Whistleblower Dan Ellsberg joined us after the Justice Department charged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act for publishing U.S. military and diplomatic documents exposing U.S. war crimes. Assange is locked up in London and faces up to 175 years in prison if extradited and convicted in the United States. Ellsberg died Friday, and as we remember his life…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
EDITORIAL: PNG Post-Courier
Mister Speaker, our collective question without notice is to you mister Speaker. We want the Prime Minister and his deputy to take note Sir.
Our question from the Media Gallery is specifically directed to you, Mr Speaker, because of events that have transpired in the last 48 hours in which the freedom of the media in the people’s house has been once again curtailed.
Mr Speaker, we are aware of proposed changes to laws that are yet to reach the House that have been circulated by the Minister for Communications for consultation with all stakeholders in the media industry on the media development policy document, we are still concerned about what these will further impinge on the operations of mainstream media in PNG in covering, questioning and investigating Parliament, politicians and government departments and their activities.
Last week, our members’ movements in and around the National Parliament at Waigani was further restricted by members of the Parliamentary Security Services.
We are now restricted to the press gallery and cannot further venture around the House in search of news. Mr Speaker, is the media really a serious threat to you and the members of the House that you have to apply such stringent measures to curtail our movements?
Parliament is an icon of our democracy. It is rightfully the people’s House, might we remind you mister Speaker, that we are guaranteed freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom to engage with all leaders mandated by the people to represent them here.
What then is the reason for you to set up barriers around the hallways, offices of MPs and public walkways, Mr Speaker?
Your Parliamentary Clerk is lost, Mr Speaker. In our queries not aware of any order to gag the media in the people’s House. His deputy is muted and cannot find a reason for this preposterous decision to restrict our movements in the House.
Mr Speaker, we consider this a serious impingement on the freedom of journalists to access Parliament House, report on the proceedings, seek out and question MPs on the spot.
Sir, Mr Speaker, we are well aware of the processes, procedures and decorum of the house, and where we as political reporters and photographers can traverse and that we always stay on our side of the fence.
Mr Speaker, let us remind you once again that Parliament belongs to the people. Their voice must be heard. Their MPs must be on record to deliver their needs and wants and their views.
The people cannot be denied. This will be a grave travesty Mr Speaker, if you deny the people their freedom to know what is transpiring in Parliament by silencing the media.
In the past, the media had a very good relationship with your office and we are pleased to say that the Speaker has on more than one occasion, assisted the members of the media with accreditation, and even transportation.
But Mr Speaker, don’t entertain any point of order from other Members on our question. They have had their day on the floor.
Mister Speaker, we members of the media are not primitives. Far from it, we are just the messengers of the people.
One last friendly reminder Mr Speaker. The very people that you are trying to restrict are the ones that you will need to get the message out to the people and to the world.
We are not your enemies. We are here to ensure your all 118 MPs do a proper job transparently without fear or favour.
Thank you Mr Speaker.
This PNG Post-Courier editorial was published under the headline “A Question without Notice” on 12 June 2023. Republished with permission.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.
On a cold Christmas night in 2021 in the picturesque mountain city of Asheville, North Carolina, The Asheville Blade journalist Veronica Coit sat in a police station waiting to be booked. A police officer motioned toward Coit and said, “She says she’s press.” The magistrate responded: “Is she real press?” “In that very moment, he could’ve decided that we were press, which we were…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
New Zealand’s Media Freedom Council has called Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown’s exclusion of some media outlets from his budget speech today “unacceptable”.
In an appearance at Auckland Transport’s Viaduct headquarters, Brown took time out of pitching his plan to sell the city’s holdings in Auckland Airport to complain about road cones, his “not financially literate” councillors and target the “nasty” media.
Brown’s team invited journalists from only a few organisations to the announcement. RNZ was allowed in, but Stuff, TVNZ and Newshub were not.
Stuff reported among those allowed in were “business leaders, former politicians and former rugby league coach Sir Graham Lowe”.
Some reporters threatened to walk out of the event in protest, drawing this response from the mayor: “They weren’t invited, but some of the media have been pretty nasty. We did invite media who are sensible; and the media who are not weren’t invited, and have now decided, some of them, to bugger off — well, that’s all right with me”.
Stuff queried the mayor’s decision, and was told only a “select few journalists… we feel were best able to convey the mayor’s message” were invited.
Media Freedom Council chair Richard Sutherland — also head of news at RNZ — wrote to Brown shortly afterwards, to “express our deep concern about the attempted exclusion of journalists from today’s budget presentation in Auckland”.
In addition to RNZ, the MFC represents Newshub, Newsroom, NZME, Stuff, The Spinoff and TVNZ.
‘Today’s events troubling’
“Today’s events are troubling. The media plays a crucial role in informing the public and holding officials accountable. Denying access to journalists compromises the public’s right to be informed,” Sutherland wrote.
“Furthermore, we are aware that invitations that were issued were selectively targeted to specific journalists. It is imperative to ensure equal opportunities for all bone fide journalists to cover significant public events, irrespective of their perceived affiliations or perspectives.
“To be blunt, it’s unacceptable to cherry-pick journalists based on who you think will give you the easiest ride.”
Sutherland called Brown’s decision an “affront to the democratic process and an insult to voters”.
Brown did not take questions after his speech, saying he did not have time.
He has had a strained relationship with the media since taking the mayoral chains last year. Mediawatch in April described it as “frosty”, at best.
In January, as Auckland suffered its worst floods in living memory, he called journalists “drongos” in messages to friends, upset he had to cancel a tennis engagement to deal with the media. He later apologised.
He refused 106 media requests in his first month of office, granting only two.
‘Sell them all’
The guts of Brown’s speech was to convince his councillors that selling the city’s 18 percent stake in Auckland Airport was the only way to avoid massive cuts to services and rate hikes.
He has his deputy Desley Simpson on side. She told RNZ’s Midday Report she did not want to sell the shares at first, but had listened to advice and had been convinced.
She said the mayor’s second budget proposal was as good as it was going to get, and she hoped other councillors agreed to it.
“In my heart, I didn’t want to sell the airport shareholding. But professional staff advice has said ‘sell them all’. And you know, that’s a hard pill to swallow when in your heart, you want to keep them.
“It’s an emotional wrestle that I think a lot of people are struggling with.”
Simpson said selling shareholding was not just a short-term fix, and would save the council $100 million a year in debt interest.
The council’s debt is currently more than $11 billion.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
The following article was made possible by paid subscribers. Support independent journalism on whistleblowers and press freedom and become a subscriber with this special World Press Freedom Day offer.
For the United States government, World Press Freedom Day is an opportunity to further project an image of the U.S. as a supposed champion of journalism and human rights. But that projection is muddied greatly by the prosecution against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
An event was hosted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) at the UN headquarters in New York. It marked the 30th anniversary of World Press Freedom Day.
Dr. Agnès Callamard, the secretary general for Amnesty International, called attention to the double standard of so-called democratic countries while discussing challenges to protecting press freedom.
“It is not just what is happening in Iran or in Russia that should worry us, although it should worry us a lot. It is also what is happening here [in the U.S.],” Callamard said. “Who is imprisoning Julian Assange? Who is creating more laws to curtail the freedom to protest? All of those indicators and trends are occurring within the so-called democracies of the world.”
Callamard added, “Sadly, the playbook of autocracy, of control over conscience, of control over speech, has been well-learned by our so-called democratic leaders.”
President Joe Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have wielded the playbook of autocracy through deliberate acts of omission—by consistently dodging any attempts by reporters or civil society leaders to hold them accountable for pursuing the Assange case.
At the White House Correspondents Dinner on April 29, Biden highlighted Russia’s detention of Evan Gershkovich and the abduction of Austin Tice in Syria over a decade ago.
Then Biden proclaimed, “Tonight, our message is this: Journalism is not a crime.”
However, that message seems fraudulent as the U.S. government remains committed to prosecuting Assange and keeps him in jail.
Assange has been a target of surveillance and subject to some form of arbitrary detention for more than a decade. The journalism he oversaw as WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, which involved publishing classified documents from the U.S. government, effectively made him a target.
Last year, Blinken uttered the following on World Press Freedom Day:
When individual journalists are threatened, when they’re attacked, when they’re imprisoned, the chilling effects reach far beyond their targets. Some in the media start to self-censor. Others flee. Some stop reporting altogether. And when repressive governments come after journalists, human rights defenders, labor leaders, others in civil society are usually not far behind.
A similar statement about the climate of fear fueled by prosecuting Assange has been made by Rebecca Vincent, the director of operations and international campaigns for Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
“If the U.S. government is successful in securing Assange’s extradition and prosecuting him for his contributions to public interest reporting, the same precedent could be applied to any journalist anywhere,” Vincent contended. “The possible implications of this case simply cannot be understated; it is the very future of journalism and press freedom that is at stake.”
This year, Blinken will participate in a “moderated conversation on the state of press freedom worldwide” with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.
After Assange’s arrest on April 11, 2019, Ignatius argued the U.S. Justice Department had “drawn its indictment carefully enough that the issue [was] theft of secrets, rather than their publication.” The Washington Post Editorial Board has maintained that WikiLeaks “differs from journalism.” So Blinken will likely be permitted to advance a litany of double standards without being called on it.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) marked World Press Freedom Day by promoting “Reporters Shield.” Under the new program, certain journalists and media organizations can apply to become “members” that are eligible to receive funds to help combat legal threats aimed at silencing them (Note: USAID has in the past been used by the CIA as a front for operations.)
According to USAID Director Samantha Power, who spoke at the UNESCO meeting, independent journalists around the world increasingly face lawfare from “corrupt leaders,” who are intent to drive them out of business.
“Repressive or corrupt elites have tried to silence opposition by killing journalists. Now they are trying to kill journalism,” Power stated.
Power was thinking of journalists countries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, but the reality is that Assange and WikiLeaks might benefit from such a program.
The CIA mounted a disruption campaign against WikiLeaks to make it difficult for the media organization to function. Officials reportedly discussed kidnapping or poisoning Assange while he was living under political asylum in the Ecuador embassy, and Mike Pompeo, when he was secretary of state, pressured Ecuador to toss Assange out of the embassy so the US could get their hands on him.
Later in the meeting, Committee to Protect Journalists Jodie Ginsberg pointed out that if we really want to keep journalism safe then all governments must cease lawfare that involves targeting journalists with a “wide variety of spurious charges.”
“One thing that the United States could concretely do is drop the charges against Julian Assange,” Ginsberg declared. She noted if Assange was brought to trial it would “effectively criminalize journalists everywhere.”
Hitting Assange with Espionage Act charges and jailing him for the past four years has forced WikiLeaks to focus on freeing their founder. The organization has little to no funds to support the publication of new leaks, not to mention their reputation has been tarnished by smear campaigns engaged in by current and former U.S. intelligence officials. And it has also become harder to maintain the invaluable archive of documents on the WikiLeaks website.
U.S. officials could abandon this case on World Press Freedom Day, but they will not because officials have entrenched themselves in the spiteful position that Assange is not a journalist. They see no conflict between their calls to free imprisoned journalists and their own autocratic conduct.
The post US Double Standards On World Press Freedom Day appeared first on Shadowproof.
This post was originally published on Shadowproof.
On the fourth anniversary of Julian Assange’s arrest, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib led six other progressive lawmakers in calling on U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to “uphold the First Amendment’s protections for the freedom of the press by dropping the criminal charges” against the Australian WikiLeaks founder and withdrawing the extradition request of the U.K. government.
Assange has been jailed at Belmarsh Prison in London since U.K. authorities forcibly removed him from the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2019. The 51-year-old publisher continues to fight his extradition to the United States, which the U.K. government approved last year.
Tlaib (D-Mich.) along with Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) on Tuesday joined media outlets, world leaders, and civil liberties, human rights, and press freedom groups that have decried U.S. efforts to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act.
Such organizations “have been emphatic that the charges against Mr. Assange pose a grave and unprecedented threat to everyday, constitutionally protected journalistic activity, and that a conviction would represent a landmark setback for the First Amendment,” the Democrats wrote to Garland. “This global outcry against the U.S. government’s prosecution of Mr. Assange has highlighted conflicts between… America’s stated values of press freedom and its pursuit of Mr. Assange.”
“We urge you to immediately drop these Trump-era charges against Mr. Assange and halt this dangerous prosecution.”
The lawmakers argued that prosecuting the publisher “for carrying out journalistic activities greatly diminishes America’s credibility as a defender of these values, undermining the United States’ moral standing on the world stage, and effectively granting cover to authoritarian governments who can (and do) point to Assange’s prosecution to reject evidence-based criticisms of their human rights records and as a precedent that justifies the criminalization of reporting on their activities.”
“Assange faces 17 charges under the Espionage Act and one charge for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion,” they noted. “The Espionage Act charges stem from Mr. Assange’s role in publishing information about the U.S. State Department, Guantánamo Bay, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of this information was published by mainstream newspapers, such as The New York Times and Washington Post, who often worked with Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks directly in doing so. Based on the legal logic of this indictment, any of those newspapers could be prosecuted for engaging in these reporting activities.”
However, “the prosecution of Mr. Assange marks the first time in U.S. history that a publisher of truthful information has been indicted under the Espionage Act,” the letter highlights. “The prosecution of Mr. Assange, if successful, not only sets a legal precedent whereby journalists or publishers can be prosecuted, but a political one as well.”
“As attorney general, you have rightly championed freedom of the press and the rule of law in the United States and around the world,” the document added, pointing to the U.S. Department of Justice’s recently revised media regulations. “We are grateful for these pro-press freedom revisions, and feel strongly that dropping the Justice Department’s indictment against Mr. Assange and halting all efforts to extradite him to the U.S. is in line with these new policies.”
“Every day that the prosecution of Julian Assange continues is another day that our own government needlessly undermines our own moral authority abroad and rolls back the freedom of the press under the First Amendment at home,” the letter concludes. “We urge you to immediately drop these Trump-era charges against Mr. Assange and halt this dangerous prosecution.”
\u201cFour years ago today, Julian Assange was arrested for publishing the truth.\n\nI\u2019m leading a letter to Attorney General Garland urging him to uphold the freedom of the press by dropping these Trump-era charges and withdrawing the extradition request.\u201d— Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib)
1681241654
The Democrats’ appeal to Garland coincided with similar demands from parliamentarians across the political spectrum in Australia, Brazil, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, and was welcomed by groups that have long demanded Assange’s freedom.
“As Julian Assange marks four years in Belmarsh prison and faces possible imminent extradition to the United States, it’s more crucial for members of Congress to speak up now than ever before,” said Rebecca Vincent, director of operations and campaigns at Reporters Sans Frontières, or Reporters Without Borders (RSF). “No one should face prosecution or the possibility of the rest of their lives in prison for publishing information in the public interest.”
“As long as the case against Assange continues, it will be a thorn in the side of the U.S. government, and undermines U.S. efforts to defend media freedom globally,” Vincent added. “We welcome Rep. Tlaib’s leadership on this issue and encourage widespread support for her call on the Justice Department to drop the charges against Assange. It’s time for the U.S. to lead by example by bringing this 12-year-old case to a close and allowing for his release without further delay.”
Chip Gibbons, policy director of Defending Rights & Dissent, similarly applauded the Michigan Democrat for her “courageous defense of the First Amendment.”
“Defending the Bill of Rights is the responsibility of every branch of government,” said Gibbons, “and we are proud to stand with those members of Congress who are joining with nearly every press freedom group and newspapers such as The New York Times, in calling on the Department of Justice to end its prosecution of Julian Assange.”
Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Seth Stern also commended Tlaib’s “efforts to finally put an end to the unconstitutional prosecution of Julian Assange,” stressing that “whatever one might think about Assange personally, there is no principled distinction between the conduct he is charged with and the kind of investigative journalism that has helped shape U.S. history.”
“As long as the government claims the power to prosecute newsgathering, all journalists can do is hope prosecutors exercise restraint and don’t come after them for doing their jobs. Journalists will surely tread more cautiously as a result,” he warned. “No one who values the First Amendment should be comfortable with that, which is why every major press rights and civil liberties organization opposes Assange’s prosecution.”
By Lydia Lewis and Kelvin Anthony, RNZ Pacific journalists
The Fiji Parliament has voted to “kill” a draconian media law in Suva today, sending newsrooms across the country into celebrations.
Twenty nine parliamentarians voted to repeal the Media Industry Development Act, while 21 voted against it and 3 did not vote.
The law — which started as a post-coup decree in 2010 — has been labelled as a “noose around the neck of the media industry and journalists” since it was enacted into law.
While opposition FijiFirst parliamentarians voted against the bill, Fiji’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad said binning the act would be good for the people and for democracy.
Removing the controversial law was a major election promise by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government.
Emotional day for newsrooms
The news was “one for the ages for us”, Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley, who was dragged into court on multiple occasions by the former government under the act, told RNZ Pacific in Vanuatu.
He said today was about all the Fijian media workers who stayed true to their profession.
“People who slugged it out, people who remained passionate about their work and continued disseminating information and getting people to make well-informed decision on a daily basis.”
“It wasn’t an easy journey, but truly thankful for today,” an emotional Wesley said.
“We’re in an era where we don’t have draconian legislation hanging over our heads.”
He said the entire industry was happy and newsrooms are now looking forward to the next chapter.
“The next phases is the challenge of putting together a Fiji media council to do the work of listening to complaints and all of that, and I’m overwhelmed and very grateful.”
Holding government to account
He said people in Fiji should continue to expect the media to do what it was supposed to do: “Holding government to account, holding our leaders to account and making sure that they’re responsible in the decisions they make.”
Journalists ‘can be brave’
Islands Business magazine editor Samantha Magick said getting rid of the law meant it would now create an environment for Fiji journalists to do more critical journalism.
“I think [we will] see less, ‘he said, she said’, reporting in very controlled environments,” Magick said.
“Fiji’s media will see more investigations, more depth, more voices, different perspectives, [and] hopefully they can engage a bit more as well without fear.
“It’ll just be so much healthier for us as a people and democracy to have that level of debate and investigation and questioning, regardless of who you are,” she added.
RNZ Pacific senior sports journalist and PINA board member Iliesa Tora said the Parliament’s decision sent a strong message to the rest of the region.
“The message [this sends] to the region and the different regional government’s is that you need to work with the media to ensure that there is media freedom,” said Tora, who chose to leave Fiji because he could not operate as a journalist due of the act.
“The freedom of the media ensures that people are also able to freely express themselves and are not fearful in coming forward to talk about things that they see that governments are not doing that they [should] do to really govern in the countries.”
MIDA is dead.
A huge win for media freedom in Fiji.
— Dan McGarry (@dailypostdan) April 5, 2023
‘Step into the light’ – corruption reporting project
Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project co-founder and publisher Drew Sullivan told RNZ Pacific that anytime a country that was not able to do the kind of accountability journalism that they should be doing, this damaged media throughout the region.
“It creates a model for illiberal actors in the region to imitate what’s going on in that country,” Sullivan said.
“So this has really moved forward in allowing journalists again to do their job and that’s really important.”
Fiji journalists, Sullivan said, had done an amazing job resisting limitations for as long as they could.
“Fiji was really a black hole of journalism [in] that the journalists could not participate in on a global community because they couldn’t find the information; they weren’t allowed to write what they needed to write.
“So this is really a step forward into the light to really bring Fiji and media back into the global journalism community.”
Korean cult investigation
Last year, OCCRP published a major investigation on Fiji, working with local journalists to expose the expansion of the controversial Korean Chirstain-cult Grace Road Church under the Bainimarama regime.
Rabuka’s government is currently investigating Grace Road.
Sullivan said OCCRP will continue to support Fijian journalists.
“But [the repealing of the act] will allow a lot more stories to be done and a lot more people will understand how the world really works, especially in Fiji.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific journalist
The man in charge of Fiji’s oldest newspaper has high hopes for press freedom in the country following the tabling of a bill in Parliament this week to get rid of a controversial media law.
Fiji’s three-party coalition government introduced a bill on Monday to repeal the 2010 Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) Act.
The MIDA Act — a legacy of the former Bainimarama administration — has long been criticised for being “draconian” and decimating journalism standards in the country.
The law regulates the ownership, registration and content of the media in Fiji.
Under the act, the media content regulation framework includes the creation of MIDA, the media tribunal and other elements.
“It is these provisions that have been considered controversial,” Fiji’s Attorney-General Siromi Turaga said when tabling the bill.
“These elements are widely considered as undemocratic and in breach of the constitutional right of freedom of expression as outlined in section 17 of the constitution.”
Not a ‘free pass’
Turaga said repealing the act does not provide a free pass to media organisations and journalists to “report anything and everything without authentic sources and facts”.
“But it does provides a start to ensuring that what reaches the ordinary people of Fiji is not limited by overbearing regulation of government.”
The Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley said he had a sense of “great optimism” that the Media Act would be repealed.
Wesley and the newspaper — founded in 1869 — were caught in a long legal battle for publishing an article in their vernacular language newspaper Nai Lalakai which the former FijiFirst government claimed was seditious.
But in 2018, the High Court found them not guilty and cleared them of all charges.
“After the change in government, there has been a change in the way the press has been disseminating information,” Wesley said.
“We have had a massive turnover [of] journalists in our country. A lot of young people have come in. At the The Fiji Times, for instance, we have an average age of around 22, which is very, very young,” he said.
Handful of seniors
“We have just a handful of senior journalists who have stayed on who are very passionate about the role the media must pay in our country.
“We are looking forward to Thursday and looking forward to the act being repealed and the draconian legislation kicked out.”
He said two thirds of the journalists in the national newspaper’s newsroom have less than 16 years experience and have never experienced press freedom.
He said The Fiji Times would then need to implement “mass desensitisation” of its reporters as they had been working under a draconian law for more than a decade.
He added retraining journalists would be the main focus of the organisation after the law is repealed.
‘Things will get better’
Long-serving journalist at the newspaper Rakesh Kumar told RNZ Pacific that reporting on national interest issues had been a “big challenge” under the act.
Kumar recalled early when the media law was enacted and army officers would come into newsrooms to “create fear” which he said would “kill the motivation” of reporters.
“We know things will get better now [after the repeal of the act],” Kumar said.
But he said it was “important that we have to report accurately”.
“We have to be balanced,” he added.
The bill to repeal the MIDA Act will be debated tomorrow.
While the opposition has already opposed the move, it is expected that the government will use its majority in Parliament to pass it.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Vanuatu’s Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Trading Post Ltd, the owner of the Vanuatu Daily Post newspaper, BUZZ FM96 and other media outlets, in a case against the government’s refusal to renew the company’s former media director’s work permit.
Dan McGarry, who served as a director of the company when he had his visa revoked in 2019, said the ruling was a “big win for independent media”.
McGarry’s work permit application was rejected by then Prime Minister Charlot Salwai’s government.
The reason given by the Labour Commissioner Murielle Meltenoven at the time was that McGarry’s role — who at the time had lived and worked in Port Vila for 14 years — could be taken up by a ni-Vanuatu person and that he had failed to train his local staff.
The Daily Post claimed that the decision to revoke McGarry’s visa was made after the newspaper had published stories concerning the arrest and arbitrary deportation of a group of Chinese nationals, some of whom had been granted Vanuatu citizenship.
McGarry and the company claimed that Meltenoven’s decision was a political one and argued that the government had no right to meddle in their lawful hiring decisions and appealed the decision.
The issue had escalated and he was barred by the government from returning to the country, a decision which was later overturned by the Supreme Court.
Acted unlawfully
On Tuesday, March 28, Justice Dudley Aru ruled that both the Labour Commissioner and the Appeals Committee acted unlawfully in barring McGarry’s employment.
“After three long years, I feel vindicated,” McGarry, who testified in the case, said in a statement.
A former Vanuatu Daily Post media director and journalist has won a legal challenge on Tuesday against the government’s decision to revoke his visa. https://t.co/KrJmYLzoCh
— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) March 30, 2023
“Sadly, it took so long to get justice that I had to move on to other work, but this is a crucial principle that had to be defended.”
The use of bureaucratic measures to meddle in private business decisions and stifle our free and independent media is unacceptable in a free and democratic society,” he said.
“I’m grateful to the owners of the Daily Post and to all my colleagues and friends there who have never wavered in their stalwart defence of our right to chart our own course,” he said.
“This is a big win for the Daily Post, and a big win for independent media in Vanuatu.”
McGarry said it was not known whether a state appeal is forthcoming.
RNZ Pacific has contacted the Vanuatu’s labour office for comment.
Here’s a link to the judgment: https://t.co/zt9lndE1BI
— Dan McGarry (@dailypostdan) March 30, 2023
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
By Gorethy Kenneth in Port Moresby
Communication Minister Timothy Masiu has hit back at recent reports termed as “inaccurate” over the control of media in Papua New Guinea from his ministerial statement in Parliament.
He said it was not true that the government was trying to control the media by setting up a Media Council.
He refuted the report, saying that the government would not control the media.
In his responce to questions raised, Masiu clarified the intent and purpose of the Media Development Policy which was basically to establish an enabling framework to recognise and develop the media in PNG to “support our development agenda”.
“Current research and recent consultations have led us to the consolidation of four main issues within the media sector,” he said.
“First is the concerns on [the] quality of journalism. By concerns we observe the decline of quality investigative journalism, the impact of substandard reporting on the development agenda, and the concerns on conduct, ethics, and accountability of journalists.
“My ministry, through the Department of ICT [Information Communications Technology], is currently collating both quantitative and qualitative data to verify the concerns on safety of journalists. We recognise that, at the moment, there is a lack of protection mechanisms for journalists.
‘Reorganising’ state-owned media
“My ministry has for the last three years looked at options on how to reorganise state-owned media outlets so that we coordinate dissemination of government information better.
“We recognise that us as government are lacking coordination in government information.
“The ministry has identified that SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises], particularly in the modern media space, are not recognised as professionals and not given appropriate support.
“By promoting access to information, media diversity, and responsible journalism, the policy aims to support the development of a more informed, engaged, and empowered citizenry in Papua New Guinea.
“On the question of how this policy will promote media freedom, early this year we released draft version 1, followed by a version 2 of the National Media Development Policy.
“In both versions of the draft policy, we proposed for the re-establishment of the PNG Media Council as an independent arm to represent and maintain standards within the media professions.
“The ministry maintains the view that the PNG Media Council, through its self-governing model, is not doing enough to grow the profession and hold journalists accountable.
Media Council ’empowered’
“Through the ministry’s proposal, the PNG Media Council would be empowered and hold mainstream media outlets accountable and establish [a] protection mechanism for journalists.
“I want to inform Members of Parliament that we have had a consultation workshop and as a result, my department is working on identifying a model where we can find common ground with all stakeholders.
“I want to remind all that this policy is not about regulating but more on building capacity and recognition within the media profession.
“The department is reviewing whether to include provisions for oversight on social media platforms and we will inform in version 3 of the draft policy.
“As a matter of update, my department will be publishing a consultation report this week.
“Following this, the consultation itself is leading us to undertake a series of nationwide surveys to better define our media landscape and ascertain data necessary to consolidate issues highlighted in the recent consultation workshop.
“My department is expected to be releasing a version 4 of the draft policy towards the end of April.
“This version 4 will be subject to further feedback. I expect to take to cabinet as early as May and should legislation be proposed, we would also start the drafting process in May.”
Gorethy Kenneth is a senior PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
By Kelvin Anthony, RNZ Pacific lead digital and social media journalist
The Fiji government has announced it will repeal the controversial Media Industry Development Act 2010.
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said cabinet had approved the tabling of a bill to repeal the Act “as a whole.”
“The decision is pursuant to the People’s Coalition Government’s commitment to the growth and development of a strong and independent news media in the country,” said Rabuka in his post-cabinet meeting update.
“It has been said that ‘media freedom and freedom of expression is the oxygen of democracy’,” he said.
“These fundamental freedoms are integral to enable the people to hold their government accountable.
“I am proud to stand here today to make this announcement, which was key to our electoral platform, and a demand that I heard echoed in all parts of the country that I visited,” he added.
The announcement comes just days after Rabuka’s government introduced a new draft legislation to replace the act.
Strongly opposed
The move to replace the 2010 media law with a new one was strongly opposed during public consultations by local journalists and media organisations.
They said there was no need for new legislation to control the media and called for a “total repeal” of the existing regulation.
The country’s Deputy Prime Minister, Manoa Kamikamica, told RNZ Pacific last Friday that there were areas of concern that local stakeholders had raised during the consultation session of the proposed new bill.
“We hear what the industry is saying, we will make some assessments and then make a final decision,” he said.
But Rabuka’s announcement today means that the decision has been made.
RNZ Pacific has contacted the Fijian Media Association for comment.
‘Good decision’ but investment needed
University of the South Pacific head of journalism programme Associate Professor Shailendra Singh said the announcement was expected.
Dr Singh said repealing the punitive legislation was a core election platform promise of the three challenger parties which are now in power.
“This is a good decision because the Fijian media and other stakeholders were not sufficiently consulted when the decree was promulgated in June 2010.”
But he said while getting rid of the media act was welcomed, the coalition was working on a new legislation and “we have to wait and see what that looks like”.
“The media act was dead in the water or redundant before the change in government. The new government could not have implemented it after coming to power, having criticised it and campaigned against it in their election campaign,” he said.
“Repealing the act removes the fear factor prevalent in the sector for nearly 13 years now.”
Dr Singh said the government had committed to the growth and development of a strong news media.
Public good investment
But that, he said, would require more than the repeal of the act.
“[Improving standards] will require some financial investments by the state since media organisations are struggling financially due to the digital disruption followed by covid.”
He said among the many challenges, the media industry was struggling to retain staff.
“So incentives like government scholarships specifically in the media sector could be one way of helping out.
“Media is a public good and like any public good government should invest in it for the benefit of the public.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
By Kelvin Anthony, RNZ Pacific lead digital and social media journalist
The Fiji government is signalling that it will not completely tear down the country’s controversial media law which, according to local newsrooms and journalism commentators, has stunted press freedom and development for more than a decade.
Ahead of the 2022 general elections last December, all major opposition parties campaigned to get rid of the Media Industry Development Act (MIDA) 2010 — brought in by the Bainimarama administration — if they got into power.
The change in government after 16 years following the polls brought a renewed sense of hope for journalists and media outlets.
But now almost 100 days in charge it appears Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition is backtracking on its promise to get rid of the punitive law, a move that has been condemned by the industry stakeholders.
“The government is totally committed to allowing people the freedom of the press that will include the review of the Media Act,” Rabuka said during a parliamentary session last month.
“I believe we cannot have a proper democracy without a free press which has been described as the oxygen of democracy,” he said.
Rabuka has denied that his government is backtracking on an election promise.
“Reviewing could mean eventually repealing it,” he told RNZ Pacific in February.
“We have to understand how it [media act] is faring in this modern day of media freedom. How have other administrations advance their own association with the media,” he said.
He said he intended to change it which means “review and make amendments to it”.
“The coalition has given an assurance that we will end that era of media oppression. We are discussing new legislation that reflects more democratic values.”
And last week, that discussion happened for the first time when consultations on a refreshed version of a draft regulation began in Suva as the government introduced the Media Ownership and Registration Bill 2023.
The bill is expected to “address issues that are undemocratic, threatens freedom of expression, and hinders the growth and development of a strong and independent news media in Fiji.”
The proposed law will amend the MIDA Act by removing the punitive clauses on content regulation that threatens journalists with heavy fines and jail terms.
“The bill is not intended as a complete reform of Fiji’s media law landscape,” according to the explanations provided by the government.
No need for government involvement
But the six-page proposed regulation is not what the media industry needs, according to the University of the South Pacific’s head of journalism programme Associate Professor Shailendra Singh.
“We have argued there is no need for legislation,” he said during the public consultation on the bill last Thursday.
“The existing laws are sufficient but if there has to be a legislation there should be minimum or no government involvement at all,” he said.
The Fijian Media Association (FMA) has also expressed strong opposition against the bill and is calling for the MIDA Act to be repealed.
“If there is a need for another legislation, then government can convene fresh consultation with stakeholders if these issues are not adequately addressed in other current legislation,” the FMA, which represents almost 150 working journalists in Fiji, stated.
Speaking on behalf of his colleagues, FMA executive member and Communications Fiji Limited news director Vijay Narayan said “we want a total repeal” of the Media Act.
“We believe that it was brought about without consultation at all…it was shoved down our throats,” Narayan said.
“We have worked with it for 16 years. We have been staring at the pointy end of the spear and we continue to work hard to build our industry despite the challenges we face.”
‘Restrictions stunts growth’
He said the Fiji’s media industry “needs investment” to improve its standards.
Narayan said the FMA acknowledged that the issue of content regulation was addressed in the new law.
But “with the restrictions in investment that also stunts our growth as media workers,” he added.
“The fact that it will be controlled by politicians there is a real fear. What if we have reporting on something and the politician feels that the organisation that is registered should be reregistered.”
The FMA has also raised concerns about the provisions in relation to cross-media ownership and foreign ownership as key issues that impacts on media development and creates an unequal playing field.
Sections 38 and 39 of the Media Act impose restrictions on foreign ownership on local local media organisations and cross-media ownership.
According to a recent analysis of the Act co-authored by Dr Singh, they are a major impediment to media development and need to be re-examined.
“It would be prudent to review the media ownership situation and reforms periodically, every four-five years, to gauge the impact, and address any issues, that may have arisen,” the report recommends.
But Suva lawyer and coalition government adviser Richard Naidu is of the view that all issues in respect to the news media should be opened up.
Naidu, who has helped draft the proposed new legislation, said it “has preserved the status quo” and the rules of cross-ownership and foreign media ownership were left as they were in the Media Act.
“Is that right? That is a question of opinion…because before the [MIDA Act] there were no rules on cross-media ownership, there were no rules on foreign media ownership.”
Naidu said the MIDA Act was initially introduced as a bill and media had two hours to to offer its views on it before its implementation.
“So, which status quo ought to be preserved; the one before the [MIDA Act] was imposed or the one as it stands right now. Those are legitimate questions.”
“There is a whole range of things which need to be reviewed and which will probably take a bit of time.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Twelve-year sentences for the women condemned as president’s ‘revenge’ while UN report accuses country of possible crimes against humanity
Belarus has handed long jail terms to senior staff at the country’s largest independent news site, which was forced to close after historic demonstrations against strongman Alexander Lukashenko over two years ago.
The verdicts are the latest in a crackdown on journalists, opposition figures and activists who challenged Lukashenko’s claim that he won a sixth presidential term in 2020.
The National in Port Moresby
Senior Papua New Guinean television journalist and columnist Scott Waide has challenged the government on what it actually wants to “regulate” in the draft national media development policy.
During a policy consultation workshop with media stakeholders in Port Moresby last Thursday, he said “in the media ecosystem, there are many professions”.
“There are radio broadcasters, directors, editors, producers, camera operators, photographers, engineers, who have to be licensed, ICT professionals, public relation professionals, bloggers, podcasters, video content producers, social media influencers and a whole heap of them.
What do you want to regulate?” he asked.
“And there’s the problematic niche of news media and journalism. That’s the part politicians and legislators don’t really like.”
He said as a journalist, he was expected to follow rules which were enforced by the editor and the organisation.
“I am not supposed to lie, defame, slander, be disrespectful, harm, show nudity on the platform that I operate on. Those are the rules,” he said.
“And I disagree with the presenter from National Information and Communications Technology Authority (NICTA) who says self-regulation does not work. This is my self-regulation right here.
“I am supposed to be honest, have integrity, accuracy, provide contextual truth, transparency, have respect and fairness, and be independent.
“All these are already self-regulation in the industry.”
Ideas ‘will form basis of draft policy’
The media stakeholders have been told that their comments, sentiments and ideas shared during the workshop on the draft policy would form the basis of the next draft version.
Minister for Information and Communications Technology Timothy Masiu told the workshop that consultation was “ongoing”.
He denied that the proposed policy was an attempt by the government to regulate, restrict, censor or control the exercising of the freedom of expression or speech enshrined in the Constitution.
“Your comments, sentiments and ideas have been captured and will form the basis of the next version [of the draft policy],” he said.
“For those who are saying it’s a rushed thing, we had to start from somewhere.”
He added that the proposed policy was to outline “objectives and strategies for the use of media as a tool for development, such as the promotion of democracy, good governance, human rights, and social and economic development”.
Call for ‘meaningful’ consultation
Transparency International chairman Peter Aitsi called for proper, genuine and meaningful consultation, saying that it should not be a “three-week process”.
The first version of the draft policy was released on February 5 with 12 days allowed for review, the second was released with six days for review, and the most recent one was on Wednesday — a day before the workshop.
Department of Information and Communications Technology Deputy Secretary (Policy) Flierl Shongol said his team had noted all the comments.
“We’ve got some comments in written form. We’ve also taken notes of comments presented in this workshop. So, we will respond to those comments,” he said.
“You can also respond to tell us if our response actually reflects your views. [It] will form the basis of the next policy that will come out.”
Republished from The National with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
By Gorethy Kenneth in Port Moresby
The Papua New Guinean government has been bluntly and frankly reminded to leave mainstream media alone as a long awaited consultative workshop on the recently introduced National Media Development Policy took place in Port Moresby.
Media stakeholders stood in unity with the PNG Media Council yesterday to express their concerns on the alleged threat it would pose if the government enforced control over the media in PNG.
Transparency International-PNG chair Peter Aitsi reminded the government that a “free and independent media deters corruption and underpins justice”.
“If we take some more independence away from the media, we [are] only adding more fuel to the flames of corruption,” Aitsi said.
TIPNG’s response to the policy was that licensing through a government-enforced process would be a threat to the media professionals and that there were already existing laws that the media was abiding by.
Also the draft policy did not explain why this was not sufficient to ensure accountability.
Before Aitsi spoke, PNG Media Council president Neville Choi said the purported policy was not encouraged and that the national government’s push to control narrative was not supported.
He stressed that every media house in PNG had its own complaints mechanism, own media code of ethics, code of conducts as guides and that there were laws that the media abided by. He saw no reason, based on the draft policy, for it to be progressed.
‘Lack of government support’
“We remind government, that the current level and standard of journalism performers is largely a result of lack of government support to the journalism schools and institutions in our country,” Choi said.
“And we remind government that before this policy was announced, the Media Council had already begun a reform process to address many of the concerns contained in this draft policy.
“We ask that this process be respected, and supported if there is a will to contribute to improving the work of the media.
“We call for full transparency and clarity on the purpose of this policy, and reject it in its current v2 form.
“And I say this on the record, so that this continues throughout the rest of this consultation process.
“We acknowledge that there are areas of concern from which solutions can be found in existing legislation and currently available avenues for legal redress.
Thank you to @jo_m_chandler @CainTess @SamisoniPareti @DavidRobie Bob Howarth @TI_PNG and host of other stakeholders who submitted feedback on the Media Development Policy. We were able to have good discussions with secretary Matainaho and his team. @SecPNGDICT pic.twitter.com/nTv7SHwlBI
— Scott Waide
(@Scott_Waide) March 2, 2023
‘Too much at stake’
“There is too much at stake for this to be rushed.
“There are too many media stakeholders, both within our country, the region, and internationally, who are watching closely the process of this policy formation.
“We all owe it to our future generations, to do this right.”
Prominent PNG journalist Scott Waide was also also highly critical of the government’s draft policy and warned against it going a step further.
Pacific Media Watch reports that last month Waide wrote a scathing critique of the policy on the Canberra-based DevPolicy blog at the Australian National University.
Gorethy Kenneth is a senior PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.
EDITORIAL: PNG Post-Courier
The discussions on Papua New Guinea’s new draft media development policy will come to the fore today when the media industry presents its response to the government.
It is expected the PNG Media Council, which we are a member of, will present the position of the industry in response to the draft policy and members of the media fraternity, and other concerned institutions will also present their views to the Department of Information that is handling this exercise.
The policy paper outlines the government’s strategies to use the media as a tool for development, however the consultation progresses amidst a growing fear in the industry that legislation is ready to go before Parliament and the consultation process is only an academic exercise.
Included in the proposed policy is the proposal to legislate the PNG Media Council and laws to impose penalties against journalists and media houses that are accused [of] bad reporting.
The industry is of the view that the proposed changes will erode the independence of the media and the journalists and ultimately the freedoms relating to free speech that are enshrined in the national constitution.
One cannot blame the industry and its practitioners for their concern considering the latest version to the policy document 2.1 contains 31 mentions of the word “regulation” in various instances among other things.
In the entire document its transparency on penalties also goes as far as 6 words alone without any more being uttered in its delivery mechanisms.
The PNG Media Council, for the record, is not a journalist organisation. It is an industry body and it functions to protect the interest of the industry.
Today the council is in existence, with its executive members operating from their homes, while the media industry is operating with its newsroom managers dealing daily with challenges like the growing concerns of a country with many issues on top of the self-regulation of unethical journalism, poor presentation and story selections and accountability, among many that are a daily task at hand.
On the other side, the government and its agencies are working in isolation, with no clear, honest and transparent media and communication strategies and allocate a budget to work with the mainstream media.
At Independence, PNG inherited an information and communication apparatus that comprised the Office of Information, the National Broadcasting Commission, the Public Library, the National Archives and the National Museum, all with networks spread throughout the provinces.
These institutions coordinate and disseminate government information to the masses, most of them illiterate at that time.
Today a new generation of people live in PNG, the Department of Communication replaces the Office of Information, the NBC had moved into television, competing with more radio and TV networks, but the public libraries, archives and museums are either run down or closed.
And the communication landscape has changed drastically with the advancement in information technology, including social media.
All state agencies have media and communication units that are operating on ad hoc basis, sending invitations out only for groundbreaking ceremonies, report presentations and a few random press releases, hoping that the mainstream media will “educate, inform and communicate” to the masses and mobilise their support behind the state.
Communication and stakeholder engagement is the least funded activity in government. This is a fact, and yet the government expects the mainstream media to be proactive and promote its work.
How can the media, as an independent industry do that when its role is not encompassed into the entire government planning?
The media is an important pillar of our democracy and is a useful tool for development. We just have to build an honest, transparent and workable partnership for the mutual benefit of everyone. This must happen.
But it cannot work with a stick, sword, or even a gun to the head of any pillar of our governance and society.
We look forward to the discussions today with the proponents of this policy document, and we hope to see more transparency on what is the end game that is mutually beneficial where we have to plot a new course in media-government relationship.
By Kelvin Anthony, RNZ Pacific digital and social media journalist, and Koroi Hawkins, RNZ Pacific journalist and Pacific Waves presenter
A Pacific journalism academic has warned proposed amendments to media laws in Papua New Guinea, if “ill-defined”, could mirror the harsh restrictions in Fiji.
Prime Minister James Marape’s government is facing fierce opposition from local and regional journalists for attempting to fasttrack a new media development policy.
The draft law has been described by media freedom advocates as “the thin edge of the web of state control”.
PNG’s Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Department released the Draft Media Development Policy publicly on February 5. It aims “to outline the objectives and strategies for the use of media as a tool for development”.
The department gave stakeholders less than two weeks to make submissions on the 15-page document, but after a backlash the ICT chief extended the consultation period by another week.
“I recognise the sensitivity and importance of this reform exercise,” ICT Minister Timothy Masiu said after giving in to public criticism and extending the consultation period until February 24.
Masiu said he instructed the Information Department to “facilitate a workshop in partnership with key stakeholders”, adding that the Information Ministry “supports and encourages open dialogue” on the matter.
“I reaffirm to the public that the government is committed to ensuring that this draft bill will serve its ultimate purpose,” he said.
The new policy includes provisions on regulating the media industry and raising journalism standards in PNG, which has struggled for years due to lack of investment in the sector.
But media leaders in PNG have expressed concerns, noting that while there are areas where government support is needed, the proposed regulation is not the solution.
“The situation in PNG is a bit worrying if you see what happened in Fiji, even though the PNG Information Department has denied any ulterior motives,” University of the South Pacific head of journalism, Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, told RNZ Pacific.
“There are concerns in PNG. Prominent journalists are worried that the proposed act could be the thin edge of the wedge of state media control, as in Fiji,” Dr Singh said, in reaction to Masiu’s guarantee that the policy is for the benefit of media organisations and journalists.
“If you look at the Fiji situation, the Media Act was implemented in the name of democratising the media, ironically, and also improving professional standards.”
Dr Singh said this is what is also being said by the PNG government but “in Fiji the Media Act has been a disaster for media rights”.
“Various reports blame the Fiji Media Act for a chilling effect on journalism and they also hold the Act responsible for instilling self-censorship in the Fiji media sector,” he said.
“If the PNG media policy provisions are ill-defined, as the Fiji Media Act was, and if it has harsh punitive measures, it could also result in a chilling effect on journalism and this in turn could have major implications for democracy and freedom of speech in PNG.”
The Media Industry Development Act (MIDA) 2010 and its implementation meant that Fiji was ranked 102nd out of 180 countries by Reporters without Borders in 2022.
Earlier this month Fiji’s Attorney-General Siromi Turaga publicly apologised to journalists for the harassment and abuse they endured during the Bainimarama government’s reign.
But Dr Singh said PNG appeared to have been “emboldened” by the Fijian experience.
Media freedom a Pacific-wide issue
He said other Pacific leaders had also threatened to introduce similar legislation and “this is a major concern”.
“Fiji and PNG are the two biggest countries in the Pacific [which] often set trends in the region, for better or for worse. The question that comes to mind is whether countries like Solomon Islands or Vanuatu will follow suit? [Because] over the years and even recently, the leaders of these two countries have also threatened the news media.”
A major study co-authored by the USP academic, which surveyed more than 200 journalists in nine countries and was published in Pacific Journalism Review in 2021, revealed that “Pacific journalists are among the youngest, most inexperienced and least qualified in the world”.
Dr Singh warned the research showed that legislation alone would not result in any significant improvements to journalism standards in Pacific countries, which is why committing money in training and development was crucial.
“Training and development are an important component of the Fiji Media Act. However, our analysis found zero dollars was invested by the Fiji government in training and development,” he said.
“If we are to take any lessons from Fiji, and if the PNG government is serious about standards, it needs to invest at least some of its own money in this venture of improving journalism.”
This is a sentiment shared by Media Council of PNG president, Neville Choi, who said: “If the concern is poor journalism, then the solution is more investment in schools of journalism at tertiary institutions, this will also improve diversity and pluralism in the quality of journalism.
“We need newsrooms with access to training in media ethics and legal protection from harassment,” Choi added.
Dr Singh said that without proper financial backing in the media sector “there is unlikely to be any improvement in standards, [but] just a cowered down or subdued media [which] is not in PNG’s public interest, or the national interest, given the levels of corruption in the country.”
APMN calls for ‘urgent rethink’
The publisher of the Pacific Journalism Review, the Asia Pacific Media Network, has also condemned the move, calling for an “urgent rethink” of the draft media policy.
The group is proposing for the communications ministry to “immediately discard the proposed policy of legislating the PNG Media Council and regulating journalists and media which would seriously undermine media freedom in Papua New Guinea”.
The network also cited the 1999 Melanesian Media Declaration as a guideline for Pacific media councils and said the draft PNG policy was ignoring “established norms” for media freedom.
The statement was co-signed by the APMN chair Dr Heather Devere; deputy chair Dr David Robie, a retired professor of Pacific journalism and author, and founding director of the Pacific Media Centre; and Pacific Journalism Review editor Dr Philip Cass, who was born in PNG and worked on the Times of Papua New Guinea and Wantok newspapers.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
ANALYSIS: By Mong Palatino
Various stakeholders have warned that the draft National Media Development Policy released by Papua New Guinea’s Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) on February 5 could undermine media freedom if approved by the government.
The DICT asked stakeholders to share their input within 12 days, but this was extended for another week after Papua New Guinea’s Community Coalition Against Corruption (CCAC) criticised the short period for the consultation process.
The draft policy lays the framework “for the use of media as a tool for development.” The state emphasised that “it includes provisions for the regulation of media, ensuring press freedom and the protection of journalists, and promoting media literacy among the population.”
A controversial proposal in the draft is to transform the PNG Media Council into a body “that will have legal mandate that covers an effective and enforceable regulatory framework.”
According to the draft policy, the new PNG Media Council “will ensure press freedom, protect journalists, and promote ethical standards in the media sector”.
At present, the council is a nonprofit group promoting media freedom and the welfare of journalists. The draft recognises that “its primary role has been to promote ethical journalism and to support journalists in the pursuit of their professional duties.
Journalist Scott Waide underscored that “over three decades, its role has shifted to being a representative body for media professionals and a voice for media freedom.” He pointed out the implications of re-establishing the council with a broad mandate as defined in the draft policy, suggesting that the government hopes to gain control over the media sphere:
The government’s intention to impose greater control over aspects of the media, including the MCPNG [Media Council], is ringing alarm bells through the region. This is to be done by re-establishing the council through the enactment of legislation. The policy envisages the council as a regulatory agency with licensing authority over journalists.
The regulatory framework proposed for the new media council includes licensing for journalists. Licensing is one of the biggest red flags that screams of government control.
The draft policy proposes to grant the media council powers to offer licences and accreditation to journalists and media outlets, handle complaints and sanctions, among other powers:
Licensing and Accreditation: Requirements for media outlets and journalists to be licensed or accredited, including provisions for renewing licenses and for revoking licenses in cases of violations.
Complaints and Sanctions: Mechanisms for the resolution of complaints against the media, including procedures for investigations and sanctions for breaches of ethical standards.
Media Council PNG president Neville Choi, who is also co-chair of CCAC, reminded authorities of another way to improve journalism in the country:
If the concern is poor journalism, then the solution is more investment in schools of journalism at tertiary institutions, this will also increase diversity and pluralism in the quality of journalism.
We need newsrooms with access to trainings on media ethics and legal protection from harassment.
Writer Fraser Liu rejected the proposed state regulation and urged authorities to review current legal options that can be used to deal with media reporting that violates the country’s laws.
My view is the government should stay away from the fourth estate completely. This is a sinister move with obvious intentions.
Government should not be regulating the media in any form as it infringes on rights to free speech. It can run media organisations to bring its own message out, but it should never exert control over the entire industry.
Media agencies and agents must be left alone to their own ends, being free from cohesion of any sort, and if media reporting does in fact raise any legal issues like defamation, then the courts are the avenue for resolution. There is no shortage in Common law of such case precedent.
Transparency International PNG chair Peter Aitsi added that disinformation on social media should be addressed without undermining free speech.
While the abuse of social media platforms is a new issue that is given as justification for the media policy, there are already existing laws that address the issue without undermining media freedom.
#APMN calls for ‘urgent rethink’ over #PNG draft #media #regulation plan #AsiaPacificReport #pngmediapolicy #mediafreedom #pressfreedom #mediaregulation @Scott_Waide @kenneth_gorethy @PeterCronau @PNGAttitude @PngPles https://t.co/rPdY3iuQ7e pic.twitter.com/luETmgbwfU
— David Robie (@DavidRobie) February 20, 2023
News about the draft policy also alarmed media groups in the region. The New Zealand-based Asia Pacific Media Network Inc. said that “media must be free to speak truth to power in the public interest not the politicians’ interest.” Adding:
In our view, the ministry is misguided in seeking to legislate for a codified PNG Media Council which flies in the face of global norms for self-regulatory media councils and this development would have the potential to dangerously undermine media freedom in Papua New Guinea.
Australia’s media union also tweeted their concern:
#MEAAmedia backs Media Council of Papua New Guinea’s (MCPNG) concerns and call for meaningful consultation over government’s proposed National Media Development Policy.#mediafreedom#mediadiversity#righttoknow@TI_PNG pic.twitter.com/GiAnH9hyYi
— MEAA (@withMEAA) February 17, 2023
The International Federation of Journalists and Reporters Without Borders asked the government to withdraw regulations that restrict independent journalism. Susan Merrell, a lecturer at Sydney University on cultural studies and communication, commented that “instead of the media being the government’s watchdog, the government is trying to become the media’s watchdog.”
The government insisted that it is committed to upholding media freedom.
Scott Waide sums up the state of media in the country:
While the PNG media has been resilient in the face of many challenges, journalists who have chosen to cover issues of national importance have been targeted with pressure coming directly from within government circles.
Global Voices has previously reported about the suspension of a journalist in Papua New Guinea’s EMTV news, the new rule prohibiting reporters to directly contact the prime minister, and a stricter regulation for foreign correspondents. Mong Palatino is regional editor for Southeast Asia of Global Voices, an activist and former two-term member of the Philippine House of Representatives. Republished under a Creative Commons licence.
By Rebecca Kuku in Port Moresby
Enga Governor Sir Peter Ipatas has told the Papua New Guinean government and national leaders to allow the media to carry out its role “unfettered” and accept public criticism.
“You are in a public office. As leaders, we must be prepared for anything. If they write negative reports, let’s learn to build on criticisms,” Sir Peter said.
He was responding to a government statement last week saying that a proposed national media development policy circulated to all stakeholders for comment was not meant to control the media or the freedom of expression.
Sir Peter said: “The government needs to understand that the office we hold is a public office, and we are answerable to the people. The media’s job is to hold us accountable.”
He questioned why the government was wasting money and time on a draft media policy when it had bigger issues to worry about.
Detrimental for democracy
Sir Peter warned that the Constitution provided for a free media and any attempt to put restrictions on that crucial role would be detrimental to a democratic society.
“Do not look at today only. Look at the future too because you will not be in office forever,” he said.
“There are also avenues provided for in the Constitution to address issues.
“If you have an issue with a news report, take it to court and get it sorted out there.
“I’ve been a politician for over 20 years. I don’t care what the media reports — positive news or negative news so long as it’s not [lies],” he said.
“It is the media’s job to report facts as it is. Let the media do its job and let’s do our job.”
Rebecca Kuku is a reporter with The National. Republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
The Paris-based media freedom watchdog said in a statement that “in what may be an example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions, the government has produced a ‘Draft National Media Development Policy’ with the declared aim of turning the media into “a tool for development” including “the promotion of democracy, good governance, human rights, and social and economic development.”
Daniel Bastard, head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk, said: “It is entirely commendable for a democracy to want to encourage the development of a healthy and dynamic news and information environment.
“But, as it stands, the policy proposed by Port Moresby clearly endangers the independence of the media by establishing government control over their work.
“We call on Information and Communication Technology Minister Timothy Masiu to abandon this proposal and start again from scratch by organising a real consultation and by providing proper safeguards for journalistic independence.”
The policy’s most alarming measures concern the Media Council of PNG, which is currently a non-governmental entity representing media professionals, said RSF.
It would be turned into a judicial commission with the power to determine who should or should not be regarded as a journalist, to issue a code of ethics and to impose sanctions on journalists who stray from it.
‘Regulatory government body’
“These are disproportionate powers, especially as there is no provision for ensuring the independence of those appointed as the new Media Council’s members,” the RSF statement said.
“There is also no provision for journalists and media outlets to challenge or appeal against its decisions.”
RSF also quoted from a recent DevPolicy article by Scott Waide, a blogger, media producer and analyst who was formerly a deputy regional head of news at EMTV News based at Lae:
“The policy envisages the media council as a regulatory and licensing body for journalists, which means, hypothetically, that it could penalise journalists if they present a narrative that is not in favour of the government.”
“The re-invented media council would be nothing more than a regulatory government body.”
The government’s new policy seemed all the more ill-considered, said RSF, given that, in the event of disputes with the media, there were already avenues for redress through the courts under the 1962 Defamation Act and 2016 Cybercrime Code Act.
Several journalists have been subjected to covert pressure from the government in recent years.
They include Waide himself, who was suspended from his EMTV News job in November 2018 over a story suggesting that the government had misused public funds by purchasing luxury cars.
EMTV’s then news chief Sincha Dimara suffered the same fate in February 2022 after three news stories annoyed a government minister.
ANALYSIS: By Scott Waide in Port Moresby
The new media development policy being proposed by the Papua New Guinea Communications Minister, Timothy Masiu, could lead to more government control over the country’s relatively free media.
The new policy suggests a series of changes including legislative amendments. But media and stakeholders are not being given enough time to examine the details and study the long-term implications of the policy.
The initial deadline for feedback has been extended by another seven days from today. However, the Media Council of PNG (MCPNG) has requested a consultation forum with the government, as it seeks wider input from research organisations, academia and regional partners.
The government’s intention to impose greater control over aspects of the media, including the MCPNG, is ringing alarm bells through the region. This is to be done by re-establishing the council through the enactment of legislation.
The policy envisages the council as a regulatory agency with licensing authority over journalists.
The MCPNG was established in 1989 as a non-profit organisation representing the interests of media organisations. Apart from a brief period in the earlier part of its existence, it has largely been unfunded.
Over three decades, its role has shifted to being a representative body for media professionals and a voice for media freedom.
The president of the council, Neville Choi, says there are aspects of the media that need government support. These include protection and training of journalists. However, the media is best left as a self-regulating industry.
According to Choi:
“Media self-regulation is when media professionals set up voluntary editorial guidelines and abide by them in a learning process open to the public. By doing this, independent media accept their share of responsibility for the quality of public discourse in the country, while preserving their editorial autonomy in shaping it. The MCPNG was set up with this sole intent.
“It is not censorship, and not even self-censorship. It is about establishing minimum principles on ethics, accuracy, personal rights while preserving editorial freedom on what to report, and what opinions to express.
The regulatory framework proposed for the new media council includes licensing for journalists. Licensing is one of the biggest red flags that screams of government control.
While the PNG media has been resilient in the face of many challenges, journalists who have chosen to cover issues of national importance have been targeted with pressure coming directly from within government circles.
In 2004, the National Broadcasting Corporation’s head of news and current affairs, Joseph Ealedona, was suspended for a series of stories on the military and the government. The managing director of the government broadcaster issued the notice of suspension.
In 2019, Neville Choi, then head of news for EMTV, was sacked for disobeying orders not to run a story of a military protest outside the Prime Minister’s office in Port Moresby. Choi was later reinstated following intense public pressure and a strike by all EMTV journalists and news production staff.
Two years later, a similar scenario played out when 24 staff and EMTV’s head of news were sacked for protesting against political interference in the newsroom.
For many within the industry, licensing just gives the government better tools to penalise journalists who present an unfavourable narrative.
On paper, the government appears to be trying to remedy the desperately ailing journalism standards in PNG. But the attempt is not convincing enough for many.
Fraser Liu, an accountant by profession and an outspoken observer of national issues, says the courts provide enough of an avenue for redress if there are grievances and that an additional layer of control is not needed.
Liu said: “Media agencies and agents must be left alone to their own ends, being free from coercion of any sort, and if media reporting does in fact raise any legal issues like defamation, then the courts are the avenue for resolution. There is no shortage in common law of such case precedent. This is clearly an act by government to control media and effectively free speech.
“Government cannot self-appoint itself as a referee for free speech. Free speech is covered under our Constitution and the courts protect this basic right. The policy talks about protection of reporters’ rights. Again, what is this? They already have rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Coming back to poor journalism standards, Minister Masiu, a former broadcast journalist himself, has been challenged on many occasions to increase investment into PNG’s journalism schools. It is a challenge he has not yet taken up despite the abundant rhetoric about the need for improvement.
The energy of government should be put into fixing the root problem contributing to the poor quality of the media: poor standards of university education.
Scott Waide is a journalist based in Lae, Papua New Guinea. He is the former deputy regional head of news for EMTV and has worked in the media for 24 years. This article was first published on the DevPolicy Blog and is republished here under a Creative Commons licence.
An anti-corruption NGO in Papua New Guinea has criticised the haste with which the government is conducting consultation on a draft National Media Development Policy that could undermine media freedom.
The Community Coalition Against Corruption (CCAC) has called on the Department of Information and Communication Technologies to extend the time and breadth of consultation on this proposed national policy.
“Extended and broader consultation is required for this as media freedoms are vital to our democracy,” the coalition said in a statement.
Minister for Information and Communication Technology Timothy Masiu responded quickly and extended the deadline by one week from February 20.
In his capacity as co-chair of the coalition, Transparency International PNG chair Peter Aitsi said: “The two weeks given for consultation is not sufficient to consider the national and societal impact of this media policy and whether it is actually required.
“For instance, while the abuse of social media platforms is a new issue that is given as justification for the media policy, there are already existing laws that address the issue without undermining media freedom.
“This month, when we commemorate the legacy of the Grand Chief Sir Michael Thomas Somare, we recall his personal stance when Prime Minister opposing the regulation of PNG’s media when a similar bill was proposed in 2003.”
Editorial independence ‘cornerstone’
Another senior media spokesperson also said the government had failed to provide adequate time and conduct meaningful consultation over the draft National Media Development Policy 2023.
Media Council PNG president Neville Choi said in his capacity as co-chair of the coalition: “The editorial independence of newsrooms is a cornerstone of a functional democracy.
“Undermining media freedom, diminishes the role of the media as the mouthpiece of the people, holding those in power to account.
“Failure by the government to provide adequate time and conduct meaningful consultation, will ultimately undermine confidence in the government and the country, both domestically and abroad.
“If the concern is poor journalism, then the solution is more investment in schools of journalism at tertiary institutions, this will also increase diversity and pluralism in the quality of journalism.
“We need newsrooms with access to trainings on media ethics and legal protection from harassment.”
The media policy was initially released by the Department of ICT on February 5 and the public was only given 12 days to comment on the document, with the original deadline for feedback being February 17.
The policy includes provisions for the regulation of media and establishment of a Government Information Risk Management (GIRM) Division within the Department of ICT to implement measures to prevent the unauthorised access to “sensitive information”.
The coalition is a network of organisations that come together to discuss and make recommendations on national governance issues. It is currently co-chaired by Transparency International PNG and the Media Council.
Republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
The National in Port Moresby
Papua New Guinea’s new media draft policy would put a stop to reporting news not regarded as “positive” for the country’s image, says former PNG Media Council director Bob Howarth.
Howarth, who was director from 2001-2005, said that the national government needed to seriously look at the way the media scene in Timor-Leste had thrived from next to nothing in 1999 when its violent emergence from foreign occupation became full democracy.
“The small nation has the highest press freedom ranking in the region and has a very active press council supported by the UNDP [United Nations Development Programme] and several foreign NGOs,” said Howarth, who as well as advising Timor-Leste media has helped editorial staff on several newspapers.
“[The Timor-Leste Press Council] has a staff of 35 and runs professional training for local journalists in close co-operation with university journalism schools.”
“Visiting foreign reporters don’t need special visas in case they write about ‘non-positive’ issues like witchcraft murders, tribal warfare corruption or unsold Maseratis.”
The National Media Development Policy has been public since February 5 and already it has been soundly criticised for “hasty” consultations on the draft law and a tight deadlne for submissions.
University input
Howarth said that with easier online meetings, thanks to Zoom PNG’s new look, the media council could include input from the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) and Divine Word journalism schools plus a voice from critical regions such as Bougainville, Western Highlands and Goroka.
“And Timorese journalists can easily contact their President, José Ramos-Horta, a staunch defender of press freedom and media diversity, without going through government spin doctors,” he said.
Howarth said the PNG government could look into the media scene in Timor-Leste to do their media policy.
Meanwhile, in Brisbane the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) — Australia’s main union representing journalists — has passed a resolution endorsing support for the PNG Media Council.
“MEAA supports the [MCPNG] concerns about the possible impact of the government’s draft National Media Development Policy on media freedom; regulation of access to information; and the restructuring of the national broadcaster, including proposed reduction in government funding,” said the MEAA resolution.
Republished with permission.
By Rebecca Kuku
Media is not a tool of government to promote its agenda — however altruistic that agenda may be, says media academic Dr Susan Merrell of Sydney University.
Dr Merrell said this in response to the Papua New Guinea government’s new draft national media development policy.
The deadline for submissions has been pushed back a week from 20 February 2023 after protests that the consultation on such an important policy has been “too rushed”.
Dr Merrell said the first two paragraphs (under “purpose”) of the media policy draft dated 5 February 2023 which stated, “the purpose of this policy is to outline the objectives and strategies for the use of media as a tool for development, such as the promotion of democracy, good governance, human rights, and social and economic development,” said it all.
“The only media doing that, should be their own (government) public relations department.
“Newspapers are not to be mixed with public relations departments.
“In fact, the role of media, acting as the Fourth Estate is to keep the government honest,” she said.
Dr Merrell said that according to the draft, if approved, mainstream media would not be able to publish anything regarded as “anti-government” or anything “detrimental” to the country’s good image.
“Instead of the media being the government’s watchdog, the government is trying to become the media’s watchdog,” she said.
“What the policy maker must understand is that the media is concerned with the ‘public’ interest not the ‘national’ interest.
“It’s not the same thing. For example: the Australian media reported on the Australian government spying on Timor-Leste and Indonesia although this story and revelation was embarrassing and not in the national interest.
“It was in the public’s interest to know this was how their government had conducted itself.”
Rebecca Kuku is a reporter for The National. Republished with permission.
By Lice Movono in Suva
Veteran Fijian journalist Netani Rika and his wife were resting in their living room when he was suddenly woken, startled by the sound of smashed glass. “I got up, I slipped on the wet surface,” he recalls.
He turned on the lights and a bottle and wick were spread across the floor. It was one of the many acts of violence and intimidation he endured after the 2006 military coup.
Back then, Rika was the manager of news and current affairs at Fiji Television.
No news at 6pm, no news at 10pm
Back then, Rika was the manager of news and current affairs at Fiji Television.
He vividly remembers the time his car was smashed with golf clubs by two unknown men — one he would later identify as a member of the military — and the day he was locked up at a military camp.
“We were monitoring the situation . . . once the takeover happened, there was a knock at the door and we had some soldiers present themselves,” he said.
“We were told they were there for our protection but our CEO at the time, Ken Clark, said ‘well if you’re here to protect us, then you can stand at the gate’.
“They said, ‘no, we are here to be in the newsroom, and we want to see what goes to air. We also have a list of people you cannot speak to … ministers, detectives’.”
Rika remembered denying their request and publishing a notice on behalf of Fiji TV News that said it would “not broadcast tonight due to censorship”, promising to return to air when they were able to “broadcast the news in a manner which is free and fair”.
“There was no news at six, there was no news at 10, it was a decision made by the newsroom.”
Organisations like Human Rights Watch have repeatedly criticised Voreqe Bainimarama, who installed himself as prime minister during the 2006 coup, for his attacks on government critics, the press and the freedom of its citizens.
Fear and intimidation
Rika reported incidents of violence to Fiji police, but he said detectives told him his complaints would not go far.
“There was a series of letters to the editor which I suppose you could say were anti-government. Shortly after … the now-honourable leader of the opposition (Voreqe Bainimarama) called, he swore at me in the Fijian iTaukei language … a short time later I saw a vehicle come into our street,” he said.
“The next time (the attackers) came over the fence, broke a wooden louvre and threw one (explosive) inside the house.”
The ABC contacted Bainimarama’s Fiji First party and Fiji police for comment, but has not received a response.
The following year, Rika left his job to become the editor-in-chief at The Fiji Times, the country’s leading independent newspaper. With the publication relying on the government’s advertising to remain viable, Rika said the government put pressure on the paper’s owners.
“The government took away Fiji Times’ advertising, did all sorts of things in order to bring it into line with its propaganda that Fiji was OK, there was no more corruption.”
Rika said the government also sought to remove the employment rights of News Limited, which owned The Fiji Times.
“The media laws were changed so that you could not have more than 5 percent overseas ownership,” Rika said.
Rika, and his deputy Sophie Foster — now an Australian national — lost their jobs after the Media Act 2011 was passed, banning foreign ownership of Fijian media organisations.
‘A chilling law’
The new law put in place several regulations over journalists’ work, including restrictions on reporting of government activities.
In May last year, Fijian Media Association secretary Stanley Simpson called for a review of the “harsh penalties” that can be imposed by the authority that enforces the act.
Penalties include up to F$100,000 (NZ$75,00) in fines or two years’ imprisonment for news organisations for publishing content that is considered a breach of public or national interest. Simpson said some sections were “too excessive and designed to be vindictive and punish the media rather that encourage better reporting standards and be corrective”.
Media veterans hope the controversial act will be changed, or removed entirely, to protect press freedom.
Retired journalism professor Dr David Robie, now editor of Asia Pacific Report, taught many of the Pacific journalists who head up Fijian newsrooms today, but some of his earlier research focused on the impact of the Media Act.
Dr Robie said from the outset, the legislation was widely condemned by media freedom organisations around the world for being “very punitive and draconian”.
“It is a chilling law, making restrictions to media and making it extremely difficult for journalists to act because … the journalists in Fiji constantly have that shadow hanging over them.”
In the years after Fijian independence in 1970, Dr Robie said Fiji’s “vigorous” media sector “was a shining light in the whole of the Pacific and in developing countries”.
“That was lost … under that particular law and many of the younger journalists have never known what it is to be in a country with a truly free media.”
‘We’re so rich in stories’
Last month, the newly-elected government said work was underway to change media laws.
“We’re going to ensure (journalists) have freedom to broadcast and to impart knowledge and information to members of the public,” Fiji’s new Attorney-General Siromi Turaga said.
“The coalition government is going to provide a different approach, a truly democratic way of dealing with media freedom.” But Dr Robie said he believed the only way forward was to remove the Media Act altogether.
“I’m a bit sceptical about this notion that we can replace it with friendly legislation. That’s sounds like a slippery slope to me,” he said.
“I’d have to say that self-regulation is pretty much the best way to go.”
Reporters Without Borders ranked Fiji at 102 out of 180 countries in terms of press freedom, falling by 47 places compared to its 2021 rankings.
Samantha Magick was the news director at Fiji radio station FM96, but left after the 2000 coup and returned three years ago to edit Islands Business International, a regional news magazine.
“When I came back, there wasn’t the same robustness of discussion and debate, we (previously) had powerful panel programs and talkback and there wasn’t a lot of that happening,” she said.
“Part of that was a reflection of the legislation and its impact on the way people worked but it was often very difficult to get both sides of a story because of the way newsmakers tried to control their messaging … which I thought was really unfortunate.”
Magick said less restrictive media laws might encourage journalists to push the boundaries, while mid-career reporters would be more creative and more courageous.
“I also hope it will mean more people stay in the profession because we have this enormous problem with people coming, doing a couple of years and then going … for mainly financial reasons.”
She lamented the fact that “resource intensive” investigative journalism had fallen by the wayside but hoped to see “a sort of reinvigoration of the profession in general.”
“We’re so rich in stories … I’d love to see more collaboration across news organisations or among journalists and freelancers,” she said.
Lice Movono is a Fijian reporter for the ABC based in Suva. An earlier audio report from her on the Fiji media is here. Republished with permission.
Airstrikes ordered against civilian targets, destruction of thousands of buildings, millions displaced, nearly 3000 civilians murdered, more than 13,000 jailed, the country’s independent media banished, and the country locked in a deadly nationwide civil war. Myanmar civilians now ask what else must happen before they receive international support in line with Ukraine, writes Phil Thornton.
SPECIAL REPORT: By Phil Thornton
In the two years since Myanmar’s military seized power from the country’s elected lawmakers it has waged a war of terror against its citizens — members of the Civil Disobedience Movement, artists, poets, actors, politicians, health workers, student leaders, public servants, workers, and journalists.
The military-appointed State Administration Council amended laws to punish anyone critical of its illegal coup or the military. International standards of freedoms — speech, expression, assembly, and association were “criminalised”.
The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), reported as of 30 January 2023, the military killed 2901 people and arrested another 17,492 (of which 282 were children), with 13,719 people still in detention.
One hundred and forty three people have been sentenced to death and four have been executed since the military’s coup on 1 February 2021. Of those arrested, 176 were journalists and as many as 62 are still in jail or police detention.
The Committee to Protect Journalists ranks Myanmar as the world’s second-highest jailers of journalists. Fear of attacks, harassment, intimidation, censorship, detainment, and threats of assassination for their reporting has driven journalists and media workers underground or to try to reach safety in neighbouring countries.
Journalist Ye Htun Oo has been arrested, tortured, received death threats, and is now forced to seek safety outside of Myanmar. Ye Htun spoke to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) of his torture, jailing and why he felt he had no choice, but to leave Myanmar for the insecurity of a journalist in exile.
They came for me in the morning
“I started as a journalist in 2007 but quit after two years because of the difficulty of working under the military. I continued to work, writing stories and poetry. In 2009 I restarted work as a freelance video and documentary maker.”
Ye Htu said making money from journalism in Myanmar had never been easy.
“I was lucky if I made 300,000 kyat a month (about NZ$460) — it was a lot of work, writing, editing, interviewing and filming.”
Ye Htun’s hands, fingers and thin frame twist and turn as he takes time to return to the darkness of the early morning when woken by police and military knocking on his front door.
“It was 2 am, the morning of 9 October 2021. We were all asleep. The knocking on the door was firm but gentle. I opened the door. Men from the police and the military’s special media investigation unit stood there — no uniforms. They’d come to arrest me.”
Ye Htun links the visit of the police and army to his friend’s arrest the day before.
“He had my number on his phone and when questioned told them I was a journalist. I hadn’t written anything for a while. The only reason they arrested me was because I was identified as a journalist — it was enough for them. The military unit has a list of journalists who they want to control, arrest, jail or contain.”
Ye Htun explains how easy it is for journalists to be arrested.
“When they arrest people…if they find a reference to a journalist or a phone number it’s enough to put you on their list.”
After the coup, Ye Htun continued to report.
“I was not being paid, moving around, staying in different places, following the protests. I was taking photos. I took a photo of citizens arresting police and it was published. This causes problems for the people in the photo. It also caused some people to regard me and journalists as informers — we were now in a hard place, not knowing what or who we could photograph. I decided to stop reporting and made the decision to move home. That’s when they came and arrested me.”
In the early morning before sunrise, the police and military removed Ye Htun from his home and family and took him to a detention cell inside a military barracks.
“They took all my equipment — computer, cameras, phone, and hard disks. The men who arrested and took me to the barracks left and others took over. Their tone changed. I was accused of being a PDF (People’s Defence Force militia).
“Ye Htun describes how the ‘politeness’ of his captors soon evaporated, and the danger soon became a brutal reality. They started to beat me with kicks, fists, sticks and rubber batons. They just kept beating me, no questions. I was put in foot chains — ankle braces.”
The beating of Ye Htun would continue for 25 days and the uncertainty and hurt still shows in his eyes, as he drags up the details he’s now determined to share.
“I was interrogated by an army captain who ordered me to show all my articles — there was little to show. They made me kneel on small stones and beat me on the body — never the head as they said, ‘they needed it intact for me to answer their questions’”.
Ye Htun explained it wasn’t just his assigned interrogators who beat or tortured him.
“Drunk soldiers came regularly to spit, insult or threaten me with their guns or knives.”
Scared, feared for his life
Ye Htun is quick to acknowledge he was scared and feared for his life.
“I was terrified. No one knew where I was. I knew my family would be worried. Everyone knows of people being arrested and then their dead, broken bodies, missing vital organs, being returned to grieving families.”
After 25 days of torture, Ye Htun was transferred to a police jail.
“They accused me of sending messages they had ‘faked’ and placed on my phone. I was sentenced to two years jail on 3rd November — I had no lawyer, no representative.”
Ye Htun spoke to political prisoners during his time in jail and concluded many were behind bars on false charges.
“Most political prisoners are there because of fake accusations. There’s no proper rule of law — the military has turned the whole country into a prison.”
Ye Htun served over a year and five months of his sentence and was one of six journalists released in an amnesty from Pyay Jail on 4 January 2023.
Not finished torturing
Any respite Ye Htun or his family received from his release was short-lived, as it became apparent the military was not yet finished torturing him. He was forced to sign a declaration that if he was rearrested he would be expected to serve his existing sentence plus any new ones, and he received death threats.
Soon after his release, the threats to his family were made.
“I was messaged on Facebook and on other social media apps. The messages said, ‘don’t go out alone…keep your family and wife away from us…’ their treats continued every two or three days.”
Ye Htun and his family have good cause to be concerned about the threats made against them. Several pro-military militias have openly declared on social media their intention against those opposed to the military’s control of the country.
A pro-military militia, Thwe Thauk Apwe (Blood Brothers), specialise in violent killings designed to terrorise.
Frontier Magazine reported in May 2022 that Thwe Thauk Apwe had murdered 14 members of the National League of Democracy political party in two weeks. The militia uses social media to boast of its gruesome killings and to threaten its targets — those opposed to military rule — PDF units, members of political parties, CDM members, independent media outlets and journalists.
Ye Htun said fears for his wife and children’s safety forced him to leave Myanmar.
“I couldn’t keep putting them at risk because I’m a journalist. I will continue to work, but I know I can’t do it in Myanmar until this military regime is removed.”
Air strikes target civilians – where’s the UN?
Award-winning documentary maker and artist, Sai Kyaw Khaing, dismayed at the lack of coverage by international and regional media on the impacts of Myanmar’s military aerial strikes on civilian targets, decided to make the arduous trip to the country’s northwest to find out.
In the two years since the military regime took illegal control of the country’s political infrastructure, Myanmar is now engaged in a brutal, countrywide civil war.
Civilian and political opposition to the military coup saw the formation of People Defence Force units under the banner of the National Unity Government established in April 2021 by members of Parliament elected at the 2020 elections and outlawed by the military after its coup.
Thousands of young people took up arms and joined PDF units, trained by Ethnic Armed Organisations, to defend villages and civilians and fight the military regime. The regime vastly outnumbered and outmuscled the PDFs and EAOs with its military hardware — tanks, heavy artillery, helicopter gunships and fighter jets.
Sai Kyaw contacted a number of international media outlets with his plans to travel deep inside the conflict zone to document how displaced people were coping with the airstrikes and burning of their villages and crops.
Sai Kyaw said it was telling that he has yet to receive a single response of interest from any of the media he approached.
“What’s happening in Myanmar is being ignored, unlike the conflict in Ukraine. Most of the international media, if they do report on Myanmar, want an ‘expert’ to front their stories, even better if it’s one of their own, a Westerner.”
Deadly strike impact
Sai Kyaw explains why what is happening on the ground needs to be explained — the impacts of the deadly airstrikes on the lives of unarmed villagers.
“My objective is to talk to local people. How can they plant or harvest their crops during the intense fighting? How can they educate their kids or get medical help?
“Thousands of houses, schools, hospitals, churches, temples, and mosques have been targeted and destroyed — how are the people managing to live?”
Sai Kyaw put up his own money to finance his trip to a neighbouring country where he then made contact with people prepared to help him get to northwestern Myanmar, which was under intense attacks from the military regime.
“It took four days by motorbike on unlit mountain dirt tracks that turned to deep mud when it rained. We also had to avoid numerous military checkpoints, military informers, and spies.”
Sai Kyaw said that after reaching his destination, meeting with villagers, and witnessing their response to the constant artillery and aerial bombardments, their resilience astounded him.
“These people rely on each other, when they’re bombed from their homes, people who still have a house rally around and offer shelter. They don’t have weapons to fight back, but they organise checkpoints managed by men and women.”
Sai Kyaw said being unable to predict when an airstrike would happen took its toll on villagers.
Clinics, schools bombed
“You don’t know when they’re going to attack — day or night — clinics, schools, places of worship — are bombed. These are not military targets — they don’t care who they kill.”
Sai Kyaw witnessed an aerial bombing and has the before and after film footage that shows the destruction. Rows of neat houses, complete with walls intact before the air strike are left after the attack with holes a car could drive through.
“The unpredictable and indiscriminate attacks mean villagers are unable to harvest their crops or plant next season’s rice paddies.”
Sai Kyaw is concerned that the lack of aid getting to the people in need of shelter, clothing, food, and medicine will cause a large-scale humanitarian crisis.
“There’s no sign of international aid getting to the people. If there’s a genuine desire to help the people, international aid groups can do it by making contact with local community groups. It seems some of these big international aid donors are reluctant to move from their city bases in case they upset the military’s SAC [State Administration Council].”
At the time of writing Sai Kyaw Khaing has yet to receive a reply from any of the international media he contacted.
It’s the economy stupid
A veteran Myanmar journalist, Kyaw Kyaw*, covered a wide range of stories for more than 15 years, including business, investment, and trade. He told IFJ he was concerned the ban on independent media, arrests of journalists, gags and access restrictions on sources meant many important stories went unreported.
“The military banning of independent media is a serious threat to our freedom of speech. The military-controlled state media can’t be relied on. It’s well documented, it’s mainly no news or fake news overseen by the military’s Department of Propaganda.”
Kyaw lists the stories that he explains are in critical need of being reported — the cost of consumer goods, the collapse of the local currency, impact on wages, lack of education and health care, brain drain as people flee the country, crops destroyed and unharvested and impact on next year’s yield.
Kyaw is quick to add details to his list.
“People can’t leave the country fast enough. There are more sellers than buyers of cars and houses. Crime is on the rise as workers’ real wages fall below the poverty line. Garment workers earned 4800 kyat, the minimum daily rate before the military’s coup. The kyat was around 1200 to the US dollar — about four dollars. Two years after the coup the kyat is around 2800 — workers’ daily wage has dropped to half, about US$2 a day.”
Kyaw Kyaw’s critique is compelling as he explains the cost of everyday consumer goods and the impact on households.
“Before the coup in 2021, rice cost a household, 32,000 kyat for around 45kg. It is now selling at 65,000 kyat and rising. Cooking oil sold at 3,000 kyat for 1.6kg now sells for over double, 8,000kyat.
“It’s the same with fish, chicken, fuel, and medicine – family planning implants have almost doubled in cost from 25,000 kyat to now selling at 45,000 kyat.”
Humanitarian crisis potential
Kyaw is dismayed that the media outside the country are not covering stories that have a huge impact on people’s daily struggle to feed and care for their families and have the real potential for a massive humanitarian crisis in the near future.
“The focus is on the revolution, tallies of dead soldiers, politics — all important, but journalists and local and international media need to report on the hidden costs of the military’s coup. Local media outlets need to find solutions to better cover these issues.”
Kyaw stresses international governments and institutions — ASEAN, UK, US, China, and India — need to stop talking and take real steps to remove and curb the military’s destruction of the country.
“In two years, they displaced over a million people, destroyed thousands of houses and religious buildings, attacked schools and hospitals — killing students and civilians — what is the UNSC waiting for?”
An independent think tank, the Institute for Strategy and Policy – Myanmar, and the UN agency for refugees confirm Kyaws Kyaw’s claims.The Institute for Strategy and Policy reports “at least 28,419 homes and buildings were torched or destroyed…in the aftermath of the coup between 1 February 2021, and 15 July 2022.”
The UN agency responsible for refugees, the UNHCR, estimates the number of displaced people in Myanmar is a staggering 1,574,400. Since the military coup and up to January 23, the number was 1,244,000 people displaced.
While the world’s media and governments focus their attention and military aid on Ukraine, Myanmar’s people continue to ask why their plight continues to be ignored.
Phil Thornton is a journalist and senior adviser to the International Federation of Journalists in Southeast Asia. This article was first published by the IFJ Asia-Pacific blog and is republished with the author’s permission. Thornton is also a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.
*Name has been changed as requested for security concerns.