism is not a crime.”
However, that message seems fraudulent as the U.S. government remains committed to prosecuting Assange and keeps him in jail.
Assange has been a target of surveillance and subject to some form of arbitrary detention for more than a decade. The journalism he oversaw as WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, which involved publishing classified documents from the U.S. government, effectively made him a target.
Last year, Blinken uttered the following on World Press Freedom Day:
When individual journalists are threatened, when they’re attacked, when they’re imprisoned, the chilling effects reach far beyond their targets. Some in the media start to self-censor. Others flee. Some stop reporting altogether. And when repressive governments come after journalists, human rights defenders, labor leaders, others in civil society are usually not far behind.
A similar statement about the climate of fear fueled by prosecuting Assange has been made by Rebecca Vincent, the director of operations and international campaigns for Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
“If the U.S. government is successful in securing Assange’s extradition and prosecuting him for his contributions to public interest reporting, the same precedent could be applied to any journalist anywhere,” Vincent contended. “The possible implications of this case simply cannot be understated; it is the very future of journalism and press freedom that is at stake.”
This year, Blinken will participate in a “moderated conversation on the state of press freedom worldwide” with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.
After Assange’s arrest on April 11, 2019, Ignatius argued the U.S. Justice Department had “drawn its indictment carefully enough that the issue [was] theft of secrets, rather than their publication.” The Washington Post Editorial Board has maintained that WikiLeaks “differs from journalism.” So Blinken will likely be permitted to advance a litany of double standards without being called on it.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) marked World Press Freedom Day by promoting “Reporters Shield.” Under the new program, certain journalists and media organizations can apply to become “members” that are eligible to receive funds to help combat legal threats aimed at silencing them (Note: USAID has in the past been used by the CIA as a front for operations.)
According to USAID Director Samantha Power, who spoke at the UNESCO meeting, independent journalists around the world increasingly face lawfare from “corrupt leaders,” who are intent to drive them out of business.
“Repressive or corrupt elites have tried to silence opposition by killing journalists. Now they are trying to kill journalism,” Power stated.
Power was thinking of journalists countries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, but the reality is that Assange and WikiLeaks might benefit from such a program.
The CIA mounted a disruption campaign against WikiLeaks to make it difficult for the media organization to function. Officials reportedly discussed kidnapping or poisoning Assange while he was living under political asylum in the Ecuador embassy, and Mike Pompeo, when he was secretary of state, pressured Ecuador to toss Assange out of the embassy so the US could get their hands on him.
Later in the meeting, Committee to Protect Journalists Jodie Ginsberg pointed out that if we really want to keep journalism safe then all governments must cease lawfare that involves targeting journalists with a “wide variety of spurious charges.”
“One thing that the United States could concretely do is drop the charges against Julian Assange,” Ginsberg declared. She noted if Assange was brought to trial it would “effectively criminalize journalists everywhere.”
Hitting Assange with Espionage Act charges and jailing him for the past four years has forced WikiLeaks to focus on freeing their founder. The organization has little to no funds to support the publication of new leaks, not to mention their reputation has been tarnished by smear campaigns engaged in by current and former U.S. intelligence officials. And it has also become harder to maintain the invaluable archive of documents on the WikiLeaks website.
U.S. officials could abandon this case on World Press Freedom Day, but they will not because officials have entrenched themselves in the spiteful position that Assange is not a journalist. They see no conflict between their calls to free imprisoned journalists and their own autocratic conduct.
The post US Double Standards On World Press Freedom Day appeared first on Shadowproof.
This post was originally published on Shadowproof.
On the fourth anniversary of Julian Assange’s arrest, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib led six other progressive lawmakers in calling on U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to “uphold the First Amendment’s protections for the freedom of the press by dropping the criminal charges” against the Australian WikiLeaks founder and withdrawing the extradition request of the U.K. government.
Assange has been jailed at Belmarsh Prison in London since U.K. authorities forcibly removed him from the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2019. The 51-year-old publisher continues to fight his extradition to the United States, which the U.K. government approved last year.
Tlaib (D-Mich.) along with Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) on Tuesday joined media outlets, world leaders, and civil liberties, human rights, and press freedom groups that have decried U.S. efforts to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act.
Such organizations “have been emphatic that the charges against Mr. Assange pose a grave and unprecedented threat to everyday, constitutionally protected journalistic activity, and that a conviction would represent a landmark setback for the First Amendment,” the Democrats wrote to Garland. “This global outcry against the U.S. government’s prosecution of Mr. Assange has highlighted conflicts between… America’s stated values of press freedom and its pursuit of Mr. Assange.”
“We urge you to immediately drop these Trump-era charges against Mr. Assange and halt this dangerous prosecution.”
The lawmakers argued that prosecuting the publisher “for carrying out journalistic activities greatly diminishes America’s credibility as a defender of these values, undermining the United States’ moral standing on the world stage, and effectively granting cover to authoritarian governments who can (and do) point to Assange’s prosecution to reject evidence-based criticisms of their human rights records and as a precedent that justifies the criminalization of reporting on their activities.”
“Assange faces 17 charges under the Espionage Act and one charge for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion,” they noted. “The Espionage Act charges stem from Mr. Assange’s role in publishing information about the U.S. State Department, Guantánamo Bay, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of this information was published by mainstream newspapers, such as The New York Times and Washington Post, who often worked with Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks directly in doing so. Based on the legal logic of this indictment, any of those newspapers could be prosecuted for engaging in these reporting activities.”
However, “the prosecution of Mr. Assange marks the first time in U.S. history that a publisher of truthful information has been indicted under the Espionage Act,” the letter highlights. “The prosecution of Mr. Assange, if successful, not only sets a legal precedent whereby journalists or publishers can be prosecuted, but a political one as well.”
“As attorney general, you have rightly championed freedom of the press and the rule of law in the United States and around the world,” the document added, pointing to the U.S. Department of Justice’s recently revised media regulations. “We are grateful for these pro-press freedom revisions, and feel strongly that dropping the Justice Department’s indictment against Mr. Assange and halting all efforts to extradite him to the U.S. is in line with these new policies.”
“Every day that the prosecution of Julian Assange continues is another day that our own government needlessly undermines our own moral authority abroad and rolls back the freedom of the press under the First Amendment at home,” the letter concludes. “We urge you to immediately drop these Trump-era charges against Mr. Assange and halt this dangerous prosecution.”
\u201cFour years ago today, Julian Assange was arrested for publishing the truth.\n\nI\u2019m leading a letter to Attorney General Garland urging him to uphold the freedom of the press by dropping these Trump-era charges and withdrawing the extradition request.\u201d— Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib)
1681241654
The Democrats’ appeal to Garland coincided with similar demands from parliamentarians across the political spectrum in Australia, Brazil, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, and was welcomed by groups that have long demanded Assange’s freedom.
“As Julian Assange marks four years in Belmarsh prison and faces possible imminent extradition to the United States, it’s more crucial for members of Congress to speak up now than ever before,” said Rebecca Vincent, director of operations and campaigns at Reporters Sans Frontières, or Reporters Without Borders (RSF). “No one should face prosecution or the possibility of the rest of their lives in prison for publishing information in the public interest.”
“As long as the case against Assange continues, it will be a thorn in the side of the U.S. government, and undermines U.S. efforts to defend media freedom globally,” Vincent added. “We welcome Rep. Tlaib’s leadership on this issue and encourage widespread support for her call on the Justice Department to drop the charges against Assange. It’s time for the U.S. to lead by example by bringing this 12-year-old case to a close and allowing for his release without further delay.”
Chip Gibbons, policy director of Defending Rights & Dissent, similarly applauded the Michigan Democrat for her “courageous defense of the First Amendment.”
“Defending the Bill of Rights is the responsibility of every branch of government,” said Gibbons, “and we are proud to stand with those members of Congress who are joining with nearly every press freedom group and newspapers such as The New York Times, in calling on the Department of Justice to end its prosecution of Julian Assange.”
Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Seth Stern also commended Tlaib’s “efforts to finally put an end to the unconstitutional prosecution of Julian Assange,” stressing that “whatever one might think about Assange personally, there is no principled distinction between the conduct he is charged with and the kind of investigative journalism that has helped shape U.S. history.”
“As long as the government claims the power to prosecute newsgathering, all journalists can do is hope prosecutors exercise restraint and don’t come after them for doing their jobs. Journalists will surely tread more cautiously as a result,” he warned. “No one who values the First Amendment should be comfortable with that, which is why every major press rights and civil liberties organization opposes Assange’s prosecution.”
By Lydia Lewis and Kelvin Anthony, RNZ Pacific journalists
The Fiji Parliament has voted to “kill” a draconian media law in Suva today, sending newsrooms across the country into celebrations.
Twenty nine parliamentarians voted to repeal the Media Industry Development Act, while 21 voted against it and 3 did not vote.
The law — which started as a post-coup decree in 2010 — has been labelled as a “noose around the neck of the media industry and journalists” since it was enacted into law.
While opposition FijiFirst parliamentarians voted against the bill, Fiji’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad said binning the act would be good for the people and for democracy.
Removing the controversial law was a major election promise by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government.
Emotional day for newsrooms
The news was “one for the ages for us”, Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley, who was dragged into court on multiple occasions by the former government under the act, told RNZ Pacific in Vanuatu.
He said today was about all the Fijian media workers who stayed true to their profession.
“People who slugged it out, people who remained passionate about their work and continued disseminating information and getting people to make well-informed decision on a daily basis.”
“It wasn’t an easy journey, but truly thankful for today,” an emotional Wesley said.
“We’re in an era where we don’t have draconian legislation hanging over our heads.”
He said the entire industry was happy and newsrooms are now looking forward to the next chapter.
“The next phases is the challenge of putting together a Fiji media council to do the work of listening to complaints and all of that, and I’m overwhelmed and very grateful.”
Holding government to account
He said people in Fiji should continue to expect the media to do what it was supposed to do: “Holding government to account, holding our leaders to account and making sure that they’re responsible in the decisions they make.”
Journalists ‘can be brave’
Islands Business magazine editor Samantha Magick said getting rid of the law meant it would now create an environment for Fiji journalists to do more critical journalism.
“I think [we will] see less, ‘he said, she said’, reporting in very controlled environments,” Magick said.
“Fiji’s media will see more investigations, more depth, more voices, different perspectives, [and] hopefully they can engage a bit more as well without fear.
“It’ll just be so much healthier for us as a people and democracy to have that level of debate and investigation and questioning, regardless of who you are,” she added.
RNZ Pacific senior sports journalist and PINA board member Iliesa Tora said the Parliament’s decision sent a strong message to the rest of the region.
“The message [this sends] to the region and the different regional government’s is that you need to work with the media to ensure that there is media freedom,” said Tora, who chose to leave Fiji because he could not operate as a journalist due of the act.
“The freedom of the media ensures that people are also able to freely express themselves and are not fearful in coming forward to talk about things that they see that governments are not doing that they [should] do to really govern in the countries.”
MIDA is dead.
A huge win for media freedom in Fiji.
— Dan McGarry (@dailypostdan) April 5, 2023
‘Step into the light’ – corruption reporting project
Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project co-founder and publisher Drew Sullivan told RNZ Pacific that anytime a country that was not able to do the kind of accountability journalism that they should be doing, this damaged media throughout the region.
“It creates a model for illiberal actors in the region to imitate what’s going on in that country,” Sullivan said.
“So this has really moved forward in allowing journalists again to do their job and that’s really important.”
Fiji journalists, Sullivan said, had done an amazing job resisting limitations for as long as they could.
“Fiji was really a black hole of journalism [in] that the journalists could not participate in on a global community because they couldn’t find the information; they weren’t allowed to write what they needed to write.
“So this is really a step forward into the light to really bring Fiji and media back into the global journalism community.”
Korean cult investigation
Last year, OCCRP published a major investigation on Fiji, working with local journalists to expose the expansion of the controversial Korean Chirstain-cult Grace Road Church under the Bainimarama regime.
Rabuka’s government is currently investigating Grace Road.
Sullivan said OCCRP will continue to support Fijian journalists.
“But [the repealing of the act] will allow a lot more stories to be done and a lot more people will understand how the world really works, especially in Fiji.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific journalist
The man in charge of Fiji’s oldest newspaper has high hopes for press freedom in the country following the tabling of a bill in Parliament this week to get rid of a controversial media law.
Fiji’s three-party coalition government introduced a bill on Monday to repeal the 2010 Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) Act.
The MIDA Act — a legacy of the former Bainimarama administration — has long been criticised for being “draconian” and decimating journalism standards in the country.
The law regulates the ownership, registration and content of the media in Fiji.
Under the act, the media content regulation framework includes the creation of MIDA, the media tribunal and other elements.
“It is these provisions that have been considered controversial,” Fiji’s Attorney-General Siromi Turaga said when tabling the bill.
“These elements are widely considered as undemocratic and in breach of the constitutional right of freedom of expression as outlined in section 17 of the constitution.”
Not a ‘free pass’
Turaga said repealing the act does not provide a free pass to media organisations and journalists to “report anything and everything without authentic sources and facts”.
“But it does provides a start to ensuring that what reaches the ordinary people of Fiji is not limited by overbearing regulation of government.”
The Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley said he had a sense of “great optimism” that the Media Act would be repealed.
Wesley and the newspaper — founded in 1869 — were caught in a long legal battle for publishing an article in their vernacular language newspaper Nai Lalakai which the former FijiFirst government claimed was seditious.
But in 2018, the High Court found them not guilty and cleared them of all charges.
“After the change in government, there has been a change in the way the press has been disseminating information,” Wesley said.
“We have had a massive turnover [of] journalists in our country. A lot of young people have come in. At the The Fiji Times, for instance, we have an average age of around 22, which is very, very young,” he said.
Handful of seniors
“We have just a handful of senior journalists who have stayed on who are very passionate about the role the media must pay in our country.
“We are looking forward to Thursday and looking forward to the act being repealed and the draconian legislation kicked out.”
He said two thirds of the journalists in the national newspaper’s newsroom have less than 16 years experience and have never experienced press freedom.
He said The Fiji Times would then need to implement “mass desensitisation” of its reporters as they had been working under a draconian law for more than a decade.
He added retraining journalists would be the main focus of the organisation after the law is repealed.
‘Things will get better’
Long-serving journalist at the newspaper Rakesh Kumar told RNZ Pacific that reporting on national interest issues had been a “big challenge” under the act.
Kumar recalled early when the media law was enacted and army officers would come into newsrooms to “create fear” which he said would “kill the motivation” of reporters.
“We know things will get better now [after the repeal of the act],” Kumar said.
But he said it was “important that we have to report accurately”.
“We have to be balanced,” he added.
The bill to repeal the MIDA Act will be debated tomorrow.
While the opposition has already opposed the move, it is expected that the government will use its majority in Parliament to pass it.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Vanuatu’s Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Trading Post Ltd, the owner of the Vanuatu Daily Post newspaper, BUZZ FM96 and other media outlets, in a case against the government’s refusal to renew the company’s former media director’s work permit.
Dan McGarry, who served as a director of the company when he had his visa revoked in 2019, said the ruling was a “big win for independent media”.
McGarry’s work permit application was rejected by then Prime Minister Charlot Salwai’s government.
The reason given by the Labour Commissioner Murielle Meltenoven at the time was that McGarry’s role — who at the time had lived and worked in Port Vila for 14 years — could be taken up by a ni-Vanuatu person and that he had failed to train his local staff.
The Daily Post claimed that the decision to revoke McGarry’s visa was made after the newspaper had published stories concerning the arrest and arbitrary deportation of a group of Chinese nationals, some of whom had been granted Vanuatu citizenship.
McGarry and the company claimed that Meltenoven’s decision was a political one and argued that the government had no right to meddle in their lawful hiring decisions and appealed the decision.
The issue had escalated and he was barred by the government from returning to the country, a decision which was later overturned by the Supreme Court.
Acted unlawfully
On Tuesday, March 28, Justice Dudley Aru ruled that both the Labour Commissioner and the Appeals Committee acted unlawfully in barring McGarry’s employment.
“After three long years, I feel vindicated,” McGarry, who testified in the case, said in a statement.
A former Vanuatu Daily Post media director and journalist has won a legal challenge on Tuesday against the government’s decision to revoke his visa. https://t.co/KrJmYLzoCh
— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) March 30, 2023
“Sadly, it took so long to get justice that I had to move on to other work, but this is a crucial principle that had to be defended.”
The use of bureaucratic measures to meddle in private business decisions and stifle our free and independent media is unacceptable in a free and democratic society,” he said.
“I’m grateful to the owners of the Daily Post and to all my colleagues and friends there who have never wavered in their stalwart defence of our right to chart our own course,” he said.
“This is a big win for the Daily Post, and a big win for independent media in Vanuatu.”
McGarry said it was not known whether a state appeal is forthcoming.
RNZ Pacific has contacted the Vanuatu’s labour office for comment.
Here’s a link to the judgment: https://t.co/zt9lndE1BI
— Dan McGarry (@dailypostdan) March 30, 2023
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
By Gorethy Kenneth in Port Moresby
Communication Minister Timothy Masiu has hit back at recent reports termed as “inaccurate” over the control of media in Papua New Guinea from his ministerial statement in Parliament.
He said it was not true that the government was trying to control the media by setting up a Media Council.
He refuted the report, saying that the government would not control the media.
In his responce to questions raised, Masiu clarified the intent and purpose of the Media Development Policy which was basically to establish an enabling framework to recognise and develop the media in PNG to “support our development agenda”.
“Current research and recent consultations have led us to the consolidation of four main issues within the media sector,” he said.
“First is the concerns on [the] quality of journalism. By concerns we observe the decline of quality investigative journalism, the impact of substandard reporting on the development agenda, and the concerns on conduct, ethics, and accountability of journalists.
“My ministry, through the Department of ICT [Information Communications Technology], is currently collating both quantitative and qualitative data to verify the concerns on safety of journalists. We recognise that, at the moment, there is a lack of protection mechanisms for journalists.
‘Reorganising’ state-owned media
“My ministry has for the last three years looked at options on how to reorganise state-owned media outlets so that we coordinate dissemination of government information better.
“We recognise that us as government are lacking coordination in government information.
“The ministry has identified that SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises], particularly in the modern media space, are not recognised as professionals and not given appropriate support.
“By promoting access to information, media diversity, and responsible journalism, the policy aims to support the development of a more informed, engaged, and empowered citizenry in Papua New Guinea.
“On the question of how this policy will promote media freedom, early this year we released draft version 1, followed by a version 2 of the National Media Development Policy.
“In both versions of the draft policy, we proposed for the re-establishment of the PNG Media Council as an independent arm to represent and maintain standards within the media professions.
“The ministry maintains the view that the PNG Media Council, through its self-governing model, is not doing enough to grow the profession and hold journalists accountable.
Media Council ’empowered’
“Through the ministry’s proposal, the PNG Media Council would be empowered and hold mainstream media outlets accountable and establish [a] protection mechanism for journalists.
“I want to inform Members of Parliament that we have had a consultation workshop and as a result, my department is working on identifying a model where we can find common ground with all stakeholders.
“I want to remind all that this policy is not about regulating but more on building capacity and recognition within the media profession.
“The department is reviewing whether to include provisions for oversight on social media platforms and we will inform in version 3 of the draft policy.
“As a matter of update, my department will be publishing a consultation report this week.
“Following this, the consultation itself is leading us to undertake a series of nationwide surveys to better define our media landscape and ascertain data necessary to consolidate issues highlighted in the recent consultation workshop.
“My department is expected to be releasing a version 4 of the draft policy towards the end of April.
“This version 4 will be subject to further feedback. I expect to take to cabinet as early as May and should legislation be proposed, we would also start the drafting process in May.”
Gorethy Kenneth is a senior PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
By Kelvin Anthony, RNZ Pacific lead digital and social media journalist
The Fiji government has announced it will repeal the controversial Media Industry Development Act 2010.
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said cabinet had approved the tabling of a bill to repeal the Act “as a whole.”
“The decision is pursuant to the People’s Coalition Government’s commitment to the growth and development of a strong and independent news media in the country,” said Rabuka in his post-cabinet meeting update.
“It has been said that ‘media freedom and freedom of expression is the oxygen of democracy’,” he said.
“These fundamental freedoms are integral to enable the people to hold their government accountable.
“I am proud to stand here today to make this announcement, which was key to our electoral platform, and a demand that I heard echoed in all parts of the country that I visited,” he added.
The announcement comes just days after Rabuka’s government introduced a new draft legislation to replace the act.
Strongly opposed
The move to replace the 2010 media law with a new one was strongly opposed during public consultations by local journalists and media organisations.
They said there was no need for new legislation to control the media and called for a “total repeal” of the existing regulation.
The country’s Deputy Prime Minister, Manoa Kamikamica, told RNZ Pacific last Friday that there were areas of concern that local stakeholders had raised during the consultation session of the proposed new bill.
“We hear what the industry is saying, we will make some assessments and then make a final decision,” he said.
But Rabuka’s announcement today means that the decision has been made.
RNZ Pacific has contacted the Fijian Media Association for comment.
‘Good decision’ but investment needed
University of the South Pacific head of journalism programme Associate Professor Shailendra Singh said the announcement was expected.
Dr Singh said repealing the punitive legislation was a core election platform promise of the three challenger parties which are now in power.
“This is a good decision because the Fijian media and other stakeholders were not sufficiently consulted when the decree was promulgated in June 2010.”
But he said while getting rid of the media act was welcomed, the coalition was working on a new legislation and “we have to wait and see what that looks like”.
“The media act was dead in the water or redundant before the change in government. The new government could not have implemented it after coming to power, having criticised it and campaigned against it in their election campaign,” he said.
“Repealing the act removes the fear factor prevalent in the sector for nearly 13 years now.”
Dr Singh said the government had committed to the growth and development of a strong news media.
Public good investment
But that, he said, would require more than the repeal of the act.
“[Improving standards] will require some financial investments by the state since media organisations are struggling financially due to the digital disruption followed by covid.”
He said among the many challenges, the media industry was struggling to retain staff.
“So incentives like government scholarships specifically in the media sector could be one way of helping out.
“Media is a public good and like any public good government should invest in it for the benefit of the public.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
By Kelvin Anthony, RNZ Pacific lead digital and social media journalist
The Fiji government is signalling that it will not completely tear down the country’s controversial media law which, according to local newsrooms and journalism commentators, has stunted press freedom and development for more than a decade.
Ahead of the 2022 general elections last December, all major opposition parties campaigned to get rid of the Media Industry Development Act (MIDA) 2010 — brought in by the Bainimarama administration — if they got into power.
The change in government after 16 years following the polls brought a renewed sense of hope for journalists and media outlets.
But now almost 100 days in charge it appears Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition is backtracking on its promise to get rid of the punitive law, a move that has been condemned by the industry stakeholders.
“The government is totally committed to allowing people the freedom of the press that will include the review of the Media Act,” Rabuka said during a parliamentary session last month.
“I believe we cannot have a proper democracy without a free press which has been described as the oxygen of democracy,” he said.
Rabuka has denied that his government is backtracking on an election promise.
“Reviewing could mean eventually repealing it,” he told RNZ Pacific in February.
“We have to understand how it [media act] is faring in this modern day of media freedom. How have other administrations advance their own association with the media,” he said.
He said he intended to change it which means “review and make amendments to it”.
“The coalition has given an assurance that we will end that era of media oppression. We are discussing new legislation that reflects more democratic values.”
And last week, that discussion happened for the first time when consultations on a refreshed version of a draft regulation began in Suva as the government introduced the Media Ownership and Registration Bill 2023.
The bill is expected to “address issues that are undemocratic, threatens freedom of expression, and hinders the growth and development of a strong and independent news media in Fiji.”
The proposed law will amend the MIDA Act by removing the punitive clauses on content regulation that threatens journalists with heavy fines and jail terms.
“The bill is not intended as a complete reform of Fiji’s media law landscape,” according to the explanations provided by the government.
No need for government involvement
But the six-page proposed regulation is not what the media industry needs, according to the University of the South Pacific’s head of journalism programme Associate Professor Shailendra Singh.
“We have argued there is no need for legislation,” he said during the public consultation on the bill last Thursday.
“The existing laws are sufficient but if there has to be a legislation there should be minimum or no government involvement at all,” he said.
The Fijian Media Association (FMA) has also expressed strong opposition against the bill and is calling for the MIDA Act to be repealed.
“If there is a need for another legislation, then government can convene fresh consultation with stakeholders if these issues are not adequately addressed in other current legislation,” the FMA, which represents almost 150 working journalists in Fiji, stated.
Speaking on behalf of his colleagues, FMA executive member and Communications Fiji Limited news director Vijay Narayan said “we want a total repeal” of the Media Act.
“We believe that it was brought about without consultation at all…it was shoved down our throats,” Narayan said.
“We have worked with it for 16 years. We have been staring at the pointy end of the spear and we continue to work hard to build our industry despite the challenges we face.”
‘Restrictions stunts growth’
He said the Fiji’s media industry “needs investment” to improve its standards.
Narayan said the FMA acknowledged that the issue of content regulation was addressed in the new law.
But “with the restrictions in investment that also stunts our growth as media workers,” he added.
“The fact that it will be controlled by politicians there is a real fear. What if we have reporting on something and the politician feels that the organisation that is registered should be reregistered.”
The FMA has also raised concerns about the provisions in relation to cross-media ownership and foreign ownership as key issues that impacts on media development and creates an unequal playing field.
Sections 38 and 39 of the Media Act impose restrictions on foreign ownership on local local media organisations and cross-media ownership.
According to a recent analysis of the Act co-authored by Dr Singh, they are a major impediment to media development and need to be re-examined.
“It would be prudent to review the media ownership situation and reforms periodically, every four-five years, to gauge the impact, and address any issues, that may have arisen,” the report recommends.
But Suva lawyer and coalition government adviser Richard Naidu is of the view that all issues in respect to the news media should be opened up.
Naidu, who has helped draft the proposed new legislation, said it “has preserved the status quo” and the rules of cross-ownership and foreign media ownership were left as they were in the Media Act.
“Is that right? That is a question of opinion…because before the [MIDA Act] there were no rules on cross-media ownership, there were no rules on foreign media ownership.”
Naidu said the MIDA Act was initially introduced as a bill and media had two hours to to offer its views on it before its implementation.
“So, which status quo ought to be preserved; the one before the [MIDA Act] was imposed or the one as it stands right now. Those are legitimate questions.”
“There is a whole range of things which need to be reviewed and which will probably take a bit of time.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Twelve-year sentences for the women condemned as president’s ‘revenge’ while UN report accuses country of possible crimes against humanity
Belarus has handed long jail terms to senior staff at the country’s largest independent news site, which was forced to close after historic demonstrations against strongman Alexander Lukashenko over two years ago.
The verdicts are the latest in a crackdown on journalists, opposition figures and activists who challenged Lukashenko’s claim that he won a sixth presidential term in 2020.