On 19 October, Robinson spoke at the National Press Club in Canberra. She was blunt in her assessment of Assange’s health, saying “I don’t know how much longer he can last”. Indeed, on 12 December 2021, it was reported that Assange had suffered a Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA), also sometimes referred to as a mini-stroke. A TIA can often indicate the likelihood of a follow-up major stroke.
Julian’s wife Stella waits anxiously for the phone call she dreads. As she has said, Julian is suffering profoundly in prison – and it is no exaggeration to say he may not survive it.
She described what was happening to him as:
Punishment by legal process. Bury[ing] him in never-ending legal process until he dies
Appeals
Robinson also brought up the matter of the appeals process:
We have filed an appeal and we should learn soon whether the High Court will grant permission and hear it.
If it does, we can expect a process that could take years – through the High Court, and to the UK Supreme Court. If we lose, we will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] – that is, if the conservative British government doesn’t remove its jurisdiction before we are able to.
Indeed, the Tory government with Boris Johnson as prime minister considered making it easier for the UK to override ECHR rulings. And the next Tory administration could continue to push that policy.
Julian will be extradited to the US – where his prison conditions will be at the whim of the intelligence agencies which plotted to kill him. He will face an unfair trial and once convicted, it could take years before a First Amendment constitutional challenge would be heard before the US Supreme Court.
Another decade of his life gone – if he can survive that long.
Legal milestones
During the course of her speech, Robinson noted some of the recent legal milestones leading to the present day. For example:
In May 2020 the Canary published details of the notorious Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) that Assange would likely be subject to if extradited to the US.
In January 2021, the judge ruled that Assange’s extradition was disallowed on health grounds and the risk that he could take his own life.
However in December 2021 the US appealed that decision, offering an ‘assurance’ that, according to Robinson, US authorities would not “place him under SAMs unless they decide he later deserves it”. The magistrate then ruled that the extradition could go ahead after all, once the home secretary approves it.
In June 2022, then UK home secretary Priti Patel agreed that Assange could be extradited.
Robinson also summarised some of the other developments surrounding the case:
UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer concluded in 2019 that Assange had been subjected to “torture”.
In 2017, US congressman Dana Rohrabacher met with the WikiLeaks founder in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, to offer him a deal. Robinson was present at the meeting. Rohrabacher wanted Assange to provide evidence that Russia did not hack the Democratic National Committee emails. At the time, president Donald Trump was under investigation as part of the Mueller inquiry into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. Rohrabacher told Assange that if he agreed to provide the evidence, Trump would arrange a pardon or protection against extradition. But Assange was not prepared to name the source of the leak. An indictment followed.
Meanwhile, in October 2021 news emerged that the CIA planned to kidnap and kill Assange in London.
Of the 18 charges listed against Assange, one is simply about measures taken by any journalist to protect a source – in this instance Chelsea Manning. The other charges merely relate to receiving and publishing of information and so violate a journalist’s freedom of expression.
She told ABC that an urgent political solution is needed:
This case needs an urgent political fix. Julian does not have another decade of his life to wait for a legal fix
She added:
And it might be surprising to hear that from me, as a lawyer, that the solution is not a legal one. It is a political one.
On 17 October, more than 300 doctors sent a letter to then home secretary Suella Braverman and US attorney general Merrick Garland requesting that Assange be freed:
As Covid & isolation add to dire health concerns, we 300+ doctors implore the US & UK to release #JulianAssange now.
It is a travesty that a remand prisoner never convicted of a crime is languishing in Britain’s most notorious high security prison, when he shouldn’t have been imprisoned in the first place. The critical nature of Mr. Assange’s physical and psychological health underscores the need for his immediate release from prison.
The fear is that by stringing the legal process out over years, if not decades, Assange will not survive.
And those implicated in allowing such a tragedy would be party to nothing less than judicial murder.
FijiFirst party general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum claims they are fighting The Fiji Times and Communications Fiji Ltd — not political parties — in the lead up to the 2022 general election.
He said this while taking a swipe at The Times during a news conference this week at the FijiFirst party headquarters in Suva.
Sayed-Khaiyum claimed the two media organisations were “always parroting” the People’s Alliance and the National Federation Party “without checking the facts”.
“We are not fighting other political parties, we are fighting two mainstream media organisations — Fiji Times and CFL,” he said.
“The Fijian public know that. This is why we have our live Facebook when we have conferences, because we don’t expect these people to do any justification in terms of what we are saying.
“I urge you if you are serious about your profession and the organisation you work for, are independent, not just say ‘independent’.
“The saying goes [that] the proof is in the eating of the pudding.
Another attack on The Fiji Times by the Attorney-General . . . editor-in-chief Fred Wesley says “we’re doing our job”. Image: FT screenshot APR
“We have a seen a continuous propagation by Fiji Times and by CFL, simply parroting whatever the PAP and NFP says without checking the facts; we have a very sad state of affairs today.”
Sayed-Khaiyum cited as an example that when NFP reported the FijiFirst party to the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption about placing a banner on the Civic Car Park, The Fiji Times continued to publish commentary from NFP general secretary Seni Nabou.
“They have absolutely no idea of what due process means, they have absolutely no idea, neither Fiji Times nor does CFL have any idea what an independent process means.
“They throw these words around, bending these words around, yet not understanding what [they] mean.”
Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley … “We are not here to make the government look good. We offer a platform for every party to voice their opinions.” Image: The Fiji Times
Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley responded that The Fiji Times was being attacked — “as usual” — for doing its job.
“We strive for fair and balanced coverage of the news, especially now as political parties go into election mode,” he said.
“Understandably the pressure is on the government to respond to statements by opposition parties. We offer them a platform to clarify issues and to make statements.
We refer all opposition party criticism to the government for comment. The government rarely, if ever, replies.
“We are not here to make the government look good. We offer a platform for every party to voice their opinions. Some choose to use it and some do not.”
Arieta Vakasukawaqais a Fiji Times reporter. Published with permission.
New Zealand journalist and academic David Robie has covered the Asia-Pacific region for international media for more than four decades.
An advocate for media freedom in the Pacific region, he is the author of several books on South Pacific media and politics, including an account of the French bombing of the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour in 1985 — which took place while he was on the last voyage.
In 1994 he founded the journal Pacific Journalism Review examining media issues and communication in the South Pacific, Asia-Pacific, Australia and New Zealand.
The Mediasia “conversation” on Asia-Pacific issues in Kyoto, Japan. Image: Iafor screenshot APR
He was also convenor of the Pacific Media Watch media freedom collective, which collaborates with Reporters Without Borders in Paris, France.
Until he retired at Auckland University of Technology in 2020 as that university’s first professor in journalism and founder of the Pacific Media Centre, Dr Robie organised many student projects in the South Pacific such as the Bearing Witness climate action programme.
In this interview conducted by Mediasia organising committee member Dr Nasya Bahfen of La Trobe University for this week’s 13th International Asian Conference on Media, Communication and Film that ended today in Kyoto, Japan, Professor Robie discusses a surge of disinformation and the challenges it posed for journalists in the region as they covered the covid-19 pandemic alongside a parallel “infodemic” of fake news and hoaxes.
He also explores the global climate emergency and the disproportionate impact it is having on the Asia-Pacific.
Paying a tribute to Pacific to the dedication and courage of Pacific journalists, he says with a chuckle: “All Pacific journalists are climate journalists — they live with it every day.”
Challenges facing the Asia-Pacific media . . . La Trobe University’s Dr Nasya Bahfen and Asia Pacific Report’s Dr David Robie in conversation. Image: Iafor screenshot APR
Philippine police have announced the arrest of a suspect in the killing of a radio journalist who was known for criticising President Ferdinand Marcos Jr and his immediate predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte.
The suspect, identified as Joel Estorial, 39, gave himself up to the Philippine National Police (PNP) and Interior Secretary Benjamin Abalos and was charged with murder two weeks after seasoned radio broadcaster Percival Mabasa (also known as Percy Lapid) was gunned down in a suburb south of Manila, officials said.
Estorial surrendered “out of fear for personal safety following public disclosure of … CCTV footage revealing his face during the incident and naming him as [a] primary person of interest,” according to a statement from Abalos’ office.
“This is a major breakthrough. He made an extra-judicial confession, duly assisted by counsel,” Abalos said, adding that the suspect had named three other accomplices who were subjects of “intensive follow-up operations”.
The gun used to shoot Mabasa was recovered and “positively linked to the crime scene” by the police forensics laboratory, according to the national police.
Estoral confessed that five others had allegedly participated in the planning and killing of the broadcaster, but he only managed to identify three.
Mabasa, who worked for DWBL radio station, was ambushed on October 3 as he drove his car toward a gated community in Las Pinas, a suburb in southern metro Manila. He was the latest in a long line of killings targeting members of the Philippine media.
Motive remains unknown
However, the motive for his murder remains unknown. Abalos did not answer reporters when they asked him about this on Tuesday.
“Just give us a few more days. We have to get the mastermind, that’s very important. The investigation is ongoing right now, there are many more details. Let’s not jeopardise them,” he said.
The suspect in custody was presented at the press briefing, where he spoke to reporters.
Someone from inside the country’s main prison facility, whom Estoral did not identify, had ordered a hit on Mabasa, he said. He identified two brothers and a third man as fellow accomplices in the attack.
“I was afraid and conscience-struck for the killing of Percy Lapid,” said a handcuffed Estorial, who wore a helmet and bullet-proof vest.
“Our arrangement was for whoever got closest to Percy would be the one to fire the fatal shot, and I was in that position. I was threatened with death if I didn’t shoot Percy at that moment, so I did,” Estorial said.
The team was paid 550,000 pesos (US$9300) for the hit, he told reporters.
“I hope the family forgives me. I did not want to do it, I was just forced to do so,” he said.
Family thank police
Mabasa’s family issued a statement Tuesday thanking the police and saying they hoped his killing would not become just another statistic among murders of Filipino journalists dating back decades.
“We hope this development leads to the identification, arrest and prosecution of the mastermind,” the family said.
Filipino activists light candles in memory of killed radio journalist Percival Mabasa (also known as Percy Lapid) during a demonstration in Quezon City, Metro Manila, Oct. 4, 2022. [Basilio Sepe/BenarNews]
The Southeast Asian nation ranks among the most dangerous countries for journalists worldwide. Dozens have been killed with impunity since the dictatorship of Marcos’ late father, Ferdinand E. Marcos, more than 36 years ago.
Mabasa’s commentaries were often bold and sharp as he sought to counter fake news spread on air as well as on social media. He had also hit out against a perceived attempt by supporters of the Marcos family to distort history and had been bitingly critical of the war on drugs by Marcos’ predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, which left thousands dead. During his six years in office, Duterte had said journalists were fair game if they were corrupt.
The Duterte administration worked to close down broadcaster ABS-CBN Corp. and convict Maria Ressa, the chief executive of the news website Rappler who was later named a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, on cyber libel charges.
Jeoffrey Maitem and Mark Navales in Cotabato City, southern Philippines, and Basilio Sepe in Manila contributed to this report.
The #HoldTheLine Coalition has urged President Marcos of the Philippines to end persecution of journalists and independent media by dropping all charges against Nobel Peace Prize co-laureate Maria Ressa and her co-accused.
This week, the Philippine Court of Appeals rejected Ressa’s motion for a reconsideration of her 2020 conviction on a trumped-up charge of criminal cyber libel.
This means that after a two-year struggle to overturn her conviction, all that stands between Ressa’s freedom and a lengthy prison sentence is a final appeal to the Supreme Court, and the government’s political will.
“We call on President Marcos to show the world that he rejects the Duterte-era persecution and prosecution of journalists and independent media by immediately withdrawing all charges and cases against Ressa, her co-accused, and her Manila-based news outlet Rappler,” the #HoldTheLine Coalition steering committee said on behalf of more than 80 international organisations — including Reporters Without Borders — joining forces to defend Ressa and support independent media in the Philippines.
“President Marcos should begin by ending his government’s opposition to Ressa’s appeal against her conviction on spurious criminal cyber libel charges, which were pursued and prosecuted by the State despite the Philippine Supreme Court’s warning that the country’s criminalisation of libel is ‘doubtful’.”
There have been 23 individual cases opened by the state against Maria Ressa, Rappler and its employees since 2018.
The criminal cyber libel case is one of seven ongoing cases implicating Ressa. If she is successfully prosecuted in all cases, she theoretically faces up to 100 years in jail.
Ressa now has just two weeks to file a final appeal to the Philippine Supreme Court, which could then swiftly issue a written verdict, resulting in the enforcement of her prison sentence.
— Julie Posetti (ICFJ), Rebecca Vincent (RSF), and Gypsy Guillén Kaiser (CPJ) on behalf of the #HoldTheLine Coalition.
The #HTL Coalition comprises more than 80 organisations around the world. This statement is issued by the #HoldTheLine Steering Committee, but it does not necessarily reflect the position of all or any individual Coalition members or organisations. Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.
A human rights advocate appealed tonight for people in Aotearoa New Zealand to take personal responsibility in the fight against disinformation and to upskill their critical thinking skills.
Anjum Rahman, project lead of the Inclusive Aotearoa Collective Tāhono, said this meant taking responsibility for verifying the accuracy and source of information before passing it on and not fuelling hate and misunderstanding.
“Our democracy is very fragile,” she warned while delivering the annual David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022 with the theme “Protecting Democracy in an Online World” at Parnell’s Jubilee Building.
She said communities were facing challenging and rapidly changing times with climate change, conflicts, inflation and the ongoing pandemic.
“If our democracy fails, all those other things fail as well,” she said.
“And for those of us who are more vulnerable it is a matter of life and death.
“Who most stand to lose their freedom if democracy fails? Who will be on the frontline to be exterminated?”
Rahman is co-chair of the Christchurch Call Advisory Network and a member of the Independent Advisory Committee of the Global Internet Forum for Countering Terrorism.
Argued strongly for diversity
As an advocate, she has argued strongly for many years in support of diversity and inclusion and in 2019 was made a member of the New Zealand Order of Merit.
On the third anniversary of the 15 March 2019 mosque massacre, she wrote in a column for The SpinOff that “we don’t need any more empty platitudes of sorrow . . . we need firm action and strong resolve. Across the board.”
The David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022. Video: Billy Hania
The recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry were more critical now than ever, and absolutely urgent, she wrote.
“In a world that feels chaotic, with war, rising prices, anger and hate expressed in protests across the world, our hearts seek a certainty that isn’t there.
“We need more urgency, and in many areas. I’m still disappointed with the Counter-Terrorism legislation passed last year, granting greater powers without evidence of any benefit. Hate speech legislation has been delayed, and we await a full review and overhaul of the national security system.”
A founding member of the Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand, Rahman gave a wide-ranging address tonight on the online challenges for democracy, and answered a host of questions from the audience of about 100.
“I’m really worried about trolls,” said one. “They affect government, they influence voters, they have an impact on all sorts of decision making – what can be done about it?”
Rahman replied that it was very difficult question – “I wish there was a simple answer.”
The audience at tonight’s Pax Christi-hosted David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022 at Parnell’s Jubilee Building. Image: David Robie/APR
Removing troll incentives
She said there needed to be more education and greater awareness of the activities of trolls and the sort of social media platforms they operated on.
One problem was that the more attention paid trolls got, it often meant the more money they were getting.
A challenge was to remove the incentive being given to them.
Award-winning cartoonist Malcolm Evans asked Rahman what her response was to the global situation “right now” with the invasion of Ukraine where people were “under intense pressure to vilify the Russians . . . treating them as ‘evil’.”
He added that “we live in a time that is probably the most dangerous that I have experienced in my lifetime … we are facing an Armageddon and I blame the media for that.
“It’s a disgrace.”
This led to a discussion by Pax Christi Aotearoa’s Janfrie Wakim about how Evans lost his job as a cartoonist on The New Zealand Herald in 2003 for “naming Israeli apartheid” over the repression of Palestinians to the loud applause of the audience.
‘Quality journalism’ paywalls
In a discussion about media, Rahman said she was disturbed by the failures of the media business model that meant increasingly “quality journalism” was being placed behind paywalls while the public that could not afford paywalls were being served “poor quality” information.
Introducing Anjum Rahman, Pax Christi’s Susan Healy said how “especially delighted the Wakim whanau were” that she had agreed to give the lecture.
David Wakim was the inaugural president of Pax Christi Aotearoa, an independent section of Pax Christi International, a Catholic organisation founded in France at the end of World War Two committed to working “to transform a world shaken by violence, terrorism, deepening inequalities, and global insecurity”.
Growing up in a Sydney Catholic family, Wakim was an advocate of interfaith dialogue. His travels in Muslim countries strengthened his links with the three faiths of Abraham – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
He helped establish the Council of Christians and Muslims in Auckland, but was especially committed to Palestinian rights.
Wakim died in 2005 and the annual lecture honours his and Pax Christi’s mahi for Tiriti o Waitangi, interfaith dialogue, peace education, human rights and restorative justice.
Anjum Rahman addressing the Pax Christi-hosted David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022 tonight. Image: Billy Hania video screenshot/APR
The Philippines Court of Appeals has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former Rappler researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. over their cyber libel case.
In a 16-page decision dated October 10, the court’s fourth division denied the appeal.
Associate Justices Roberto Quiroz, Ramon Bato Jr., and Germano Francisco Legaspi signed the ruling. They were the same justices who signed the court decision, which earlier affirmed the conviction of Ressa and Santos.
According to the court, the arguments raised by Ressa and Santos were already resolved.
“A careful and meticulous review of the motion for reconsideration reveals that the matters raised by the accused-appellants had already been exhaustively resolved and discussed in the assailed Decision,” the court said.
The court also claimed Ressa’s and Santos’ conviction is not meant to curtail freedom of speech.
“In conclusion, it [is] worthy and relevant to point out that the conviction of the accused-appellants for the crime of cyberlibel punishable under the Cybercrime Law is not geared towards the curtailment of the freedom of speech, or to produce an unseemingly chilling effect on the users of cyberspace that would possibly hinder free speech.”
‘Safeguard’ for free speech
On the contrary, the court said, the purpose of the law is to “safeguard the right of free speech, and to curb, if not totally prevent, the reckless and unlawful use of the computer systems as a means of committing the traditional criminal offences…”
In a statement, Nobel Peace laureate Ressa said she was “disappointed” but not surprised by the ruling.
Rappler’s video report on YouTube.
“The ongoing campaign of harassment and intimidation against me and Rappler continues, and the Philippines legal system is not doing enough to stop it. I am disappointed by today’s ruling but sadly not surprised,” Ressa said.
“This is a reminder of the importance of independent journalism holding power to account. Despite these sustained attacks from all sides, we continue to focus on what we do best — journalism.”
Santos, in a separate statement, said he still believed that the rule of law would prevail.
“The [Appeal Court’s] decision to deny our motion is not surprising, but it’s disheartening nevertheless. As we elevate our case to the SC, our fight against intimidation and suppression of freedom continues. We still believe that the rule of law will prevail.”
Theodore “Ted” Te, Rappler’s lawyer and former Supreme Court spokesperson, said they would now ask the Supreme Court to review and reverse Ressa’s conviction.
“The CA decision denying the MFR [motion for reconsideration] is disappointing. It ignored basic principles of constitutional and criminal law as well as the evidence presented. Maria and Rey will elevate these issues to the SC and we will ask the SC to review the decision and to reverse the decision,” Te said in a statement.
The decision The Appeal Court also explained its findings on the arguments based on:
Applications of the provisions of cyber libel under the cybercrime law
Subject article should have been classified as qualifiedly privileged” in relation to Wilfredo Keng as a public figure
On the validity of the cybercrime law, the court cited a ruling which, according to them, decided the constitutionality of the law.
The court also reiterated that the story in question was republished. The court said the argument that ex-post facto was applied on the theory that the correction of one letter is too unsubstantial and cannot be considered a republication is “unavailing.”
“As settled, the determination of republication is not hinged on whether the corrections made therein were substantial or not, as what matters is that the very exact libelous article was again published on a later date,” the appeals court said.
On the increase of penalty, the CA said the argument that Wilberto Tolentino v. People has no doctrinal value and cannot be used as a binding precedent as it was “an unsigned resolution, is misplaced.”
That case said the “prescriptive period for the crime of cyber libel is 15 years.”
Traditional, online publications
The appeals court also highlighted the difference between traditional and online publications: “As it is, in the instance of libel through traditional publication, the libelous article is only released and circulated once – which is on the day when it was published.”
Such was not the case for an online publication, the court said, where “the commission of such offence is continuous since such article remains therein in perpetuity unless taken down from all online platforms where it was published…”
On the argument about Keng, the CA said it was insufficient to consider him a public figure: “As previously settled, the claim that Wilfredo Keng is a renowned businessman, who was connected to several companies, is insufficient to classify him as a public figure.”
The term “public figure” in relation to libel refers more to a celebrity, it said, citing the Ciriaco “Boy” Guingguing v. Honorable Court of Appeals decision. The decision said a public figure is “anyone who has arrived at a position where public attention is focused upon him as a person.”
It also cited the Supreme Court decision on Alfonso Yuchengco v. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation, et al., which resolved the argument whether a businessman can be considered a public figure. The court said that being a known businessman did not make Keng a public figure who had attained a position that gave the public “legitimate interest in his affairs and character.”
There was no proof, too, that “he voluntarily thrusted himself to the forefront of the particular public controversies that were raised in the defamatory article,” the CA added.
In 2020, Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 convicted Ressa and Santos over cyber libel charges filed by Keng. The case tested the 8-year-old Philippine cybercrime law.
The Manila court interpreted the cyber libel law as having a 12-year proscription period, as opposed to only a year. The lower court also decided that republication was a separate offence.
Aside from affirming the Manila court’s ruling, the CA also imposed a longer prison sentence on Ressa and Santos, originally set for six months and one day as minimum to six years as maximum.
The appeals court added eight months and 20 days to the maximum imprisonment penalty.
Jairo Bolledo is a Rappler journalist. Republished with permission.
Upon assuming the Philippines presidency on 30 June 2022, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr — the only son and namesake of the former dictator Ferdinand Marcos — delivered an inaugural address that did not mention press freedom.
Press freedom also went unmentioned when he delivered his first State of the Nation Address before the joint Senate and House of Representatives on 25 July 2022.
His silence on the issue was notable given that the former press secretary Trixie Cruz-Angeles, who stepped down on 4 October 2022 due to health reasons, had stressed that press freedom would be guaranteed under the Marcos Jr administration and that the administration would “work closely” with news media.
But as he pledged to protect press freedom on the campaign trail, certain journalists were pushed for getting too physically close to Marcos Jr.
It also remains to be seen whether his representatives will continue to evade critical questions during press briefings or if Marcos Jr will be more accommodating of interview requests. The normalisation of these practices would be a death knell for press freedom in the Philippines.
Media restrictions and abuse under Marcos Jr evoke memories of the Philippine media’s dark history under former Philippines president and dictator Ferdinand Marcos’ martial law from 1972–86.
The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility identifies five similarities between the Marcos regime in the 1970s and the current Marcos Jr administration.
Distribution of propaganda
These are the distribution of propaganda through government agencies and social media, the ABS–CBN shutdown, attacks and threats against journalists, crony press and media selectivity and propaganda films.
There are chilling similarities between the two administrations despite Marcos Jr’s promise that he would not declare martial law.
For the current administration, “working closely” with journalists means putting them in touch with pro-Marcos Jr vloggers, content creators and influencers. Cruz-Angeles is prioritising the accreditation of pro-regime reporters to cover official functions.
But her claim that accreditation is open to those of all political beliefs rings untrue as pro-Marcos Jr vloggers recently established a new group (upon the suggestion of Cruz-Angeles herself) to help gain government accreditation.
Celebrity vlogger Toni Gonzaga was granted a one-on-one interview with Marcos Jr at the Malacañang Palace in September 2022, showing how the administration accommodates those who ask soft questions. That reminds many Filipinos of Marcos Jr’s non-participation in most presidential debates and interviews during the campaign, opting to accommodate events organised by his supporters.
During the 2022 election campaign, there were times when his handlers did not invite critical journalists, asking those invited to submit questions in advance to control the flow of press briefings.
By accrediting pro-administration, hyper-partisan non-journalists, the Marcos Jr administration gives them legitimacy as “truth seekers” even if there is evidence they proliferate disinformation. It is also a strategy to discredit critical journalists for peddling “fake news”.
Critical journalists harassed
Critical journalists and media organisations are harassed and intimidated under the Marcos Jr administration, just as they were under the 2016–2020 Duterte administration. Disinformation remains rampant even after the 2022 elections.
Red-tagging — the blacklisting of journalists and media outlets critical of the government — has continued.
Shortly after Marcos Jr assumed the presidency, the Court of Appeals upheld the “cyber libel” convictions of Nobel Prize laureate Maria Ressa and former Rappler writer Reynaldo Santos Jr.
While these convictions appeared to carry over the selective harassment and intimidation of the vengeful Duterte administration, the chilling effect on the media is real. Those targeted become grim reminders of what can happen if journalists and news media organisations incur the ire of the powers that be.
The date 21 September 2022 marked the 50 years since martial law was imposed. Marcos Jr repeatedly claims martial law was necessary to tackle communist and separatist threats, dismissing accusations that his father was a dictator.
Even the funding for the planned memorial for Martial Law victims was cut by 75 percent in the 2023 National Expenditure Programme.
Marcos Jr intends to rewrite history textbooks to include his family’s version of the truth. By silencing his critics, he can further engage in historical denialism. This is important not just to erase his father’s dictator image but to escape his family’s legal problems like the unpaid estate tax and his mother’s conviction for seven counts of graft.
Media repression ‘normalised’
Media repression continues to be normalised under the Marcos Jr regime. One of his allies in the House of Representatives blocked the return of ABS–CBN, whose franchise bid was denied in 2020. Rappler and its editorial staff, including Ressa, continue to face legal problems as well as the threat of closure.
The National Telecommunications Commission blocked 27 websites accused of having communist links in June 2022. It took a court order for the online publication Bulatlat Multimedia to be unblocked, while journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio remains in detention on questionable charges after being red-tagged and subjected to death threats.
The murder of broadcaster Percy Lapid on 3 October 2022 — the second journalist to be killed under the new administration — also reflects the dire state of press freedom in the Philippines.
That Marcos Jr did not mention press freedom in his inaugural speech and first State of the Nation Address reflects his disregard for critical journalism.
Although it is still early days, his efforts to whitewash the dictatorship’s dark past and continue his predecessor’s media repression indicate that his pre-election promise of a “free press” is long abandoned.
Danilo Arana Arao is associate professor at the Department of Journalism, the University of the Philippines Diliman, special lecturer at the Department of Journalism, the Polytechnic University of the Philippines Santa Mesa, associate editor at Bulatlat Multimedia and editor at Media Asia. This article was first published in East Asia Forum.
Stella Assange just delivered a beatdown on one of her husband’s persecutors that was so scorched-earth demolishing I feel like I need a cigarette after watching it.
In an appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored, the wife of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange explained the threat her husband’s persecution poses to press freedoms around the world and the profound suffering his imprisonment has inflicted upon him. As some kind of bizarre counter-balance to the family of a persecuted journalist pleading for basic human rights, Morgan invited on John Bolton, the man who was the National Security Advisor to President Trump when Assange was imprisoned under a US arrest warrant. Which if you think about i is kind of like having a sex trafficking victim on your show and then bringing in Ghislaine Maxwell for a balanced perspective.
After Morgan introduced the segment and Assange laid out some facts of her husband’s plight, Bolton was given the floor to explain why persecuting a journalist for telling the truth is actually good and right. He went over the usual smearmeister talking points that Assange is not a journalist and endangered people around the world with his publications exposing US war crimes, adding that the possible 175-year sentence Assange stands to face if convicted under Espionage Act was inadequate, and that he hoped Assange “gets at least 176 years in jail for what he did.”
Stella responded by calling Bolton a war criminal, right to his bloodthirsty face.
“Well of course Ambassador Bolton is kind of the ideological nemesis of Julian,” Assange coolly replied. “He has during his time for the Bush administration, and later the Trump administration, sought to undermine the international legal system, ensure that the US is not under the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction. And if it was Mr Bolton might in fact be prosecuted under the ICC: he was one of the chief cheerleaders of the Iraq War, which Julian then exposed through these leaks. So he has a conflict of interest here.”
“Well that’s ridiculous!” Bolton said with a nervous laugh at the accusation. “I have an opinion, so does Assange’s wife; I guess we both get to speak them. You know I think that what she fears is being brought to the United States and having Assange put under trial. If he’s innocent, if she can at least show reasonable doubt that he’s not guilty, he’ll go free. What’s she worried about?”
Morgan interjected that the concern is likely the chance of a fair trial, to which Bolton responded with a demand that Stella herself say that she didn’t believe her husband could receive a fair trial in the United States.
“Let her say that Julian Assange could not get a fair trial in America; let her say it,” Bolton replied.
“Well he cannot get a fair trial in America, because he is being prosecuted under the Espionage Act and he cannot bring a public interest defense,” Assange replied. “He cannot say ‘I published this information because it was in the public interest,’ precisely because it is under the Espionage Act. And it is the first time that a publisher has ever been prosecuted under this act, something that constitutional lawyers in the United States have been warning could happen for the past 50 years. And The New York Times and The Washington Post say this prosecution strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.”
Bolton replied, on no apparent basis, that The New York Times and The Washington Post were wrong and that their position on the Assange case is “dangerous”, and babbled some nonsense about Assange being a “hacker who breaks and enters into secure information.”
“Not even the US alleges that,” Assange replied, entirely correctly.
Find something in life you love doing as much as John Bolton loves trying to start wars. pic.twitter.com/M7zsAyMcCC
Ahh man, that’s the stuff. It’s so annoying to see this actual war criminal invited on mainstream news networks time and time again to drum up support for increased military aggression in every conflict the US empire is involved in from day to day, without ever being challenged or called out for what he is. For someone to say on mainstream television that he’s a war criminal who just doesn’t want people holding him accountable or shining a light on his crimes is a rare treat for anyone who’s been watching this monster operate all these years.
This is the man who just 24 hours prior to this writing put out an article titled “Putin Must Go: Now Is The Time For Regime Change In Russia,” just the latest in this psychopath’s relentless campaign to start World War III at every possible opportunity. It’s just so freakish and bizarre that there are people whose actual job is to continually work toward creating as much death and destruction in the world as they can, and that they are elevated to the forefront of public attention by the most prominent platforms in the world.
This happens as Assange supporters prepare to demonstrate for his freedom on October 8th. In the UK a massive human chain to surround Parliament is scheduled for 1PM London time in a show of solidarity with the world’s most important journalist, and from 12PM to 3PM DC time there will be a demonstration at the US Department of Justice with appearances by some of the best humans in the world.
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, buying an issue of my monthly zine, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my American husband Tim Foley.
The Civicus Monitor has documented an uptick in restrictions on civic space by the Solomon Islands government, which led to the downgrading of the coiuntry’s rating to “narrowed” in December 2021.
As previously documented, there have been threats to ban Facebook in the country and attempts to vilify civil society.
The authorities have also restricted access to information, including requests from the media. During violent anti-government protests in November 2021, journalists on location were attacked with tear gas and rubber bullets from the police.
Elections are held on the Solomon Islands every four years and Parliament was due to be dissolved in May 2023.
However, the Solomon Islands is set to host the Pacific Games in November 2023, and Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare has sought to delay the dissolution of Parliament until December 2023, with an election to be held within four months of that date. The opposition leader has criticised this delay as a “power grab”.
There have also been growing concerns over press freedom and the influence of China, which signed a security deal with the Pacific island nation in April 2022.
Journalists face restrictions during Chinese visit In May 2022, journalists in the Solomons faced numerous restrictions while trying to report on the visit of China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi to the region.
According to reports, China’s foreign ministry refused to answer questions about the visit.
Journalists seeking to cover the Solomon Islands for international outlets said they were blocked from attending press events, while those journalists that were allowed access were restricted in asking questions.
Georgina Kekea, president of the Media Association of Solomon Islands (MASI), said getting information about Wang’s visit to the country, including an itinerary, had been very difficult.
She said there was only one press event scheduled in Honiara but only journalists from two Solomon Islands’ newspapers, the national broadcaster, and Chinese media were permitted to attend.
Covid-19 concerns were cited as the official reason for the limited number of journalists attending.
“MASI thrives on professional journalism and sees no reason for journalists to be discriminated against based on who they represent,” Kekea said.
“Giving credentials to selected journalists is a sign of favouritism. Journalists should be allowed to do their job without fear or favour.”
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) said that “restriction of journalists and media organisations … sets a worrying precedent for press freedom in the Pacific” and urged the government of the Solomon Islands to ensure press freedom is protected.
Government tightens state broadcaster control The government of the Solomon Islands is seeking tighter control over the nation’s state-owned broadcaster, a move that opponents say is aimed at controlling and censoring the news.
On 2 August 2022, the government ordered the country’s national broadcaster — the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation, known as SIBC – to self-censor its news and other paid programmes and only allow content that portrays the nation’s government in a positive light.
The government also said it would vet all stories before broadcasting.
The broadcaster, which broadcasts radio programmes, TV bulletins and online news, is the only way to receive immediate news for people in many remote areas of the country and plays a vital role in natural disaster management.
The move comes a month after the independence of the broadcaster was significantly undermined, namely when it lost its designation as a “state-owned enterprise” and instead became fully funded by government.
This has caused concerns that the government has been seeking to exert greater control over the broadcaster.
The IFJ said: “The censoring of the Solomon Island’s national broadcaster is an assault on press freedom and an unacceptable development for journalists, the public, and the democratic political process.
“The IFJ calls for the immediate reinstatement of independent broadcasting arrangements in the Solomon Islands”.
However, in an interview on August 8, the government seemed to back track on the decision and said that SIBC would retain editorial control.
It said that it only seeks to protect “our people from lies and misinformation […] propagated by the national broadcaster”.
Authorities threaten to ban foreign journalists The authorities have threatened to ban or deport foreign journalists deemed disrespectful of the country’s relationship with China.
According to IFJ, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement on August 24 which criticised foreign media for failing to follow standards expected of journalists writing and reporting on the situation in the Solomons Islands.
The government warned it would implement swift measures to prevent journalists who were not “respectful” or “courteous” from entering the country.
The statement specifically targeted a an August 1 episode of Four Corners, titled “Pacific Capture: How Chinese money is buying the Solomons”. The investigative documentary series by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) was accused of “misinformation and distribution of pre-conceived prejudicial information”.
IFJ condemned “this grave infringement on press freedom” and called on Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare to “ensure all journalists remain free to report on all affairs concerning the Solomon Islands”.
With only six days left for submissions to the select committee examining the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill, it is becoming clear this crucial piece of legislation has some significant shortcomings. These will need attention before it passes into law.
The eventual act of Parliament will officially merge Radio New Zealand (RNZ) and Television New Zealand (TVNZ) into a new non-profit, autonomous Crown entity.
Supporters, including Broadcasting Minister Willie Jackson, argue the new organisation will help strengthen public media. Others have expressed concerns about the new entity’s likely independence, given its reliance on government funding.
TVNZ chief executive Simon Power echoed those concerns earlier this week. He strongly criticised the bill’s current provisions for statutory and editorial independence:
I am not worried about that kind of influence from this government or the next government. I just think if the legislation is to endure it has to be robust enough to withstand different types of governments over time.
Power is right to warn against complacency about media freedom. While New Zealand still ranks highly in the World Press Freedom Index (11th out of 180 countries), there have been times in the past when governments have manipulated or directly censored local news media to suit their own political agendas.
In the current age of “fake news” and disinformation, we need to be especially vigilant. While there are good aspects to the proposed law, it fails to adequately deal with several pressing contemporary issues.
Trust in government and media As last year’s Sustaining Aotearoa as a Cohesive Society report highlighted, trust in government and media, and the social cohesion it creates, is a fragile thing. What can take decades to build can fragment if it isn’t nurtured.
Broadcasting and Media Minister Willie Jackson says the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill will strengthen public media. Image: The Conversation/Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images
According to some global measures, this trust is declining. New Zealand still ranks higher than the OECD average, but distrust is growing here.
The Auckland University of Technology’s Journalism, Media and Democracy (JMAD) research centre reports that people’s trust in the news they consume dropped by 10% between 2020 and 2022.
At the same time, the speed and reach of propaganda, misinformation and disinformation have increased dramatically, as witnessed during the covid pandemic.
Finally, journalism continues to be a dangerous profession. Over 1200 media professionals worldwide were killed for doing their jobs between 2006 and 2020. Online violence against women journalists in particular is on the rise.
What the new law needs Rebuilding trust in the public media starts with firmly enshrining their independence in law. The proposed charter promises the new entity will demonstrate editorial independence, impartiality and balance. This is a good start, but it is only one of 10 principles.
This key principle (and ways to measure it) should stand alone in the new law to create a bulwark against any rising fear that governments, either directly or by manipulating budgets and appointments, have undue influence.
The commitment to independence should also be reinforced by ensuring some seats on the proposed entity’s board are reserved for representatives of parliamentary opposition parties. Independent annual review of the entity’s independence and integrity should also be required.
Second, there needs to be a clearer commitment to integrity of information, beyond the existing standards of the news being reliable, accurate, comprehensive, balanced and impartial. Recognising the threat of misinformation and disinformation, and developing ways to counter it, should be a core part of the new entity’s remit.
As the bill stands, it is only part of four considerations related to one of several “objectives”.
And thirdly, the law must recognise the independence of journalists and the need to protect them. It’s something of an anomaly that a bill to protect journalists’ sources was put before Parliament (although subsequently withdrawn), while journalists themselves don’t enjoy similar protections.
The new public media entity could lead the way in lobbying on behalf of all journalists to ensure those protections, and the tools journalists require to be an effective Fourth Estate, are consistent with best international practice.
If the law in its final form reflects these fundamental principles, it will go a long way to allaying legitimate concerns about the future independence and integrity of public media in Aotearoa New Zealand.
On this week’s edition of The Watchdog podcast, Lowkey explores the growing movement to free Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and is joined by his father John Shipton, to do so. Imprisoned in Belmarsh high security prison in London since 2019, and before that confined to the Ecuadorian Embassy, Assange has spent a decade locked up. If extradited to the United States, he faces up to 175 years in prison.
Yet there are signs that his future might be brighter than his past. The global movement to free him, Shipton explains, is growing. In Australia, dozens of members of parliament have come together to lobby for Assange’s release. In the United Kingdom, 23 MPs from across the political spectrum have done the same.
Journalist Muhammad Asrul is awaiting word from Indonesia’s Supreme Court about whether he will spend further time behind bars for reporting on corruption issues. The decision will have a profound impact not only on his life but also on press freedom in Indonesia.
The country is at a turning point following its transition at the end of the 20th century from military dictatorship to democracy.
Many, including civil society and members of the judiciary, have sought to protect journalists — they see a free, functioning press as part of Indonesia’s future.
Others, however, are waging a battle against independent media and freedom of speech, through prosecutions like Asrul’s and through the impending passage of a criminal code that smacks of authoritarianism. With Indonesia’s two-decade-old democratic path in real jeopardy, the next several months will be decisive.
In 2019, Asrul penned a series of articles alleging corruption by a local political official. The same official filed a complaint with the police, who subsequently arrested and detained Asrul.
After spending more than a month in jail as the police conducted investigations, Asrul was prosecuted under the country’s draconian Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE Law), which criminalises the electronic transmission of information that defames or affronts.
At the end of 2021, a court found Asrul guilty and sentenced him to three months in prison.
Police bypassed Press Council
While this would be egregious enough on its own, in Asrul’s case the police chose to bypass Indonesia’s Press Council.
The Press Council is an independent government body tasked with protecting journalists in press-related disputes. The police are supposed to coordinate with the Press Council to determine whether a case should be funnelled into the criminal justice system or resolved through mediation or other solutions outside of the courts.
But the police did not give the council a chance to settle the complaint against Asrul, sidestepping this critical institution. Equally worrying, the court that convicted Asrul stated that the police have the power to override the Press Council in a range of situations, including where individuals offended by news articles go straight to the police instead of the council.
The Clooney Foundation for Justice’s TrialWatch initiative, where I work as a senior programme manager, monitored Asrul’s trial through its partner the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights.
This coming week, we will file an amicus brief requesting that the Supreme Court overturn Asrul’s conviction and ensure that the protections offered by Indonesia’s Press Council remain a reality for journalists throughout Indonesia.
TrialWatch monitors trials such as Asrul’s in more than 35 countries, seeking to overturn unjust convictions against journalists and marginalised individuals and to reform the laws used to target them.
The ITE Law is one such example. Since its enactment in 2008, the ITE Law has been a key tool in suppressing freedom of expression and press freedom in Indonesia, with prosecutions spiking in recent years.
81 people charged
During the first nine months of 2021, for example, at least 81 people were charged with violating the ITE Law, “most of them accused of defamation” — the provision under which Asrul was prosecuted. Those found guilty of defamation can face up to four years behind bars.
While the ITE Law has been a darling of government officials seeking to quash legitimate criticism, it has also been deployed by businesses and other powerful actors who simply do not like what someone has posted online.
TrialWatch recently monitored a trial in which a woman, Stella Monica, was prosecuted for Instagram complaints about acne treatment she received at a dermatology clinic. Monica was acquitted but the clinic aggressively pursued the case, subjecting her to almost two years of legal proceedings.
This playbook for stifling speech may soon receive a boost with the revision of Indonesia’s colonial-era criminal code. In many countries, the amendment of colonial laws has been a step forward, but Indonesia’s iteration is so regressive that when a draft was published in 2019 it triggered widespread protests.
Although the government withdrew the legislation following the protests, this year the new code was resurrected, retaining provisions from the 2019 version that endanger press freedom.
In addition to providing for a potential jail sentence of up to three years for perceived insults to the president and vice-president, the draft code criminalises the dissemination of “incomplete” news and so-called “fake news”.
Attempts to hide developments
Just how troubling these developments are is clear from the Indonesian government’s attempts to hide them. The Deputy Law and Human Rights Minister in charge of the revision process had previously pledged that the legislature would vote on the code by August 17, Indonesia’s Independence Day.
He also stated that the authorities would not share the draft text with either civil society or the public because of the risk of disorder. After an outcry, however, the government published the draft in July and promised further consultations, still leaving civil society with scant time to deliberate and engage the government if the vote indeed takes place in the next few months.
While passage of the code in its current form would be a triumph for government officials and corporate interests seeking to restrict critical speech, it would also be a victory for the increasingly powerful conservative Islamist parties on which President Joko Widodo has relied to maintain power.
The draft code falls squarely on the side of conservatives in Indonesia’s roiling cultural battles, threatening jail time for sex and co-habitation before marriage, which would also functionally criminalise LGBTQ+ relationships. Another provision swells the already expansive blasphemy law, extending it to criminalise comments made on social media.
Although the draft code reflects the reality that repressive forces are gaining ground, there is still hope that the authorities will side with those fighting for fundamental freedoms. The government has shown itself to be responsive not only to pressure from hardliners but also to pressure from pro-democracy forces.
The withdrawal of the code after the 2019 protests and the recent sharing of the draft text are good examples. In another recent example, after enduring intense criticism about overly broad enforcement of the ITE Law, President Widodo commissioned guidelines limiting its application — in particular against journalists.
The guidelines, which were introduced after Asrul’s case had already begun, explicitly state that in cases where a news outlet has published an article, then press regulations — not the ITE law — should apply. While enforcement has been shaky thus far, the guidelines demonstrate the power of public pressure and are an additional tool in the battle for press freedom.
Institutional safeguards
Other institutional safeguards are in place. Indonesia’s Press Council has a mandate that puts it on the same level as other government entities and gives it real power to protect journalists — hence the importance of Asrul’s case and the impending Supreme Court decision on the Council’s role.
To show how significant the Press Council is we need only hop across the ocean, where press freedom advocates in Malaysia have been fighting to establish a similar mechanism for years, recognising its potential to stop the harassment of independent media.
The courts are also making positive noises. In the face of campaigns by government officials, religious conservatives and businesses to clamp down on speech, some judges have ruled in favour of human rights protections — from the acquittal of Monica for her dermatological troubles to a recent high-profile acquittal in a blasphemy prosecution.
What this means is that unlike in countries where the decks are stacked, with the legislature, judiciary and press co-opted by authoritarian powers, all is not lost in Indonesia. Civil society has proven that it can mobilise and that institutional levers can be pulled.
But this upcoming period will be crucial. Buffeted by competing winds, the Indonesian government will decide whether to move forward with the current version of the new criminal code. Actors at the local level, like police and prosecutors, will decide whether to enforce — or not enforce — rights-positive guidelines and laws.
The judiciary will consider cases with wide-ranging consequences for press freedom and freedom of speech, like that of Muhammad Asrul. And even if the criminal code is passed, it awaits a barrage of constitutional challenges, putting the judiciary in the spotlight.
Through its TrialWatch initiative, the Clooney Foundation for Justice will continue to monitor these courtroom battles and advocate for those unjustly targeted in criminal prosecutions. With key decisions forthcoming, the fate of Asrul and many others hang in the balance.
Kyle Delbyck is senior programme manager at the Clooney Foundation for Justice’s TrialWatch initiative, where she coordinates trial observations and ensuing advocacy. Grace Hauser, TrialWatch legal fellow at the Clooney Foundation for Justice, contributed to this article. First published by Al Jazeera English, it is republished under a Creative Commons licence.
The Solomon Islands government has prompted anger by ordering the censorship of the national broadcaster.
The government of Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare has forbidden it from publishing material critical of the government, which will vet all stories before broadcast.
The Guardian reports that on Monday the government announced that the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC), a public service broadcaster established in 1976 by an Act of Parliament, would be brought under government control.
The broadcaster, which airs radio programmes, TV bulletins and online news, is the only way to receive immediate news for people in many remote areas of the country and plays a vital role in natural disaster management.
Staff at SIBC confirmed to media that as of Monday, all news and programmes would be vetted by a government representative before broadcast.
The development has prompted outrage and raised concerns about freedom of the press.
“It’s very sad that media has been curtailed, this means we are moving away from democratic principles,” said Julian Maka, the Premier for Makira/Ulawa province, and formerly the programmes manager and current affairs head at SIBC.
“It is not healthy for the country, especially for people in the rural areas who need to have balanced views available to them.”
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has also condemned the move.
“The censoring of the Solomon Islands’ national broadcaster is an assault on press freedom and an unacceptable development for journalists, the public, and the democratic political process. The IFJ calls for the immediate reinstatement of independent broadcasting arrangements in the Solomon Islands.”
The opposition leader, Matthew Wale, has requested a meeting with the executive of the Media Association of Solomon Islands (MASI) to discuss the situation.
The Guardian reports there have been growing concerns about press freedom in Solomon Islands, particularly in the wake of the signing of the controversial security deal with China in May.
During the marathon tour of the Pacific conducted by China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, Pacific journalists were not permitted to ask him questions and in some cases reported being blocked from events, having Chinese officials block their camera shots, and having media accreditation revoked for no reason.
At Wang’s first stop in Solomon Islands, MASI boycotted coverage of the visit because many journalists were blocked from attending his press conference. Covid-19 restrictions were cited as the reason.
Sogavare’s office was contacted by the newspaper for comment.
Mounting pressure on SIBC ‘disturbing’
In Auckland, Professor David Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report and convenor of Pacific Media Watch, described the mounting pressure on the public broadcaster Solomon islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) as “disturbing” and an “unprecedented attack” on the independence of public radio in the country.
“It is extremely disappointing to see the Prime Minister’s Office effectively gagging the most important news service in reaching remote rural areas,” he said.
It was also a damaging example to neighbouring Pacific countries trying to defend their media freedom traditions.
The Solomon Islands government has ordered the country’s national broadcaster to self-censor its news and other paid programmes and only allow content that portrays the nation’s government in a positive light.
Staff at Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) confirmed to the ABC that acting chairman of the board William Parairato met with them last Friday to outline the new requirements.
They include vetting news and talkback shows to ensure they did not “create disunity”.
Parairato had earlier attended a meeting with the Prime Minister’s office, the SIBC journalists said.
Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare has become increasingly critical of the public broadcaster, accusing SIBC of publishing stories that have not been verified or balanced with government responses.
The government defended the reclassification, saying it had a duty to protect its citizens from “lies and misinformation”.
It is unclear whether SIBC — which plays a vital role as a government watchdog — will be able to publish any news or statements from the opposition under the new regime.
Critics are concerned the new rules resemble media policies adopted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and could essentially make SIBC a mouthpiece for the government.
The ABC Four Corners investigative journalism report on China and the Solomon Islands this week.
“It really doesn’t come as a surprise,” she told the ABC.
“This is one of the things which we are fearful of for the past month or so now.
“We’ve been vocal on this issue, especially when it comes to freedom of the press and media doing its expected role.”
Solomon Islands’ Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare shaking hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping … local reporters say the government has become less inclined to answer media questions since the country signed a security pact with China. Image: Yao Dawei/Xinhua via Getty/ABC
What impact will it have? Honiara-based Melanesian News Network editor Dorothy Wickham said it was unclear how the development would play out.
Dorothy Wickham says she is not surprised by the move, given the government’s ongoing criticism of the media.
“We haven’t seen this happen before,” she said.
Journalist Dorothy Wickham … she isn’t surprised by the SIBC move, given the government’s ongoing criticism of the media. Image: ABC Pacific Beat
“If the opposition gets on SIBC and starts criticising government policies, which every opposition does … would the government disallow SIBC to air that story or that interview? That is the question that we’re asking.”
Officials have denied taking full control of SIBC’s editorial policy, saying it just wants the broadcaster to be more responsible because it is a government entity.
But University of South Pacific journalism associate professor Shailendra Singh said the government’s intentions were clear.
“There seems to be no doubt that the government is determined to take control of the national broadcaster, editorially and financially,” he told ABC’s The World.
“I don’t think there’s any way the government can be stopped.
“This latest move by the government, what it has done with the SIBC, is bring it closer to media in a communist system than in a democracy.”
Wickham said the media did not have issues with governments in the past, adding that since the security pact had been signed with China, the government had been making life harder for the press.
“I don’t think this government actually restricts us, I think it’s controlling their information more than they used to,” Wickham told ABC’s The World.
“The government has been concerned that the negativity expressed by a lot of Solomon Islanders is affecting how the government is trying to roll out its policies.”
When China’s foreign minister toured the country in May, Solomon Islands local media boycotted a press conference because they were collectively only allowed to ask one question — to their own Foreign Minister.
They also struggled to get information about the timing of the visit and agreements being signed between the two countries.
Instead, his minders escorted him to a nearby vehicle, with police blocking reporters from getting close to the Prime Minister.
Dr Singh warned that the country’s democracy would suffer as a result of less media freedom.
“Media is the last line of defence, so if the media are captured, who will sound the alarm? It’s happening right before our eyes. It’s a major, major concern,” he said.
Solomon Islands police blocking the ABC from speaking to Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare. Image: Adilah Dolaiano/ABC News
‘A wake-up call’
Kekea said SIBC staff should be able to do their job freely without fear and intimidation.
But the best thing the media can do is uphold the principles of journalism, stressing that “we must do our jobs properly”.
“It’s a wake-up call for SIBC to really look at how they have gone over the years, how they format their programs, the quality control they have in place,” Kekea said.
“It’s really a wake up call for every one of us.”
She said the media landscape had changed over the years and standards had been dropping, but the government also needed to respect the role of journalist and be more open to requests for information.
The Prime Minister had repeatedly said he was available for questions and calls, but local media complained they were continuously left unanswered, she said.
“They do not have the courtesy to respond to our emails. Even if we want to have an exclusive it gets rejected,” Kekea said.
“So it’s time governments should also walk the talk when it comes to responding to the media when they ask questions.”
The ABC has contacted Solomon Islands’ Prime Minister’s office and SIBC for comment.
YouTube Reporter Dorothy Wickham tells The World it’s still unclear what this means for the public broadcaster.
Annika Burgess is a reporter for ABC Pacific Beat.Republished with the permission of Pacific Beat.
Reporter Dorothy Wickham tells The World it is still unclear what the SIBC move means for the public broadcaster.
In a deeply Catholic country, accusations that an American priest abused dozens of children at an orphanage stunned many in East Timor.
So when independent journalist Raimundos Oki heard that a group of girls planned to sue authorities, claiming they had been subjected to unnecessary virginity tests as part of the criminal case, he knew he had to hear their story.
Oki published interviews with the girls on his news website, Oekusi Post, ahead of the trial of Richard Daschbach. The then 84-year-old American priest was jailed in December for 12 years for child abuse.
But now Oki is under investigation himself, on accusations that he breached judicial secrecy.
The case is unexpected in East Timor. Also known as Timor-Leste, the country has one of the better records globally for press freedom.
Groups including Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and Human Rights Watch, however, note that the risk of legal proceedings and a media law with vague provisions that journalists “promote public interest and democratic order” could encourage self-censorship on some subjects, including accusations of abuse in the Catholic Church.
Call from police Oki learned that he was under investigation when police called on June 29, ordering the journalist to report to a police station in Dili, the capital, the following day.
At the station, police informed Oki that the public prosecutor’s office had ordered an investigation into the journalist for allegedly “violating the secrets of the legal system.”
The investigation is connected to the reports Oki published in 2020 about a planned lawsuit against authorities. In it, the claimants alleged authorities subjected them to virginity tests while investigating claims of abuse against the priest.
Oekusi Post editor Raimundos Oki … exposed a controversy over illegal state virginity tests on young girls. Image: VOA
In their lawsuit and in interviews with Oki, the claimants said they had told authorities they were not among the minors abused by the priest, but that authorities still forced them to undergo the invasive procedure.
“They wanted to share what they went through with the public,” Oki said. “As a journalist, it is my duty to share their stories with the world.”
At the time that his articles were published, the priest was still on trial. Oki said a police officer told him the judicial secrecy accusation was linked to Daschbach’s trial.
Authorities have not responded publicly to the lawsuit, which was filed in July 2021.
The public prosecutor’s office in Dili didn’t respond to VOA’s request for comment.
If convicted, Oki could face up to six years in prison.
‘Public interest’ Both the journalist and his lawyer, Miguel Faria — who also defended Daschbach in his trial — deny that Oki breached judicial secrecy, citing public interest as a justification for publishing the interviews.
“Cases of forced virginity tests are considered public interest, and it is very important for the public to know what happened to these victims,” Faria said.
The lawyer said that in this case, “the victims speak firsthand about their experiences”.
Judicial secrecy laws are often enforced to ensure the right to a fair trial or to prevent the risk of a jury being influenced by reporting. UNICEF and others also have guidelines for coverage of child abuse and trials to prevent minors being identified or retraumatised.
Rick Edmonds, a media analyst at the Florida-based Poynter Institute for Media Studies, said that in some countries, interviewing witnesses during or even shortly before a trial takes place can jeopardise the trial or provide grounds for appeal if the jury was not entirely sequestered.
Daniel Bastard, Asia-Pacific director at RSF, said that prosecutors should consider some legal arguments, including that the girls’ testimonies were published during Daschbach’s trial.
But, he said, “from a press freedom point of view, we need to look at the bigger picture on this issue and think about the public interest.
“I think the very key in this case is the idea of public interest. In a functional democracy, there can be some debate between the necessity of judicial secrecy and the need for the public to know exactly what is at stake,” Bastard told VOA.
Showing the suffering Oki said his objective was to show the suffering the girls went through. At the time, he said, the media focus was the trial of the priest and not the experiences of minors, who say they went through unnecessary procedures while the case was investigated.
“Forced virginity test is a violation of basic human rights,” he said. “This practice is against every international norm of human rights.”
The reporter said authorities didn’t need to carry out such tests to build a case against the former priest.
The United Nations has called for so-called virginity tests to be banned, saying the procedure is both unscientific and “a violation of human rights.”
Parker Novak, a Washington-based expert on East Timor, believes Oki’s case is controversial because it touches on the role of the church in the Timorese society.
“There is a reluctance in the Timorese media, in the Timorese society, to report critically on influential institutions and leaders,” he told VOA.
The Catholic Church is arguably the most influential institution in the Timorese society, he said.
“So certainly, any reporting that can be perceived as critical of the church, even if that reporting is wholly justified, whereas this case probably was, it’s still seen as taboo within the Timorese society, and that’s what causes controversy,” Novak added.
Closed trial East Timor is said to contain the highest percentage of Catholics outside Vatican City, and the priest, Daschbach, was a revered figure in the community who had the support of former President Xanana Gusmao, who attended the sentencing.
The Associated Press reported that Daschbach’s trial was closed to the public and that some witnesses complained of being threatened.
A US federal grand jury in Washington later indicted the priest for illicit sexual contact in a foreign place and wire fraud.
Oki has faced legal action previously for his reporting. In 2017, the journalist was accused of criminal defamation over a 2015 article published in the Timor Post about then-Prime Minister Rui Maria de Araujo.
Charges in that case were later dropped, but Oki believes the case against him this time is more complicated.
“If they want to politicise it, then I believe they will imprison me,” Oki said.
“However, if they look at the story, which was published last year along with several videos, they will see that there is no wrongdoing.”
ANALYSIS: The restrictions on Pacific news media during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent Pacific trip are only the most recent example of a media sector under siege, writes Shailendra Singh.
For the Pacific news media sector, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent eight-nation South Pacific tour may be over, but it should not be forgotten. The minister and his 20-member “high-level” delegation’s refusal to take local journalists’ questions opened a veritable can of worms that will resonate in Pacific media circles for a while.
However, Wang’s sulky silence should not be seen as isolated incident but embedded in deeper problems in media freedom and development for the Pacific.
Besides dealing with their own often hostile national governments and manoeuvring through ever-more restrictive legislation, Pacific media is increasingly having to contend with pressure from foreign elements as well.
China is the most prominent in this regard, as underscored by Wang’s visit, but there have been other incidents of journalist obstruction involving countries like Indonesia as well.
What is particularly appalling is how some Pacific governments seem to have cooperated with foreign delegations to stop their national media from asking legitimate questions.
Fijian journalist Lice Mavono’s account of the extent to which local Fijian officials went to limit journalists’ ability to cover Wang’s visit is highly troubling. In scenes rarely seen before, Wang and Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s joint press conference was apparently managed by Chinese officials, even though it was on Fijian soil.
When some journalists defied instructions and yelled out their unapproved questions, a Chinese official shouted back at them to stop. One journalist was ordered to leave the room with a minder attempting to escort him out, but fellow journalists intervened.
Journalists obstructed
Similar behaviour was witnessed at the Pacific Islands Forum-hosted meeting between Wang and forum Secretary-General Henry Puna, where Chinese officials continued to obstruct journalists even after forum officials intervened on the journalists’ behalf.
The Chinese officials’ determined efforts indicated that they came well prepared to thwart the media. It also conveyed their disrespect for the premier regional organisation in the Pacific, to the point of defying forum officials’ directives.
However, what should be most concerning for the region as a whole is the way this episode exposed the apparent ability of Chinese officials to influence, dominate, and even give instructions to local officials.
This is all the more disturbing as China is ramping up its engagement with Pacific governments. Consequently, longstanding questions about China’s impact on the region’s democratic and media institutions become even more urgent.
Indeed, just weeks after Wang’s visit, Solomon Islands media reported that Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, in an extraordinary gazette, announced that the government would be taking full financial control of the state broadcaster, Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC).
There are fears that this arrangement — which draw comparisons with the Chinese state-owned broadcaster CCTV — will give the government far more control over SIBC, potentially both editorially and in its day-to-day management.
This is troubling given Sogavare’s antagonism towards the SIBC, who he has accused of giving more airtime to government critics than to officials. Veteran Solomon Islands journalist Dorothy Wickham condemned the move, stating: “We now don’t have a public broadcaster!”
Additional steps
This trend indicates the need for additional steps to strengthen media rights by, among other things, boosting journalist professional capacity. This is simply because good journalists are more aware of and better able to safeguard media rights.
To this end, one area that clearly needs work is a greater focus on reporting regional events effectively. As major powers jostle for influence, and Pacific politics become ever more interconnected, what happens in one country will increasingly affect others.
Journalists need to be aware of this and more strongly frame their stories through a regional lens. However, this will not happen without focused and targeted training.
In this context, media research and development is an oft-overlooked pillar of media freedom. While all kinds of demands are made of Pacific journalists and much is expected of them, there seems to be little regard for their welfare and not much curiosity about what makes them tick.
To get an idea of how far behind the Pacific is in media research, it is worth considering that there has only been one multi-country survey of Pacific journalists’ demography, professional profiles and ethical beliefs in 30 years.
This recent, important research yielded valuable data to better understand the health of Pacific media and the capabilities of Pacific journalists.
For instance, the data indicates that Pacific journalists are more inexperienced and under-qualified than counterparts in the rest of the world. In addition, the Pacific has among the highest rate of journalist attrition due to, among other things, uncompetitive salaries, a feature of small media systems.
Conditions ignored
So, while governments make much of biased journalists, they conveniently ignore the working conditions, training, education, and work experience that are needed to increase integrity and performance.
In other words, the problems in Pacific media are not solely the work of rogue elements in the news media, they are structural in nature. These factors are not helped by draconian legislation which is supposedly intended to ensure fairness, but in fact only further squeezes already restricted journalists.
This situation underscores the need for further research, which can identify and offer informed solutions to the problems in the sector. Yet, scholarships and fellowships for Pacific media research are as rare as hen’s teeth.
Furthermore, Wang’s Pacific visit and China’s activities in the region are a wake-up call for regional media as to the urgent need for capacity-building. Any remedial actions should be informed by research and need to consider problems in a holistic manner.
As we have seen, “band-aid’ solutions at best provide only temporary relief, and at worst misdiagnose the problem.
This China fiasco is also a reminder to care about Pacific journalists, try to understand them and show concern for their welfare. We should not regard journalists as merely blunt instruments of news reporting.
Rather, a free and democratic media is the lifeblood of a free and democratic Pacific.
Dr Shailendra B Singh is the head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific and a research fellow at the Australian National University. This article was first published by ANU’s Asia and the Pacific Policy Society Policy Forum and is republished here with the author’s permission.
Radio broadcaster Federico “Ding” Gempesaw has been shot and killed in broad daylight in front of his home in Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City, Mindanao, reports the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ).
The IFJ and its affiliate, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), condemn the murder and urge the local authorities to immediately bring the perpetrators to justice.
Gempesaw was a political commentator and host of the daily block-time programme Bitayan Sa Kahanginan, which aired on the local community radio network Radyo Natin.
According to the police report, two masked gunmen shot at Gempesaw on June 29. One of the perpetrators shot him at close range after Gempesaw stepped down from his taxi, which he owned and drove.
Although he was wounded, Gempesaw wrestled with one assailant before a second bullet hit his head. He died at the scene.
According to witnesses, the murderers fled on a motorcycle without a licence plate.
Gempesaw is the third radio broadcaster to be killed in Mindanao this year. In January, Jaynard Angeles, a station manager of Radyo Natin, was shot dead in Carmen, Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat, by unidentified suspects.
On April 24, Jhannah Villegas was killed in the town of Datu Anggal Midtimbang, in Maguindanao province. Like Gempesaw, Villegas was also a block-time broadcaster on Radyo Ukay in Kidapawan City, North Cotabato.
Latest blow
The NUJP said Gempesaw’s murder is the latest blow to press freedom in the Philippines.
The NUJP said: “The brutal murder of Gempesaw has no place in a democratic society, and we demand that the police leave no stone unturned and bring the perpetrators, as well as the mastermind, to justice.”
IFJ general secretary, Anthony Bellanger, said: “The IFJ condemns the killing of Federico Gempesaw. The authorities must take immediate action to investigate the murder and bring those responsible to justice. We also urge the government of the Philippines to take the strongest efforts to create a free and safe environment for journalists and media workers.”
Nobel Peace Prize laureate and press freedom champion Maria Ressa wasn’t intending to make breaking news when she planned her keynote address at the East-West Center’s 2022 International Media Conference in Honolulu this week.
But late the night before she got disturbing word from her lawyers that the Philippines government’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had issued an order for her online news organisation Rappler to shut down.
“You are the first to hear this,” Ressa said, as she told the combined in-person and online audiences of around 450 international journalists and media professionals gathered for the conference about the commission’s order.
Under now-former President Rodrigo Duterte, Ressa and Rappler have faced multiple charges, widely believed to be retaliation for her critical reporting on Duterte’s deadly drug war and abuses of power.
Ressa vowed to continue fighting the commission’s order, even as new President Ferdinand Marcos Jr — son of the late Philippines dictator who was forced to flee the country in 1986 — prepared to be sworn into office yesterday.
In the meantime, she said, “It is business as usual for Rappler. We will adapt, adjust, survive, and thrive. As usual, we will hold power to account. We will tell the truth.”
Safeguarding freedom of expression
Ressa’s struggle to thwart the government’s efforts to shut down her groundbreaking news outlet and imprison her for cyber-libel led to Ressa becoming the first Filipino recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for her “efforts to safeguard freedom of expression, which is a precondition for democracy and lasting peace,” as the Nobel Committee put it.
In her address to the media conference, Ressa bemoaned the fact that the global environment for quality journalism has deteriorated so quickly, in part because at least initially there was a reluctance to accept just how much damage the online world can do to the real one.
“Online violence is real-world violence,” she said. “They’re not separate. Digital impunity is real-world impunity.
“There is only one world that we live in, and for the platforms and legislators to think that these are two systems has weakened the rule of law in the real world.”
After being brutally attacked online by Duterte backers, Ressa has campaigned tirelessly against what she called a “tyranny of trends.” Through their algorithms, social media platforms have created a new information ecosystem that prioritises “lies laced with anger and hate” over “boring” facts, she said.
“These platforms are determining the future of news, and yet their driver is profit, right? The platform’s profit — not the public’s, not journalism’s.”
That system has made it more difficult for humans to listen to their better angels, Ressa said, because “social media gave the devil a megaphone. And this is why we are seeing the worst of human nature.”
The problem, she said, is that the forces of manipulation do not need to convince the public of anything. They only need to sow doubt and uncertainty in order to create distrust of the facts.
Maria Ressa talks to journalists … Rappler was built on a foundation of three pillars to rebuild trust in the news media: technology, journalism and community. Image: East-West Center
Pillars of trust
Ressa said Rappler was built on a foundation of three pillars to rebuild trust in the news media: technology, journalism and community.
“Tech has to be first because this was the spark that ignited the world, and not for good,” she explained.
“Journalism, because we must continue independent journalism despite what it costs us, and we must let our societies know that. And finally community, because journalists can’t do this alone.”
The importance of maintaining independent journalism outlets is intensified by the fact that this year there are more than 30 elections globally, according to Ressa: “I said this in the Nobel lecture: If you don’t have integrity of facts, how can you have integrity of elections? You can’t, and that’s the problem.”
The consequences can be catastrophic, she said. “When real people who are insidiously manipulated online then democratically elect an illiberal leader and the balance of power of the world shifts, how much more time do we have before we move into a fascist world?”
Banding together against disinformation
Ressa counsels independent journalists around the world to build their courage, commitment and, most importantly, community, saying the only way to stand up to the forces of disinformation is to join hands.
Before the recent elections in the Philippines, for example, 16 news organisations agreed to collaborate on fact-checking campaign statements.
“We shared each with other,” Ressa said. “We made the content agnostic. We’re not competing against each other; we’re competing against evil and lies.”
That experience helped inform Ressa’s vision of a world in which trust in facts and institutions can be rebuilt on four levels. The first and most basic is independent journalism as exemplified by news organisations like hers.
The second she calls “the mesh”, elements of civil society that can take the facts news outlets and share them with emotion and inspiration.
The third level is academic research designed to help better understand the societal challenges, which continue to evolve. The final level is a proactive legal approach in which lawyers engage in both tactical and strategic litigation, rather than simply waiting to defend against the latest attacks.
Still, Ressa admitted that she is extremely worried about the future of objective journalism and the societies that rely on it.
The world does have the resources to fight back, she but not as individuals: “We really must work together,” she concluded. “And a global coalition is the best way to do this.”
Journalist and editor-in-chief Raimundos Oki of Timor-Leste’s online media Oekusipost.com was today accused of “violating legal secrets” related to his reporting about the case of illegal detention and forced virginity testing of about 30 underage girls in Oe-Kusi Ambeno during 2020.
The Dili District Court sentenced a former American missionary to 12 years’ jail in a controversial paedophilia case.
At the same time the government mandated several local police to detain about 30 underage girls from the Topu-Honis shelter for two weeks and to perform forced virginity tests in June 2020 in Oe-Kusi Ambeno.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and UN human rights agencies, the practice of virginity testing on girls is a violation. However, human rights activists in Timor-Leste are alleged to have kept silent about the case.
Daschbasch is already serving his sentence in Becora-Dili prison, but the victims of forced virginity tests are still awaiting justice.
According to their statement at the Oe-Kusi Ambeno District Court, they had never been sexually abused or raped by anyone but their genitals had been injured when forcibly tested.
Journalist Oki was charged with violating legal secrecy because of his coverage of the Topu-Honis shelter case, including the case of forced virginity testing.
He exercised his right of silence while appearing before the Criminal Investigation Scientific Police (Polícia Científica de Investigação Criminal) office.
We will continue bringing you the news, holding the powerful to account for their actions and decisions, calling attention to government lapses that further disempower the disadvantaged. We will hold the line.
Dear readers and viewers, We thought this day would never come, even as we were warned in the first of week of December last year that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would be handing down a ruling against us.
Because we have acted in good faith and adhered to the best standards in a fast-evolving business environment, we were confident that the country’s key business regulator would put public interest above other interests that were at play in this case.
We were, in fact, initially relieved that it was the SEC that initiated what appeared to us as a customary due diligence act, considering our prior information that it was the Office of the Solicitor-General that had formed, as early as November 2016, a special team to build a case against us.
We were wrong. The SEC’s kill order revoking Rappler’s licence to operate is the first of its kind in history — both for the Commission and for Philippine media. What this means for you, and for us, is that the Commission is ordering us to close shop, to cease telling you stories, to stop speaking truth to power, and to let go of everything that we have built — and created — with you since 2012.
All because they focused on one clause in one of our contracts which we submitted to — and was accepted by — the SEC in 2015.
Now the Commission is accusing us of violating the Constitution, a serious charge considering how, as a company imbued with public interest, we have consistently been transparent and above-board in our practices.
Transparency best proof Every year since we incorporated in 2012, we have dutifully complied with all SEC regulations and submitted all requirements even at the risk of exposing our corporate data to irresponsible hands with an agenda.
Transparency, we believe, is the best proof of good faith and good conduct. All these seem not to matter as far as the SEC is concerned.
In a record investigation time of 5 months and after President Rodrigo Duterte himself blasted Rappler in his second SONA in July 2017, the SEC released this ruling against us.
This is pure and simple harassment, the seeming coup de grace to the relentless and malicious attacks against us since 2016:
We intend to not only contest this through all legal processes available to us, but also to fight for our freedom to do journalism and for your right to be heard through an independent platform like Rappler.
We’ve been through a lot together, through good and bad — sharing stories, building communities, inspiring hope, uncovering wrongdoing, battling trolls, exposing the fake. We will continue bringing you the news, holding the powerful to account for their actions and decisions, calling attention to government lapses that further disempower the disadvantaged.
We will hold the line. The support you’ve shown us all this time, and our commitment to tell you stories without fear, give us hope.
You inspire courage. You have taught us that when you stand and fight for what is right, there is no dead-end, only obstacles that can only make us stronger. We ask you to stand with us again at this difficult time.
Nobel Peace Prize laureate and journalist Maria Ressa says that the Philippine government has ordered her news organisation Rappler to shut down, reports Axios.
The online news website Rappler has exposed Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s “bloody war on drugs”, documented the government’s propagation of disinformation and been critical of President-elect “Bongbong” Marcos Jr, son of the late dictator.
Ressa, a Filipino-American, said in a keynote address at the East-West Center’s International Media Conference in Honolulu, Hawai’i, that the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission had issued the decree on Tuesday, reports Nathan Bomey.
She said Rappler would fight the order, which “affirmed” an earlier decision to revoke the organisation’s certificates of incorporation.
“We’re not shutting down. Well, I’m not supposed to say that,” Ressa said.
“We are entitled to appeal this decision and will do so, especially since the proceedings were highly irregular.”
Axios reported that the Philippine embassy in the US did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment.
Shared Nobel Peace Prize Ressa shared the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize with Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov after using her platform to raise awareness of Duterte’s alleged abuses.
She had previously been convicted in the Philippines of “cyber libel” and could serve prison time in a case widely seen as politically motivated.
Ressa has also been a vocal critic of social media platforms for failing to prevent the flow of falsehoods.
“You don’t get facts. It’s toxic sludge. Social media encourages anger, hate, conspiracy theories. There’s violence,” and it’s getting worse, she added.
Pacific Journalism Review is publishing several articles about Rappler and media freedom in next month’s edition.
OBITUARY:A personal reflection by Scott Waide in Lae
Australian-born former PNG cabinet minister and Madang businessman Sir Sir Peter Leslie Charles Barter, 82 — 1940-2022
Papua New Guinean political giant Sir Peter Barter, who died in Cairns on Wednesday, was a strong supporter of the free press and media development. He personally supported generations of students from Divine Word University.
Watson Gabana and I and many others who came later were beneficiaries of that support.
On one occasion, we travelled with Sir Peter to Long Island and Karkar to visit health centres and aid posts. He gave me his camcorder to use.
At the time, MiniDVs were the latest on the market and rare. No TV station was using them yet.
As a 19-year-old, I was over the moon! I didn’t shoot enough footage.
Or at least Sir Peter didn’t think I did. He scolded me in the chopper then gave me advice. It stuck. Don’t waste time. Don’t waste money. Don’t waste opportunities.
Sure enough, I never got a chance to go back to Long Island. But the experience made an indelible mark.
My first insights
It gave me my first insights into the workings of PNG politics, its flaws and the failures of service delivery mechanism.
On Long Island, Sir Peter was furious. He, as Madang Governor, was angered by the fact that the people were neglected and the health system just didn’t work.
“It’s out of sight, out of mind,” he fumed. “As long as nobody complains, none of this will be resolved.”
He stormed off towards the beach with the village councillor led in tow.
It was a statement that has remained true for service delivery in PNG — “Out of sight, out of mind.”
As much as it seems improper and out of line, the politician gives much needed visibility to issues of importance.
Sir Peter was an avid photographer. He used his photography to document the Bougainville peace process and the collection and destruction of small arms in Tambul-Nebiliyer and the Southern Highlands.
Plight of the Manam people
He filmed the Manam volcano eruptions and gave unique insights into the plight of the Manam people while at the same time conducting rescue operations for men, women and children.
His sometimes dry sarcastic sense of humour was legendary.
Two decades later, I found myself at the Madang Resort restaraunt, arguing with the chef about the pizza that didn’t have the ingredients that were promised on the brochure.
Sir Peter walked up behind me and asked what the problem was. I promptly directed my complaint to him (the owner of the pizza joint). He quickly responded: “Please give the whinging journalist what he paid for.”
We went away happy and began another discussion with him about the drop in tourism numbers in Madang and PNG.
Long live the Knight!
Scott Waide is an independent Papua New Guinean journalist who contributes to Asia Pacific Report.
Following the United Kingdom’s decision to extradite Julian Assange to face trial in the United States, the International Federation of Journalists’ (IFJ) Australian affiliate, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) has called on the Australian government to take swift steps to lobby for the dismissal of all charges against Assange.
The IFJ stands with the MEAA in condemning the extradition order and calls for Assange to be pardoned and allowed to be with his family.
On June 17, UK Home Secretary Priti Patel approved Assange’s extradition to the US to face charges, primarily under the nation’s Espionage Act, for releasing US government records that revealed the US military committed war crimes against civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the killing of two Reuters journalists.
Assange, a member of the MEAA since 2007, may now only have a slim chance of challenging the extradition.
If found guilty, Assange faces up to 175 years in prison.
The WikiLeaks founder is highly likely to be detained in the US under conditions of isolation or solitary confinement, despite the US government’s assurances, which would severely exacerbate his risk of suicide.
WikiLeaks was awarded the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism in 2011, an annual prize to reward excellence in Australian journalism, in recognition of the impact of WikiLeaks’ actions on public interest journalism by assisting whistleblowers to tell their stories.
According to the MEAA, Walkley judges said WikiLeaks applied new technology to”‘penetrate the inner workings of government to reveal an avalanche of inconvenient truths in a global publishing coup”.
Whistleblowers have since been used by other media outlets to expose global tax avoidance schemes, among other stories.
In the case of WikiLeaks, only Julian Assange faces charges, with no other WikiLeaks media partners cited in any US government legal actions.
In 2017, Chelsea Manning, a US Army intelligence analyst who released classified information to WikiLeaks, was pardoned by former US President Barack Obama.
MEAA media section federal president Karen Percy said: “We urge the new Australian government to act on Julian Assange’s behalf and lobby for his release. The actions of the US are a warning sign to journalists and whistleblowers everywhere and undermine the importance of uncovering wrongdoing.
“Our thoughts are with Julian and his family at this difficult time.”
The IFJ said: “The United Kingdom Home Secretary’s decision to allow the extradition of Julian Assange is a significant blow to media freedom and a dire threat to journalists, whistleblowers, and media workers worldwide.
“The IFJ urges the government of Australia to act swiftly to intervene and lobby the United States and United Kingdom governments to dismiss all charges against Assange. Journalism is not a crime.”
Last week on June 17 2022, UK Home Secretary Priti Patel issued a statement confirming she had approved the US government’s request to extradite Julian Assange.
The Australian founder of WikiLeaks faces 18 criminal charges of computer misuse and espionage.
This decision means Assange is one step closer to extradition, but has not yet reached the final stage in what has been a years-long process. Patel’s decision follows a March decision to deny leave to appeal by the UK Supreme Court, affirming the High Court decision that accepted assurances provided by the US government and concluded there were no remaining legal bars to Assange’s extradition.
The High Court decision overruled an earlier decision by a District Court that extraditing Assange to the US would be “unjust and oppressive” because the prison conditions he was likely to experience would make him a high risk for suicide.
In the High Court’s view, the American government’s assurances sufficiently reduced the risk.
Another appeal ahead WikiLeaks has already announced Assange will appeal the home secretary’s decision in the UK courts. He can appeal on an issue of law or fact, but must obtain leave of the High Court to launch an appeal.
This is a fresh legal process rather than a continuation of the judicial stage of extradition that followed his arrest in 2019.
Assange’s brother has stated the appeal will include new information, including reports of plots to assassinate Assange.
Several legal issues argued before the District Court in 2020 are also likely to be raised in the next appeal. In particular, the District Court decided the question of whether the charges were political offences, and therefore not extraditable crimes, could only be considered by the home secretary.
BREAKING: UK Home Secretary approves extradition of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the US where he would face a 175 year sentence – A dark day for Press freedom and for British democracy
The decision will be appealedhttps://t.co/m1bX8STSr8pic.twitter.com/5nWlxnWqO7
The question of whether and how the home secretary decided on this issue could now be ripe for argument.
Assange’s next appeal will also seek to re-litigate whether US government assurances regarding the prison conditions Assange will face are adequate or reliable. His lawyers will also again demand the UK courts consider the role of role of freedom of expression in determining whether to extradite Assange.
Assange will remain detained in Belmarsh prison while his appeal is underway. The decision of the High Court on his appeal against the home secretary’s decision may potentially be appealed to the Supreme Court.
If, after all legal avenues are exhausted in the UK, the order to extradite stands, Assange could take a human rights action to the European Court of Human Rights.
However, the European Court has rarely declared extradition to be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, except in cases involving the death penalty or whole-life sentences.
It has not yet considered freedom of expression in an extradition case.
Further appeals could add years more to the saga of Assange’s detention.
Responses from the Assange family and human rights advocates Assange’s wife, Stella Moris, called Patel’s decision a ‘“travesty”. His brother Gabriel Shipton called it “shameful”. They have vowed to fight his extradition through every legal means available.
Julian Assange’s family respond to decision. Video: Reuters
According to the secretary-general of Amnesty International Agnes Callamard:
Assange faces a high risk of prolonged solitary confinement, which would violate the prohibition on torture or other ill treatment. Diplomatic assurances provided by the US that Assange will not be kept in solitary confinement cannot be taken on face value given previous history.
What role for the Australian government?
Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus responded to the latest development last night. They confirmed Australia would continue to provide consular assistance to Assange:
The Australian government has been clear in our view that Mr Assange’s case has dragged on for too long and that it should be brought to a close. We will continue to express this view to the governments of the United Kingdom and United States.
However, it remains unclear exactly what form Australia’s diplomatic or political advocacy is taking.
In December 2021, Anthony Albanese said he could not see what purpose was served by the ongoing pursuit of Assange. He is a signatory to a petition to free Assange. Since he was sworn in as prime minister, though, Albanese has resisted calls to demand publicly that the US drop its criminal charges against Assange.
In contrast, Albanese recently made a public call for the release of Sean Turnell from prison in Myanmar.
In a way, Patel’s decision last week closes a window for stronger advocacy between Australia and the UK. While the matter sat with the UK Home Secretary, the Australian government might have sought to intervene with it as a political issue.
Now it seems possible Australia may revert to its long established position of non-interference in an ongoing court process.
Some commentators argue this is insufficient and that Australia must, finally, do more for Assange. Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie said it was high time Australia treated this as the political matter it is, and demand from its allies in London and Washington that the matter be brought to an end.
Barrister Greg Barns likened Assange’s situation to that of David Hicks, who was imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay:
The Howard government at the time brought him back to Australia. This is not unprecedented. It is important that Australia is able to use the great relationship it has with Washington to ensure the safety of Australians.
These comments suggest that Australia ought to focus any advocacy towards the US government, making a case for the criminal charges and extradition request to be abandoned.
At this stage it is impossible to say if the Albanese government has the will to take a stronger stand on Assange’s liberty. The prime minister and foreign minister have certainly invested heavily in foreign relations in the early weeks of their government, with emphasis on the significance of the US alliance.
Perhaps strong advocacy on Assange’s behalf at this time might be regarded as unsettling and risky. The US has had plenty of opportunity, and its own change of government, and yet it has not changed its determination to prosecute Assange.
This is despite former President Barack Obama’s decision to commute the sentence of Chelsea Manning, the whistleblower who provided classified material to Assange for publication through Wikileaks.
Stronger Australian advocacy may well be negatively received. Assange’s supporters will continue to demand that Albanese act regardless, banking on the strength of the Australia-US alliance as capable of tolerating a point of disagreement.
As supporters of JulianAssange held a news conference Friday at the United Kingdom’s consulate in New York to demand freedom for the jailed WikiLeaks founder, a trio of leading leftist figures decried the British government’s approval of the ailing Australian’s extradition to the United States.
In a statement published ahead of Friday’s press conference, the three chairs of the Assange Defense Committee — linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Alice Walker — blasted U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel’sgreenlightingof Assange’s transfer to the U.S. earlier in the day. Assange plans to appeal the decision.
“It’s a sad day for Western democracy. The U.K.’s decision to extradite Julian Assange to the nation that plotted to assassinate him — the nation that wants to imprison him for 175 years for publishing truthful information in the public interest — is an abomination,” the trio said, referring to analleged 2017 CIA schemeto kidnap or kill the WikiLeaks founder.
“We expect the world’s most despised autocrats to persecute journalists, publishers, and whistleblowers. We expect totalitarian regimes to gaslight their people and crack down on those who challenge the government,” they continued. “Shouldn’t we expect Western democracies to behave better?”
BREAKING Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, and Alice Walker React to the Assange Extradition Sign Off:
The U.S. government argues that its venerated Constitution does not protect journalism the government dislikes, and that publishing truthful information in the public interest is a subversive, criminal act.
This argument is a threat not only to journalism, but to democracy itself. The U.K. has shown its complicity in this farce, by agreeing to extradite a foreigner based on politically motivated charges that collapse under the slightest scrutiny.
Speakers at Friday’s event in New York included Assange’s father and progressive German parliamentarian Sevim Dağdelen, who said that “today is a dark day for press freedom, a dark day for human rights.”
LIVE NOW: The family of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange holds a press conference after Assange’s extradition to the U.S. was approved Friday by UK Home Secretary Priti Patel https://t.co/DIMfb7dxk9
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance calls on the Australian government to take urgent steps to lobby the US and UK governments to drop all charges against Assange and to allow him to be with his wife and children.
Assange, a MEAA member since 2007, may only have a slim chance of challenging extradition to face espionage charges for releasing US government records that revealed the US military committed war crimes against civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the killing of two Reuters journalists.
If found guilty, Assange faces a jail term of up to 175 years.
MEAA media section federal president Karen Percy said it was a dangerous assault on international journalism.
“We urge the new Australian government to act on Julian Assange’s behalf and lobby for his release,” she said.
“The actions of the US are a warning sign to journalists and whistleblowers everywhere and undermine the importance of uncovering wrongdoing.
“Our thoughts are with Julian and his family at this difficult time.”
In 2011, WikiLeaks was awarded the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism in recognition of the impact WikiLeaks’ actions had on public interest journalism by assisting whistleblowers to tell their stories.
At the time the Walkley judges said WikiLeaks applied new technology to “penetrate the inner workings of government to reveal an avalanche of inconvenient truths in a global publishing coup”.
BREAKING: UK Home Secretary approves extradition of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the US where he would face a 175 year sentence – A dark day for Press freedom and for British democracy
The decision will be appealedhttps://t.co/m1bX8STSr8pic.twitter.com/5nWlxnWqO7
This type of publishing partnership has been repeated by other media outlets since, using whistleblowers’ leaks to expose global tax avoidance schemes, among other stories.
In the WikiLeaks example, only Assange has been charged.
None of WikiLeaks media partners have been cited in any US government legal actions because of their collaboration with Assange.
#FreeJulianAssange
Background on the Julian Assange case. Video: Al Jazeera
An investigation by Al Jazeera has obtained an image of the bullet used to kill the network’s journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, reports Al Jazeera staff.
The photograph for the first time shows the type of ammunition used to kill the veteran Al Jazeera correspondent in the occupied West Bank last month.
According to ballistic and forensic experts, the green-tipped bullet was designed to pierce armour and is used in an M4 rifle. The round was extracted from her head.
The bullet was analysed using 3D models and, according to experts, it was 5.56mm calibre – the same as used by Israeli forces. The round was designed and manufactured in the United States, experts said.
In this undated photo, Shireen Abu Akleh stands next to a TV camera above the Old City of Jerusalem [Al Jazeera Media Network]
Fayez al-Dwairi, a former Jordanian major-general, told Al Jazeera the weapon and round used to kill Abu Akleh are regularly carried by Israeli forces.
“This M4 and this munition is used by the Israeli army. It is available and used by the units. I cannot say the whole unit, or most of the soldiers, but they use it,” al-Dwairi told Al Jazeera.
“When any soldier uses it, he uses it for a definite target — he wants to hunt, he wants to kill … There is no way to use it for another thing.”
Palestinian assistant Multilateral Affairs Minister Ammar Hijazi told Al Jazeera the bullet will remain with the Palestinian government for further investigation.
Abu Akleh, a longtime TV correspondent for Al Jazeera Arabic, was killed last month while covering Israeli army raids in the city of Jenin.
Abu Akleh’s case was sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the investigation was recently handed over to the ICC prosecutor. The status of the case, however, remains unclear.
The 5.56mm bullet that killed Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh last month – designed to pierce armour and the same as used by Israeli forces. Image: Al Jazeera
“We think there is enough evidence with the prosecutor … that proves without reasonable doubt that the crime committed against Shireen Abu Akleh was done by the Israeli occupation and they are the perpetrators of this awful crime and they should be held responsible for it,” said Hijazi.
‘Trigger-happy policies’ Abu Akleh was wearing a press vest and standing with other journalists when she was killed.
Israeli authorities initially said Palestinian fighters were responsible for her death, circulating video of Palestinian men shooting down an alleyway. However, researchers from the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem found the spot where the clip was filmed and proved it was impossible to shoot Abu Akleh from there.
In an interview, Omar Shakir — Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch — said all evidence indicates the kill shot came from an Israeli soldier.
Sherif Mansour, MENA programme coordinator of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told Al Jazeera from Washington, DC, that “the pattern” of killing Palestinian media workers “is well known”.
“We have documented at least 19 journalists who were killed by Israeli fire, some of them in the Gaza wars in vehicles marked as press in 2012 and 2014,” Mansour said.
“Some of them were also killed by Israeli snipers while wearing vests with press signs, away from any threatening situation, two of them in 2018. Clearly, we have a problem here of trigger-happy policies that allows this to continue.”
‘Justice and accountability’ In what appeared to be an unprovoked assault at the Al Jazeera correspondent’s funeral days after she was killed, Israeli officers attacked pallbearers, which almost caused them to drop Abu Akleh’s coffin — an incident broadcast live that caused international outrage.
An Israeli police investigation into the attack concluded no one should be punished, despite finding there had been police misconduct, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.
Al Jazeera’s Nida Ibrahim, reporting from Ramallah in the occupied West Bank, said for Palestinians their version of events is being “confirmed by so many investigations”, including the latest one by Al Jazeera.
“Palestinians have been saying from day one that they know that the bullet that hit Shireen came from Israeli soldiers. The witnesses, the videos that we’ve seen from Palestinians who were there, show there were no Palestinian fighters around the area where Shireen was in,” Ibrahim said.
“Palestinians are seeking now is justice and accountability.”
‘The root cause’ A dual Palestinian-US national, Abu Akleh was one of Al Jazeera’s first field correspondents, joining the network in 1997.
Ori Givati, a former Israeli soldier now with the advocacy group Breaking the Silence, said the round that was analysed was a “very common bullet”.
“It is the bullet that most [Israeli] soldiers use during their service,” he told Al Jazeera.
“This investigation into Shireen’s killing is extremely important, but we also have to remember these incidents happen on a weekly basis.
“Our country understands that if you really look into these cases it all goes back to the root cause. It is why the system is terrified from actually conducting investigations. I haven’t seen Israel really investigate any incident.”
Al Jazeera emailed Israel’s Foreign Press Department for comment early Friday but did not immediately receive a response.
Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.
Assassinated journalist Shireen Abu Akleh … for Palestinians their version of events is being “confirmed by so many investigations”, including the latest one by Al Jazeera. Image: Al Jazeera
UPDATE: On the afternoon of 16 June, we received news that 16 of the jailed journalists had been remanded in prison. The remaining six people have been released, but may still face charges
On 8 June the Turkish state arrested 22 people – 20 of them journalists – in the city of Diyarbakır. They also confiscated hard drives, cameras and other equipment. Those arrested have been detained for almost a week in solitary confinement.
The Turkish state has declared the case confidential, so no information is currently available about the charges against the imprisoned journalists. In 2016, Turkey was listed as the world’s biggest jailer of journalists, and the country is still locking them up in huge numbers.
Many of the arrested journalists are from Jin News, a radical volunteer-run women’s media organisation.
Diyarbakır – known as Amed in Kurdish – is in Bakur, the part of Kurdistan within Turkey’s borders
Political genocide
The arrests form part of a campaign of state repression that has been dubbed a political genocide. It’s aimed at destroying the radically democratic movements and institutions which have grown both in Bakur and Turkey, which take their inspiration from the Kurdish Freedom Movement.
10,000 people are currently in prison in Turkey for charges relating to the Kurdish Freedom Movement.
This attack is doubly strong against the Kurdish women’s movement, which is at the forefront of the revolutionary struggle. The three pillars of that struggle are radical democracy, women’s freedom, and building an ecological society.
The women of the Kurdish Freedom Movement have paid a high price. For example, Ayşe Gökkan, spokeswoman of the Free Women’s Association (TJA), was sentenced to 30 years in prison in 2021. And Leyla Güven, the co-chair of the Democratic Society Congress (DTK), was sentenced to 22 years in 2020. The state has opened a new case against Leyla in an attempt to extend this sentence even further.
Last week, I was part of a grassroots political delegation that travelled to Amed in solidarity with the movements there. We aimed to learn and take inspiration from our Kurdish comrades’ resilience and ingenuity in the face of state fascism. The delegation included people from UK anti-repression organisations, Kurdistan solidarity groups and a radical trade union.
We will carry on
Medya Üren
Our delegation spoke to Jin News reporter Medya Üren about the recent arrests of journalists. Medya remains defiant and committed to carrying on her work. We met her in the Jin News office that police had raided the week before, amongst computers that the cops had stripped of their hard drives.
Medya told us that, because of the seizure of her equipment, she had had to report the news with only her mobile phone. She said:
People think that because you face repression, you lose your motivation – but actually, the more we face this repression, the more our motivation increases. For example, even though we don’t have anything to write our news on because they took our equipment, I’m even more motivated to write about it.
Medya said that since the raid there had been an outpouring of support for Jin News. And many young people had contacted them asking to volunteer. She told us that as the organisation grew stronger, the state’s attacks against it grew stronger too.
Becomine a journalist
We asked Medya how she had become involved in Jin News. She told us that she had decided to become a journalist because of her life experiences and what she “had been through”. Medya’s family were forced to leave their home in the 1990s because of Turkish state operations against Kurdish people. She said:
My village was in Şirnak [in the east of Bakur]. In 1993 we had to leave due to the state operations. My family left to Başur [Iraqi Kurdistan], they went to nine different places, and then ended up in Maxmour refugee camp.
During the 1990s, Turkish state forces murdered and disappeared Kurdish people with impunity. Over 3,000 Kurdish villages were burnt. Medya’s family was among thousands of refugees who fled to Maxmour camp, where Medya was born. The camp population swelled to over 12,000 people. Medya told us about her time in Maxmour:
I grew up there [in Maxmour], and I started to study healthcare and medicine in university there [in Başur] . Then the government kicked me out of the university. this is a sign of how federal Kurdistan [The Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraqi Kurdistan] is run by imperialist and fascist structures, and linked to the Turkish state.
Many other refugees from Maxmour were also kicked out of university. Medya said that this was an attempt by the authorities to force the refugees to go back to Bakur. Her family eventually decided to leave.
According to Medya, when they returned to Bakur many of her peers were drawn towards studying law, as a way to resist the Turkish state’s repression and imprisonment of the Kurdish people. But she wanted to become a journalist because of what she experienced when she was growing up. According to Medya:
I had witnessed a lot of things that I wanted the world to know about
She continued:
the things that are hidden, or maybe not heard – i wanted to make these things heard. you could say it’s like a childhood dream
Medya joined Jin News when she was just 17.
Women face the worst oppression
We asked Medya why she was passionate about women’s autonomous media. She told us:
everyone faces oppression here in Kurdistan. But women face the worst in all fields. whether in journalism or politics.
For example, a report states, that in the last months 16 female journalists were threatened or faced violence while working. and as a woman you face more violence, more harassment. so that’s why I wanted to work both as a Kurd, and as a woman journalist.
Medya spoke about the sexual violence against Kurdish women by Turkish forces. She gave the example of 18 year old Ipek Er. In 2020, Ipek Er committed suicide after she was abducted and raped by a Turkish sergeant – Musa Orhan. Orhan was initially arrested by the Turkish authorities, but was promptly released.
What happened to Ipek Er is, tragically, not uncommon. A Turkish non-commissioned officer attempted to rape a 13-year-old girl in Şırnak the same year. At least 3,000 women have been murdered since the conservative AKP government came to power, in what has been dubbed as femicide by the Kurdish movement.
Medya told us about how the mainstream media in Turkey treats women’s journalism:
in the mainstream media, the patriarchal view is felt heavily in the organisations. For example the news about women would be on the third page, and this news builds a ground for more crimes against women.
A media organisation which stays close to the people
Our delegation told Medya how UK journalism is dominated by privileged white men. We asked her how Jin News was different. She told us that Jin News operated in a radically different way to the mainstream media:
in the news agencies that are supporting the state, all the journalists and employees are of one mentality, there is no diversity, no opposing views. it’s the same patriarchal organisational structure. But here, we try to improve and diversify our structure.
Jin News is volunteer run and non-hierarchical. The organisation works to create opportunities to share knowledge about journalism. According to Medya:
we do workshops about women’s struggle, about journalism, to let people know what we are doing and to discuss what we can do among ourselves, how we can change and improve.
She continued:
we also visit families and we talk to people. When we go to another city, we would stay with families, they’d host us. The families support their children to join us and work with us.
‘You can be anything… except a Kurd’
We asked Medya what she thought the state’s strategy was in arresting journalists. She said:
The attitude towards our agency cannot be separated from the general attitude. The pro-state media is already saying that we are supporting terrorist organisations and making terrorist propaganda. These arrests and the media coverage show their true intentions. Here in Kurdistan you can be anything – a lawyer, or a journalist for example – except a Kurd. when you show your Kurdish identity you’ll be attacked.
The conversations my delegation had with other people on our trip to Amed highlight the grim truth in this statement. Lawyers, journalists, refugee rights organisations, ecological movements, trade unionists and politicians close to the Kurdish Freedom Movement are all facing terrorist charges.
Turkey is in the midst of a deep economic crisis – one that threatens the popularity of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan‘s dictatorial regime. In Medya’s opinion, the state wants to restrict media freedom in order to silence criticism of their handling of the economy. She told us:
Another level of this [media repression] policy is about hiding the economic crisis – these [arrest] campaigns are part of this policy of distraction. The government and state are forcing all media outlets, mainstream media, to make news in the way they want it.
Medya says that Jin News’ oppositional stance is at odds with the state’s attempts to create a compliant media, which simply repeats the state’s own rhetoric. According to Medya:
we try to cover all of these aspects in an oppositional way. that’s what disturbs them. that’s why we are targeted. because the state tries to build a single mentality in every field.
The arrests are part of Turkey’s dirty war
In Medya’s opinion, the Turkish state’s arrests and harassment of Kurdish media and other institutions can’t be separated from the war it’s waging against the Kurdish Freedom Movement. This war is taking place in all four parts of Kurdistan, which lies within the state borders of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
The Turkish military launched invasions of Rojava (Northeast Syria) in 2018 and 2019 in an attempt to destroy the revolutionary society that is being built there. Turkish troops are currently occupying territory in Rojava amounting to thousands of kilometres. This includes the Northern cities of Afrin, Tel Abyad and Serekaniye. In Başur (Iraqi Kurdistan) the military is attacking Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) guerillas in the mountains with fighter jets, helicopters, drones and chemical weapons. Medya said:
Whether Başur, Rojhilat [the part of Kurdistan within Iran’s borders], Rojava or here. they’re running a dirty war campaign in all fields, not just from the military perspective. They’re using chemical weapons everywhere, committing war crimes. but also these [arrest] operations are part of this dirty campaign. it’s to intimidate people in every field. in media, politics, ecology…
Medya added that Abdullah Öcalan –the PKK’s co-founder – has been imprisoned in isolation in Turkey for 23 years. His imprisonment and isolation are emblematic of the attack on the whole movement. Medya said that the isolation policy against Öcalan was reflected in the attacks on Kurdish media organisations too.
In Medya’s opinion, the state wants to “cut off the head” of Kurdish organisations before they have a chance to grow. She said that Jin News was being targeted for being the people’s voice.
Medya told us that she would welcome collaborations between Jin News and radical media organisations in the UK. She said:
Even if we report with facts and proof, the government and mainstream media won’t recognise this. it’s difficult for us to be heard. For example the opposition CHP party was reacting greatly to some of the arrests of the Turkish journalists who were part of their media. But when its our journalists that are arrested here [in Bakur], there’s no coverage, no reaction. So we want everyone to be a voice for this. To share it.
Over 800 journalists called for the release of their colleagues
On Tuesday 14 June, 837 journalists and 62 institutions signed a statement in support of the detained journalists. It called on the international media and human rights organisations to take up the journalists’ case:
we expect international press organizations, journalists, rights organizations and defenders to show solidarity with us for the development of press freedom in Turkey and to take action against the oppression of journalists.
The statement called for the immediate release of the detained journalists:
Although these policies of oppression and intimidation are known very well by the free press tradition, which works devotedly for the right of people to receive information, we will not get used to these operations and policies of intimidation. The detained Kurdish journalists should be released immediately!
Turkey is trying to silence the voice of radical Kurdish women through its repression of Jin News. One way to break the wall of silence is by reading and sharingJin News’ work. You can also help keep the website going by becoming a subscriber.
Featured image by Medya Üren (with permission). This interview was carried out collaboratively with other members of my delegation.
This is part one of a series of interviews The Canary has carried out with Jin News journalists about Turkish state repression.
US media firm says it has not made contact with Fan who was detained in Beijing in 2020 on suspicion of national security crimes
Haze Fan, a Bloomberg News staff member in China who was detained in late 2020, was released on bail early this year, according to a statement by the Chinese embassy in Washington that was dated May and reported by the news organisation on Tuesday.
New York-based Bloomberg said in a news report that it was made aware of the embassy statement over the weekend, and that it had not been able to contact Fan.
LONDON
️
MELB 11h
DC
WELLINGTON
HAMBURG
PARIS 14h
OTTAWA
MEXICO
PRETORIA
RIO(Online) 16h
Transprt
(@Candles4Assange) 
BREAKING
