COMMENTARY: By Mary Kostakidis

Three very apt words — Truth, Trust and Tribalism. Much of what I say will focus on the last. Because of it, the first and second often become casualties.

Our Holy Grail of journalism centres on four pillars: objectivity, impartiality, balance and neutrality. Four pillars that are all too often weaponised in the service of gatekeeping the Overton window, so that establishment interests aren’t threatened by a restless citizenry.

While this has operated somewhat more subtly in the past, it has become a charade in which allies who wield enormous power on the global stage, have dropped their masks — they have shed pants as well — and it has become harder to drink this glass of milk because there are big fat flies floating on the surface.

• READ MORE:  Israel funded the legal assault on Australian journalist Mary Kostakidis
• Other media diversity and Gaza reports

The world order intended to be based on international law, and one that has often failed to deliver accountability in the case of the most powerful, has now been comprehensively debased.

In examining the media’s role and its pretence at neutrality and balance — when it actually behaves in a most tribal, partisan way — I’ll share with you some of my own experience over decades, including where I have failed.

I will argue an important weapon in our arsenal are the principles of our shared humanity that underpin universal rights, and that adherence to those principles necessitates an ability to view and analyse the world through multiple lenses, not just that of the Global North.

This is not something we need permission to do. It is part of the core business of being a journalist if we are serious about impartiality and objectivity. It is also part and parcel of diplomacy, and should also be integral to the work of leaders, otherwise we have no chance of bringing an end to forever wars, to collaboratively resolve matters in a manner that has regard to equality, freedom and dignity for all.

Injustice perpetuated
In understanding conflict and embarking on an assessment of a situation, objectivity and impartiality are vital. However, it is not necessary for an experienced journalist to remain neutral in interpreting the significance of events. Indeed, most memorable works of journalism, such as Robert Fisk’s The Great War For Civilisation, cannot be described as “neutral”.

To hold journalism in a perpetual state of neutrality and continue to provide selective “balance” (there is little to no “balance’”in the coverage of China, Russia, Iran or Israel) is to render plausible deniability, to shield crime, to deliver impunity and to compound and perpetuate injustice, as has occurred in the way Israel’s actions have been historically and predominantly reported in Western legacy media.

This era is unprecedented — there has not been such widespread repression throughout the West, and not only in our profession — it is society wide. And what strikes you of course, is that contrary to this oft weaponised Code of Ethics, what operates — with a few notable exceptions — is an unacknowledged partisanship, as tribal as geopolitical protagonists themselves.

While we have achieved diversity in the media in terms of presence and visibility, we have not yet succeeded in injecting the diversity of perspectives required. Other than in independent media, we still must all use one lens: that of the Global North.

I had certainly hoped we would have multiple lenses in our toolkit when we started up SBS in 1980. It was, however, too ambitious, and we settled for the possible. And so here we find ourselves today.

I don’t wish to diminish the significant impact of the second public broadcaster. But our task is to look critically at our industry and how it serves the Australian public, our democracy, and how it equips us to be global citizens, in addition to being Australian citizens.

In today’s world, this type of dual citizenship is mandatory if we are to have any chance at putting an end to forever wars and belligerent partisanship to move to more respectful relationships as a multipolar world community, to look out for the survival of our fellow human beings and planet, where interests can coalesce rather than collide.

After seeing its identity and purpose reflected solely in the eyes of the British Empire, and moving seamlessly into subservience to the US, and after doing away with the White Australia Policy, our country went through interminable navel gazing in the media — who are we? What is our identity as a nation?

The answer it landed on, was “Multicultural”. Yes, we came from many cultures, and wasn’t that fab.

Hoped for something more
“Multiculturalism” was a word I studiously avoided including during my almost three decades at SBS. Not because I was a closet Pauline Hanson. But because in the very early days at the broadcaster, I had hoped for something more.

One of the early on-air promotional campaigns was centred around the Overton window metaphor: “Channel O — a Window to the World’. I was banking on a Door.

It was not to be. The debate settled on whether what was being provided was “ethnic” or “multicultural” television. Cosmopolitanism, a prism conducive to the practice of journalism, was a bridge too far for Australia in 1980. We were to celebrate our particularity — our food, dance, music and movies, but the serious work demanded by our shared humanity and diverse perspectives lay dormant.

I recall Melbourne ABC radio broadcaster Jon Faine asking me when I was appointed to present SBS World News, whether it would cover stories from a different perspective. It was a question I studiously circumvented by banging on about running background stories, which were in my view one of our strengths. I knew that our lens captured a greater part of the world, but feared it’s portrayal in the end remained comfortably within the Overton window.

On Day 1 of my induction to the newsroom, the then-chief producer made a remark I considered a statement of the obvious — that “One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s Freedom Fighter”. But it proved not to be obvious at all and it was soon forgotten. And she and it went the way of those background stories we used to run. We gradually transitioned from the possibilities and potential understanding offered by the perspective epitomised in that adage, to dividing the world into our allies versus an “Axis of Evil” against which a “War on Terror” needed to be fought.

This occurred in stages and among the various contributing factors was the purging of full-time staff in favour of contractors who were less likely to raise objections due to job insecurity, as well as selecting out anti-establishment views in executive roles which is the natural state of institutions. And the broadcaster slid into the natural state of the media club in manufacturing consent.

Validation was sought in sameness, the assurance you have got it right. An at times bellicose partisanship bubbled to the surface, due to both overt support for establishment views as well as a subliminal cultural bias, all of which became more pronounced with the passage of years as the organisation went through multiple changes.

SBS could have made a difference
There were times when SBS could have made a difference but chose not to, and I see that also as a personal failure. While I did not have editorial control, I did have influence.

It is true that decision makers in the newsroom were almost exclusively Anglo-Celtic, but the Board was not and we know culture is determined by the government-appointed Board which selects the CEO who appoints those beneath him or her etc.

Ethnic diversity on the Board did not prevent the organisation heading down the path it did. Visible diversity was an achievement, but it was a mere beginning, not an end in itself. It did not deliver the next stage because its ambition was limited. Whatever I did, it was not enough to have the impact required. I’ll give you a couple of examples.

In October 2006 (I left in 2007), you may recall The Australian sent a young Arabic-speaking reporter to a Lakemba Mosque expecting he would document incitement to terrorism by the Imam. He returned empty handed, but his translation of the sermon included a reference to women who do not dress modestly as “uncovered meat”. The story was front page news in The Australian and subsequently across all media mastheads and platforms in the country, including the SBS World News bulletin I presented, despite attempts on my part to explain this sort of comment was hardly unusual, didn’t merit singling out given what is routinely said by preachers of other faiths.

The incident was nevertheless used to fan the flames of strong anti-Muslim sentiment in the aftermath of 9/11 and in support of US-led wars.

The atmosphere in the newsroom was at fever pitch, it was part of a pack that smelt blood. It was a day of great shame for me personally. I’d had two experiences with another organised religion that were significantly more egregious, but comments around acceptable standards of modesty, whether you adhere to them, or think they are backward and damaging for women, did not warrant singling out for public humiliation as a serious, unacceptable and unique threat to Australian society, posed by Muslim rhetoric.

The speech of Greek Orthodox Sunday school teachers or rabbis was never subjected to a public microscope.

Exceptional pressure
During my almost three decades at SBS, first in management and then in the newsroom, in discussions with the heads of programming, news, and television, I was aware of the exceptional pressure brought to bear on decision-makers when it came to purchasing and broadcasting a film, or running a story, that portrayed a Palestinian point of view as opposed to the non-negotiable version of the Israel lobby.

The programme would have to be of a higher standard than usual to justify the resources that would inevitably be required to defend it.

After a staff meeting in the newsroom in 2004, at which I argued strongly that we had to run a particular story that the news director had been asked to pull, he told me he believed his days were numbered. There would be retribution for him after the election if the Coalition won, because in the end, he had defended our right to run the report.

This marked the end of an era of possibility, with more evident influence of editorial staff by the Israel lobby.

The imbalance in our coverage became even more pronounced and entrenched and it became virtually impossible to include the perspective of Palestinians. For many years, we crossed to an Israeli spokesperson, usually an IDF or former IDF member — for a long time Mark Regev — for “an update” as if it was to a neutral observer.

I well recall an occasion during my last year when I suggested to the on-duty chief producer that we have a Palestinian on for a change. I have not forgotten his short response, though 20 years have passed. “Why? They’re all mad.”

He had just returned from a junket to Israel, par for the course for senior journalists across media organisations. Some years earlier, I had been baffled by the boasting of another chief producer about the size and quality of the steak and bottle of red he had just consumed in a long lunch shouted by an Israel lobbyist, before returning to his shift.

Legacy media struggled over Gaza genocide
It’s not surprising that legacy media has struggled with reporting on the Gaza genocide — even without using the word — because for decades we overlooked Israel’s modus operandi for demographic engineering, either in ignorance or complicity — both inexcusable.

Small victories in resistance to this diminished, along with the dilution of solidarity on the floor. In my specific role, I resorted to a kind of reverse weaponisation of neutrality. Because of my role as anchor, I argued, I could not use expressions like the much-loved “War on Terror”, it had to be “George Bush’s War on Terror”, or a dead pan “the so-called War on Terror”.

Personal family history led me — since childhood — to want to understand how power was exercised because of the catastrophic consequences for ordinary people. Interrogating the nature of identity and the function of tribalism were pieces in that puzzle, as my grandparents had come from a multiracial society at a time when such societies were being transformed into ethno-states.

The heritage of pluralism remained in my DNA and a cosmopolitan outlook was to remain my prism. Ethnic particularity, however, was just one aspect of pluralism, as it was also only just one aspect of personal identity. Furthermore, the centrality of ethnic particularity was a core characteristic of ethnonationalism and often provided fertile ground for chauvinism and racism.

So I was somewhat of a Martian in the newsroom because my background provided a perspective that my contemporary environment had no time for. In 1967, when Israel took the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, the Sinai, and the Golan Heights — which it ethnically cleansed, wiping out 100 villages — my generation at age 13 were reading The Diary of Anne Frank, soon followed by Leon Uris’s Exodus which documented the noble struggle of Jewish pioneers forging a new life, taming “a barren” land, creating an “egalitarian” society in “a land without a people for a people without a land”.

On this cultural and formal education, British historian William Dalrymple says he was “sold a lie”. This was the prism through which the creation of Israel was seen. Arabs were an inconvenient peripheral menace. How many adults in the Western world went on from Exodus to read Rashid Khalidi’s The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine or Ghada Karmi’s Married to Another Man, or any of the books by Ilan Pappe? How many Western journalists?

For a variety of reasons, the media’s treatment of Israel is most exceptional. In general, holding our allies to the same standards as our foes would be laughed out of any newsroom — let alone questioning why said countries are considered “allies” to begin with. An attitude unhealthy in an ethnonationalist state, but in a multicultural one, it seeded problems that can’t be swept away.

Spawned discontent can’t be controlled
Certainly not with motherhood statements by politicians who avoid accountability for their policies or their obligations under international law. And the discontent spawned can’t be controlled with repressive institutional behaviour and authoritarian legislative measures.

Just as you can’t stop an oppressed group of people from rising up against its oppressors, the rest of us can’t allow our conscience to be criminalised, and so we will not be intimidated into silence.

I have made my anti-establishment views known across a raft of matters and have been trenchant in my criticism of the US government as well as our own government, but Israel was a no-no, no matter how flagrant its conduct.

The first “public” shot across the bow in this stepped-up phase of cancellation since October 7 was the sacking of Antoinette Lattouf. I say public because there are many cases that are not known about.

I was chosen because of my public profile and reputation, because I dared step outside the narrow Overton window we must all remain within at all cost, particularly in the case of Israel. I’m aware that my sharing of articles by many Jewish journalists and a range of other reputable experts who have been either shut out of mainstream media or would never get a look in, was making Zionists apoplectic.

The newly-minted young CEO of the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) and a compliant journalist in the legacy media decided they would smear me as an antisemitic rape denier and fruit loop conspiracy theorist. And because no decent smear ends without references to Holocaust denial, one of the two “exclusives” remarkably managed to end on that note.

Radio silence from that masthead ever since. They all have egg on their face because the ZFA had to drop the case knowing they had no prospect of winning.

Israel getting some of its own medicine
The two posts they selected for the alleged breach were a clip of a speech by the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah; one post with a comment from me that the Israeli government was getting some of its own medicine and that Israel has started something it can’t finish with this genocide; and the other a mere retweet of a post by British journalist Richard Medhurst who simply reported Nasrallah’s words.

It was an interesting choice for a number of reasons, not least of which was that Medhurst was arrested three weeks after the case against me was filed.

The affront at these posts was because I had the temerity to share a clip of Nasrallah himself — a listed terrorist in Australia — and draw some sort of moral equivalence between his threat and the conduct of the Israeli government, and to indicate the consequences of that conduct would continue to escalate. How dare I compare a threat by a listed terrorist with the conduct of a terrorist state.

But Israel must be spoken of with reverence while it couches its erasure of Palestinians and theft of their land as defending itself, and those defending Palestinians must be roundly condemned as terrorists and part of that Axis of Evil, when they are seen as neither by many millions of people around the world.

That we, as journalists, must take this position as if we were mouthpieces for the US alliance or the Australian government, let alone Israel, is preposterous. It dispenses with our capacity to view our own country’s perspective and that of our allies as critically as we would any other country’s, and to have media organisations participate in this journalistic malpractice as openly as they have is astonishing.

You will be familiar with directives and guidance given to staff here, and recall The New York Times leaked memo in early 2024 directing journalists to avoid even the use of the term “Occupied Territory”, and CNN staff revealing pressure resulting in credulous reporting of Israeli claims and silencing of Palestinian perspectives, with similar pressures reported at the BBC.

Over the last decade we saw distinct fragmentation of the audience — some still relying on legacy media while others accessing information and perspectives from independent media where we have seen an explosion of outlets including YouTube channels where experts and scholars publish information and commentary.

Two very different perceptions of reality
The result has been two very different perceptions of reality. However, this chasm between segments of the public is closing for large numbers of people as the situation in Gaza and in other spheres reach such extremes. Israel’s brutal colonialism in the West Bank and Lebanon, Donald Trump’s overt gangster-capitalism and proxy war on Iran, and the rise of the far-right cannot be glossed over with a comprehensive avoidance of reality in legacy media.

The consequences are too visible and too extreme.

We can take heart that on the whole the courts won’t back the suppression of political speech — with the exception of the disappointing Jayson Gillham decision where the judge did not have a problem with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra discriminating in the colour of political comment it endorsed, legitimising support for Ukraine as policy but not so for Palestinians.

NSW Supreme Court Justice Desmond Fagan’s judgement on the heels of this decision is a masterclass in calling out the lack of common sense, gaslighting and utter bullshit.

Mary Kostakidis is an Australian journalist, political commentator, and activist. She was a member of the management team that developed SBS Television in 1980. She anchored its World News bulletin for almost 2 decades before becoming an independent journalist. This address to the Media Diversity Australia Symposium was delivered on 13 October 2026 and republished from Deepcut News.

Israel’s Environment Ministry has removed the protected status of Nile crocodiles to allow them to be used in a moat guarding the country’s largest detainment camp, a move requested by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

The story has been widely covered by Israel’s English-language press, alternative media worldwide, and news sites in non-English-speaking countries.

But, in the Anglosphere, there is a virtual news blackout.

• READ MORE: Israel strips crocodiles of protected status to pave way for crocodile-infested moat — Democracy Now!
• Israel plans ‘alligator Alcatraz’ for Palestinian prisoners
• Other Israeli prison reports

Searching within New Zealand and Australian internet domains yields nothing. In the UK, only The Telegraph has reported the story; the BBC and The Guardian do not deem it newsworthy.

In the US, the only report I have seen was by the progressive independent outlet Democracy Now!

It feels nigh on impossible that a similar event in Putin’s Russia, Iran, or any number of dictatorships would go unreported by the BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Age, The New Zealand Herald, or the English-language newswires.

Democracy Now’s headline — ”Israel strips crocodiles of protected status to pave way for crocodile-infested moat“ — is about as clickbaity as hard news gets.

Barbarism as state policy
Veteran Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote in Haaretz: “National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir is taking Israel to the next stage in its development: barbarism as a legal and explicit state policy.”

“Sadism is no longer just for deviants; it is the new political correctness,” he continued.

“After years in which barbarity and sadism toward Palestinians were hidden as something shameful and repressed — and mainly as the exception to the rule — Ben-Gvir is moving them to centre stage to great applause from some of the crowd and silence from the rest.”

A relative in Israel messaged me asking whether I had seen the crocodile story — the “true reality in Israel”. She included this translated snippet from the breaking news story.

“Exclusive: The Crocodile Snatch: The Nature and Parks Authority opposed the establishment of Ben-Gvir’s crocodile prison, but Environmental Minister Silman amended the law, paving the way for the transfer of the animals. Among other things, Silman determined that the Nile crocodile is a ‘cultivated wild animal’ that can be raised within a security entity.”

That Ben-Gvir is monstrous is not news. The Australian and New Zealand governments, along with those of the UK and Canada, have banned him from entering their countries for inciting pogroms against Palestinians in the West Bank and promoting the expansion of illegal settlements.

But the monstrousness of Israel’s gulags is newsworthy — if underreported.

18,500 Palestinians detained
In March, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese released a report stating: “Since October 2023, more than 18,500 Palestinians have been detained across the occupied Palestinian territory, including at least 1500 children. Thousands remain in detention without charge or trial. Many have been forcibly disappeared. Nearly 100 detainees have died in custody.

“Detainees have been abused in unfathomable ways, including rape with bottles, metal rods and knives, starvation, breaking of bones and teeth, burning, being spat upon, and being attacked and urinated upon by dogs.”

Albanese said: “A system that has long been used to dominate, degrade and break Palestinians has evolved and hardened into state doctrine.

“It is defended by politicians, rationalised by legal institutions, sanitised by media narrative and tolerated by governments that continue to arm and shield Israel.”

The name of Ketziot Prison, where the crocodiles are to be deployed, will be familiar to some from news reports of the abuse of Freedom Flotilla volunteers held there earlier this year.

News of their mistreatment and images of Ben-Gvir abusing them cut through the Western media fog and prompted rare condemnations from Western governments.

Israel’s ambassadors in Wellington and Canberra were called in for ritual reprimands.

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong described the images as “shocking and unacceptable”.

Unacceptable face
Similar statements and actions were made by the US, the UK, France, Italy, and Canada. Ben-Gvir is the unacceptable face of an apartheid regime that all those countries accept and, to differing degrees, abet.

The detained Flotilla activists repeatedly pointed out that their treatment — as appalling as it was — was minor compared with what Palestinian prisoners endure daily.

There was nothing like the same reaction from Western governments when a video of Ben-Gvir taunting imprisoned Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti emerged in August last year.

Following the visit, Ben-Gvir reportedly said: “We entered Marwan Barghouti’s cell and he was crying in terror. I told the jailers to keep treating them like that,” adding, “When we enter Israel’s prisons, the Palestinian prisoners piss their pants when they see us, they piss themselves out of fear.”

The video was reported by mainstream media outlets but not as prominently as the one showing the abuse of the international activists.

Ben-Gvir is not just a comic-book villain; he is a high-ranking member of the Israeli cabinet. He has a picture of Baruch Goldstein, the convicted terrorist who killed 29 Palestinians, hanging in his Knesset office, and he himself acts as a state terrorist, marshalling the full force of Israel’s prison system and police in his campaign against Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

Supporters of Israel argue that the country attracts a disproportionate amount of bad publicity.

‘Great negativity’
Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, told the Australian Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion that the ABC’s coverage of Gaza “created an impression of great negativity about Israel.”

Segal claimed there had been a “disproportionate” number of critical stories.

“They could run positive stories about other things Israel is doing,” she said. “The amazing startup nation, things like that. They very rarely do that. There is no attempt at that part of the agenda.”

The Jerusalem Post reported last week that Israeli defence-tech start-ups working with the Defence Ministry raised nearly US$3 billion in the first six months of 2026 — three times the amount raised in all of 2025.

Israel’s genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and Lebanon, and its bombing and assassination campaigns in the war on Iran have been a boon for the self-described startup nation.

Gaza is history’s first AI-assisted genocide, and our media are paying it too little attention, not too much.

Jeremy Rose is a Wellington-based journalist and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. He has a Substack: Towards Democracy.

INVESTIGATION: By Wendy Bacon and Stephanie Tran

A Zionist doctor has claimed that the Australian health regulator CEO Justin Untersteiner “was forced into a massive capitulation with IHRA”.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA) recently introduced the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism which puts healthcare workers at risk for criticising Israel.

The Zionist doctor, psychiatrist Dr Doron Samuell, alleges that he was part of a campaign that “exerted intolerable political pressure” on AHPRA to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

• READ MORE: Antisemitic, really? Jewish leader speaks out on Australia’s Royal Commission hypocrisy
• Saige England: Call out the Zionist hypocrisy – genociders are settler colonialists on steroids
• Antisemitism envoy Segal slams ABC, SBS ‘Israel bias’, wants to vet media
• Other Bondi Royal Commission reports

Resisted IHRA for two years
AHPRA, which regulates the conduct of 900,000 Australian healthcare workers, had resisted pressure to adopt the IHRA definition for two years.

However, on June 17, the health regulator shifted its position unexpectedly and without consultation when CEO Justin Untersteiner issued a joint statement with the federal government’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, announcing the adoption of the definition and that Segal’s guidance handbook would be used as a tool in handling complaints.

Thousands of health care workers, and many organisations including the Australian Nurses and Midwifery Federation, NSW Civil Liberties Council and Medical Association for Prevention of War have called for AHPRA to reverse its decision and continue to rely on its existing framework in dealing with complaints of racism, including antisemitism.

In response, Israel’s Foreign Ministry pressured the Australian government to “confront antisemitism in healthcare” in a post on X on Sunday.

This investigation paints a deeply troubling picture and should serve as a wake-up call.

We call upon The Australian government to confront antisemitism forcefully.

Every reluctance, every excuse, and every failure to act sends extremists the same message: they can keep pushing…

— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) July 12, 2026

AHPRA subjected to ‘intolerable pressure’ from Israel lobby
The “intolerable pressure” claims were made by “Aba Shesh”, a social media pseudonym linked to the Facebook account used by Dr Doron Samuell, a member of the Australian Zionist Healthcare Alliance (AZHA).

Dr Samuell’s comments were made in response to a post on “Jews of Melbourne” (JOM) Facebook page drawing members’ attention to a Civil Liberties Defence Centre (CLDC) webinar presented by its chairperson, lawyer Nick Hanna. The webinar was an educational briefing for healthcare workers on the implications of AHPRA’s adoption of the IHRA definition .

A member of the Jews Of Melbourne group predicted there would be

lots of “antisemitism” at the webinar which members could monitor and report to AHPRA.

In response, “Aba Shesh” described Untersteiner as an “unthinking bureaucrat” who “repeatedly minimised the problem until his hand was forced”.

Samuell lamented that Untersteiner “said the right things and even visited a shule but AHPRA sat on their hands, receiving vexatious complaints for two years until we exerted intolerable political pressure on them to act.”

Samuell stated that Untersteiner “was forced into a massive capitulation with IHRA”.

Last year, Samuell claimed he was responsible for the cancellation of a staff forum on Children and War at the Royal Children’s Hospital.

Michael West Media sent detailed questions to Untersteiner and provided him with an opportunity to respond to the comments. Instead of specific answers, AHPRA provided us with a general statement. AHPRA’s full response is below.

MWM also contacted Samuell for comment, he did not provide a response.

APHRA CEO ‘under pressure’
Several healthcare professionals who opposed the change said they met with senior AHPRA officials, including Untersteiner, earlier this year to argue against adopting the IHRA definition.

One doctor, who requested anonymity because of concerns of professional repercussions, said senior leadership were presented with medical evidence of the genocide and concerns that the IHRA definition would be used to silence doctors.

“As well as presenting the overwhelming amount of medical evidence of genocide and the silencing of healthcare workers as an apparatus of genocide, we also focused on the concern of the IHRA definition being used to silence doctors who openly support human rights,” they said.

Jerusalem Definition preferred
The doctor said they proposed the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism as an alternate definition.

“We provided an alternative definition on antisemitism, the Jerusalem Definition, should it be necessary to single out one group for a separate definition on discrimination.”

The doctor said Untersteiner told them he had publicly rejected the IHRA definition and discussed pressure the regulator was facing from Israel lobby groups.

“Untersteiner said he has publicly rejected the IHRA definition but when pressed to provide this in writing later, AHPRA did not,” the doctor said.

“[Untersteiner] also expressed some of the personal stress he was under due to the Zionist groups and in particular from doctors like Doron Samuell. It appeared to be genuine and heartfelt.”

MWM put those claims to Untersteiner, who declined to comment.

The doctor expressed concern that AHPRA’s decision to adopt IHRA would encourage vexatious complaints against practitioners, an anxiety shared by thousands of other healthcare workers.

“AHPRA’s statement on the IHRA definition will embolden the Zionists to ramp up their vexatious complaint campaign,” they said.

Path to capitulation
Samuell told the Facebook group that “with my pressure, the Minister issued a directive for Justin to remedy the situation and gave him 6 months to do it” yet, “when he reported back 7+ months later, he was still refusing to define antisemitism”.

In September 2025, health ministers directed APHRA to provide a six monthly report on “Improving the health practitioner response to racism and discrimination, including antisemitism”. AHPRA established a Racism and Discrimination Committee to provide an action plan.

Minister for Health Mark Butler did not respond to questions on the matter.

In February 2026, Untersteiner was pressured by Senator Andrew Bragg in Senate Estimates to adopt the IHRA definition.

“I’m wondering why you haven’t decided to adopt a clear definition of antisemitism. We’ve just had a religious massacre in Australia where antisemitism was a key driver. So I’m wondering why you haven’t adopted one,” Senator Bragg asked.

In response, Untersteiner said the issue was a “live discussion”. However, “the vast majority of practitioners do the right thing and they comply with our codes of conduct” and “in the very few cases where they don’t, we do believe that we’ve got the tools to be able to deal with that effectively.”

The Segal meetings
When pressed further to explain why he had not adopted the IHRA definition, Untersteiner said he had been meeting with Jillian Segal “on a regular basis”.

“I’ve been meeting with the special envoy on a regular basis. I think we’ve been able to work quite well together,” Untersteiner told the Committee.

On 13 April 2026, AHPRA’s Race and Discrimination Committee submitted its report responding to the Ministerial directive. In his posts, Samuell objected to the composition of the committee because it

included a Jewish person who had been critical of Israel.

The report stated that “the National Code of Conduct sets out clear expectations that registered health practitioners will deliver care that is culturally safe and free from discriminatory behaviours.” There was an action plan for strengthening AHPRA’s anti-racism approach but no mention of the IHRA definition.

On April 24, Special Envoy Segal released the Understanding Antisemitism in Australia handbook.

On May 1, the Health Ministers accepted AHPRA’s report and it was published on AHPRA’s website.

APHRA’s usual practice is to publish communiques on its Board meetings shortly after they occur. Communiques have not been published for the May and June meetings.

Call for Untersteiner sacking
AHPRA declined to supply us with copies of those communiques so it is unclear whether the Board approved the use of the IHRA definition in these meetings.

On May 6, Samuell expressed his frustration with AHPRA in a podcast episode published by “The Israel Connexion”.

During the interview, Samuell said that AZHA had called for Untersteiner’s sacking in its submission to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.

“AHPRA has dropped the ball. Now we’re making a submission to the Royal Commission, calling on the Health Minister to sack Justin Untersteiner for the role that he has played in this,” he said.

‘Antagonistic to Israel’
“We’ve outlined in our submission a large number of failures. For example, there are governance problems in AHPRA. There are board members in AHPRA who are on the public record as being antagonistic to Israel,” Samuell said.

“I know from their own staff, many of whom have been in private communications with me, that they are not taking this matter seriously at all. They’ve breached their social contract with us. [Untersteiner] is not the person that can fix this situation.”

Samuell told Israel Connexion that AZHA had encouraged “practitioners and patients in the health sector to make submissions to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism through [AZHA] website” and was “synthesising the submissions into a discussion paper for the Royal Commission” by applying the IHRA definition.

The result is a “whole of sector submission” developed by applying “social theories about what is going on and what should happen to remedy it.”

MWM is not asserting that any of the public allegations against AHPRA are true. In the absence of responses from AHRPA or Samuell on these matters, we are reporting them in the interests of transparency.

Zionist Healthcare Alliance attacks on AHPRA
Samuell is one of several Zionist health workers who represent the Australian Zionist Healthcare Alliance (AZHA).

The AZHA was launched in October last year. It describes itself as “Australia’s first dedicated Zionist healthcare advocacy organisation”.

AZHA’s most vocal member is public affairs officer Sharon Stoliar who helped found AZHA last year.

Ten days after the IHRA definition announcement, on June 27, Stoliar was featured in a major report by The Australian titled “How did hospitals become the front line in the antisemitic onslaught?”.

The report accused AHPRA of ignoring an “unprecedented explosion of antisemitism” and said Australian health care workers were amplifying anti-Jewish hate speech” and deliberating neglecting or harming Jewish patients.

Royal Commission hearsay
Stoliar told The Australian that she hoped to give evidence at the Royal Commission.

Stoliar is quoted describing an incident in which a woman in a Sydney hospital was “left to lie in a pool of blood with no pain relief” while her baby screamed in its cot alongside hers.

She has also claimed that an antisemitic health care worker caused a Jewish person to have a “forced abortion”.

No evidence is provided to support these hearsay claims which Stoliar has repeated in an interview with Israel’s Channel 12.

The Australian article has taken on a life of its own being regurgitated in various forms in Australian and Israeli media. The Channel 12 broadcast was reposted on Facebook and Instagram by the Zionist Federation of Australia.

Collectively these posts have triggered a large amount of hate against Australian health workers and precipitated the Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs tweet this week.

AHPRA’s response
Rather than responding to our questions, AHPRA supplied MWM with a statement similar to one it has sent to thousands of healthcare workers who signed letters expressing opposition to its adoption of the IHRA definition.

AHPRA appears keen to allay the concerns of its registered health care workers. It emphasises that ”there is no place for racism or discrimination in healthcare”, and that it will deal with complaints on an individual basis. An AHPRA spokesperson provided the following explanation for the sudden change:

“Ahpra had initially not adopted the IHRA definition, as we felt there was insufficient clarity between legitimate commentary and debate regarding the policies and actions of the state of Israel and its elected leaders, and antisemitism. However, the Special Envoy on Antisemitism’s handbook is designed to support use of the definition by distinguishing ‘between antisemitism and legitimate political debate, including on the topic of Israel’.

“It is on that basis that Ahpra will use the IHRA definition as a reference tool where relevant, supported by the ASECA handbook, when considering regulatory responses. As a reference tool, the definition is not legally binding. There are no changes to the National Codes or the guidance that supports them.”

AHPRA’s explanation is surprising. The handbook itself exacerbates concerns with the IHRA definition. For example, Segal’s examples suggest that it is antisemitic to say that Israel is a “racist project” or that Israel is “committing genocide”, views that are widely held by numerous international law experts and humanitarian organisations.

The Gaza genocide continues
Daily, the genocide continues. Israel has murdered thousands of healthcare workers in Gaza and devastated its healthcare system.

Last week, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel demanded that Israel release Gaza paediatrician Dr Hussam Abu Safiya who has been imprisoned without charge and tortured by Israel for over 18 months.

Australian health care workers are mobilising and have formed a new national coalition. Yesterday, the Australian Healthcare Alliance 4 Palestine, encompassing hundreds of thousands of registered doctors, nurses and dentists, wrote a letter to AHPRA asking it to “provide full transparency regarding the governance, consultation and decision-making processes” that led to the decision to adopt the IHRA definition.

The Alliance said that health practitioners have “an ethical responsibility to advocate for our patients, our colleagues and the healthcare system” and called on AHPRA to rescind its decision.

Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was professor of journalism at UTS. She worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is a long-term supporter of a peaceful BDS and the Greens.

Stephanie Tran is a journalist with a background in both law and journalism. She has worked at The Guardian and as a paralegal, where she assisted Crikey’s defence team in the high-profile defamation case brought by Lachlan Murdoch. Her reporting has been recognised nationally, earning her the 2021 Democracy’s Watchdogs Award for Student Investigative Reporting and a nomination for the 2021 Walkley Student Journalist of the Year Award.

This article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission.

One of the oldest tropes in journalism is that it should be balanced; that journalists have a responsibility to present all sides of a given issue with equal weight. This view also holds that appearing to be critical of one side and sympathetic to another amounts to “bias”.

That notion of balance sounds ideal. After all, journalists should be neutral observers who favour nobody, so if anybody feels as though their side is not presented with equal measure, the journalist has somehow failed.

That failure was what Jillian Segal accused the ABC of in her evidence to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion last week. In her evidence, the antisemitism envoy lamented that the ABC’s reporting on Gaza “created an impression of great negativity about Israel”.

• READ MORE: Antisemitism envoy Segal slams ABC, SBS ‘Israel bias’, wants to vet media
• The problem of false balance when reporting on science
• Other Gaza media coverage reports

“It’s the perception of the Jewish community feeling constantly that they are being faced with reporting about the Middle East, about Gaza, and about Israel in a way that paints Israel constantly in a negative light,” she said.

For the country’s supporters, that is understandable. As Segal went on to point out, there has been a “disproportionate” number of stories critical of Israel.

And Liberal MP and prominent member of the Jewish community Julian Leeser told ABC Radio National:

I think the public broadcasters actually have to be prepared to address systemic bias against Israel in their reporting, and I think they need to subject themselves to greater transparency mechanisms as outlined by the envoy.

But the term “balance” implies finding equivalence between the two competing positions. Sometimes journalists cover stories where achieving balance amounts to a serious distortion of what is actually taking place.

Jillian Segal wants ‘independent group’ to examine ABC’s Israel coverage  Video: Guardian Australia

The pitfalls of both-sideism
A standard, if lazy, tactic for avoiding accusations of bias is to give equal space to opponents in an issue, presenting them as equally valid.

If you give five minutes to a vaccine researcher, you must give the same time to a sceptic. It is something journalists sometimes dub “both-sideism”.

The media grappled with that challenge in covering climate change. In the early heated stages of the debate, news organisations would often place a climate sceptic next to a climate scientist in the name of “balance”.

By 2018, the BBC’s news director Fran Unsworth had had enough. She circulated a briefing note that acknowledged, “Climate change has been a difficult subject for the BBC, and we get coverage of it wrong too often”.

The briefing went on to say, “Manmade climate change exists: if the science proves it we should report it.” And in a section on balance, the note said:

to achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.“

As journalism academic Jonathan Foster of Sheffield University used to tell his students, “If someone tells you it’s raining and another tells you it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the f—ing window and find out which is true.”

Who has the power?
The conflicts between Israel and its neighbours (in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Iran) are not football matches, and journalists are not referees.

But any journalist thinking about how to fairly cover the crises is likely to spend far more time looking at the human cost of Israeli bombs and tanks, than the impact on Israeli civilians.

That is simply because the greater impact of the conflict is felt outside Israel’s borders.

Any reporting that suggests an equivalence of experience between Israelis suffering Hamas rockets, and the Palestinians in Gaza bearing the weight of the Israeli military assault would be plainly disingenuous. Hardliners on both sides are calling for annihilation of the other, but only one side has tanks, fighter jets and control of food, water and medical supplies over the border.

That raises another journalistic cliche: “holding power to account”. It is rooted in the idea that the media’s job is to expose the impact of power on those who have none.

Israel has indisputably been projecting its might well beyond its borders, and correspondents in the region who failed to cover the consequences on ordinary civilians would be rightly criticised.

None of this is to suggest the experience of Israelis or the government’s arguments should be ignored.

But in a world of competing perspectives, the job of journalists is not to make everyone happy. Their job is to accurately and fairly represent the views of everyone involved and on that score, the ABC has been succeeding.

Imperfect, but largely accurate
The national broadcaster has not been perfect of course. The ombudsman found five breaches of editorial standards (out of more than seven thousand complaints).

Its own editorial director Gavin Fang acknowledged they were far too slow to correct a United Nations report that falsely claimed 14,000 children could die of starvation in Gaza within two days.

In her testimony to the Royal Commission, Jillian Segal conceded the government’s broadcast regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, had not “found a great deal of inaccuracy” in the ABC’s reporting.

But she argued she’s trying to achieve “the more complex, nuanced issues of prioritisation, impartiality and objectivity and balance”.

“They could run positive stories about other things Israel is doing,” she said. “The amazing startup nation, things like that. They very rarely do that. There is no attempt at that part of the agenda.”

Perhaps she is right. But positive stories explicitly designed to cancel out the negative start to look like propaganda. And that is something journalists should never accept.

Peter Greste is professor of journalism at Macquarie University and the executive director for the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom. He also serves as an independent journalist on the Australian Press Council. This article was first published by The Conversation and is republished under Creative Commons.

COMMENTARY: By Jeffrey Loewenstein

Sarah Schwartz, co-founder of the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA), gave evidence at the Royal Commission into Anti-Semitism and Social Cohesion last week.

I venture to suggest that it will come to be seen that Schwartz gave seminal evidence which the Commissioner is going to find hard to ignore when she is writing her report; evidence supported yesterday by the compelling testimony of Jewish university peace activist Yasmine Johnson.

Until Schwartz gave her evidence, we had seen testimonies given by members of the Jewish community — some of which can only be described as very troubling in terms of evidence — which sometimes bordered on hysterical.

• READ MORE: Saige England: Call out the Zionist hypocrisy – genociders are settler colonialists on steroids
• Antisemitism envoy Segal slams ABC, SBS ‘Israel bias’, wants to vet media
• Other Bondi Royal Commission reports

But, the elephant in the room?

Were the “attacks” described really attacks of an antisemitic nature,

or were they people venting their anger and outrage at Jews seen to be rusted-on, unquestioning supporters of Israel’s egregious actions in Gaza?

Take the example of a university student in Canberra who just yesterday was reported in the Nine media thus: ”Liat told the Commission she had felt “very physically unsafe” during the long encampment at her university campus … when people would laugh and leer at me and say, ‘Look at the baby killer, look at the genocide supporter’”.

No, that is not pleasant, but the fact is — a fact unchallenged aside from the state of Israel itself and the likes of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) — that more than 20,000 Palestinian children have been killed by the state of Israel and more than 44,000 injured since October 2023.

Why the rise in antisemitism?
What was more than significant, is that many of those who gave evidence of alleged antisemitism demonstrated absolutely no introspection. Why had there been a rise in anti-semitism since October 7?

Not because Hamas attacked Israel. No, it was, in many cases people showing their anger, yes, in some instances in a totally misguided way, at Israel’s actions in Gaza. Why did some 300,000 people from all walks of life and all ages, march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on a foul, wet and windy day?

The palpable anger by a significant part of the Australian community, including many Jews, at what Israel did in Gaza, and continues to do to this day, is reflected in the sober evidence given at the Royal Commission yesterday by Yasmine Johnson, a co-convener for Students for Palestine and a protest organiser.

Following her evidence, Johnson, who is Jewish, told the media

the idea that campus protests “create a dangerous atmosphere, fear for people, is farcical”.

Antisemitism, anti-genocide conflation
“What we’ve heard,” she said “so far is day after day after day of evidence which conflates legitimate anti-genocide, pro-Palestine activism with genuine antisemitism which exists in our society.”

The earlier mentioned witness Liat, and others like her, may feel uncomfortable about what is being shouted out at her as much as she probably sees posters like “Free Palestine” as confronting and antisemitic, but has Liat — who acts as a  spokesperson for the Australasian Union of Jewish Students — either personally or on behalf of her organisation ever publicly accused Israel of being responsible for war crimes in Gaza, even if not genocide? Almost certainly, not!

And that is the rub.

Might this alleged antisemitism just have had something to do with Jews so visibly parading around with Israeli flags draped across their shoulders, waving Israelis flags at solidarity rallies for Israel, Jewish communal leaders excoriating those who called out Israel for engaging in genocide or starving children, and welcoming the Israeli President as their “national leader”?

Really? I thought we were Australians.

The “average” person could be forgiven for concluding that members of the Jewish community were demonstrating that they identified with and supported Israel.

The question to be asked here is why it is that criticising Israel by Jews is said to make the speaker a self-hating Jew, a “kapo” a “Judenrat” or, as in the case of Schwartz, to even be accused on ABC Radio National as being “anti-Jewish?”

They are shameful, offensive and disgraceful epithets. They are intended to be so.

Not to be ignored in the above is that the likes of a Mark Leibler, the ECAJ, AIJAC, the Zionist Federation of Australia and similar groups see Jews who criticise Israel as a no-go area even if they, falsely, assert that Jews are free to openly express their views about Israel.

It’s simply untrue!

There is the expectation from these quarters that all Jews will, as a matter of solidarity, support Israel as the Zionist/Jewish homeland. With this forked-tongue and double-speak it is no wonder that the sort of slurs and insults which Schwartz described at the Royal Commission are rife in the Jewish community.

A climate of fear
Conversely, those in the Jewish community who might otherwise speak out against Israel fear that they will be subjected to all manner of insults and even the break-down of family relationships.

Given the airing of Schwartz’s evidence, one has to also wonder why there has been total silence from the usually vocal Jewish organisations. Should they not be publicly calling out vilification of fellow-Jews, calling for vilification to be stopped and asking for respect for those Jews who are not Zionists, strident or not.

Proof of the “attitude” in the Jewish community to those who are not at one with supporting Israel is clearly demonstrated by the Australian Jewish News which, just last week, pulled a story attacking those in the Jewish community who attacked their fellow Jews with the the sort of offensive epithets directed at Sarah Schwartz.

My Israel question
I can speak personally to how the Jewish community reacts when Israel or the Israel Lobby comes under scrutiny. Back in 2006, Melbourne University Press published my son Antony Loewenstein’s book My Israel Question. The book flew off the shelves.

The response from the so-called powers-that be in the Jewish community — including a Jewish Federal member of  Parliament in Parliament, even exhorting people not to buy the book — bordered on feral.

Even putting aside the death threats to my son and his then partner, as an example of hate mail — which Schwartz has so clearly shown in her evidence — one early so-called correspondent wrote that he hoped that when the Nazis came to Australia that he and his parents would be the first to be marched into the gas chambers.

Unhinged? Yes!

But as Schwartz spelt out in her evidence at the Royal Commission many in the Jewish community see attacking those who do not support Israel 100 percent as legitimate. And if that extends to thuggery, look no further than the Jewish group the Lions of Zion and their “activities” — an organisation supported by the powers that be in the Jewish community.

Thankfully the JCA has provided an ever-growing forum and voice for Jews who will not remain silent given Israel’s genocide in Gaza and breaches of multiple international laws and conventions.

Let’s not forget, while Israel denies what a slew of scholars, human rights organisations and aid and medical agencies have found — including those learned on genocide, some of whom even live in Israel itself — the facts on the ground speak volumes. We have all seen and read about it.

Israel clearly stands guilty as charged!

By Stephanie Tran in Sydney

Giving evidence to the Royal Commission last week, Australian Antisemitism Envoy Jillian Segal lamented that reporting on Israel’s genocide in Gaza has “created an impression of great negativity about Israel”.

“It’s the perception of the Jewish community feeling constantly that they are being faced with reporting about the Middle East, about Gaza, and about Israel in a way that paints Israel constantly in a negative light,” she said.

Segal said there was a “disproportionate” number of stories critical of Israel.

• READ MORE: Jillian Segal falsely claimed Gaza death toll is ‘grossly inflated’. Here are the facts
• ABC and SBS reject antisemitism envoy’s call for ‘oversight’ committee to vet Israel coverage
• What ceasefire? People still being killed and Gaza still under siege
• Other Bondi Royal Commission reports

Sad for everyone
“There are going to be examples on both sides of activities in a war, which all you know is very sad for everyone, involving you know unfortunate loss of life. But it’s the preponderance of the focus … on the behaviour of Israel, as opposed to the behaviour of Hamas.”

Counsel assisting the commission challenged Segal’s criticism of the public broadcasters ABC and SBS, noting that since October 7, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) had not found the ABC or SBS to have breached broadcasting codes in relation to their coverage.

Segal conceded that ACMA “haven’t found a great deal of inaccuracy”.

“I do concede that they haven’t found a great deal of inaccuracy, but it’s the more complex, nuanced issues of prioritisation, impartiality, and objectivity and balance that I’m concerned to achieve,” she said.

Segal argued that the public broadcasters should devote more coverage to “positive stories” about Israel.

“We should find a way where they also run positive stories,” she said.

“They could run positive stories about other things Israel is doing, the amazing startup nation, things like that. They very rarely do that. There is no attempt at that part of the agenda.”

SBS too
Discussing reports that Israel was starving children in Gaza, Segal described them as “a very negative story” and questioned whether broadcasters should seek to balance such reporting with stories portraying Israel more positively.

Segal said that balance was “very complicated” but “if you wanted balance after that negative story should there have been a very positive story about what was positively in the Middle East to feed children?”

She said there should be “scepticism in relation to some information emanating from Gaza” and called on the ABC factcheck UN reports and “not just report it as if it was undoubted fact, the first item and the news”.

Segal also criticised the SBS’s reporting on the death toll in Gaza.

“The statistics have now been reported as having not distinguished between combatants and non-combatants, and therefore were inflated, but my point is that they were put out there as statistics by a Health Ministry, as we understand health industries being objective, organised structures within part of Hamas,” she said.

Monitor public broadcasters, adopt IHRA definition
Segal proposed forming an “independent” committee to monitor the ABC and SBS.

“That it is a committee that is appointed without the community, as long as they are people who are aware of the and understanding of modern day antisemitism and modern day hatreds.”

She said the existing Ombudsman and ACMC were “without teeth” as they do “not have the powers to impose or require reports to be taken offline”.

Segal urged the public broadcasters to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

“It would enable the reporters to better understand the conflation because it would be ‘are you seeking to make the point so much that Israel is different in its fighting at the war to other wars that have been fought by Australia, by America etc.?’ … So it would just help them in understanding it,” she said.

ABC editorial director Gavin Fang said the broadcaster had deliberately chosen not to adopt the definition because of concerns it would undermine their independence.

“The IHRA definition, the examples in the definition in particular, are contested,” Fang said.

“It is important for us to maintain not just our independence, but the perception of independence … adopting a definition that’s contested would not help us with both the perception of independence and our independence more broadly.”

Amanda Wicks, SBS’s director of news and current affairs, said the broadcaster neither “accepts nor rejects” the definition.

Wicks said SBS recognised the IHRA definition as “an important definition recognised by many”, but said the broadcaster did not determine for itself whether conduct was antisemitic.

“We are only ever reporting on antisemitism when it is determined to be such by police, the legal system [or] the community itself,” she said.

“We’re never in a position where something happens [and] we determine as SBS that that is antisemitic.”

COMMENTARY: By Cathy Peters

In a move that’s been largely unreported in Australia and New Zealand, Hamas announced earlier this week that it would dissolve its governing Emergency Committee with the resignation of its acting leader.

This move has been recognised as an attempt to hasten the transfer of administrative authority to the Trump-appointed Board of Peace’s National Committee for the Management of Gaza (NCAG), a body of Palestinian technocrats, assembled and waiting in Cairo to manage public administration, security, recovery and transition throughout the Gaza Strip as part of the agreed ceasefire plan.

However, despite being established in January this year, the NCAG has not yet been given access to enter Gaza by the Board of Peace or Israel.

• READ MORE: Antisemitism Envoy Segal slams ABC, SBS Israel bias, wants to vet media
• Other Gaza “ceasefire” reports

Trump’s controversial Board of Peace predictably dismissed the Hamas move, stating that the NCAG is not yet in a position to take on this role while Hamas retains control of weapons. Hamas maintains that while Israel is still killing Palestinians, it will not disarm.

Nine months since the Gaza ceasefire and Trump’s 20-point peace plan of October 2025, conditions throughout the Strip have remained unlivable and deadly for Palestinians, with more than 1000 killed by Israeli forces and more than 3500 wounded.

Parents stay awake all night in their tents to stop rats feeding on their children.

The amount of humanitarian aid is far short of what is required, and there is a trickle of medical evacuations despite some 16,500 Palestinians needing urgent medical transfer out of Gaza.

A Board of Inaction
The UN Security Council supported the establishment of the Board of Peace in November last year, noting that it would be temporary and transitional, although Trump subsequently declared it would address other world conflicts beyond Gaza.

The composition of the Board of Peace Executive and the Gaza Executive Board includes a number of Trump’s leadership team, plus other Republican operatives, wealthy US businessmen and real estate magnates, as well as Tony Blair.

• Donald Trump – Chairman for life
• Marco Rubio – US Secretary of State
• Jared Kushner – US presidential advisor and son-in-law
• Steve Witkoff – US Special Envoy to the Middle East
• Tony Blair – Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
• Marc Rowan – CEO of Apollo Global Management
• Ajay Banga – President of the World Bank Group
  

The Gaza Executive Board includes all of the above plus various international diplomats and intelligence officials and representatives from Egypt, Turkey, Qatar and the UAE and more Republican government appointees, Susie Wiles, White House Chief of Staff and former Trump campaign adviser, and Robert Gabriel, US Deputy National Security Advisor.

According to the UN Security Council Resolution 2803, this body has UN support to “set the framework and coordinate funding for the redevelopment of Gaza” until the Palestinian Authority has “satisfactorily reformed”. It also authorised the Board to deploy a temporary International Stabilisation Force (ISF) in Gaza; however, this has not occurred.

Israel has moved some of the anti-Hamas Palestinian militias it’s been arming and funding for three years now into the area it has occupied behind the yellow line. These various militias, led by factional gangs, drug lords and criminals, pose additional threats to Hamas disarming and the transition of power to a Palestinian-led reconstruction committee and the ultimate withdrawal of the IDF.

Yellow and Orange Lines

The Israeli-defined ceasefire Yellow Line, according to Israel’s legal NGO Gisha, pushes more than two million people into less than half of the Strip’s territory, exacerbating unbearable overcrowding that is harming public health, including outbreaks of disease and infestation of rats and other pests.

Israel’s seizure of such vast areas also prevents Gaza residents from returning to their homes and lands. Most of Gaza’s agricultural lands lie east of the Yellow Line, meaning they are within areas controlled by Israel. Continued denial of access for farmers to their lands prevents the rehabilitation of vital food sources.

From March 2025, Israel instituted the Orange Line, a line that delineates almost 48 percent of Gaza’s land mass where any international organisations are prohibited from moving without prior coordination with Israeli authorities. Gisha reports that this orange line is now a new border that has expanded the area that Israel now directly controls.

While negotiations have stalled for 9 months on the initial implementation of the ceasefire agreement, the IDF, following on from Netanyahu’s call in May, has now occupied almost 70 percent of Gaza, with the yellow cement perimeter markers defining an ever-shrinking area where 2.1 million war-wounded and dispossessed Palestinians are helplessly surviving.

Remote-controlled machine guns
Everyone in Gaza is constantly monitored by drones, and now occupying the eastern perimeter of this dystopian landscape are 23 massive military cranes equipped with remote-controlled machine guns and high-tech surveillance cameras inside the Israeli IDF-defined Yellow Line.

Gaza journalist Tamar Nahed posted this description of Israel’s latest killing apparatus,

“These cranes have turned the entire city into an open field. The latest military technologies are directed at civilians. We have become an open testing ground for their new weapons. The horror is not just in the sound … it is the constant feeling of being an exposed target at all times.”

In the first week of July, the Board of Peace declared that there was no role for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in Gaza, which is a continuation of the Israeli ban on this aid organisation, which has supported Palestinians with essential humanitarian and educational aid in Gaza since 1948.

This announcement negates the Charter of the United Nations, international law principles and fundamental human rights standards.

Shelters or camps?
Despite the Board’s apparent refusal to allow the Palestinian committee of bureaucrats (NCAG) into Gaza, the Israeli news outlet Israel Hayom just reported on plans aimed at relocating Palestinian residents into barbed wire fenced designated areas. This will allow the IDF to “deepen its grip on areas outside of the yellow line”.

“Surviving Palestinians will be herded into fenced ‘humanitarian shelters’ policed by foreign forces,” as reported by Israel Hayom on July 2.

Images of a camp that’s been described as a concentration camp have emerged in Tel Al-Sultan, an area near Rafah where a pilot project of “humanitarian shelters” will be established. Civilians will be channelled into Tel Al-Sultan, which was a densely populated area of Rafah from which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were ordered to flee in April last year.

This image of stark, freshly flattened land surrounded by barbed wire fences and covered with masses of metal box shelters and no evidence of any permanent cement structures (as directed by Israel) appears to be a horrific precursor to

a very grim future for Palestinians in Gaza.

It recalls Israel Defence Minister Katz’s plan of a year ago of a “humanitarian city” on the ruins of Rafah, where the goal was to screen people before they were allowed to enter to ensure they were not Hamas and then refuse any exits except to third countries.

Legal immunity
The Board of Peace convened in Cyprus at the end of June for 3 days to “reset” after “the Iran war has completely shifted the attention in the last several months,” according to an official source. It sought to address the funding shortfalls, logistical delays and security challenges.

One of the more controversial draft resolutions was the Board’s plan to grant legal immunity to its members, contractors, and security forces; therefore

shielding the whole enterprise from potential legal proceedings.

As reported widely, human rights lawyers are highly critical of this proposal, including Palestinian American lawyer and academic, Noura Erakat: “They are basically saying there’s no external oversight, including applicable international law regarding occupation. It’s creating a legal system unto itself.”

At the same time, the IDF has reportedly called for fighting to resume as senior officers in the IDF claim that Hamas’ military wing is rebuilding.

Hamas has maintained that it will only disarm under the auspices of the Palestinian NCAG and when Phase 1 of the ceasefire agreement is achieved, which includes the withdrawal of Israeli forces to agreed positions, full implementation of humanitarian measures and a complete end to Israel’s military attacks.

The nightmare on the ground in Gaza for Palestinians continues. The machinations of Trump’s Board of Peace appear to be

stymying any chance for genuine reconstruction of Gaza

led by Palestinians for Palestinians. The available evidence at this point is that the 1000-day-plus Israeli genocide in Gaza continues apace behind the veneer of Trump’s “peace” plan and the continuing indifference of world powers

Pacific media are facing one of their most challenging reporting environments in their history, marked by governance issues, political instability, geopolitical pressures and escalating climate threats, while simultaneously grappling with declining revenue streams and threats to their financial survival.

This is highlighted in the inaugural edition of the Pacific Media academic journal, by co-editors, associate professor and head of the University of the South Pacific (USP) Journalism Programme, Dr Shailendra Singh, and co-founder of The Australia Today, Dr Amit Sarwal.

In their editorial, Dr Singh and Dr Sarwal say Pacific media systems — already vulnerable due to their small scale — continue to be hit by the collapse of traditional advertising models that once kept legacy media afloat.

• READ MORE: Inaugural edition of Pacific Media
• Second edition of Pacific Media
• Pacific Media website

They point out that although small and geographically isolated, the regional media have not been spared the ravages of digital disruption, which continues to pose a threat to the media’s traditional advertising-based revenue model. This was compounded by losses from the covid-19 pandemic.

These issues, and more, re-surfaced at the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference in Suva, Fiji. The conference, the first of its kind in 20 years, was hosted by the USP’s School of Pacific Arts, Communication and Education (Journalism), in partnership with the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA), the United States Embassy in Suva and Asia Pacific Media Network.

Selected blind peer reviewed conference papers published in Pacific Media highlight how Pacific news reporting is becoming increasingly complex and contentious, even as newsrooms face unprecedented financial and editorial pressures.

A key question explored at the conference, and a recurring theme in the journal, is how Pacific media are responding to and reporting on the overlapping challenges in the region, which have compounded the long-standing struggles to achieve sustainable development.

In his paper, Frontline media faultlines: How critical journalism can survive against the odds, the journal’s production and managing editor, veteran Pacific journalist and educator Dr David Robie warned that Pacific media face a “plethora of emerging and entrenched problems” — from collapsing business models to the rise of fake news, leadership failures, and political corruption.

Despite reporting on these issues for decades, little progress has been made even as new challenges emerge.

In The History of the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) 1972–2023, Marsali Mackinnon and Kalafi Moala, while paying tribute to the region’s media pioneers, explore enduring questions about the state of Pacific media, especially in the context of digital disruption and revenue losses. They ask whether the industry has lost its vitality and if journalists and media workers still uphold core values like freedom of speech and impartial reporting.

The article, based on their forthcoming book chronicling PINA’s 50-year history, looks at the challenges facing Pacific media — economic, political, technological, and cultural pressures — and examines whether the principles established by postcolonial pioneers in the 1970s have been compromised.

Another paper, Women’s political empowerment in the Asia-Pacific region: The role of social media, by associate professor Baljeet Singh, Dr Singh, Nitika Nand and Shasnil Chand, examines how social media positively influences women’s political empowerment across 20 Asia-Pacific countries. Based on their findings, the authors recommend that regional governments and development partners prioritise improved connectivity and online access in deprived areas as a key strategy to empower women and strengthen their participation in politics and political leadership.

In his paper, Reporting the nuclear Pacific: Facing new geopolitical challenges, journalist and researcher Nic Maclellan revisits the Pacific’s nuclear testing legacy, highlighting the crucial role of journalists in preserving survivors’ stories. He argues that the nuclear threat in the Pacific is far from over and has re-emerged in new forms, requiring sustained media attention and critical reporting.

In his commentary, Behind the Mic: How Sashi Singh’s Talking Point helped shape Fiji’s political landscape, Sashimendra Singh reflects on the impact of his Sydney-based podcast in the lead-up to Fiji’s 2022 General Election. The former Fiji-based broadcaster interviewed key political figures, including Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and the three Deputy Prime Ministers, while they were still in opposition.

Singh’s podcast tackled issues that Fiji’s suppressed national media were reluctant to address and went on to attract a large following. The article demonstrates the growing importance of diaspora media and new media technologies, showing how social media can positively circumvent censorship imposed by national authorities.

In The “Coconut Wireless”: Ways that community news endures and spreads in a news desert, Krista Rados and Brett Oppegaard address the concept of “news deserts” in the Pacific — areas where communities urgently need local information but lack trustworthy sources. This paper highlights the enduring strengths of social media in fostering journalism in remote, sparsely populated, and underdeveloped communities.

Pacific Media, launched last year, succeeds the long-running Pacific Journalism Review, which began at the University of Papua New Guinea in 1994 and was archived after 30 years of publication. PJR is now a public database for research.

The journal is designed by Del Abcede and the series editor is Khairiah A Rahman.

This inaugural edition is a collaboration between USP, the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), and Tuwhera Open Access platform, aimed at documenting the rapid transformations shaping journalism in the region — and how Pacific media can navigate an increasingly turbulent future.

Some other key papers include:

• Weaponising the partisan WhatsApp group: The circulation of disinformation and artificial intelligence (AI) content in the 2024 Indonesian presidential election by Mochamad Achir Taher. The paper examines the spread of disinformation partisan messages within a politically aligned WhatsApp group during Indonesia’s 2024 Presidential Election. The study finds that presidential candidates used social media platforms to distribute biased and misleading content to influence voters.
• Blood on the Tracks: Countering symbolic violence — A case study in reciprocal investigative journalism practice by Bonita Mason. In this paper, she examines a six-year investigation by Australian journalist and First Nations man Allan Clarke into the suspicious death of First Nations teenager Mark Haines. Haines’s family never accepted police claims of suicide. On the 25th anniversary of the death, Clarke, moved by the injustices suffered by the dead man’s family, reignited the investigation.
• Your weather: Digital weather producer WeatherWatch NZ and its Pacific coverage by Melissa Beattie. The paper situates WeatherWatch within the broader digital journalism landscape and then examines its Pacific-focused weekly forecasts in Melanesia and Polynesia.

This article was first published by Wansolwara News and is republished by Asia Pacific Report as a collaboration between the University of the South Pacific and Asia Pacific Media Network.

There’s been skillful work in journalism’s dark arts on display in the UK this past week, as the nasty British right-wing media pack tore down two senior BBC executives. The right-wing culture warriors will be celebrating big time.

They reckon they’ve put a big dent in Britain’s most trusted and most used news media with the scalps of director-general Tim Davie and director of news Deborah Turness.

Best of all, the London Daily Telegraph was able to make it look like an inside job (leaning into a paean of outrage from a former part-time “standards” adviser), hiding its hit job behind the pretence of serious investigative journalism.

• READ MORE: Inside the year-long BBC saga that led to Trump’s $1bn lawsuit threat
• Other BBC reports

For the paper long dubbed the Torygraph, it’s just another day of pulling down the country’s centrist institutions for not being right wing enough in the destructive, highly politicised world of British news media.

Sure, there’s criticisms to be made of the BBC’s news output. There’s plenty of research and commentary that pins the broadcaster for leaning over backwards to amplify right-wing talking points over hot-button issues like immigration and crime. (ABC insiders here in Australia call it the preemptive buckle.)

Most recently, for example, a Cardiff University report last month found that nearly a quarter of BBC News programmes included Nigel Farage’s Reform Party — far more coverage than similar-sized parties like the centrist Liberal Democrats or the Greens received.

It’s why there are mixed views about Davie (who started in the marketing rather than the programme-making side of the business), while the generally respected Turness is being mourned and protested more widely.

BBC’s damage-control plan
The resignations flow from the corporation’s damage-control plan around an earlier — and more genuine — BBC scandal: the 2020 expose that then rising star Martin Bashir had forged documents to nab a mid-1990s Princess Diana interview. You know the one: the royal-rocking “there were three of us in the marriage” one.

The Boris Johnson government grabbed onto the scandal as an opportunity to drive “culture change”, as then Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden put it in an interview in Murdoch’s The Times. As part of that change, the BBC board (almost always the villain in BBC turmoil) decided to give the Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee a bit of a hand, by adding an external “adviser”.

Enter Michael Prescott, a former News Corp political reporter before moving on to PR and lobbying. Not a big BBC gig (it pays $30,000 a year), but it came with the fancy title of “Editorial Adviser”.

Roll forward four years: new government, new board, new BBC scandal. Prescott’s term ended last July. But he left a land-mine behind: a 19-page jeremiad, critiquing the BBC and its staff over three of the right’s touchstone issues: Trump, Gaza and trans people.

It fingered the BBC’s respected Arab programming for anti-Israel bias and smeared LGBTQIA+ reporters for promoting a pro-trans agenda.

Last week, his letter turned up (surprise!) — all over the Telegraph’s front pages, staying there every day since last Tuesday, amplified by its partner on the right, the Daily Mail, helped along with matching deplora-quotes from conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and demands for answers from the Tory MP who chairs the House of Commons Culture Standing Committee.

The one stumble sustaining the outrage? Back in November 2024, on the BBC’s flagship Panorama immediately before the US presidential election, snippets of Trump’s speech on the day of the January 6 riot had been spliced together, bringing together words which had been spoken 50 minutes apart.

Not for the first time, heads have rolled at the BBC following a puffed-up scandal pushed by the UK’s Tory press. Will the ABC learn the lessons of its British compatriot? https://t.co/nteARbd2M3

— Crikey (@crikey_news) November 11, 2025

Carelessness . . . or bias?
Loose editing? Carelessness? Or (as the cacophony on the right insist) demonstrable anti-Trump bias?

The real problem? The loose editing took the report over one of the right’s red lines: suggesting — however lightly — that Trump was in any way responsible for what happened at the US Capital that day.

Feeding the right’s fury, last Thursday the BBC released its findings that a newsreader’s facial expression when she changed a script on-air from “pregnant people” to “pregnant women” laid the BBC “open to the interpretation that it indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity”.

Even as the British news media has deteriorated into the destructive, mean-spirited beast that it has become, outdated syndication arrangements mean Australia’s legacy media has to pretend to take it seriously. And our own conservative media just can’t resist joining in the mother country’s culture wars.

An Australian Financial Review opinion piece by the masthead’s European correspondent Andrew Tillett took the opportunity to rap the knuckles of the ABC, the BBC and “their alleged cabals of leftist journalists and content producers”, while Jacquelin Magnay at The Australian called for a clean-out at the BBC due to its pivot “from providing factual news to becoming an activist for the trans lobby and promoting pro-Gaza voices”.

Trump, of course, was not to be left out of the pile-on, with his press secretary Karoline Leavitt calling the BBC “100 percent fake news” — and giving the UK Telegraph another front page to keep the story alive for another day. Overnight, Trump got back into the headlines as he announced his trademark US$1 billion demand on media that displeases him.

It’s not the first time Britain’s Tory media have brought down a BBC boss for being insufficiently right wing. Back in 1987, Thatcher appointed ex-Daily Mail boss Marmaduke Hussey as BBC chair. Within three months, he shocked the niceties of British institutional life when he fired director-general Alastair Milne over the BBC’s reporting on the conservative government.

Here we are almost 40 years later: another puffed-up scandal. Another BBC head falling to the outrage of the British Tory press.

Christopher Warren is an Australian journalist and Crikey’s media correspondent. He was federal secretary of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA) until April 2015, and is a past president of the International Federation of Journalists. This article was first published by Crikey and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Three media commentators addressed the 98th week of New Zealand solidarity rallies for Palestine in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland today, criticising the quality of news reporting about the world’s biggest genocide crisis this century.

Speakers at other locations around the country also condemned what they said was biased media coverage.

The critics said they were affirming their humanity in solidarity with the people of Palestine as the United Nations this week officially declared a man-made famine in Gaza because of Israel’s weaponisation of starvation against the besieged enclave with 2 million population.

• READ MORE: Facing up to genocide — a New Zealand journalist bears witness with Gaza and West Bank
• NZ joins calls for urgent, independent foreign media access to Gaza
• Gaza’s ‘nutrition clinics packed amid worsening hunger crisis’
• Other killing of Gaza journalists reports

More than 62,000 Palestinians have been killed in the 22 months of conflict – mostly women and children.

One of the major criticisms at the Palestine Solidarity Network (PSNA) organised rally was that the New Zealand media has consistently framed the series of massacres as a “war” between Israel and Hamas instead of a military land grab based on ethnic cleansing and genocide.

The first speaker, Mick Hall, a former news agency journalist who is currently an independent political columnist, said the way news media had covered these crimes had “undoubtedly affected public opinion”.

“As Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Gaza devolved into a full-blown genocide, our media continued to frame Israel’s attack on Gaza as a war against Hamas, while they uncritically recorded Western leaders’ claims that Israel was exercising a ‘right of self-defence’,” he said.

NZ media lacking context
New Zealand news outlets continued to “present an ahistorical account of what has transpired since October 7, shorn of context, ignoring Israel’s history of occupation, of colonial violence against the Palestinian people”.

“An implicit understanding that violence and ethnic cleansing forms part of the organisational DNA of Zionism should have shaped how news stories were framed and presented over the past 22 months.

“Instead, newsroom leaders took their lead from our politicians, from the foreign policy positions from those in Washington and other aligned centres of power.”

Hall said newsrooms had not taken a “neutral position” — “nor are they attempting to keep us informed in any meaningful sense”.

“They failed to robustly document the type of evidence of genocide now before the International Court of Justice.

“By wilfully declining to adjudicate between contested claims of Israel and its victims, they failed to meet the informational needs of democratic citizenship in a most profound way.

“They lowered the standard of news, instead of upholding it, as they so sanctimoniously tell us.”

Evans slams media ‘apologists’
Award-winning New Zealand cartoonist Malcolm Evans congratulated the crowd of about 300 protesters for “being on the right side of history”.

“As we remember more than 240 journalists, camera and media people, murdered, assassinated, by Zionist Israel — who they were and the principles they stood for we should not forget our own media,” he said.

“The media which, contrary to the principles they claim to stand for, tried to tell us Zionist Israeli genocide was justified.”

“Whatever your understanding of the conflict in Palestine, which has brought you here today and for these past many months, it won’t have come first from the mainstream media.

“It wasn’t our reporters living in a tent in Gaza whose lives, hopes and dreams were blasted into oblivion because they exposed Zionist Israel’s evil intent.

“The reporters whose witness to Zionist Israel’s war crimes sparked your outrage were not from the ranks of Western media apologists.”

Describing the mainstream media as “pimps for propaganda”, Evans said that in any “decent world” he would not be standing there — instead the New Zealand journalists organisation would be, “expressing solidarity with their murdered Middle Eastern colleagues”.

Palestinian journalists owed debt
David Robie, author and editor of Asia Pacific Report, said the world owed a huge debt to the Palestinian journalists in Gaza.

“Although global media freedom groups have conflicting death toll numbers, it is generally accepted that more than 270 journalists and media workers have been killed — many of them deliberately targeted by the IDF [Israeli Defence Force], even killing their families as well.”

Dr Robie stressed that the Palestinian journalist death toll had eclipsed that of the combined media deaths of the American Civil War, First and Second World Wars, Korean War, Vietnam War, Cambodian War, Yugoslavia Wars, Afghan War, and the ongoing Ukraine War.

“The Palestinian death toll of journalists is greater than the combined death toll of all these other wars,” he said. “This is shocking and shameful.”

He pointed out that when Palestinian reporter Anas al-Sharif was assassinated on August 10, his entire television crew was also wiped out ahead of the Israeli invasion of Gaza City — “eliminating the witnesses, that’s what Israel does”.

Six journalists died that day in an air strike, four of them from Al Jazeera, which is banned in Israel.

Dr Robie also referred to “disturbing reports” about the existence of an IDF military unit — the so-called “legitimisation cell” — tasked with smearing and targeting journalists in Gaza with fake information.

He condemned the New Zealand media for republishing some of these “counter-narratives” without question.

“This is shameful because news editors know that they are dealing with an Israeli government with a history of lying and disinformation; a government that is on trial with the International Court of Justice for ‘plausible genocide’; and a prime minister wanted on an International Criminal Court arrest warrant to answer charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity,” he said.

“Why would you treat this government as a credible source without scrutiny?”

Mock media cemetery
The protest included a mock pavement cemetery with about 20 “bodies” of murdered journalists and blue “press” protective vests, and placards declaring “Killing journalists is killing the truth”, “Genocide: Zionism’s final solution” and “Zionism shames Jewish tradition”.

The demonstrators marched around Te Komititanga Square, pausing at strategic moments as Palestinians read out the names of the hundreds of killed Gazan journalists to pay tribute to their courage and sacrifice.

Last year, the Gazan journalists were collectively awarded the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize for their “courage and commitment to freedom of expression”.

In Ōtautahi Christchurch today, one of the speakers at the Palestine solidarity rally there was author and journalist Saige England, who called on journalists to “speak the truth on Gaza”.

“The truth of a genocide carried out by bombs and snipers, and now there is another weapon — slow starvation, mutilation by hunger,” she said.

“The truth is a statement by Israel that journalists are ‘the enemy’. Israel says journalists are the enemy, what does that tell you?

“Why? Because it has carried out invasions, apartheid and genocide for decades.”

Protesters demonstrated outside several major US media outlets in Washington this week condemning their coverage of the genocide in Gaza, claiming they were to blame over misinformation and the worsening catastrophe.

Banging pots and pans to spotlight the starvation crisis, they accused the media of “complicity in genocide”.

Banners and placards proclaimed “Stop media complicity in genocide” and “US media manufactures consent for Israel’s crimes”, as the protesters demonstrated outside media offices that included NBC News and Fox News.

• READ MORE: With the UK and France moving toward recognising Palestine, will Australia now follow suit?
• ‘Battle for the truth’: Pro-Israel bias inside UK newsrooms revealed
• Israeli social media campaign denies there is starvation in Gaza as death toll mounts
• More Israeli war on Gaza reports

But the irony was that while the protests appeared to have been ignored or overlooked by national media in the US – and certainly in New Zealand, they were strongly reported by at least one global news agency, Turkey’s Anadolu Agensi.

The protests echoed a series of statements by various news media organisations, such as Agence France-Presse concerned about the safety of their journalists from both under fire and the risk of starvation, and media freedom advocacy groups.

The Doha-based global television news network Al Jazeera, that has been producing arguably the best and most honest news coverage of Gaza and the occupied West Bank – which earned it being banned last year by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority from reporting inside their territory — called for global action to protect Gaza’s journalists.

It said in a statement that Isael’s forced starvation of the besieged enclave that threatened Gaza’s entire population, including those “risking their lives to shed light on Israel’s atrocities”.

At least six Al Jazeera journalists have been killed in Gaza since October 2023.

Death toll passes 60,000
On Tuesday this week, the world noted a grim milestone in Gaza, with the Health Ministry announcing that the death toll had surpassed 60,000 (this does not include the tens of thousands of people buried under the rubble and missing, presumed dead).

Put in perspective, that is one in every 36 people in Gaza killed, and more than 90 people on average slaughtered every day.

Also, 1157 people have been killed near the notorious Israel and US-backed Gaza “Humanitarian” Foundation food depots condemned as “death traps”, while 154 people have died from starvation, 89 of them children with the numbers rising.

Israel’s genocide – ‘Everyone in Gaza is starving’       Video: Al Jazeera

An episode of the weekly media watch programme, The Listening Post, took up the theme as well, criticising the failure of many high profile Western news services from adequately reporting the horror of Israel’s devastating and cruel policies.

“When trying to stave off starvation becomes part of the job. What it means to be a Palestinian journalist in Gaza. The stories they are determined to tell, the incredible risks they are prepared to take,” said host Richard Gizbert when introducing the programme. He wasted no time firing a few caustic shots.

“What is unfolding in Gaza now has the appearance of a final solution, orchestrated by Israel and the United States, Israel’s other ally: The transformation of parts of the Gaza strip into starvation and concentration camps, a place where famine has been turned into a weapon of war,” he said.

“Reporting on the reality of this genocide can amount to a death sentence. Palestinian journalists can easily identify with the suffering they are documenting since they too are going hungry.

“They have been targeted because for [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu, like other genocidal leaders before him, starving a population is much easier to do when no one is watching.

Perpetrator ‘left out’
“Across Western mainstream media, news outlets have been unable to ignore this story of mass starvation in Gaza. But in report after report, they have made a habit of leaving out a key detail – naming the perpetrators of the famine, Israel.

“The missing actors, the sanitised language, the use of the passive grammatical voice, it is all part of the playbook for far too many international news outlets and that is exactly what the few Palestinian journalists still standing are out to tell the world.”

Gizbert explained that “journalists in Gaza already have the world’s toughest assignment”:
“Job one for almost 22 months now has been survival; job two, telling heartbreaking stories; documenting a genocide while under fire.”

Like, for example, Al Jazeera Arabic’s Anas al-Sharif who was reporting live from outside Al Shifa medical complex when a woman behind him collapsed at the hospital’s gate.

Al-Sharif, who had reported on the genocide of his own people for more than 650 days without rest or complaint, through Israeli occupation airstrikes, drone attacks, and countless “scenes resembling hell”, suddenly could not take it anymore.

He broke down: “People are falling to the ground from the severity of hunger,” al-Sharif said through his tears. “They need one sip of water. They need one loaf of bread.”

Al-Sharif has also been threatened by the Israeli military, accusing him of being a “Hamas militant”, an accusation strongly denied by Al Jazeera, denouncing what it called Tel Aviv’s “campaign of incitement” against its reporters in the Gaza Strip.

Discredited for bias
Many Western mainstream media – including BBC, CNN, Sky, ITN, and Australia’s public broadcaster ABC — have been repeatedly discredited for their “pro-Israel bias” by scores of journalists who have acted as whistleblowers about the actions of their own news organisations.

According to a Declassified UK report, for example, the journalists working for a range of outlets from across the political spectrum have “painted a consistent picture of the obstacles faced by reporters who want to humanise Palestinians or scrutinise Israeli government narratives”. The US media is also under attack and has been putting up a lame defence.

Last week, more than 100 aid groups warned of “mass starvation” throughout Gaza — predictably denied by Israeli government in the face of overwhelming evidence — with their staff severely impacted by shortages and serious implications for journalists already being threatened with targeting by the Israeli military.

Israel faces growing global pressure over the enclave’s dire humanitarian crisis, where more than two million people have endured 22 months of war. UN Security Council member France has led a group of countries announcing that they plan to recognise the Palestinian state at the UN in September, with United Kingdom, Canada, Malta and Finland among those following with the total number now almost 150 of the 193 UN member states.

A statement with 111 signatories, including Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Save the Children and Oxfam, warned that “our colleagues and those we serve are wasting away”. The groups called for an immediate negotiated ceasefire, the opening of all land crossings and the free flow of aid through UN-led mechanisms.

Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh reported from Amman that the Israeli government had accused the UK of supporting the establishment of a “jihadi” state and of derailing efforts to reach a ceasefire.

“But really,” she said, “the Israeli media, for example, is describing this as a political tsunami, a realisation of how significant the tide is, and how improbable it is to turn it back to countries withholding recognition because Israel said it doesn’t want it.”

Calling for sanctions
She also noted how 31 high-profile Israelis, including the former speaker of the Knesset, a former attorney general, and several recipients of Israel’s highest cultural award, were calling on world governments to impose crippling sanctions on Israel to stop the starvation of Palestinians in Gaza and their expulsion

“This was taboo just a few days ago and has never really been done before, certainly not at this level of prominence of the signatories,” Odeh added.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) added its voice to the appeal by aid agencies to call for an end to Israel’s starvation of journalists and other civilians in Gaza, backing the plea for states to “save lives before there are none left to save.”

In a statement on its website, the CPJ accused Israel of “starving journalists into silence”.

“Israel is starving Gazan journalists into silence. They are not just reporters, they are frontline witnesses, abandoned as international media were pulled out and denied entry,” said CPJ regional director Sara Qudah.

“The world must act now: protect them, feed them, and allow them to recover while other journalists step in to help report. Our response to their courageous 650 plus-days of war reporting cannot simply be to let them starve to death.”

‘Bearing witness’ videos
Also, last week the CPJ launched a “bearing witness” series of videos from Gaza giving voice to the challenges the journalists have been facing. In the first video, Moath al Kahlout described how his cousin had been shot dead while awaiting humanitarian aid.

As Israel partially eased its 11-week total blockade of Gaza that began in May, CPJ published the testimony of six journalists who described how “starvation, dizziness, brain fog, and sickness” had threatened their ability to report.

Among highlights cited by the CPJ:
• On June 20, Al Jazeera correspondent Anas Al Sharif — the journalist cited earlier in this article — posted online: “I am drowning in hunger, trembling in exhaustion, and resisting the fainting that follows me every moment . . .  Gaza is dying. And we die with it.”
• Sally Thabet, correspondent for Al-Kofiya satellite channel, told CPJ that she fainted consciousness after doing a live broadcast on July 20 because she had not eaten all day. She regained consciousness in Al-Shifa hospital, where doctors gave her an intravenous drip for rehydration and nutrition. In an online video, she described how she and her three daughters were starving.
• Another Palestinian journalist, Shuruq As’ad said Thabet had been the third journalist to collapse on air from starvation that week, and posted a photograph of Thabet with the drip in her hand.
• During a live broadcast on July 20, Al-Araby TV correspondent Saleh Al-Natour said: “We have no choice but to write and speak; otherwise, we will all die.”

Little of this horrendous state of affairs has made it onto the pages of newspapers, websites of the television screens in the New Zealand mainstream media which seems to have a pro-Israel slant and rarely interviews Palestinian journalists or analysts for balance.

The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has called on the New Zealand government to not follow Australia’s policy moves which would effectively criminalise the Palestine solidarity movement.

The Australian government has announced plans to implement recommendations from its anti-semitism envoy which PSNA says creates a “hierarchy of racism” with anti-semitism at the top, while Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism hardly feature.

At least some of the appalling anti-semitic attacks in Sydney have been bogus, said the PSNA in a statement.

• READ MORE: Church leaders, diplomats, condemn Israeli settler violence in West Bank
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

Co-chair John Minto said PSNA had no tolerance for anti-semitism in Aotearoa New Zealand, or anywhere else.

“But equally there should be no place for any other kind of racism, such as Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism. Our government must speak out against all forms of discrimination and support all communities when racism rears its ugly head,” he said.

“Let’s not forget the murderous attacks on the Christchurch mosques.”

Minto said the Australian measures would “inevitably” be used to criminalise the Palestinian solidarity movement across the country.

Trump ‘demonising’ support
“We see it happening in the US, to attack and demonise support for Palestinian human rights by the Trump administration.  We see it orchestrated in the UK to shut down any speech which Prime Minister Starmer and the Israeli government don’t like.”

The PSNA statement said that it agreed with the Jewish Council of Australia which has warned the Australian government adopting these measures could result in

“undermining Australia’s democratic freedoms, inflaming community divisions, and entrenching selective approaches to racism that serve political agendas.”

Minto said the free speech restrictions in the US, UK and Australia had nothing to do with what people usually understand as anti-semitism.

“The drive comes from the Israeli government.  They see making anti-semitism charges as the most effective means of preventing anyone publicly pointing to the genocide its armed forces are perpetrating in Gaza,” he said.

“The definition of anti-semitism, usually inserted into codes of ethics or legislation, is from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.  The IHRA definition includes 11 examples.  Seven of the examples are about criticising Israel.”

“It’s quite clear the Israeli campaign is to distract the community from Israel’s horrendous war crimes, such as the round-the-clock mass killing and mass starvation of Palestinians in Gaza, and deflect calls for sanctions against Israel.

“Already we can see in both the UK and US, that people have been arrested for saying things about Israel which would not have been declared illegal if they’d said it about other countries, including their own.”

Worrying signs
Minto said there were already worrying signs that the New Zealand government, media and police were “falling into the trap”.

“Just over the past few weeks, there has been an unusually wide-ranging mainstream media focus on anti-semitism,” Minto said citing:

• At least one opinion article in the Stuff newspapers from NZ Jewish Council spokesperson Ben Kepes on anti-semitism in New Zealand
• A major interview in Stuff on anti-semitism with NZJC spokesperson Ben Kepes
• A New Zealand Herald opinion article from NZJC spokesperson Juliet Moses
• A New Zealand Herald podcast featuring Holocaust Foundation spokesperson Deborah Hart.  The Holocaust Foundation is partly funded by the Israeli Embassy.
• An enthusiastic 1News item on the latest appeal to the government to adopt similar measures here to those taken in Australia (TVNZ One News, 13 July 2025)
• Stories highlighting anti-semitic graffiti in Wellington — numerous reports along these lines
• Stuff newspapers highlighting the case of an assault on a visiting Israeli after an altercation in Christchurch with the accused held overnight, denied bail and the police claiming it was a “hate crime”

However, New Zealand politicians and media had been silent about:

• An attack which knocked a young Palestinian woman to the ground when she was using a microphone to speak during an Auckland march
• An attack where a Palestine supporter was kicked and knocked to the pavement outside the Israeli embassy in Wellington.  The accused was wearing an Israeli flag.  He was not held in custody and the Post newspaper has reported neither the arrest nor the resulting charge (this case is due in court July 15)
• An attack on a Palestine solidarity marshal in Christchurch who was punched in the face, in front of police, but no action taken.
• An attack in Christchurch when a Destiny Church member kicked a solidarity marshal in the chest (no action taken by police)
• Anti-Palestinian racist attacks on the home of a Palestine solidarity activist in New Plymouth.  One supporter has had their front fence spraypainted twice with pro-Israel graffiti and their car tyres slashed twice (4 tyres in total) and had vile defamatory material circulated in their neighbourhood. (Police say they cannot help)
• The frequent condemnation of anti-semitism by the previous Chief Human Rights Commissioner, but his refusal to condemn the deep-seated anti-Palestinian racism of the New Zealand Jewish Council and Israel Institute of New Zealand.
• The refusal of the Human Rights Commission to publicly correct false statements it published in The Post newspaper which claimed anti-semitism was increasing, when in fact the evidence it was using was that the rate of incidents had declined.

‘Silence on mass killings’
Minto said that in each of the cases above there would have been far more attention from politicians, the police and the media had the victims been Israeli supporters.

“Meanwhile, both our government and the New Zealand Jewish Council have refused to condemn Israel’s blatant war crimes.  There is silence on the mass killing, mass starvation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza,” he said.

“The Jewish Council and our government stand together and refuse to hold Israel’s racist apartheid regime to account in just about any way.

“This refusal to condemn what genocide scholars, including several Israeli genocide academics, have labelled as a ‘text-book case of genocide’, brings shame on both the New Zealand Jewish Council and the New Zealand government.”

“Adding to the clear perception of appalling bias on the part of our government, both the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs have met with New Zealand Jewish Council spokespeople over the war in Gaza.

“But both have refused to meet with representatives of Palestinian New Zealanders, or the huge number of Jewish supporters of the Palestine solidarity movement.”

Minto said New Zealand must “stand up and be counted against genocide” wherever it appeared and no matter who the victims were.

Australian-Lebanese journalist and commentator Antoinette Lattouf’s unfair dismissal case win against the public broadcaster ABC in the Federal Court on Wednesday is a victory for all those who seek to tell the truth.

It is a breath of fresh air, after almost two years of lies and uncritical reporting about Israel’s genocide from the ABC and commercial media companies.

Lattouf was unfairly sacked in December 2023 for posting on her social media a Human Rights Watch report that detailed Israel’s deliberate starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.

• READ MORE: Other Antoinette Lattouf media freedom reports

Justice Darryl Rangiah found that Lattouf had been sacked for her political opinions, given no opportunity to respond to misconduct allegations and that the ABC breached its Enterprise Agreement and section 772 of the Fair Work Act.

The Federal Court also found that ABC executives — then-chief content officer Chris Oliver-Taylor, editor-in-chief David Anderson and board chair Ita Buttrose — had sacked Lattouf in response to a pro-Israel lobby pressure campaign.

The coordinated email campaign from Zionist groups accused Lattouf of being “antisemitic” for condemning Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

The judge awarded Lattouf A$70,000 in damages, based on findings that her sacking caused “great distress”, and more than $1 million in legal fees.

‘No Lebanese’ claim
Lattouf had alleged that her race or ethnicity had played a part in her sacking, which the ABC had initially responded to by claiming there was no such thing as a “Lebanese, Arab or Middle Eastern Race”, before backtracking.

The court found that this did not play a part in the decision to sack Lattouf.

The ABC’s own reporting of the ruling said “the ABC has damaged its reputation, and public perceptions around its ideals, integrity and independence”.

Outside the court, Lattouf said: “It is now June 2025 and Palestinian children are still being starved. We see their images every day, emaciated, skeletal, scavenging through the rubble for scraps.

“This unspeakable suffering is not accidental, it is engineered. Deliberately starving and killing children is a war crime.

“Today, the court has found that punishing someone for sharing facts about these war crimes is also illegal. I was punished for my political opinion.”

Palestine solidarity groups and democratic rights supporters have celebrated Lattouf’s victory.

An ‘eternal shame’
Palestine Action Group Sydney said: “It is to the eternal shame of our national broadcaster that it sacked a journalist because she opposed the genocide in Gaza.

“There should be a full inquiry into the systematic pro-Israel bias at the ABC, which for 21 months has acted as a propaganda wing of the Israeli military.”

Racial justice organisation Democracy in Colour said the ruling “exposes the systematic silencing taking place in Australian media institutions in regards to Palestine”.

Democracy in Colour chairperson Jamal Hakim said Lattouf was punished for “speaking truth to power”.

“When the ABC capitulated to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby . . .  they didn’t just betray Antoinette — they betrayed their own editorial standards and the Australian public who deserve to know the truth about Israel’s human rights abuses.”

Noura Mansour, national director for Democracy in Colour, said the ABC had been “consistently shutting down valid criticism of the state of Israel” and suppressing the voices of people of colour and Palestinians. She said the national broadcaster had “worked to manufacture consent for the Israeli-US backed genocide”.

Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance chief executive Erin Madeley said: “Instead of defending its journalists, ABC management chose to appease powerful voices . . . they failed in their duty to push back against outside interference, racism and bullying.”

Win for ‘journalistic integrity’
Australian Greens leader Larissa Waters said the ruling was a win for “journalistic integrity and freedom of speech” and that “no one should be punished for speaking out about Gaza”.

Green Left editor Pip Hinman said the ruling was an “important victory for those who stand on the side of truth and justice”.

“It is more important than ever in an increasingly polarised world that journalists speak up and report the truth without fear of reprisal from the rich and powerful.

“Traditional and new media have the reach to shape public opinion. They have had a clear pro-Israel bias, despite international human rights agencies providing horrific data on Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

“Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people around Australia continue to call for an end to the genocide in Gaza in protests every week. But the ABC and corporate media have largely ignored this movement of people from all walks of life. Disturbingly, the corporate media has gone along with some political leaders who claim this anti-war movement is antisemitic.

“As thousands continue to march every week for an end to the genocide in Gaza, the ABC and corporate media organisations have continued to push the lie that the Palestine solidarity movement, and indeed any criticism of Israel, is antisemitic.

“Green Left also hails those courageous mostly young journalists in Gaza, some 200 of whom have been killed by Israel since October 2023.

“Their livestreaming of Israel’s genocide cut through corporate media and political leaders’ lies and today makes it even harder for them to whitewash Israel’s crimes and Western complicity.

“Green Left congratulates Lattouf on her victory. We are proud to stand with the movement for justice and peace in Palestine, which played a part in her victory against the ABC management’s bias.”

Republished from Green Left Magazine with permission.

Donald Trump campaigned for the White House by unleashing a nearly endless barrage of insults against journalists and news outlets.

He repeatedly threatened to weaponise the federal government against media professionals whom he considers his enemies.

In his first 100 days in office, President Trump has already shown that he was not bluffing.

• READ MORE: Pacific editor welcomes US court ruling in favour of Radio Free Asia
• Other RSF reports

“The day-to-day chaos of the American political news cycle can make it hard to fully take stock of the seismic shifts that are happening,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF North America.

“But when you step back and look at the whole picture, the pattern of blows to press freedom is quite clear.

“RSF refuses to accept this massive attack on press freedom as the new normal. We will continue to call out these assaults against the press and use every means at our disposal to fight back against them.

“We urge every American who values press freedom to do the same.”

My message today is really simple but brutal. 

Israel kills the journalists deliberately. This is unprecedented. The Western media — including here in Aotearoa New Zealand — kills the truth about genocide in Gaza.

On Boxing Day, an Israeli air strike killed five Palestinian journalists in a clearly marked white vehicle outside a hospital in central Gaza.

• READ MORE: Israel kills five Palestinian journalists in attack on media van
• RSF’s 2024 Round-up: journalism suffers exorbitant human cost due to conflicts and repressive regimes
• Silencing the messenger: Israel kills journalists, while the West merely censors them — David Robie
• Other Israel’s war on Gaza reports

The journalists from the Al-Quds Today TV channel were outside the al-Awada Hospital in the Nuseirat refugee camp when their satellite broadcast van was struck by a pre-dawn Israeli strike.

Video footage that went viral showed the van with the words “PRESS” clearly marked in red block letters engulfed in flames.

Middle East Eye reporter Hani Aburezeq said from the scene: “The van was entirely burnt and destroyed. It was fully engulfed in flames.”

The slain journalists were – let’s honour their names — Fadi Hassouna, Ibrahim al-Sheikh Ali, Mohammed al-Ladah, Faisal Abu al-Qumsan and Ayman al-Jadi.

Jadi had gone to the hospital with his wife who was giving birth to their first child. He had gone out to check on the car and his mates when it was bombed.

Baby born on day father died for ‘truth’
Imagine that, the baby was born on the very day his father died while doing his job as a journalist — reporting the truth.

It is another cruel example of the tragic lives lost in this genocide by Israel which has killed more than 45,400 people, mostly women and children.

Al Jazeera’s report on the journalist killings. Video: AJ

Just last week, four other journalists were killed over two days. And now the total is 201 Palestinian journalists killed since 7 October 2023.

This is by far the highest death toll of journalists in any war or conflict.

By comparison, in the six years of the Second World War only 69 journalists were killed.

And in 20 years of the Vietnam War, just 63 journalists were killed.

Al Jazeera reports that Israel, which has not allowed foreign journalists to enter Gaza except on military embeds with the Israeli “Defence” Forces (IDF), which is increasingly being dubbed by critics as the Israeli “Offence” Forces (“IOF”), has been condemned by many media freedom organisations.

Gaza ‘most dangerous region’
The besieged enclave is now regarded as the “most dangerous region of the world” for journalists, according to Reporters Without Borders in its annual report.

Al Jazeera itself was banned by Israel in May from reporting within the country, and was subsequently barred from reporting within the occupied West Bank and the closure of the Ramallah bureau in mid-September.

Israel has tried to silence Al Jazeera previously in by threatening it in 2017, bombing its broadcast office in Gaza in 2021, and assassinating celebrated journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in 2022 and other reporters with impunity.

Al Jazeera, TRT News and many independent news outlets as Democracy Now!, The Intercept, Middle East Eye and The Palestine Chronicle stand in contrast to mainstream media such as BBC, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post that have frequently been called out in investigative reports for systemic bias against Palestine.

Among the poignant messages from Palestinian journalists documenting this war are Bisan Owda, who signs on her video reports every day with “I’m still alive”.

But I would like to share this reflection from another journalist, videographer Osama Abu Rabee who says on his X news feed that he is “capturing the untold stories of resilience and hope”. He said in one post this week:

‘Moments away from death’
“One of my most vivid memories is when three journalists and I were in Eastern Jabalia and we needed to connect our e-sims to edit and upload content of a massacre.

“We went to a room but the connection wasn’t good so I suggested we go into another room. Less than 5 minutes later, the room we had been in got bombed.

“People came over running thinking that we were killed but luckily there were only injuries.

“This was one of the many times that I was moments away from death. I know that I’m targeted as a Palestinian but also as a journalist.

“Every single day I step out of my house and put on my ‘press’ vest and I look behind at my family, I’m not sure if I’ll see them again.

“I hope you understand the risks we are taking to show you the truth.

“Even 15 month later, we continue to go out every single day  and document the horrors that people in Gaza experience.

“We do this so that when God asks what you do, we respond with ‘we did what we could’.”

NZ media’s role shameful
Can journalists and the media in Aotearoa New Zealand say with hand on heart that “we did what we could” in the face of this genocide?

Of course not, the role of New Zealand media has been shameful, apart from notable exceptions such as Gordon Campbell.

It has failed to hold the Christopher Luxon coalition government to account over its pathetic inaction over the genocide.

It has failed to press the government into taking a stronger and more principled stance at the United Nations to call for sanctions against the apartheid and genocidal regime, or to even expel Israel from the global chamber — or the ambassador from Wellington.

It has failed to argue for New Zealand to join the South African-led genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Take Ireland, a smallish country like New Zealand, as an inspirational example. Earlier this month, Ireland responded immediately to the closure of Israel’s embassy in Dublin by opening a Palestinian museum on the premises.

Prime Minister Simon Harris condemned Israel’s genocidal actions, particularly against children and reaffirmed his country’s commitment to human rights and international law.

He said Ireland would not be silenced over Israel. He continued:

“You know what I think is reprehensible? Killing children, I think that’s reprehensible.

“You know what I think is reprehensible? Seeing the scale of civilian deaths that we’ve seen in Gaza.

“You know what I think is reprehensible? People being left to starve and humanitarian aid not flowing,”

Silence of the news media
Have we ever had such a courageous statement like this from our Prime Minister. Absolutely not.

It is shameful that our government has not taken a stand.

And it is shameful that the New Zealand media has been so silent over this most horrendous episode of our times — genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in front of our very eyes for 15 months.

To my knowledge, journalists in Aotearoa have not made even made statements of solidarity with the journalists of Gaza and their horrific sacrifice to bear witness to the truth.

I made a plea for such a stand last January and it was ignored. Australia is making a better job of challenging the status quo.

New Zealand journalists have already “normalised” the genocide. Shameful.

Dr David Robie is convenor of Pacific Media Watch and editor of Asia Pacific Report. This was first presented as an address to a Palestinian solidarity rally in Aotearoa New Zealand’s Te Komititanga Square in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau on 28 December 2024.

It was a heady week for the Paris-based global media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) — celebration of seven years of its Taipei office, presenting a raft of proposals to the Taiwan government, and hosting its Asia-Pacific network of correspondents.

Director general Thibaut Bruttin and the Taipei bureau chief Cedric Alviani primed the Taipei media scene before last week’s RSF initiatives with an op-ed in the Taiwan Times by acknowledging the country’s media freedom advances in the face of Chinese propaganda.

Taiwan rose eight places to 27th in the RSF World Press Freedom Index this year — second only to Timor-Leste in the Asia-Pacific region.

• READ MORE: RSF director general calls China’s repression of journalists ‘totally insane’
• Reporters Without Borders calls for media freedom reforms in Taiwan
• Other RSF images and videos in Taipei

But the co-authors also warned over the credibility damage caused by media “too often neglect[ing] journalistic ethics for political or commercial reasons”.

As a result, only three in 10 Taiwanese said they trusted the news media, according to a Reuters Institute survey conducted in 2022, one of the lowest percentages among democracies.

“This climate of distrust gives disproportionate influence to platforms, in particular Facebook and Line, despite them being a major vector of false or biased information,” Bruttin and Alviani wrote.

“This credibility deficit for traditional media, a real Achilles heel of Taiwanese democracy, puts it at risk of being exploited for malicious purposes, with potentially dramatic consequences.”

Press freedom programme
At a meeting with Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te and senior foreign affairs officials, Bruttin and his colleagues presented RSF’s innovative programme for improving press freedom, including the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI), the first ISO-certified media quality standard; the Paris Charter on Artificial Intelligence and Journalism; and the Propaganda Monitor, a project aimed at combating propaganda and disinformation worldwide.

The week also highlighted concerns over the export of the China’s “New World Media Order”, which is making inroads in some parts of the Asia-Pacific region, including the Pacific.

At the opening session of the Asia-Pacific correspondents’ seminar, delegates referenced the Chinese disinformation and assaults on media freedom strategies that have been characterised as the “great leap backwards for journalism” in China.

“Disinformation — the deliberate spreading of false or biased news to manipulate minds — is gaining ground around the world,” Bruttin and Alviani warned in their article.

“As China and Russia sink into authoritarianism and export their methods of censorship and media control, democracies find themselves overwhelmed by an incessant flow of propaganda that threatens the integrity of their institutions.”

Both Bruttin and Alviani spoke of these issues too at the celebration of the seventh anniversary of the Asia-Pacific office in Taipei.

Why Taipei? Hongkong had been an “likely choice, but not safe legally”, admitted Bruttin when they were choosing their location, so the RSF team are happy with the choice of Taiwan.

Hub for human rights activists
“I think we were among the first NGOs to have established a presence here. We kind of made a bet that Taipei would be a hub for human rights activists, and we were right.”

About 200 journalists, media workers and press freedom and human rights advocates attended the birthday bash in the iconic Grand Hotel’s Yuanshan Club. So it wasn’t surprising that there was a lot of media coverage raising the issues.

In an interview with Voice of America’s Joyce Huang, Bruttin was more specific about the “insane” political propaganda threats from China faced by Taiwan.

However, Taiwan “has demonstrated resilience and has rich experience in resisting cyber information attacks, which can be used as a reference for the world”.

Referencing China as the world’s “biggest jailer of journalists”, Bruttin said: “We’re very worried, obviously.” He added about some specific cases: “We’ve had very troublesome reports about the situation of Zhang Zhan, for example, who was the laureate of the RSF’s [2021 press freedom] awards [in the courage category] and had been just released from jail, now is sent back to jail.

“We know the lack of treatment if you have a medical condition in the Chinese prisons.

“Another example is Jimmy Lai, the Hongkong press freedom mogul, he’s very likely to die in jail if nothing happens. He’s over 70.

“And there is very little reason to believe that, despite his dual citizenship, the British government will be able to get him a safe passage to Europe.”

Problem for Chinese public
Bruttin also expressed concern about the problem for the general public, especially in China where he said a lot of people had been deprived of the right to information “worthy of that name”.

“And we’re talking about hundreds of millions of people. And it’s totally scandalous to see how bad information is treated in the People’s Republic of China.”

Seventeen countries in the Asia-Pacific region were represented in the network seminar.

Representatives of Australia, Cambodia, Hongkog, Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, Mongolia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, South Korea, Tibet, Thailand and Vietnam were present. However, three correspondents (Malaysia, Singapore and Timor-Leste) were unable to be personally present.

Discussion and workshop topics included the RSF Global Strategy; the Asia-Pacific network and the challenges being faced; best practice as correspondents; “innovative solutions” against disinformation; public advocacy (for authoritarian regimes; emerging democracies, and “leading” democracies); “psychological support” – one of the best sessions; and the RSF Crisis Response.

What about Oceania (including Australia and New Zealand) and its issues? Fortunately, the countries being represented have correspondents who can speak our publicly, unlike some in the region facing authoritarian responses.

Australia
Australian correspondent Dr Joseph M Fernandez, visiting associate professor at Curtin University and author of the book Journalists and Confidential Sources: Colliding Public Interests in the Age of the Leak, notes that Australia sits at 39th in the RSF World Press Freedom Index — a drop of 12 places from the previous year.

“While this puts Australia in the top one quarter globally, it does not reflect well on a country that supposedly espouses democratic values. It ranks behind New Zealand, Taiwan, Timor-Leste and Bhutan,” he says.

“Australia’s press freedom challenges are manifold and include deep-seated factors, including the influence of oligarchs whose own interests often collide with that of citizens.

“While in opposition the current Australian federal government promised reforms that would have improved the conditions for press freedom, but it has failed to deliver while in government.

“Much needs to be done in clawing back the over-reach of national security laws, and in freeing up information flow, for example, through improved whistleblower law, FOI law, source protection law, and defamation law.”

Dr Fernandez criticises the government’s continuing culture of secrecy and says there has been little progress towards improving transparency and accountability.

“The media’s attacks upon itself are not helping either given the constant moves by some media and their backers to undermine the efforts of some journalists and some media organisations, directly or indirectly.”

A proposal for a “journalist register” has also stirred controversy.

Dr Fernandez also says the war on Gaza has “highlighted the near paralysis” of many governments of the so-called established democracies in “bringing the full weight of their influence to end the loss of lives and human suffering”.

“They have also failed to demonstrate strong support for journalists’ ability to tell important stories.”

An English-language version of this tribute to the late RSF director-general Christophe Deloire, who died from cancer on 8 June 2024, was screened at the RSF Taipei reception. Deloire was 53. Video: RSF

Aotearoa New Zealand
In New Zealand (19th in the RSF Index), although journalists work in an environment free from violence and intimidation, they have increasingly faced online harassment. Working conditions became tougher in early 2022 when, during protests against covid-19 vaccinations and restrictions and a month-long “siege” of Parliament, journalists were subjected to violence, insults and death threats, which are otherwise extremely rare in the country.

Research published in December 2023 revealed that high rates of abuse and threats directed at journalists put the country at risk of “mob censorship” – citizen vigilantism seeking to “discipline” journalism. Women journalists bore the brunt of the online abuse with one respondent describing her inbox as a “festering heap of toxicity”.

While New Zealand society is multicultural, with mutual recognition between the Māori and European populations enshrined in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, this balance is under threat from a draft Treaty Principles Bill.

The nation’s bicultural dimension is not entirely reflected in the media, still dominated by the English-language press. A rebalancing is taking place, as seen in the success of the Māori Television network and many Māori-language programmes in mass media, such as Te Karere, The Hui and Te Ao Māori News.

Media plurality and democracy is under growing threat with massive media industry cuts this year.

New Zealand media also play an important role as a regional communications centre for other South Pacific nations, via Tagata Pasifika, Pacific Media Network and others.

Papua New Guinea
The Papua New Guinea correspondent, Belinda Kora, who is secretary of the revived Media Council of PNG and an ABC correspondent in Port Moresby, succeeded former South Pacific Post Ltd chief executive Bob Howarth, the indefatigable media freedom defender of both PNG and Timor-Leste.

Currently PNG (91st in the RSF Index) is locked in a debate over a controversial draft government media policy — now in its fifth version — that critics regard as a potential tool to crack down on media freedom. But Kora is optimistic about RSF’s role.

“I am excited about what RSF is able and willing to bring to a young Pacific region — full of challenges against the press,” she says.

“But more importantly, I guess, is that the biggest threat in PNG would be itself, if it continues to go down the path of not being able to adhere to simple media ethics and guidelines.

“It must hold itself accountable before it is able to hold others in the same way.

“We have a small number of media houses in PNG but if we are able to stand together as one and speak with one voice against the threats of ownership and influence, we can achieve better things in future for this industry.

“We need to protect our reporters if they are to speak for themselves and their experiences as well. We need to better provide for their everyday needs before we can write the stories that need to be told.

“And this lies with each media house.

The biggest threat for the Pacific as a whole? “I guess the most obvious one would be being able to remain self-regulated BUT not being accountable for breaching our individual code of ethics.

“Building public trust remains vital if we are to move forward. The lack of media awareness also contributes to the lack of ensuring media is given the attention it deserves in performing its role — no matter how big or small our islands are,” Kora says.

“The press should remain free from government influence, which is a huge challenge for many island industries, despite state ownership.

Kora believes that although Pacific countries are “scattered in the region”, they are able to help each other more, to better enhance capacity building and learning from their mistakes with collaboration.

“By collaborating in our efforts in seeking the truth behind many of our big stories that is affecting our people. This I believe will enable us to improve our performance and accountability.”

Example to the region
Meanwhile, back in Taiwan on the day that RSF’s Thibaut Bruttin flew out to Thailand to open a Myanmar Press Freedom Project in Chiang Mai for exiled journalists, he gave a final breakfast interview to China News Agency (CNA) reporter Teng Pei-ju who wrote about the country building up its free press model as an example to the region.

“Taiwan really is one of the test cases for the robustness of journalism in the world,” added Bruttin, reflecting on the country’s transformation from an authoritarian regime that censored information into a vibrant democracy that fights disinformation.

Dr David Robie, convenor of the Asia Pacific Media Network’s Pacific Media Watch project and author of several media and politics books, including Don’t Spoil My Beautiful Face: Media, Mayhem and Human Rights in the Pacific, has been an RSF correspondent since 1996.

Editorial staff at Australia’s public broadcaster ABC have again registered a vote of no confidence in managing director David Anderson and senior managers over the handling of complaints by Israeli lobbyists.

At a national meeting of members of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance this week, staff passed a resolution of no confidence in Anderson and all ABC managers involved in the decision to unfairly dismiss freelance broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf, MEAA said in a statement.

The meeting was held in response to the Fair Work Commission hearings to determine Lattouf’s unfair dismissal claim after she had been sacked from her temporary job as host of ABC Sydney radio’s morning show in December.

• READ MORE: Other reports on ABC and media bias over Israel’s war on Gaza

Staff have also called for ABC’s head of content, Chris Oliver-Taylor, to step down immediately for his role as the ultimate decisionmaker in the dismissal of Lattouf.

“The mishandling of Antoinette Lattouf’s employment has done enormous damage to the integrity and reputation of the ABC,” said MEAA media director Cassie Derrick.

“Evidence provided in the Fair Work Commission hearing about the involvement of David Anderson and Chris Oliver-Taylor in her dismissal has further undermined the confidence of staff in the managing director and his senior managers to be able to protect the independence of the ABC.

“The Lattouf case continues a pattern of ABC journalists, particularly those from culturally diverse backgrounds, lacking support from management when they face criticism from lobby groups, business organisations and politicians.

“For these reasons, Chris Oliver-Taylor should be stood down immediately, while Mr Anderson must demonstrate he is taking the concerns of staff seriously to begin to restore confidence in his leadership.”

Lattouf co-founded Media Diversity Australia (MDA) in 2017, a nonprofit agency which seeks to increase cultural and linguistic diversity in Australia’s news media.

Her parents arrived in Australia as refugees from Lebanon in the 1970s.

Lattouf was born in 1983 in Auburn, New South Wales. She attended various public schools in Western Sydney and studied communications (social inquiry) at the University of Technology Sydney.

Union-led ABC staff call for the resignation of the Australian @ABCNews chief content officer after court documents revealed his role in journalist Antoinette Lattouf’s dismissal for an accurate social media post about Israel’s starvation strategy.https://t.co/eQ8fLBiQL6

— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) March 21, 2024

The full motion passed by ABC MEAA members on Wednesday:

“We, MEAA members at the ABC, are outraged by the revelations of how ABC executives have disregarded the independence of the ABC, damaged the public’s trust in our capacity to report without fear or favour, and mistreated our colleague Antoinette Lattouf.

“Staff reaffirm our lack of confidence in managing director David Anderson, and in all ABC managers involved in the decision to unfairly dismiss Antoinette Lattouf.

“Chris Oliver-Taylor has undermined the integrity of the entire ABC through his mismanagement, and should step down from his role as Head of the Content Division immediately.

“We call on ABC management to stop wasting public funds on defending the unfair dismissal case against Antoinette Lattouf, provide her and the public a full apology and reinstate her to ABC airwaves.

“We demand that ABC management implement staff calls for a fair and clear social media policy, robust and transparent complaints process and an audit to address the gender and race pay gap.”

About 25 pro-Palestinian protesters picketed the Auckland headquarters of Radio New Zealand today in the second of two demonstrations claiming that media is providing biased coverage of Israeli’s war on Gaza that is now in its fifth month.

Last week protesters directed their criticism at Television New Zealand which never reported the picket.

Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) secretary Neil Scott called on RNZ and other media to “tell the full truth” about the Israeli genocide in Gaza that has so far killed 30,800 people, mostly women and children.

• READ MORE: NZ news media under fire for ‘bias, propaganda’ in Gaza coverage
• US push­es ‘un­re­al­is­tic’ port plan for aid de­liv­ery as Gaza death toll ris­es
• Israeli army detains female journalist, activist in West Bank raids

At least 20 people — mostly babies and children — have been reported by Palestinian health authorities as having starved to death in the past week.

Scott said news media were providing “one-sided propaganda” in their reportage.

The protest came amid mounting criticism around the world over Western media coverage of the war and growing reports by media monitoring and research agencies of bias.

Protesters also picketed several media offices in Australian cities today, condemning coverage by the public broadcaster ABC.

‘Selective’ news
In a street placard headlined “Silence is complicity”, the protesters said that New Zealand media “selectively chooses” what was reported and broadcast BBC news feeds that were ‘inaccurate and misleading”.

“The media sculpts information to create public perceptions rather than informing people of the facts,” Scott said.

He said that news media refused to tell New Zealanders about Palestinian rights such as the “right of the occupied to fight occupation”, and that the occupier — Israel — was obligated to provide for the needs of the people under occupation, such as food, water and health.

Scott also said Palestinians had the right not to be arrested and held without charge, trial or conviction — and a large number of Palestinian detainees were being held under “administrative detention”, effectively Israeli hostages.

Israel is holding more than 8200 Palestinian prisoners, more than 3000 of them without charge.

Scott said that there had been more than 20 weeks of rallies and vigils against the war in New Zealand, “averaging 25 rallies and events per week”, but they had been barely covered by media.

In Sydney, high profile Australian-Lebanese broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf, who has publicly challenged the ABC over its coverage and was ousted for perceived sympathy for the Palestinian plight, said she was “incredibly humbled and moved” by the demonstrations in front of ABC studios.

She has taken legal action against the ABC and the Federal Court on Thursday ordered mediation between her and the ABC management.

Incredibly humbled and moved to see many demonstrations of support today. Outside of FWC in Sydney but also in front of ABC studios across various cities and regions in Australia.
This legal process has been incredibly hard, and the support means more than I can express pic.twitter.com/lOcXz3kmf1

— Antoinette Lattouf (@antoinette_news) March 8, 2024

Union members at the Australian public broadcaster ABC have today passed a vote of no confidence in managing director David Anderson for failing to defend the integrity of the ABC and its staff from outside attacks, reports the national media union.

The vote was passed overwhelmingly at a national online meeting attended by more than 200 members of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA), the union said in a statement.

Union members have called on Anderson to take immediate action to win back the confidence of staff following a series of incidents which have damaged the reputation of the ABC as a trusted and independent source of news.

• READ MORE: Cancelling the journalist: Furore over ABC’s coverage of Israel war on Gaza
• Back SA over genocide case, ‘don’t yield to pressure’, Hania tells NZ

The vote of ABC union staff rebuked Anderson, with one of the broadcaster’s most senior journalists, global affairs editor John Lyons, reported in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age as saying he was “embarrassed” by his employer, which he said had “shown pro-Israel bias” and was failing to protect staff against complaints.

This followed revelations of a series of emails by the so-called Lawyers for Israel lobby group alleged to be influential in the sacking of Lebanese Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf for her criticism on social media of the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza that has killed 25,000 people so far, mostly women and children.

Another pro-Israel WhatsApp lobbying the ABC.
It makes me sick in the stomach to see people celebrate my sacking.
It makes me sick in the stomach to see an alleged Ita Buttrose response saying I’m now gone.
It makes me worry about the ABC’s integrity https://t.co/6qTeU7f8Wz pic.twitter.com/L9Te8A1Ynx

— Antoinette Lattouf (@antoinette_news) January 22, 2024

Staff have put management on notice that if it does not begin to address the current crisis by next Monday, January 29, staff will consider further action.

The acting chief executive of MEAA, Adam Portelli, said staff had felt unsupported by the ABC’s senior management when they have been criticised or attacked from outside.

Message ‘clear and simple’
“The message from staff today is clear and simple: David Anderson must demonstrate that he will take the necessary steps to win back the confidence of staff and the trust of the Australian public,” he said.

“This is the result of a consistent pattern of behaviour by management when the ABC is under attack of buckling to outside pressure and leaving staff high and dry.

“Public trust in the ABC is being undermined. The organisation’s reputation for frank and fearless journalism is being damaged by management’s repeated lack of support for its staff when they are under attack from outside.

BREAKING NEWS:
Censorship Crisis at the ABC.

Senior ABC journalist accuses ABC of bowing to “a group of lawyers lobbying for a foreign power.”

“The clue is in the name: ‘Lawyers for Israel’ thought that they could run a campaign to bully an ABC journalist out of her job —… pic.twitter.com/VbyFfGqpnB

— Peter Cronau (@PeterCronau) January 22, 2024

“Journalists at the ABC — particularly First Nations people, and people from culturally diverse backgrounds — increasingly don’t feel safe at work; and the progress that has been made in diversifying the ABC has gone backwards.

“Management needs to act quickly to win that confidence back by putting the integrity of the ABC’s journalism above the impact of pressure from politicians, unaccountable lobby groups and big business.”

The full motion passed by MEAA members at today’s meeting reads as follows:

MEAA members at the ABC have lost confidence in our managing director David Anderson. Our leaders have consistently failed to protect our ABC’s independence or protect staff when they are attacked. They have consistently refused to work collaboratively with staff to uphold the standards that the Australian public need and expect of their ABC.

Winning staff and public confidence back will require senior management:

• Backing journalism without fear or favour;
• Working collaboratively with unions to build a culturally informed process for supporting staff who face criticism and attack;
• Take urgent action on the lack of security and inequality that journalists of colour face;
• Working with unions to develop a clearer and fairer social media policy; and
• Upholding a transparent complaints process, in which journalists who are subject to complaints are informed and supported.

A further resolution passed unanimously by the meeting read:

MEAA members at the ABC will not continue to accept the failure of management to protect our colleagues and the public. If management does not work with us to urgently fix the ongoing crisis, ABC staff will take further action to take a stand for a safe, independent ABC.

Kia ora koutou. Ko Ngāpuhi tōku iwi. Ko Ngāti Manu toku hapu. Ko Karetu tōku marae. Ko Myles Thomas toku ingoa.

I grew up with David Beatson, on the telly. Back in the 1970s, he read the late news which I watched in bed with my parents. Later, David and I worked together to save TVNZ 7 and also regional TV stations.

The Better Public Media (BPM) trust honours David each year with our memorial address, because his fight for non-commercial TV was an honourable one. He wasn’t doing it for himself.

• READ MORE: Other Better Public Media reports
• Better Public Media website

He wasn’t doing it so he could get a job or because it would benefit him. He fought for public media because he knew it was good for Aotearoa NZ.

Like us at Better Public Media, he recognised the benefits to our country from locally produced public media.

David knew, from a long career in media, including as editor of The Listener and as Jim Bolger’s press secretary, that NZ’s media plays an important role in our nation’s culture, social cohesion, and democracy.

NZ culture is very important. NZ culture is so unique and special, yet it has always been at risk of being swamped by content from overseas. The US especially with its crackpot conspiracies, extreme racial tensions, and extreme tensions about everything to be honest.

Local content the antidote
Local content is the antidote to this. It reflects us, it portrays us, it defines New Zealand, and whether we like it or not, it defines us. But it’s important to remember that what we see reflected back to us comes through a filter.

This speech is coming to you through a filter, called Myles Thomas.

Commercial news reflects our world through a filter of sensation and danger to hold our attention. That makes NZ seem more shallow, greedy, fearful and dangerous.

The social media filter makes the world seem more angry, reactive and complaining.
RNZ’s filter is, I don’t know, thoughtful, a bit smug, middle class.

The New Zealand Herald filter makes us think every dairy is being ram-raided every night.

And The Spinoff filter suggests NZ is hip, urban and mildly infatuated with Winston Peters.

These cultural reflections are very important actually because they influence us, how we see NZ and its people.

It is not a commodity
That makes content, cultural content, special. It is not a commodity. It’s not milk powder.

We don’t drink milk and think about flooding in Queenstown, drinking milk doesn’t make us laugh about the Koiwoi accent, we don’t drink milk and identify with a young family living in poverty.

Local content is rich and powerful, and important to our society.

When the government supports the local media production industry it is actually supporting the audiences and our culture. Whether it is Te Mangai Paho, or NZ On Air or the NZ Film Commission, and the screen production rebate, these organisations fund New Zealand’s identity and culture, and success.

Don’t ask Treasury how to fund culture. Accountants don’t understand it, they can’t count it and put it in a spreadsheet, like they can milk solids. Of course they’ll say such subsidies or rebates distort the “market”, that’s the whole point. The market doesn’t work for culture.

Moreover, public funding of films and other content fosters a more stable long-term industry, rather than trashy short-termism that is completely vulnerable to outside pressures, like the US writer’s strike.

We have a celebrated content production industry. Our films, video, audio, games etc. More local content brings stability to this industry, which by the way also brings money into the country and fosters tourism.

We cannot use quota
New Zealand needs more local content.

And what’s more, it needs to be accessible to audiences, on the platforms that they use.

But in NZ we do have one problem. Unlike Australia, we can’t use a quota because our GATT agreement does not include a carve out for local music or media quotas.

In the 1990s when GATT was being negotiated, the Aussies added an exception to their GATT agreement allowing a quota for Aussie cultural content. So they can require radio stations to play a certain amount of local music. Now they’re able to introduce a Netflix quota for up to 20 percent of all revenue generated in Aussie.

We can’t do that. Why? Because back in the 1990s the Bolger government and MFAT decided against putting the same exception into NZ’s GATT agreement.

But there is another way of doing it, if we take a lead from Denmark and many European states. Which I’ll get to in a minute.

The second important benefit of locally produced public media is social cohesion, how society works, the peace and harmony and respect that we show each other in public, depends heavily on the “public sphere”, of which, media is a big part.

Power of media to polarise
Extensive research in Europe and North America shows the power of media to polarise society, which can lead to misunderstanding, mistrust and hatred.

But media can also strengthen social cohesion, particularly for minority communities, and that same research showed that public media, otherwise known as public service media, is widely regarded to be an important contributor to tolerance in society, promoting social cohesion and integrating all communities and generations.

The third benefit is democracy. Very topical at the moment. I’ve already touched on how newsmedia affect our culture. More directly, our newsmedia influences the public dialogue over issues of the day.

It defines that dialogue. It is that dialogue.

So if our newsmedia is shallow and vacuous ignoring policies and focussing on the polls and the horse-race, then politicians who want to be elected, tailor their messages accordingly.

There’s plenty of examples of this such as National’s bootcamp policy, or Labour’s removing GST on food. As policies, neither is effective. But in the simplified 30 seconds of commercial news and headlines, these policies resonate.

Is that a good thing, that policies that are known to fail are nonetheless followed because our newsmedia cater to our base instincts and short attention spans?

Disaster for democracy
In my view, commercial media is actually disaster for democracy. All over the world.

But of course, we can’t control commercial media. No-one’s suggesting that.

The only rational reaction is to provide stronger locally produced public media.

And unfortunately, NZ lacks public media.

Obviously Australia, the UK, Canada have more public media than us, they have more people, they can afford it. But what about countries our size, Ireland? Smaller population, much more public media.

Denmark, Norway, Finland, all with roughly 5 million people, and all have significantly better public media than us. Even after the recent increases from Willie Jackson, NZ still spends just $44 per person on public media. $44 each year.

When we had a licence fee it was $110. Jim Bolger’s government got rid of that and replaced it with funding from general taxation — which means every year the Minister of Finance, working closely with Treasury, decides how much to spend on public media for that year.

This is what I call the curse of annual funding, because it makes funding public media a very political decision.

National, let us be honest, the National Party hates public media, maybe because they get nicer treatment on commercial news. We see this around the world — the Daily Mail, Sky News Australia, Newstalk ZB . . . most commercial media quite openly favours the right.

Systemic bias
This is a systemic bias. Because right-wing newsmedia gets more clicks.

Right-wing politicians are quite happy about that. Why fund public to get in the way? Even if it it benefits our culture, social cohesion, and democracy.

New Zealand is the same, the last National government froze RNZ funding for nine years.

National Party spokesperson on broadcasting Melissa Lee fought against the ANZPM merger, and now she’s fighting the News Bargaining Bill. As minister she could cut RNZ and NZ On Air’s budget.

But it wouldn’t just be cost-cutting. It would actually be political interference in our newsmedia, an attempt to skew the national conversation in favour of the National Party, by favouring commercial media.

So Aotearoa NZ needs two things. More money to be spent on public media, and less control by the politicians. Sustainable funding basically.

The best way to achieve it is a media levy.

Highly targeted tax
For those who don’t know, a levy is a tax that is highly targeted, and we have a lot of them, like the Telecommunications Development Levy (or TDL) which currently gathers $10 million a year from internet service providers like Spark and 2 Degrees to pay for rural broadband.

We’re all paying for better internet for farmers basically. When first introduced by the previous National government it collected $50 million but it’s dropped down a bit lately.

This is one of many levies that we live with and barely notice. Like the levy we pay on our insurance to cover the Earthquake Commission and the Fire and Emergency Levy. There are maritime levies, energy levies to fund EECA and Waka Kotahi, levies on building consents for MBIE, a levy on advertising pays for the ASA, the BSA is funded by a levy.

Lots of levies and they’re very effective.

So who could the media levy, levy?

ISPs like the TDL? Sure, raise the TDL back up to $50 million or perhaps higher, and it only adds a dollar onto everyone’s internet bill. There’s $50 million.

But the real target should be Big Tech, social media and large streaming services. I’m talking about Facebook, Google, Netflix, YouTube and so on. These are the companies that have really profited from the advent of online media, and at the expense of locally produced public media.

Funding content creation
We need a way to get these companies to make, or at least fund, content creation here in Aotearoa. Denmark recently proposed a solution to this problem with an innovative levy of 2 percent on the revenue of streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney.

But that 2 percent rises to 5 percent if the streaming company doesn’t spend at least 5 percent of their revenue on making local Danish content. Denmark joins many other European countries already doing this — Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, France and even Romania are all about to levy the streamers to fund local production.

Australia is planning to do so as well.

But that’s just online streaming companies. There’s also social media and search engines which contribute nothing and take almost all the commercial revenue. The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill will address that to a degree but it’s not open and we won’t know if the amounts are fair.

Another problem is that it’s only for news publishers — not drama or comedy producers, not on-demand video, not documentary makers or podcasters. Social media and search engines frequently feature and put advertising around these forms of content, and hoover up the digital advertising that would otherwise help fund them, so they should also contribute to them.

A Media Levy can best be seen as a levy on those companies that benefit from media on the internet, but don’t contribute to the public benefits of media — culture, social cohesion and democracy. And that’s why the Media Levy can include internet service providers, and large companies that sell digital advertising and subscriptions.

Note, this would target large companies over a certain size and revenue, and exclude smaller platforms, like most levies do.

Separate from annual budget
The huge benefit of a levy is that it is separate from the annual budget, so it’s fiscally neutral, and politicians can’t get their mits on it. It removes the curse of annual funding.

It creates a funding stream derived from the actual commercial media activities which produce the distribution gaps in the first place, for which public media compensates. That’s why the proceeds would go to the non-commercial platform and the funding agencies — Te Mangai Paho, NZ On Air and the Film Commission.

One final point. This wouldn’t conflict with the new Digital Services Tax proposed by the government because that’s a replacement for Income Tax. A Media Levy, like all levies, sits over and above income tax.

So there we go. I’ve mentioned Jim Bolger three times! I’ve also outlined some quite straight-forward methods to fund public media sustainably, and to fund a significant increase in local content production, video, film, audio and journalism.

None of it needs to be within the grasp of Melissa Lee or Willie Jackson, or David Seymour.

All of it can be used to create local content that improves democracy, social cohesion and Kiwi culture.

Myles Thomas is a trustee of the Better Public Media Trust (BPM). He is a former television producer and director who in 2012 established the Save TVNZ 7 campaign. Thomas is now studying law. This speech was this year’s David Beatson Memorial Address delivered at a public meeting in Grey Lynn last night on broadcast policy for the NZ election 2023.

Concerns have been raised about foreign influence in Pacific media after it was revealed Solomon Islands’ longest-running newspaper received funding from China in return for favourable coverage.

Earlier this week the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) revealed how China has been attempting to gain influence in media outlets in Palau and Solomon Islands.

In Palau, a failed media deal pushed by China has revealed how Beijing was seeking to exert its influence in the Pacific region by using political pressure and funding to capture local elites, including in the media.

• READ MORE: Solomon Star promised to ‘promote China’ in return for funding
• Leaked email shows how China got what it wanted at newspaper that promised favourable coverage
• Other Pacific media and China reports
• The OCCRP website

The OCCRP said at least one front page story had been supplied by an initiative that was backed by investors with ties to China’s police and military.

China had even more success gaining favour in Solomon Islands, where it has steadily been increasing its presence and influence since the Pacific nation switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 2019.

There, according to the OCCRP,  the Solomon Star newspaper received Chinese money after giving assurances it would push messages favourable to Beijing.

Desperate for funding, editors at the Solomon Star wrote up a proposal to China’s embassy in Honiara in July last year.

Paper struggling to keep up
The paper was struggling to keep up and needed assistance — its printing machines were deteriorating and papers were often hitting the streets a day late, according to the proposal the Solomon Star sent to China.

Its radio station, Paoa FM, was having difficulty broadcasting into remote provinces.

“Reporters obtained a July 2022 draft funding proposal from the Solomon Star to China’s embassy in Honiara in which the paper requested 1,150,000 Solomon Islands dollars ($206,300) for equipment including a replacement for its ageing newspaper printer and a broadcast tower for its radio station, PAOA FM,” OCCRP said.

“The Solomon Star said in the proposal that decrepit equipment was causing editions to come out late and ‘curtailing news flow about China’s generous and lightning economic and infrastructure development in Solomon Islands’.”

According to the proposal, seen by the ABC’s Pacific Beat programme, China stood to gain “enormously”.

“The intended outcome of this project . . .  is that Solomon Star newspaper will be produced on time for the benefits of its readers, subscribers and the advertising community,” it said.

“China’s timely intervention in Solomon Islands’ infrastructure and economic development will also benefit enormously as news about this new-found partnership is published.”

OCCRP has confirmed the printing equipment the Solomon Star wanted was delivered earlier this year.

Alfred Sasako, Solomon Star’s editor, said the newspaper maintained its independence.

He told the OCCRP that any suggestion it had a pro-Beijing bias was “a figment of the imagination of anyone who is trying to demonise China”.

Sasako told the OCCRP the paper had tried unsuccessfully for more than a decade to get funding from Australia.

Financial desperation drives ailing paper to Chinese backers
Ofani Eremae, a journalist and co-founder at In-depth Solomons who used to work at the Solomon Star, said it has been struggling financially since COVID, and the majority of staff have left.

“They are really in a very, very bad financial situation, so they are desperate,” he told the ABC.

“I think this is what’s prompting them to look for finances elsewhere to keep the operation going.

“It just so happens that China is here and they [Solomon Star] found someone who’s willing to give them a lot of money.”

Taking the assistance from China has raised questions about the paper’s independence, he said.

“It’s a paper with the reputation people trust but in situations like that, you lose your credibility, you lose your independence and of course you become some kind of organisation that’s been controlled by outsiders,” Eremae told the ABC.

Government spending on advertisements in the paper could help it somewhat, but Eremae said “democratic countries, especially the US” should step in and help.

‘Have to defend democracy’
“They have to defend democracy, they have to defend freedom of the press in this country,” he told the ABC.

“Otherwise China, which seems to have a lot of money, they could just easily come in and take control of things here.”

University of South Pacific associate professor of journalism Shailendra Singh said “the Chinese offer hit the right spot” with the paper facing financial challenges due to covid and advertising revenues going to social media.

“If you look across the region, governments are shaking hands with China, making all kinds of deals and also receiving huge amounts of funds,” he told the ABC.

Dr Singh said media outlets had become part of the competition between large countries vying for influence in the region and warned other struggling Pacific media companies could be tempted by similar offers.

“They would seriously consider surrendering some of their editorial independence for a new printing press, just to keep them in business,” he said.

“Let’s just hope that this does not become a trend.”

The concerns these kind of deals bring was clear.

‘Risk of compromising editorial independence’
“This is simply because of the risk of compromising editorial independence,” Dr Singh told the ABC.

“There is concern the country’s major newspaper is turning into a Chinese state party propaganda rag.”

If China managed to sway both the Solomon Islands government and its main newspaper, that would create an “unholy alliance”, Dr Singh said.

“The people would be at the mercy of a cabal, with very little — if not zero — public dissent,” he said.

Despite the concerns, Dr Singh said there were some sound reasons for the Solomon Star to enter the deal.

“If they don’t sign the deal they will continue to struggle financially and it might even mean the end of the Solomon Star,” he told the ABC.

Only the Solomon Star publisher and editor had a full grasp of the situation and the financial challenges the paper faced, he said.

‘Makes business sense’
“From our lofty perch we have all these grand ideas about media independence in theory, but does anyone consider the business realities?”

“It may not make sense to the Americans or the Australians, but makes perfect sense to the Solomon Star from a business survival point of view.”

Solomon Islands and Pacific outlets have been funded for media development by Australia and other governments.

Third party organisations such as the ABC International Development supports the media community across the Pacific to promote public interest journalism and hold businesses, governments and other institutions to account.

But Solomon Islands opposition MP Peter Kenilorea Junior said he was concerned by direct support given to the Solomon Star by a foreign government.

“It’s totally inappropriate for any government — let alone the Chinese government — to be involved in our newspaper publications, because that is supposed to be independent,” he told the ABC.

“I don’t think standards are kept when there is this, according to the report, involvement by the Chinese to try and perhaps reward the paper for saying or passing on stories that are positive about a particular country.”

Georgina Kekea, president of the Media Association of Solomon Islands, said the financial support did not come as a surprise as most businesses were struggling.

“It’s quite difficult for us to ensure that the media industry thrives when they are really floundering, where companies are finding it hard to pay their staff salary,” she told the ABC.

“It is sad to see the US-funded OCCRP through its agent in Solomon Islands, Ofani Eremae, and his so-called ‘In-depth Solomons’ website making unrelented attempts to tarnish the reputation of the Solomon Star Newspaper for receiving funding support from China,” the paper said.

“One thing that Solomon Star can assure the right-minded people of this nation is that we will continue to inform and educate you on issues that matter without any geopolitical bias and that China through its Embassy in Honiara never attempted to stop us from doing so . . .  Solomon Star also continued to publish news items not in the favour of China and the Chinese Embassy in Honiara never issued a reproachment.

“It is indeed sad to see the OCCRP-funded journalists in Solomon Islands and the Pacific trying to bring geopolitics into the Pacific and Solomon Islands media landscape and Solomon Star strongly urges these journalists and their financiers to stop geo-politicising the media.”

OCCRP said it “is funded worldwide by a variety of government and non-government donors”.

“OCCRP’s work in the Pacific Islands is currently funded by a US-government grant that gives the donor zero say in editorial decisions,” it said.

Dr Singh said whether aid came from China, the US or Australia: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

The ABC has sought comment from the Solomon Star and the Chinese Embassy in Solomon Islands.

Republished from ABC Pacific Beat with permission.

A veteran journalist known for covering rights abuses in Indonesia’s militarised Papua region says a bomb exploded outside his home yesterday and a journalists group has called it an act of “intimidation” threatening press freedom.

No one was injured in the blast near his home in the provincial capital Jayapura, said Victor Mambor, editor of Papua’s leading news website Jubi, who visited New Zealand in 2014.

Police said they were investigating the explosion and that no one had yet claimed responsibility.

• READ MORE: Tabloid Jubi journalist Victor Mambor ‘terrorised’ over Papua reports
• Papuan journalist Victor Mambor wins Udin Award for ‘dedicated journalism’
• Other Victor Mambor reports

“Yes, someone threw a bomb,” Papua Police spokesperson Ignatius Benny told Benar News. “The motive and perpetrators are unknown.”

The Jayapura branch of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) condemned the explosion as a “terrorist bombing”.

In Sydney, the Australia West Papua Association (AWPA) and Pacific Media Watch in New Zealand protested over the incident and called for a full investigation.

Mambor said he heard the sound of a motorcycle at about 4 am and then an explosion about a minute later.

‘Shook like earthquake’
“It was so loud that my house shook like there was an earthquake,” he told Benar News as reported by Radio Free Asia.

“I also checked the source of the explosion and smelt sulfur coming from the side of the house.”

The explosion left a hole in the road, he said.

The incident was not the first to occur outside Mambor’s home. In April 2021, windows were smashed and paint sprayed on his car in the middle of the night.

Mambor is also an advocate for press freedom in Papua. In that role, he has criticised Jakarta’s restrictions on the media in Papua, as well as its other policies in his troubled home province.

The AJI awarded Mambor its press freedom award in August 2022, saying that through Jubi, “Victor brings more voices from Papua, amid domination of information that is biased, one-sided and discriminatory.”

“AJI in Jayapura strongly condemns the terrorist bombing and considers this an act of intimidation that threatens press freedom in Papua,” it said in a statement.

‘Voice the truth’ call
“AJI Jayapura calls on all journalists in the land of Papua to continue to voice the truth despite obstacles. Justice should be upheld even though the sky is falling,” said AJI chair Lucky Ireeuw.

Amnesty International Indonesia urged the police to find those responsible.

“The police must thoroughly investigate this incident, because this is not the first time … meaning there was an omission that made the perpetrators feel free to do it again, to intimidate and threaten journalists,” Amnesty’s campaign manager in Indonesia, Nurina Savitri, told BenarNews.

The Papua region, located at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, has been the site of a decades-old pro-independence insurgency where both government security forces and rebels have been accused of committing atrocities against civilians.

Foreign journalists have been largely barred from the area, with the government insisting it could not guarantee their safety. Indonesian journalists allege that officials make their work difficult by refusing to provide information.

The armed elements of the independence movement have stepped up lethal attacks on Indonesian security forces, civilians and targets such as construction of a trans-Papua highway that would make the Papuan highlands more accessible.

Human Rights Watch, meanwhile, has accused Indonesian security forces of intimidation, arbitrary arrests, torture, extrajudicial killings and mass forced displacement in Papua.

Security forces kill 36
Last month, Indonesian activist group KontraS said 36 people were killed by security forces and pro-independence rebels in the Papua and West Papua provinces in 2022, an increase from 28 in 2021.

In Sydney, Joe Collins of the AWPA said in a statement: “These acts of intimidation against local journalists in West Papua  threaten freedom of the press.

“It is the local media in West Papua that first report on human rights abuses and local journalists are crucial in reporting information on what is happening in West Papua”.

Collins said Canberra remained silent on the issue — ‘the Australian government is very selective in who it criticises over their human rights record.”

There was no problem raising concerns about China or Russia over their record, “but Canberra seems to have great difficulty in raising the human rights abuses in West Papua with Jakarta.”

Republished from Radio Free Asia with additional reporting by Pacific Media Watch.

The Pacific year started with a ferocious eruption and global tsunami in Tonga, but by the year’s end several political upheavals had also shaken the region with a vengeance.

A razor’s edge election in Fiji blew away a long entrenched authoritarian regime with a breath of fresh air for the Pacific, two bitterly fought polls in Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu left their mark, and growing geopolitical rivalry with the US and Australia contesting China’s security encroachment in the Solomon Islands continues to spark convulsions for years to come.

It was ironical that the two major political players in Fiji were both former coup leaders and ex-military chiefs — the 1987 double culprit Sitiveni Rabuka, a retired major-general who is credited with introducing the “coup culture” to Fiji, and Voreqe Bainimarama, a former rear admiral who staged the “coup to end all coups” in 2006.

• READ MORE: Fiji general election of 2022: Slow march out of authoritarianism — Sanjay Ramesh
• Other 2022 “the year that was” reports

It had been clear for some time that the 68-year-old Bainimarama’s star was waning in spite of repressive and punitive measures that had been gradually tightened to shore up control since an unconvincing return to democracy in 2014.

And pundits had been predicting that the 74-year-old Rabuka, a former prime minister in the 1990s, and his People’s Alliance-led coalition would win. However, after a week-long stand-off and uncertainty, Rabuka’s three-party coalition emerged victorious and Rabuka was elected PM by a single vote majority.

In Samoa the previous year, the change had been possibly even more dramatic when a former deputy prime minister in the ruling Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP), Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa, led her newly formed Fa’atuatua I le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST) party to power to become the country’s first woman prime minister.

Overcoming a hung Parliament, Mata’afa ousted the incumbent Tuila’epa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi, who had been prime minister for 23 years and his party had been in power for four decades. But he refused to leave office, creating a constitutional crisis.

At one stage this desperate and humiliating cling to power by the incumbent looked set to be repeated in Fiji.

Yet this remarkable changing of the guard in Fiji got little press in New Zealand newspapers. The New Zealand Herald, for example, buried what could could have been an ominous news agency report on the military callout in Fiji in the middle-of the-paper world news section.

Fiji
Although Bainimarama at first refused to concede defeat after being in power for 16 years, half of them as a military dictator, the kingmaker opposition party Sodelpa sided — twice — with the People’s Alliance (21 seats) and National Federation Party (5 seats) coalition.

Sodelpa’s critical three seats gave the 29-seat coalition a slender cushion over the 26 seats of Bainimarama’s FijiFirst party which had failed to win a majority for the first time since 2014 in the expanded 55-seat Parliament.

But in the secret ballot, one reneged giving Rabuka a razor’s edge single vote majority.

The ousted Attorney-General and Justice Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum – popularly branded as the “Minister of Everything” with portfolios and extraordinary power in the hands of one man – is arguably the most hated person in Fiji.

Sayed-Khaiyum’s cynical “divisive” misrepresentation of Rabuka and the alliance in his last desperate attempt to cling to power led to a complaint being filed with Fiji police, accusing him of “inciting communal antagonism”.

He reportedly left Fiji for Australia on Boxing Day and the police issued a border alert for him while the Home Affairs Minister, Pio Tikoduadua, asked Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho, a former military brigadier-general to resign over allegations of bias and lack of confidence. He refused so the new government will have to use the formal legal steps to remove him.

Just days earlier, Fiji lawyer Imrana Jalal, a human rights activist and a former Human Rights Commission member, had warned the people of Fiji in a social media post not to be tempted into “victimisation or targeted prosecutions” without genuine evidence as a result of independent investigations.

“If we do otherwise, then we are no better than the corrupt regime [that has been] in power for the last 16 years,” she added.

“We need to start off the right way or we are tainted from the beginning.”

However, the change of government unleashed demonstrations of support for the new leadership and fuelled hope for more people-responsive policies, democracy and transparency.

Writing in The Sydney Morning Herald, academic Dr Sanjay Ramesh commented in an incisive analysis of Fiji politics: “With … Rabuka back at the helm, there is hope that the indigenous iTaukei population’s concerns on land and resources, including rampant poverty and unemployment, in their community will be finally addressed.”

He was also critical of the failure of the Mission Observer Group (MoG) under the co-chair of Australia to “see fundamental problems” with the electoral system and process which came close to derailing the alliance success.

“While the MoG was enjoying Fijian hospitality, opposition candidates were being threatened, intimidated, and harassed by FFP [FijiFirst Party] thugs. The counting of the votes was marred by a ‘glitch’ on 14 December 2022 . . . leaving many opposition parties questioning the integrity of the vote counting process.”

Rabuka promised a “better and united Fiji” in his inaugural address to the nation via government social media platforms.

“Our country is experiencing a great and joyful awakening,” he said. “It gladdens my heart to be a part of it. And I am reminded of the heavy responsibilities I now bear.”

The coalition wasted no time in embarking on its initial 100-day programme and signalled the fresh new ‘open” approach by announcing that Professor Pal Ahluwalia, the Samoa-based vice-chancellor of the regional University of the South Pacific — deported unjustifiably by the Bainimarama government — and the widow of banned late leading Fiji academic Dr Brij Lal were both free to return.

Paul Barker, director of the Institute of National Affairs, discussing why the 2022 PNG elections were so bad. Video: ABC News

Papua New Guinea
Earlier in the year, in August, Prime Minister James Marape was reelected as the country’s leader after what has been branded by many critics as the “worst ever” general election — it was marred by greater than ever violence, corruption and fraud.

As the incumbent, Marape gained the vote of 97 MPs — mostly from his ruling Pangu Pati that achieved the second-best election result ever of a PNG political party — in the expanded 118-seat Parliament. With an emasculated opposition, nobody voted against him and his predecessor, Peter O’Neill, walked out of the assembly in disgust

Papua New Guinea has a remarkable number of parties elected to Parliament — 23, not the most the assembly has had — and 17 of them backed Pangu’s Marape to continue as prime minister. Only two women were elected, including Governor Rufina Peter of Central Province.

In an analysis after the dust had settled from the election, a team of commentators at the Australian National University’s Development Policy Centre concluded that the “electoral role was clearly out of date, there were bouts of violence, ballot boxes were stolen, and more than one key deadline was missed”.

However, while acknowledging the shortcomings, the analysts said that the actual results should not be “neglected”. Stressing how the PNG electoral system favours incumbents — the last four prime ministers have been reelected — they argued for change to the “incumbency bias”.

“If you can’t remove a PM through the electoral system, MPs will try all the harder to do so through a mid-term vote of no confidence,” they wrote.

“How to change this isn’t clear (Marape in his inaugural speech mooted a change to a presidential system), but something needs to be done — as it does about the meagre political representation of women.”

Vanuatu
In Vanuatu in November, a surprise snap election ended the Vanua’aku Pati’s Bob Loughman prime ministership. Parliament was dissolved on the eve of a no-confidence vote called by opposition leader Ralph Regenvanu.

With no clear majority from any of the contesting parties, Loughman’s former deputy, lawyer and an ex-Attorney-General, Ishmael Kalsakau, leader of the Union of Moderate Parties, emerged as the compromise leader and was elected unopposed by the 52-seat Parliament.

A feature was the voting for Gloria Julia King, the first woman MP to be elected to Vanuatu’s Parliament in a decade. She received a “rapturous applause” when she stepped up to take the first oath of office.

RNZ Pacific staff journalist Lydia Lewis and Port Vila correspondent Hilaire Bule highlighted the huge challenges faced by polling officials and support staff in remote parts of Vanuatu, including the exploits of soldier Samuel Bani who “risked his life” wading through chest-high water carrying ballot boxes.

Tongan volcano-tsunami disaster
Tonga’s violent Hunga Ha’apai-Hunga Tonga volcano eruption on January 15 was the largest recorded globally since the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883. It triggered tsunami waves of up to 15m, blanketed ash over 5 sq km — killing at least six people and injuring 19 — and sparked a massive multinational aid relief programme.

The crisis was complicated because much of the communication with island residents was crippled for a long time.

As Dale Dominey-Howes stressed in The Conversation, “in our modern, highly-connected world, more than 95 percent of global data transfer occurs along fibre-optic cables that criss-cross through the world’s oceans.

“Breakage or interruption to this critical infrastructure can have catastrophic local, regional and even global consequences.”

“This is exactly what has happened in Tonga following the volcano-tsunami disaster. But this isn’t the first time a natural disaster has cut off critical submarine cables, and it won’t be the last.”

Covid-19 in Pacific
While the impact of the global covid-19 pandemic receded in the Pacific during the year, new research from the University of the South Pacific provided insight into the impact on women working from home. While some women found the challenge enjoyable, others “felt isolated, had overwhelming mental challenges and some experienced domestic violence”.

Rosalie Fatiaki, chair of USP’s staff union women’s wing, commented on the 14-nation research findings.

“Women with young children had a lot to juggle, and those who rely on the internet for work had particular frustrations — some had to wait until after midnight to get a strong enough signal,” she said.

Around 30 percent of respondents reported having developed covid-19 during the Work From Home periods, and 57 percent had lost a family member or close friend to covid-19 as well as co-morbidities.

She also noted the impact of the “shadow pandemic” of domestic abuse. Only two USP’s 14 campuses in 12 Pacific countries avoided any covid-19 closures between 2020 and 2022.

COP27 climate progress
The results for the Pacific at the COP27 climate action deliberations at the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh were disappointing to say the least.

For more than three decades since Vanuatu had suggested the idea, developing nations have fought to establish an international fund to pay for the “loss and damage” they suffer as a result of climate change. Thanks partly to Pacific persistence, a breakthrough finally came — after the conference was abruptly extended by a day to thrash things out.

However, although this was clearly a historic moment, much of the critical details have yet to be finalised.

Professor Steven Ratuva, director of Canterbury University’s Macmillan Brown Pacific Studies Centre, says the increased frequency of natural disasters and land erosion, and rising ocean temperatures, means referring to “climate change” is outdated. It should be called “climate crisis”.

“Of course climate changes, it’s naturally induced seen through weather, but the situation now shows it’s not just changing, but we’re reaching a level of a crisis — the increasing number of category five cyclones, the droughts, the erosion, heating of the ocean, the coral reefs dying in the Pacific, and the impact on people’s lives,” he said.

“All these things are happening at a very fast pace.”

Geopolitical rivalry and West Papua
The year saw intensifying rivalry between China and the US over the Pacific with ongoing regional fears about perceived ambitions of a possible Chinese base in the Solomon Islands — denied by Honiara — but the competition has fuelled a stronger interest from Washington in the Pacific.

The Biden administration released its Indo-Pacific Strategy in February, which broadly outlines policy priorities based on a “free and open” Pacific region. It cites China, covid-19 and climate change — “crisis”, rather — as core challenges for Washington.

Infrastructure is expected to be a key area of rivalry in future. Contrasting strongly with China, US policy is likely to support “soft areas” in the Pacific, such as women’s empowerment, anti-corruption, promotion of media freedom, civil society engagement and development.

The political and media scaremongering about China has prompted independent analysts such as the Development Policy Centre’s Terence Wood and Transform Aqorau to call for a “rethink” about Solomon Islands and Pacific security. Aqorau said Honiara’s leaked security agreement with China had “exacerbated existing unease” about China”.

The Pacific Catalyst founding director also noted that the “increasing engagement” with China had been defended by Honiara as an attempt by the government to diversify its engagement on security, adding that “ it is unlikely that China will build a naval base in Solomon Islands”.

However, the elephant in the room in geopolitical terms is really Indonesia and its brutal intransigency over its colonised Melanesian provinces — now expanded from two to three in a blatant militarist divide and rule ploy — and its refusal to constructively engage with Papuans or the Pacific over self-determination.

“2022 was a difficult year for West Papua. We lost great fighters and leaders like Filep Karma, Jonah Wenda, and Jacob Prai. Sixty-one years since the fraudulent Act of No Choice, our people continue to suffer under Indonesian’s colonial occupation,” reflected exiled West Papuan leader Benny Wenda in a Christmas message.

“Indonesia continues to kill West Papuans with impunity, as shown by the recent acquittal of the only suspect tried for the “Bloody Paniai’” massacre of 2014.

“Every corner of our country is now scarred by Indonesian militarisation . . . We continue to demand that Indonesia withdraw their military from West Papua in order to allow civilians to peacefully return to their homes.”

Content warning: this article contains mentions of racial discrimination against First Nations people.

The ABC recently apologised to staff for racism and cultural insensitivity in its newsrooms. This came after Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse ABC staff told an internal group they felt unwelcome in their workplace, their ideas were not being listened to and they received online abuse from the public.

Unfortunately these issues are not unique to the ABC and exist at other media outlets and newsrooms.

• READ MORE: Media inclusion of Indigenous peoples is increasing but there is still room for improvement
• First Nations kids make up about 20% of missing children, but get a fraction of the media coverage
• For an Indigenous perspective on ‘Australia Day’, here’s a quick guide to First Nations media platforms

We also know media organisations can produce content that is racist or hostile towards First Nations people. Decades of research show, with few exceptions, many mainstream Australian media organisations have unfairly reported on First Nations Peoples over the years, and continue to do so.

This reporting has included racist cartoons, prejudiced stereotypes, questions of cultural identity and portrayals of First Nations people as either violent or victimised.

I experienced racism many times throughout my cadetship in 2019. At times it caused crippling anxiety to the point where I’d really have to psych myself up just to go into the office. A former colleague in a leadership role even went out of their way to ruffle my hair once. https://t.co/0osoUh3LNd

— Jedda Costa (@CostaJedda) June 16, 2022

Racist and inappropriate portrayals of First Nations people can also make newsrooms and other media outlets unsafe places to work for Indigenous journalists, as well as influencing how First Nations issues are covered and thought about.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Australians working in media can improve their cultural competency during their university education. This way, they can enter and contribute to workplaces prepared to ethically and respectfully interact with and report on stories outside their own cultures.

However, our new study shows many Australian universities with journalism programmes have significant work to do in including cultural safety in their curricula.

Australia needs cultural safety in its newsrooms
Journalists can help shape national conversations and can influence audiences’ attitudes through how they choose to report. That’s why it’s critical for these journalists to be culturally safe in how they communicate about communities and individuals outside their own culture.

Cultural safety aims to create a space where “there is no assault, challenge or denial of” Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s identities and experiences.

It is built through non-Indigenous people deeply listening to First Nations perspectives. It means sharing power and resources in a way that supports Indigenous self determination and empowerment. It also requires non-Indigenous people address unconscious biases, racism and discrimination in and outside the workplace.

First Nations groups and high-level institutions have been calling for more expertise and training in this area for decades.

The 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody report called for journalism education to consider

in consultation with media industry and media unions, the creation of specific units of study dedicated to Aboriginal affairs and the reporting thereof.

The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples notes Australian news outlets too often spread “myths and ill-informed or false stereotypes about Australia’s First Peoples, which in turn influence public opinion in unfavourable ways.”

This racism creates

a debilitating individual impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, devaluing their cultural pride and identity and having adverse impacts on their physical and mental health.

Acknowledging and apologising does not interrogate how whiteness is upheld in these spaces. The Australian media landscape has normalised cultural and institutional practices that stem from colonisation and continue to oppress people of colour within it. https://t.co/pYRVcDnmNY

— Alex Dorante (@babydorante) June 17, 2022

In 2009 The National Indigenous Higher Education Network recommended universities “systematically embed Indigenous perspectives in curriculum”.

In 2011, Universities Australia issued an expectation that “all graduates of Australian universities will have the knowledge and skills necessary to interact in a culturally competent way with Indigenous communities”.

Our study
In our study, we reviewed in 2021 more than 100 media/journalism assessments from a sample of more than 10 percent of Australian universities with journalism programmes. We found only one had an explicit focus on an Indigenous topic. Our interviews with 17 journalism students revealed how absent or minimal their education on Indigenous affairs has been.

In the words of a second-year university student:

There is definitely more that should be done because stories and issues concerning Indigenous people is, like, such a big topic. And it would be very useful for people becoming journalists to understand their role in communication and storytelling and the influence their words have on the public perception of Indigenous peoples as well.

The students we interviewed largely expressed desire for more training on Indigenous affairs in Australia. They stated this would help them achieve confidence in reporting on First Nations Peoples in respectful and culturally safe ways.

The students also thought their universities could integrate Indigenous content and perspectives in a more sustained and concentrated way. “It can’t just be that one week we talk about racism,” according to a third-year university student. More education on Indigenous affairs would also benefit First Nations students. One Indigenous participant from our study stated:

Even just having some more Indigenous journalists come through, you can talk to them, find out what it’s really like for them being like a black sheep, essentially, from a very white-dominated industry. I think that there’s a need to be able to put more perspectives and Indigenous knowledges in education in there.

Journalism training needs to include cultural safety
A possible solution could be increasing First Nations journalists in Australian newsrooms. However, the burnout rate for these journalists is high due to toxic workplace conditions. This contributes to the low proportion of Indigenous journalists in Australia.

Universities need to provide their staff and students with time and resources to thoughtfully consider how to work with and report on First Nations Peoples. This would allow for a more culturally safe way of working. This could also provide a safer space for Indigenous people wanting to pursue a role in journalism. It could hopefully address the burnout of these journalists when they join the media workforce.

The integrity of our media system and the way our nation engages with Indigenous affairs depend on it.

Dr T.J. Thomson, senior lecturer in visual communication & Media, Queensland University of Technology; Julie McLaughlin, senior lecturer, Queensland University of Technology, and Leah King-Smith, lecturer and academic lead (Indigenous) in learning and teaching in the School of Creative Practice, Queensland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

For the Pacific news media sector, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent eight-nation South Pacific tour may be over, but it should not be forgotten. The minister and his 20-member “high-level” delegation’s refusal to take local journalists’ questions opened a veritable can of worms that will resonate in Pacific media circles for a while.

However, Wang’s sulky silence should not be seen as an isolated incident but embedded in deeper problems in media freedom and development for the Pacific.

Besides dealing with their own often hostile national governments and manoeuvring through ever-more restrictive legislation, Pacific media is increasingly having to contend with pressure from foreign elements as well.

• READ MORE:  Fiji police evict two Chinese defence attaches amid Pacific Forum tensions
• Other reports on China in the Pacific
• Other Pacific Islands Forum reports

China is the most prominent in this regard, as underscored by Wang’s visit, but there have been other incidents of journalist obstruction involving countries like Indonesia as well.

What is particularly appalling is how some Pacific governments seem to have cooperated with foreign delegations to stop their national media from asking legitimate questions.

Fijian journalist Lice Mavono’s account of the extent to which local Fijian officials went to limit journalists’ ability to cover Wang’s visit is highly troubling. In scenes rarely seen before, Wang and Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s joint press conference was apparently managed by Chinese officials, even though it was on Fijian soil.

When some journalists defied instructions and yelled out their unapproved questions, a Chinese official shouted back at them to stop. One journalist was ordered to leave the room with a minder attempting to escort him out, but fellow journalists intervened.

Journalists obstructed
Similar behaviour was witnessed at the Pacific Islands Forum-hosted meeting between Wang and forum Secretary-General Henry Puna, where Chinese officials continued to obstruct journalists even after forum officials intervened on the journalists’ behalf.

The Chinese officials’ determined efforts indicated that they came well prepared to thwart the media. It also conveyed their disrespect for the premier regional organisation in the Pacific, to the point of defying forum officials’ directives.

However, what should be most concerning for the region as a whole is the way this episode exposed the apparent ability of Chinese officials to influence, dominate, and even give instructions to local officials.

This is all the more disturbing as China is ramping up its engagement with Pacific governments. Consequently, longstanding questions about China’s impact on the region’s democratic and media institutions become even more urgent.

Indeed, just weeks after Wang’s visit, Solomon Islands media reported that Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, in an extraordinary gazette, announced that the government would be taking full financial control of the state broadcaster, Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC).

There are fears that this arrangement — which draw comparisons with the Chinese state-owned broadcaster CCTV — will give the government far more control over SIBC, potentially both editorially and in its day-to-day management.

This is troubling given Sogavare’s antagonism towards the SIBC, who he has accused of giving more airtime to government critics than to officials. Veteran Solomon Islands journalist Dorothy Wickham condemned the move, stating: “We now don’t have a public broadcaster!”

Additional steps
This trend indicates the need for additional steps to strengthen media rights by, among other things, boosting journalist professional capacity. This is simply because good journalists are more aware of and better able to safeguard media rights.

To this end, one area that clearly needs work is a greater focus on reporting regional events effectively. As major powers jostle for influence, and Pacific politics become ever more interconnected, what happens in one country will increasingly affect others.

Journalists need to be aware of this and more strongly frame their stories through a regional lens. However, this will not happen without focused and targeted training.

In this context, media research and development is an oft-overlooked pillar of media freedom. While all kinds of demands are made of Pacific journalists and much is expected of them, there seems to be little regard for their welfare and not much curiosity about what makes them tick.

To get an idea of how far behind the Pacific is in media research, it is worth considering that there has only been one multi-country survey of Pacific journalists’ demography, professional profiles and ethical beliefs in 30 years.

This recent, important research yielded valuable data to better understand the health of Pacific media and the capabilities of Pacific journalists.

For instance, the data indicates that Pacific journalists are more inexperienced and under-qualified than counterparts in the rest of the world. In addition, the Pacific has among the highest rate of journalist attrition due to, among other things, uncompetitive salaries, a feature of small media systems.

Conditions ignored
So, while governments make much of biased journalists, they conveniently ignore the working conditions, training, education, and work experience that are needed to increase integrity and performance.

In other words, the problems in Pacific media are not solely the work of rogue elements in the news media, they are structural in nature. These factors are not helped by draconian legislation which is supposedly intended to ensure fairness, but in fact only further squeezes already restricted journalists.

This situation underscores the need for further research, which can identify and offer informed solutions to the problems in the sector. Yet, scholarships and fellowships for Pacific media research are as rare as hen’s teeth.

Furthermore, Wang’s Pacific visit and China’s activities in the region are a wake-up call for regional media as to the urgent need for capacity-building. Any remedial actions should be informed by research and need to consider problems in a holistic manner.

As we have seen, “band-aid’ solutions at best provide only temporary relief, and at worst misdiagnose the problem.

This China fiasco is also a reminder to care about Pacific journalists, try to understand them and show concern for their welfare. We should not regard journalists as merely blunt instruments of news reporting.

Rather, a free and democratic media is the lifeblood of a free and democratic Pacific.

Dr Shailendra B Singh is the head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific and a research fellow at the Australian National University. This article was first published by ANU’s Asia and the Pacific Policy Society Policy Forum and is republished here with the author’s permission.

With recent polling showing National edging ahead of Labour for the first time in two years, Jacinda Ardern’s previously strong support has eroded rapidly since winning a remarkable outright majority at the 2020 general election.

But the dip in electoral fortunes is only part of the story. It’s probably not an overstatement to say Ardern is presently one of the most reviled people in Aotearoa New Zealand, attracting vitriol that violates the bounds of normal, reasoned political debate.

During the recent illegal occupation of Parliament grounds, the apparent hatred was fully evident. There were ludicrous claims the prime minister is a mass murderer, and demands she be removed from office and executed for “crimes against humanity”.

• READ MORE: The reward for good pandemic leadership: Lessons from Jacinda Ardern’s New Zealand reelection
• The extremism visible at the Parliament protest has been growing in NZ for years – is enough being done?
• Analysis shows horrifying extent of abuse sent to women MPs via Twitter

Even on the supposedly professional social networking site LinkedIn, false claims that Ardern is a “tyrant” or “dictator” have been increasingly commonplace. For those making such claims, factual, constitutional, electoral and legal realities seemingly hold no weight.

So, what fuels these levels of antagonism? I suggest three factors are at play.

Context matters
How a leader is judged and what they can achieve is never simply a reflection of their individual characteristics and abilities.

Rather, as leadership scholars have long emphasised, the expectations of followers and the wider political, economic, social and historical context influence both how they are judged and their ability to achieve desired results.

In Ardern’s case, the public’s main concerns right now — food and fuel prices, rental and home ownership costs, and the effects of the omicron outbreak — are beyond the direct control of any political leader. Some will require years of transformative effort before significant improvements are seen.

A paradox of leadership is that while followers will often hold unrealistic expectations that leaders can solve complex problems quickly, they are also quick to blame leaders when they fail to meet those unrealistic expectations.

Ardern is caught in the maw of these dynamics, and that’s one of the factors fuelling the attacks on her.

Protest over, but the flames of disinformation keep burning: https://t.co/2AagprfTqT pic.twitter.com/jJTxJuHgG4

— 1News (@1NewsNZ) March 10, 2022

Covid controversies
The second obvious reason lies in the covid-related policies — including vaccine mandates, crowd limits and border controls — that have disrupted people’s lives and been heavily criticised by vested interests such as expat New Zealanders and various business sectors.

Anti-mandate protests, in particular, have become a front for wider anti-vaccine movements and extreme right-wing conspiracists. While the prime minister must balance restrictive policies with the greater public good, detractors are not bound by such considerations.

Ironically, by demonstrating a firmness of resolve to act in the nation’s best interest — something leaders might normally expect praise for, and for which Ardern has won international admiration — leaders become open to accusations of being inflexible and unresponsive.

Echoed by opposition politicians and some media commentary, these elements combine to feed a sense of growing frustration.

Old-fashioned sexism and misogyny
But these first two factors alone, while significant, don’t explain the full extent of the violent and hateful rhetoric directed at Ardern, albeit by a minority. Rather, it’s clear this is rooted in sexist and misogynistic attitudes and beliefs, further amplified by conspiratorial mindsets.

Research shows both men and women with more traditional views desire “tough”, “bold” and “authoritative” leadership. A man displaying traditionally masculine behaviours, who is an assertive risk-taker, dominating and commanding others, is their ideal leader. This aligns with an assumption that women should follow, not lead.

Ardern’s emphasis on traditionally feminine ideals, such as caring for vulnerable others, and her strongly precautionary covid response run counter to what traditionalists respect and admire in leaders.

What’s known as “role incongruity theory” further suggests that Ardern jars with what traditionalists expect of “good women”. Overall, the sexism and misogyny inherent in these traditionalist beliefs mean Ardern is treated more harshly than a male prime minister pursuing the same policies would be.

Worryingly, the 2021 Gender Attitudes Survey (carried out by the New Zealand National Council of Women) showed such traditional views about leadership and gender are on the rise.

Abuse shouted at Ardern by anti-mandate protesters in Westporthttps://t.co/0HncAc2y7S pic.twitter.com/8dt2xJA83T

— 1News (@1NewsNZ) February 22, 2022

Traditionalist myths
Insults and abuse commonly directed at Ardern on social media reflect the generally gendered nature of cyberviolence, which disproportionately targets women. These insults translate traditionalist beliefs into sexist and misogynistic acts.

Referring to Ardern as “Cindy”, for example, infantilises her. Calling her a “pretty communist” not only reflects the sexist and misogynist view that a woman’s worth is measured by her appearance, but also suggests her looks disguise her real aims.

This plays on the traditional trope of woman as evil seductress. From there it’s a short leap to the conspiracy theories that depict Ardern as part of an evil international cabal.

Unfortunately, for traditionalists and extremists alike, the evidence shows that effective leaders do not conform to their ideal or play by their rule book. Instead, they tend to be collaborative, humble, team-oriented and able to inspire others to work for the common good — qualities women often exhibit.

Of course, Ardern’s performance is not beyond criticism. But a fair-minded analysis, free from sexist and misogynist bias, would suggest the hatred directed toward her says more about the haters than Ardern.

Dr Suze Wilson is senior lecturer in Executive Development/School of Management, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Australia’s union for journalists says Australian journalism is in crisis after years of disruption, undermining and neglect, and swift action is needed to halt the decline.

A new study pointing to the crisis in public interest journalism demands urgent government action to safeguard democracy.

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) commissioned the Centre for Future Work at The Australia Institute to prepare the report, The Future of Work in Journalism, to examine the state of Australian journalism and to develop recommendations that could be used to address the serious decline in public interest journalism that has taken place over the past decade.

• READ MORE: Active policy needed to stop decline of Australian journalism
• How NZ’s Public Interest Journalism Fund can help ‘normalise’ diversity (Part 1)
• Perceptions over NZ’s public interest journalism project – saint or sinner? (Part 2)
• NZ’s Public Interest Journalism Fund

The report says journalism is a “public good” that can only be sustained by a dramatic renovation of government supports, including:

• a new $250 million fund to sustain journalism;
• expanded funding for public media organisations;
• rebates (refundable tax credits) for the employment of journalists;
• tax concessions for consumers of news media; and
• a stronger Mandatory News Bargaining Code with dedicated funding for small and new media.

MEAA media federal president Marcus Strom said: “It’s abundantly clear that the slow erosion of Australia’s media industry over many years has taken its toll on public interest journalism.

“As this study shows, failure to take dramatic steps now places our democracy at risk.”

Disappearance of dozens of outlets
He said the crisis was most stark in the disappearance of dozens of outlets and hundreds of jobs from regional, rural and community media in the past few years.

The Australia Institute’s study reveals that the number of journalists has fallen dramatically over the past decade; that decline will continue without effective policy and regulatory changes.

Efforts to support journalism have, to date, been inadequate and poorly targeted.

Media workers have delivered massive productivity gains in an environment of ongoing cost-cutting, but have been “rewarded” by stagnant wages, and ongoing restructuring and shifts into freelance and casual work, which now make up about one-third of the media workforce.

A significant and unacceptable gender pay gap persists above the national industry average.

The report highlights the upheaval caused to the Australian media ecosystem by the arrival and rise of digital platforms.

The government’s response, the News Media and Digital Platforms Bargaining Code, has not achieved the rebalance needed to promote public interest journalism.

Call to disclose Bargaining Code ‘deals’
The report recommends that the deals struck under the code be disclosed and that dedicated funding be provided to the small-to-medium media sector, which has been “treated with contempt” by the major digital players.

Among the other remedies recommended in the report, MEAA supports calls for certainty around and restoration of the funding of public media including the national broadcasters ABC and SBS; and expansion of the government’s existing Public Interest News Gathering programme to include all classes of journalism, including freelancers, and media content production.

The amount of support needed has been estimated at $250 million a year.

“This storm has been coming for many years,” Strom said.

“The media industry has been savaged. Thousands of journalism jobs have been lost. Print and broadcast media have all been hurt: mastheads have closed, networks have been cut back.

“Local community and regional reporting has, in many places, disappeared altogether. The number of media players have been reduced to a handful of very powerful players, and that power concentrated in the hands of a few reduces the variety of voices and choices for Australians.

‘Cynically avoided regulation’
“The News Media Bargaining Code offers a partial remedy to the revenue losses by Australian media, but the big digital platforms have cynically avoided regulation under the code by promising to do ‘just enough’.

“Outside the code they are showing their ‘just enough’ is wholly inadequate with not only small publishers missing out, but SBS and The Conversation being excluded.

“Public interest journalism is a public good. It informs and entertains Australians, ensures the public’s right to know and holds the powerful to account.

“If we want that to continue, then there is no time to waste to address the many challenges facing those working in journalism and the entire media industry.”

• The full report

In other media developments today, the video Your ABC vs Their IPA, funded by ABC Alumni and the ABC Friends, was released on YouTube in response to an attack by the rightwing Institute of Public Affairs (IPI) on the ABC. The ABC itself is not involved in any way, but the presenter is former ABC Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes who says that “the mainstream thinks that the ABC is the most trustworthy source of news in Australia”.

International reporting has hardly been a strong feature of New Zealand journalism. No New Zealand print news organisation has serious international news departments or foreign correspondents with the calibre of such overseas media as The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

It has traditionally been that way for decades. And it became much worse after the demise in 2011 of the New Zealand Press Association news agency, which helped shape the identity of the country for 132 years and at least provided news media with foreign reporting with an Aotearoa perspective fig leaf.

It is not even much of an aspirational objective with none of the 66 Voyager Media Awards categories recognising international reportage, unlike the Walkley Awards in Australia that have just 34 categories but with a strong recognition of global stories (last year’s Gold Walkley winner Mark Willacy of ABC Four Corners reported “Killing Field” about Australian war crimes in Afghanistan).

• READ MORE: Papuan resistance slams Indonesian internet gag amid leader crackdown
• Papuan armed resistance insists talks with Jakarta must be mediated by UN
• Other West Papua reports
• Reinstate victimised Palestinian journalists’ union leader, says IFJ

Aspiring New Zealand international reporters head off abroad and gain postings with news agencies and broadcasters or work with media with a global mission such as Al Jazeera.

Consequently our lack of tradition for international news coverage means that New Zealand media tend to have many media blind spots on critical issues, or misjudge the importance of some topics. Examples include the Samoan elections in April when the result was the most momentous game changer in more than four decades with the de facto election of the country’s first woman prime minister, unseating the incumbent who had been in power for 23 years.

The recent Israel-Palestine conflict in May was another case of where reporting was very unbalanced in favour of the oppressor for 73 years, Israel. Indonesian’s five decades of repression in the Melanesian provinces of West Papua is also virtually ignored by the mainstream media apart from the diligent, persistent and laudable coverage by RNZ Pacific.

There is a deafening silence about the current brutal and draconian attack on West Papuan pro-independence resistance fighters and leaders in remote areas with the internet unplugged apart from insightful journalists such as Johnny Blades.

No threat to status quo
As national award-winning cartoonist Malcom Evans wrote in a Daily Blog column on the eve of last week’s Voyager Media Awards that whoever won prizes, “it’s a sure bet that, he or she, won’t be someone whose work threatens the machinery that manufactures our consent to a perpetuation of the status quo”.

He continued:

“There will be no awards for anyone like Julian Assange or Edward Snowden, but none either for our own Nicky Hager or Jon Stephenson, who exposed war crimes committed in Afghanistan by New Zealanders, and none for Chris Trotter, Bryan Bruce or Susan St John whose writings have consistently exposed the criminal outcomes wrought on New Zealanders by neo-liberalism.”

Evans also cited “Indonesia’s rape of West Papua and East Timor” and the “damning Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians” as examples of lack of media exposure of “New Zealand duplicity and connivance”.

Hanan Ashrawi, the first woman member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), told Middle East Eye in the wake of the conflict that left 256 Palestinians — including 66 children — and 13 Israelis dead that it was illogical to expect Israel to be both the “gatekeeper and to have the veto”.

“Israel has never implemented a single UN resolution at all, since its creation [in 1948]. And Israel has always existed outside the law. So why do you expect Israel suddenly to become a state that will respect others, human rights, international law and the multilateral system.

“Israel is the country, the only country that legislated a basic law that says only Jews have the right to self-determination in this land which is all of historical Palestine.

“Israel has destroyed the two-state solution.

When Israel opens up …
“Only when Israel opens up, when this system of discrimination, repression, apartheid is dismantled, only then will you begin to see that there are opportunities of equalities and so on.”

However, Ashrawi was complimentary about the new wave of youth leadership and support for the Palestinian cause sweeping across the globe. She was optimistic that a new political language, new initiatives for a solution would emerge.

New Zealand media did little to reflect this shifting global mood of support for Palestine – apart from Stuff and its publication of Jewish dissident Marilyn Garson’s articles from Sh’ma Kolienu – and it ignored the massive second week of protests for a lasting peace.

RNZ Mediawatch’s Hayden Donnell was highly critical over the lack of news coverage of the “newsworthy and historic” Samoan elections on April 9, commenting: “For nearly two days, RNZ was the only major New Zealand news website carrying information about the election results, and analysis of the outcome.”

As he pointed out, since 1982, the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) had been in power and the current prime minister, Tuila’epa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi (now caretaker), had been prime minister since 1998.

“It’s very monumental that we’ve had a political party [opposition FAST Party led by Fiame Naomi Mata’afa] come through so quickly within 12 months to challenge the status quo in many different ways.”

Fiame has a slender one seat majority, 26 to 25, in the 51-seat Parliament, and was sworn in as government in still-disputed circumstances. But the New Zealand media coverage has still been patchy in spite of the drama of the deadlock, with the notable exception of journalists such as Barbara Dreaver, Vaimoana Tapaleao, Teuila Fuatai, and Michael Field at The Pacific Newsroom.

Woke up to Samoa crisis
The New Zealand Herald, for example, finally woke up to the crisis and splashed the story across its front page on May 25, but then for the next three days only published snippets on the crisis, all drawn from RNZ Pacific coverage. For the actual election result, the Herald only published a single paragraph buried on its foreign news pages.

As for West Papua, the silence continues. Not a single major New Zealand newspaper has given any significant treatment to the current crisis there described by The Sydney Morning Herald as a “manhunt for 170 ‘terrorists’ slammed as a ‘licence’ to shoot anyone”.

Singapore-based Chris Barrett and Karuni Rompies reported that “Indonesian forces are chasing 170 members of the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB), the armed wing of the Free Papua Movement [OPM]. The crackdown has reportedly displaced several thousand people.

“Tensions have been high since the separatists’ shooting in April of two teachers suspected of being Indonesian spies and the burning of three schools in Beoga, Puncak.”

This is the worst crisis in West Papua since the so-called Papuan Spring uprising and rioting in protest against Indonesian racism and repression in August 2019.

The Jakarta government was reported to have deployed some 21,000 troops in the Melanesian region, ruled since the fiercely disputed “Act of Free Choice” when 1025 people handpicked by the Indonesian military in 1969 voted to be part of Indonesia. The latest crackdown followed the killing in an ambush of a general who was head of Indonesian intelligence on April 25.

Discrimination against Papuans
This latest round of strife marks widespread opposition to Indonesia’s 20-year autonomy status for the region which is due to expire in November and is regarded by critics as a failure.

Interim president Benny Wenda of the United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP) denounces Indonesian authorities who have variously tried to label Papuan pro-independence groups “separatists”, “armed criminal groups”, and “monkeys” (this sparked the 2019 uprising).

“Now they are labelling us ‘terrorists’. This is nothing but more discrimination against the entire people of West Papua and our struggle to uphold our basic right to self-determination,” he says.

Wenda has a message for the United Nations and Pacific leaders: “Indonesia is misusing the issue of terrorism to crush our fundamental struggle for the liberation of our land from illegal occupation and colonisation.”

The West Papua issue is a critical one for the Pacific, just like East Timor was two decades ago in the lead-up to its independence. Why is our press failing to report this?

Academics, journalists and students today raised the West Papuan flag – an act banned in Indonesia and punishable by up to 15 years in jail – at a Pacific Media Centre-hosted symposium in Auckland today.

The protest marked the 59th anniversary of the day West Papuans first raised their flag of independence, known as the Morning Star, on 1 December 1961.

Organisers said the symbolic flag-raising was done during the centre’s “highlights and new horizons” symposium at Auckland University of Technology in solidarity with Papuan students studying in New Zealand and in protest against human rights violations by Indonesian security forces.

• READ MORE: Sydney West Papua flag-raising protest

A human rights advocate at the event, Del Abcede, spoke on behalf of the students at their request, declaring: “I will say the things they cannot say because it puts them at risk”.

She appealed for more support from New Zealand and Pacific countries for the West Papuan self-determination cause.

“I will say the two things that the students cannot say directly themselves without being put at risk over their safety,” she said.

One was about raising the flag or speaking about the jailings. The other was about a petition for independence.

15 year jail sentence
“Filep Karma is a Papuan independence activist. On 1 December 2004 he helped raise the Morning Star flag at a caremony in Jayapura together with other activists. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison,” she said.

“Yusak Pakage, one of the activists was sentenced to 10 years. Pakage was released in 2010 by presidential pardon.

“But Filipe Karma refused a pardon. He was released on 19 November 2015 after [serving] more than 10 years due to pressure from the international community,” Abcede said.

“In January 2019, West Papuan activists delivered a petition to the United Nations demanding a referendum on West Papuan independence.

“The position of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) is clear – it advocates the right to self-determination through an independence referendum, not Indonesian-controlled ‘autonomy’.”

In solidarity with the Papuan students, about 50 academics and media people held the flag aloft and sang two traditional songs.

The symposium delivered presentations on a wide range of topics from the future of journalism research methodologies to documentary and journalism collaboration, project journalism in the Asia-Pacific Region, and media diversity and publication.

Speakers praised the Stuff news portal that this week published an apology for 163 years of biased reporting on Māori issues, with centre director Professor David Robie describing the “courageous” move as a “game-changer’ on media and race relations.

The centre publishes Asia Pacific Report, Pacific Media Watch and PMC Online online news platforms, and also the 26-year-old Pacific Journalism Review.

Protest outside NZ Parliament
In Wellington, dozens of people demonstrated in support of West Papuan independence outside New Zealand’s parliament, reports RNZ Pacific’s Johnny Blades.

New Zealand Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson and several other MPs attended the demostration in Wellington.

They spoke to a crowd of more than 50, saying the denial of Papuans’ right to self-determination was a Pacific regional problem.

Papua’s 1 December anniversary is marked by similar demonstrations around the world, including in Melbourne, Oxford, Honiara and The Hague.

As Australia and New Zealand move into lockdown mode in response to the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic, we are increasingly faced with serious ethical questions about what ordinary people should be obliged to do for others.

These challenges can perhaps best be seen in the outrage as people flocked to Bondi Beach and packed into pubs and cafes over the weekend, despite strict social-distancing rules.

This also helps explain the anger on social media over people lying about overseas travel in order to get doctors’ appointments, hoarding toilet paper and defying quarantine orders, even as they defend their conduct self-righteously.

READ MORE: The coronavirus pandemic is forcing us to ask some very hard questions. But are we ready for the answers?

• Sri Krishnamurthi talks Covid-19 on the Pacific Media Centre’s Southern Cross radio
  
  People are even being met with disdain when they ask others to keep their distance.

Why is ethical action critical?
In the face of a pandemic, legislation and police enforcement can only do so much. Ethical decision-making by ordinary people becomes crucial.

While laws and policies can be slow to evolve, individuals can alter their behaviours instantaneously. Rules and bans can be ham-fisted or crude, but ethical decision-makers can respond intelligently to their own contexts.

Above all, ethical decision-makers can be intrinsically motivated to do right by the community, ensuring compliance of social-distancing rules in situations where effective policing is logistically impossible.

Even as Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews announced a special taskforce to enforce an immediate shutdown of venues and restrictions on gatherings, he appealed to people’s consciences in the strongest terms:

If you act selfishly, people will die.

This is why leaders have called for voluntary cooperation during the crisis. Laws and political action alone will not save us. An effective response to the pandemic requires ordinary people making sound ethical decisions.

Why is this so challenging?
As we have seen from the images over the weekend, ethical decision-making in response to a pandemic is not easy. Many people are simply not taking the crisis seriously enough.

One of the reasons for this is confusion. Rules change almost daily, meaning some people will not know the latest requirements. Others might not appreciate the stakes involved with their behaviours, and that it is not only their own health they are risking.

Also, rules can be ambiguous. For example, what happens if you’re keeping an appropriate distance from others at the beach or park, and it starts becoming crowded? Who should leave? Should those who arrived first have priority? Or should those who have had “their turn” move on?

In ambiguous situations, people take cues from those around them. If we saw others interacting normally at the park or pub (before they were closed), we could conclude it’s probably okay. We might also wonder if there’s any point in obeying the rules if others are not.

Furthermore, it’s easy to question the legitimacy of the new rules. Ordinarily, we judge rules based on many factors, such as:

• Is it the right thing to do?
• Is it fair?
• Will it be effective?

In fluid situations, these conditions are hard to meet. Consider the case of casual workers with no paid sick leave who might not be able to pay rent or might lose their jobs if they comply with quarantine orders. Demanding they shoulder this burden can seem unfair.

Similarly, many teachers feel they are taking unfair risks to keep schools open.

In the most difficult cases, people must weigh up conflicting moral priorities. Do they support their elderly parents by visiting them, or is this risking infection?

For these reasons, even conscientious ethical decision-makers can struggle.

Why we might make poor decisions
Unfortunately, human beings suffer from decision-making biases.

For example, we often interpret expectations as entitlements. We convert our ordinary expectations about social, work, educational, religious and sporting routines into demands that these should continue.

This is one reason why some call for a “war footing”, urging people to acknowledge a “new normal”.

In addition, people tend to be self-interested and prioritise immediate goals. Abstract concerns about risks to community infection can seem less salient than the pressures of the moment.

This bias can affect ethical decision-making. It allows us to “neutralise” rules by inventing stories about why they don’t apply to us, given our special circumstances. These self-serving excuses are a classic source of serious moral error.

Some guidelines to follow
There are no easy answers to the myriad moral challenges that Covid-19 thrusts upon us. However, here are five rules of thumb:

1. Common sense ethics still applies – and the stakes make it more important than ever. Never lie about or conceal your history or infection status. Comply strictly with authoritative directives about quarantine.
2. Stay informed about the latest rules.
3. Never force your decisions on other people. Even if you are not personally concerned about social distancing, acknowledge that others are entitled to their space.
4. If others are behaving recklessly or inappropriately, try to engage with them constructively. Outrage can be appropriate, but understanding can be better at changing minds.
5. Gird yourself for the long haul. “Fatigue” can set in over long periods with changing rules. As the weeks in a state of emergency turn into months, we can be worn down and become less diligent in our ethical decision-making.

Finally, remember the positives. As the stakes rise, acts of kindness and support are more important than ever before.

Hugh Breakey is president of the Australian Association for Professional & Applied Ethics. He is also senior research fellow in moral philosophy at the Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Law Futures Centre, Griffith University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

• Why releasing some prisoners is essential to stop the spread of coronavirus
  
  

Australia’s news landscape, and the ability of citizens to access quality journalism, has been dealt a major blow by the announcement the Australian Associated Press is closing, with the loss of 180 journalism jobs.

Although AAP reporters and editors are generally not household names, the wire service has provided the backbone of news content for the country since 1935, ensuring every newspaper (and therefore every citizen) has had access to solid reliable reports on matters of national significance.

All news outlets have relied on AAP’s network of local and international journalists to provide stories from areas where their own correspondents could not go, from the courts to parliament and everywhere in between.

READ MORE: Media Files: What does the Nine Fairfax merger mean for diversity and quality journalism?

Despite a shrinking number of journalists in recent years and a rapid decrease in funding subscriptions, AAP continued to stand by its mission to provide news without political partisanship or bias. Speed was essential for the agency, but accuracy was even more important.

But AAP has struggled in recent years as newspapers and radio and television stations have sought to cut costs and started sourcing content for free from the internet, thanks to global publishing platforms, such as Google.

When AAP shut down its New Zealand newswire in 2018, it said subscribers were under pressure and asking for lower fees.

Media mergers, such as that of Nine and Fairfax, have also been bad for AAP, as companies consolidated their subscriptions. Sky News also gave up its AAP subscription to use News Limited in 2018.

The mantra within AAP had long been, if a major shareholder sneezes, the wire agency catches a cold.

Independence and integrity
In the opening to the book, On the Wire: The Story of Australian Associated Press, published in 2010 to commemorate the 75th anniversary of AAP, John Coomber wrote about the value of the wire service:

So much has changed in the news industry since AAP was formed by Keith Murdoch in 1935. Back then, it took a staff of only 12 people, with bureaus in London and New York, to bring overseas news into Australia.

But even in its earliest days, as an amalgamation of two agencies, the Australian Press Association and the Sun Herald Cable Service, it was set up to save money.

With the cost of cables, which were charged by the word, the pooling of resources was significant at the time. The AAP journalists were therefore required to create concise Australian-focused reports for local papers.

Although AAP reports were sometimes drawn together from other news sources, the agency’s reporters sometimes did their own original reporting. This led to wordage blowouts on major events, such as Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Austria in 1938, which set a record for the AAP’s wordage for the year.

The second world war was an unlikely boost to AAP as senior journalists from Australian papers were seconded to war zones as AAP special representatives.

The Sydney Morning Herald’s Ray Maley, later Prime Minister Robert Menzies’ press secretary, was sent to Singapore. His story of the first clash between Australian and Japanese troops was widely used in newspapers in Britain and the US, as well as Australia.

Winston Turner, “our man in Batavia” (now Jakarta), was one of the last AAP journalists to get out of the region, escaping the invading Japanese by the narrowest of margins.

Award-winning journalism
AAP’s glory days weren’t just confined to the past. It has published numerous, award-winning stories in recent years, such as Lisa Martin’s report on Peter Dutton’s au pair scandal.

Long-time readers of Fairfax newspapers might remember the federal budget in 2017 when AAP filled the pages of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age because Fairfax reporters had gone on strike. The copy written by Fairfax’s skeleton staff was sloppy, while AAP’s stories shone with the agency’s emphasis on accuracy.

AAP photographers, too, have captured moments of Australian history, such as Lukas Coch’s Walkley Award-winning picture of Linda Burney in blue high heels in the air celebrating the passage of the marriage equality law in 2017.

Coch also took the famous photo of then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard in the arms of an AFP officer when she lost a shoe while exiting a Canberra restaurant surrounded by protesters.

Rich training ground lost
One of the saddest parts of the closure of AAP is the loss of fantastic training opportunities for young reporters starting out in journalism.

AAP has produced some big names in journalism, including Kerry O’Brien, the PNG correspondent in the 1960s, and SMH editor Lisa Davies and Joe Hildebrand, who both started as AAP cadets.

AAP has solidly taken in four or five cadets each year for the past decade, and in recent years, a small group of editorial assistants. Over 12 months, the AAP cadets have been taught to write fast and accurately while also learning shorthand, video skills, ethics and media law.

During the global financial crisis in the 2000s, AAP took four cadets, while The Age took on none, and the Herald Sun only two.

As news of the AAP’s closure spreads across the country, it will be seen as yet another blow to public interest journalism in Australia.

Australia needs more sources of news, not fewer. The loss of AAP should be mourned not just by news men and women across the country, but by every single person who cares about democracy and the valuable work journalists do in keeping the public informed and the powerful to account.

By Dr Alexandra Wake, programme manager, journalism, RMIT University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

• Should governments provide funding grants to encourage public interest journalism?

Two big media-related issues have emerged from the federal election: how opinion polls are reported and the polarisation of the main newspaper groups.

Opinion polls have been part of Australia’s political landscape for 90 years, and for most of that time they have been reliable barometers of public opinion.

As a result, they have acquired considerable credibility. Malcolm Turnbull weaponised this for political purposes when he justified his challenge to Tony Abbott’s prime ministership in 2015 on the basis that Abbott had lost 30 consecutive Newspolls.

READ MORE: Morrison leads Coalition to ‘miracle’ win, but how do they govern now?

It was a gross lapse of judgment.

Not only did it set up Turnbull to be judged by the same criterion – as duly happened last year when he lost his 31st Newspoll – but he chose precisely the wrong time to elevate public opinion polls to the status of prime ministerial kingmaker.

Public opinion polls have been living on borrowed time since mobile phones began to displace household fixed-line phones, a gradual but inexorable process over a couple of decades.

Without digressing too far into the complexities of sampling, it is now difficult, time-consuming and expensive to generate a genuinely random sample of voters.

Telephone polling
Telephone polling, introduced in the 1980s, originally drew its samples from the Telstra list of fixed-line numbers – in other words, from the White Pages. There is no equivalent available list of mobile phones so, for practical purposes, drawing a genuine random sample has become impossible.

To cope with these realities, polling organisations have adopted somewhat makeshift sampling and interviewing procedures, drawing on various combinations of fixed-line phones, mobile phones, large panels of available respondents, and robo-polling.

This in turn raises questions about the validity of statements about sampling error, something the election results brought home with a thump.

Yet the media have carried on reporting the polls as if nothing has changed.

Poll results still make banner headlines. Stories are still written on the basis that the data are as good as they have always been.

The public, accustomed to the longstanding reliability of Australian polls, do not know and are not told that this is nonsense.

Polls are useful and interesting stories, but the reporting of them needs to change.

Greater transparency
There needs to be greater transparency about how a poll’s sampling and interviewing are done. The way a poll is done – whether it is a human being or a machine asking the questions, for instance – is significant.

The public is also entitled to know that today’s polls have limitations that polls of the past did not have. They are more indicative and less precise, so statements about sampling error need to be qualified accordingly.

And as the main newspapers have become more partisan, so the reporting of polls has shifted from straightforward accounts of the data to stories dominated by analysis, comment or wishful thinking on the part of the writer or the editor.

Partisanship in the media, especially the newspapers, has always been with us, but analyses by Media Watch and The New Daily show it reached extreme levels in this election.

An audit of metropolitan newspaper front pages by Media Watch showed a heavy anti-Labor bias by News Corp papers, and a roughly equivalent – but less strident – pro-Labor bias by the old Fairfax (now Nine) newspapers, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

The New Daily analysed three nights of Sky News coverage – April 30, May 1 and 2 – and found gross anti-Labor bias:

News Corp’s unconstrained anti-Labor bias cannot account entirely for Labor’s disastrous showing, but common sense says it accounts for some.

Virulently anti-Labor
For example, the company has a daily newspaper monopoly in Brisbane through The Courier-Mail. It was virulently anti-Labor and Labor did astonishingly badly in Queensland. Coincidence? Possibly, but unlikely.

If Australia had a half-decent system of media accountability, there would be a public inquiry into the increasing polarisation of Australian newspapers and into the conduct of Sky at night.

However, the newspaper industry’s self-regulator, the Australian Press Council, relies on the two big newspaper organisations for nearly all its funding, so the chances of having such an inquiry approach zero.

And the broadcasting regulator, the Australian Media and Communications Authority, has never shown the slightest interest in reviewing the way commercial television and radio cover elections.

So in an age where polarisation is undermining democracies around the world, Australia is stuck with an increasingly polarised media, a highly concentrated media ownership landscape and no apparent way to do anything about it.

• Dr Denis Muller is a senior research fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne.  This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.
• Mounting evidence that the tide is turning on News Corp, and its owner

At this week’s gathering of key Pacific Island leaders on the Micronesian island of Nauru, conspicuously missing were journalists from Australia’s public broadcaster.

This was because the South Pacific’s smallest nation has refused visas to journalists from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to enable them to attend and cover the four-day Pacific Islands Forum leaders summit.

And one of the Pacific’s most experienced journalists, Television New Zealand’s Barbara Dreaver was detained for more than three hours yesterday after interviewing refugees from the notorious Australian-established detention centres on the island. The Nauru government claims she was not “detained”, merely “questioned’.

READ MORE: Self-immolation, hunger strikes and suicide: Children on Nauru want to die

The Nauru government’s ban on the ABC, it says, is in retaliation for the news organisation’s “blatant interference in Nauru’s domestic politics prior to the 2016 elections, harassment of and lack of respect towards our President and… continued biased and false reporting about our country.”

But some say ABC’s criticism of Nauru’s policies on notorious Australian-run refugee detention centre on the island – plagued by widespread reports of physical, psychological and sexual abuse, with at least five suicide deaths to date – may have more to do with it.

Those controversial camps are not on the agenda and not likely to be a subject of much discussion within the forum which ended today.

And neither is the issue of free speech and media freedom, since efforts to repress critical reporting has become increasingly common among Pacific governments.

Climate change
It is not only climate change and rising sea levels that threaten the lives and wellbeing of Pacific Islanders. Rising levels of official intolerance of dissent and free speech across the region pose a threat to the wellbeing of their democracies.

Indeed, CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that tracks threats to civil society across the globe, has found that these violations of freedom of expression appear to be systemic in the region.

In Fiji, attempts by the government to intimidate and silence free speech is creating a chilling effect ahead of upcoming national elections and before the date has even been set.

In February, Island Business magazine’s editor and two of its journalists were questioned under the Public Order Act over articles on the firing of a magistrate who had presided over a union dispute.

The 2016 sedition charges against The Fiji Times – widely regarded as the country’s last independent news outlet – saw its publisher, editor-in-chief and two others hauled through the courts over a reader’s letter to the editor that allegedly contained controversial views about Muslims.

Human rights groups believe the charges were politically motivated. The state has filed an appeal against their acquittal.

Journalists in Papua New Guinea often work in fear and many believe media freedom has been eroded. In February this year, PNG Post Courier reporter, Franky Kapin, was attacked and assaulted by staff from the Morobe Province Governor’s office for alleged biased reporting.

Journalists threatened
Journalists continue to be threatened and barred from covering the ongoing crisis at the Australian refugee detention center on Manus Island (after its closure) in the country’s north.

Senior Papua New Guinean journalist Titi Gabi says that increasing outside interference of the editorial process and the bribing and threatening of journalists has led to media freedom no longer being enjoyed in the country.

After a passenger ferry sank in Kiribati in February, leaving 93 people dead, authorities barred foreign journalists from entering the country to report on the disaster.

Meanwhile, the government of Samoa was criticised by a media freedom lobby group earlier this year for seeking to repress freedom of expression by reintroducing legislation on criminal libel without proper public consultation

Civil society groups in the regional power of Australia are extremely concerned about the impact that changes to security laws will have on fundamental freedoms. The National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017 and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017 were met with a storm of protest from media outlets and civil society organisations.

Australian Lawyers for Human Rights has criticised the legislation, warning that the measures will have a “severely chilling effect upon academic research, free speech, and particularly constitutionally-protected free political speech”.

According to Amnesty International Australia, the draconian laws will make it a crime for charities to expose human rights violations, and to communicate with the United Nations about those violations.

Stifled free speech
So, why are governments in the region working to increasingly stifle free speech?

For one, they are coming under growing public scrutiny, led by journalists and civil society using social media, for abuse of power, lack of transparency and corruption at various government levels.

News stories exposing official human rights violations have received global attention, thanks to the efforts of international media and non-governmental organisations. Averse to the negative publicity, Pacific governments have responded with repressive action.

Also, civil society groups in the Pacific are increasingly raising not just national concerns but sensitive regional ones as well, such as rights abuses in West Papua, a region in Indonesia where there is an active pro-independence movement, and in refugee detention centres in Nauru and PNG’s Manus Island.

Seeking to appease regional powerhouses Indonesia and Australia as they appeal for economic investment, governments of small island states have no qualms trying to silence those speaking out on these issues at home.

In turn, the “growing influence of China” has also been cited as a justification for Australia’s new security policies. But many believe another objective is to keep government dealings from the public.

This regional trend flies in the face of Pacific countries’ clear commitments to respect and protect freedom of expression.

Good governance
In 2000, governments signed the Biketawa Declaration committing themselves to democracy, good governance, protection of human rights and maintenance of the rule of law. At the meeting in Nauru, leaders are expected to sign a Biketawa Plus Declaration, building on the original document.

In recent years, island nations have also made commitments to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all and effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels contained in Goal 16. Ensuring fundamental freedoms is pivotal to meeting this goal, as well as the other 16 SDGs.

Leaders at the gathering needed to reiterate their nations’ commitment to fundamental freedoms in its communique and demonstrate it – to create an enabling environment for both the media and civil society to work without fear of criminalisation, harassment and reprisals.

Failing to do so – and the detention of Barbara Dreaver yesterday – are clear signs that the forum is willing to undermine its international obligations and its commitment to democracy and the rule of law.

Josef Benedict is a civic space research officer with global civil society alliance Civicus and a contributor to Asian Correspondent. This article is republished from Asian Correspondent with the permission of the author.

• Media freedom commentators condemn ‘gag’ actions
• Other Pacific Island Forum stories

By RNZ Pacific

Journalist Barbara Dreaver has been released after being detained in Nauru today while covering the Pacific Islands Forum summit, reports TVNZ.

RNZ’s reporter on Nauru said it was understood Dreaver was taken to the police station on the island after trying to interview a refugee outside of the camp.

She said they asked for her visa, told her she was breaching her conditions and stripped her of her accreditation for the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders summit being held on the island.

EARLIER STORY: TVNZ’s Barbara Dreaver detained

World Vision New Zealand said it helped Dreaver connect with refugees on Nauru and it was contacted by its liaison person this afternoon.

A spokesperson said Dreaver’s interview had been stopped by the Nauru police, and she was taken by them.

The Nauru government has limited the movements of journalists covering the summit and placed restrictions on who they can talk to.

An official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was with Dreaver during the ordeal.

PM pleased over release
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she was pleased that Dreaver was released.

Ardern leaves for Nauru early tomorrow morning, and says once she gets there she will seek more advice about the situation.

She said the New Zealand government believed in freedom of the press throughout the world, and that includes the entire Pacific region.

The Nauru government had limited the journalists covering the summit and placed restrictions on those who got approval to go, limiting who they could talk to and what issues they could discuss.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) was also banned from covering the Forum summit after the Nauruan government accused the public broadcaster of “continued biased and false reporting” about the country.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

New Zealand journalist Barbara Dreaver has been detained by authorities in Nauru while covering the Pacific Islands Forum summit, reports Television New Zealand.

TVNZ said Dreaver was conducting an interview with a refugee when detained by police early this afternoon.

READ MORE: TVNZ reporter released after being held 4 hours

An official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was with Dreaver but TVNZ reported that it was unsure of her whereabouts.

The Nauru government had limited the journalists covering the summit and placed restrictions on those who got approval to go, limiting who they could talk to and what issues they could discuss.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) was also banned from covering the Forum summit after the Nauruan government accused the public broadcaster of “continued biased and false reporting” about the country.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

The Vanuatu-based journalist who pulled the plug on the Nauru government for interfering with media freedom was having a typical full day at the office and elsewhere around Port Vila.

Time was being taken up by the major event for his newspaper’s market, of a Chinese goodwill ship in port giving out free health care to thousands of citizens and a revival of trouble over the earthquake on Ambae Island.

He had joined the Prime Minister, Charlot Salwai, on board the hospital ship, Peace Ark, together with a Chinese Rear-Admiral, Guan Bailin, recognising the visit as both a community happening and another part of China’s highly active influence-building.

On Ambae, where thousands have had to be evacuated since the earthquake and volcanic eruption a year ago, talk of a need for fresh evacuations was being matched with criticism of government relief efforts by the Opposition.

Day in the life
Dan McGarry characterised this as a day in the life of a Pacific Islands journalist, something like the experience of a country journalist in Australia, where the audience, contacts, critics and personal friends are the same people.

“Except that there are different cultures and you are reporting on national affairs.”

Life is tough enough for many people in the small island states – or “big ocean” states, as some like to say – with limited development and economic opportunity.

Add in the deeds of political leaders across the region partial to power without much responsibility, standing on their dignity, adverse to free circulation of information and life gets more difficult for all — especially the small number of media professionals trying to get out essential truths.

Pulling the plug
Awareness of getting out the truth on government interference promoted McGarry’s decision early in July to cancel his media outlet’s participation in the coming Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru.

The Nauru government had announced its ban on a media pool for the summit during 1-9 September, because the joint broadcaster for the group was the Australian ABC.

It said the broadcaster was biased against it; its coverage of a Nauru election had come to interference in domestic politics and it had given the island’s President some tough scrutiny – “harassment” – evidently over issues linked to the asylum seeker camps there.

The ban was condemned by several Australian and Pacific media groups, including the Media and Entertainment Arts Alliance (MEAA) and the Pacific Media Centre, the Canberra Press Gallery has had to consider a boycott on going, but News Corp broke ranks, citing its own dislike of the ABC.

Getting advice
In Port Vila, Dan McGarry was hearing advice from esteemed colleagues in his region that getting information was paramount, so never do a comprehensive boycott of an event.

McGarry’s response was defiant:

“That would apply with the Australian gallery together. But for outside media to take a position might have some additional effect. The Pacific Forum had been questionable to begin with. At the last Forum, in Samoa late last year, media access was severely restricted on any substantial stuff.

“Climate change was really the only issue, where the Pacific nations at the Paris Climate Change meeting had all wanted a standard of 1.5 degrees maximum warming, but this time failed to produce any consensus, not even a position statement.

“Considering media freedoms in the Pacific, it is not so bad here in Vanuatu. In other places, not so much. In Papua New Guinea they are compliant with government, a lot of information they are just not publishing, the Fiji Times is facing an existential threat and Nauru is a black hole.”

Thanks to the ABC
He also acknowledged the strategic role that has been played by the ABC and Radio Australia in preserving and getting out news.

“For following democratic norms, the ABC is one of our firm allies in the Pacific. Without such a strong relationship we would not have any kind of regional news to speak of. We have relied on them to get out stories that we cannot safely publish, as in the past with physical attacks on our own publisher.”

(Marc Neil-Jones who, after several incidents in 2009 with editor Royson Willie, was assaulted after publishing on scandals in the prisons system.)

“We could rely on them in a political crisis. It would help to have an ABC reporter in the room, and similarly they would not face political reprisals. We need them as they need us and I am on Australian radio on a fairly frequent basis.”

He said there was some hope the Nauru government might be getting prevailed upon to quietly change its position, by other governments.

“They might be able to bring them back; it would be in the ‘Pacific way’.”

Profile
Dan McGarry, from a family that had recently migrated to Canada from Ireland, arrived in Vanuatu in 2003 as a technology specialist with non-government organisations working on development.

As chief technologist with the Pacific Institute of Public Policy, he had worked on capacity building projects and civil society.

“It was assisting lawmakers in prioritising, visualising and making open processes, for budgets, fisheries or health care”, and three years ago, “with a reputation for neutrality”, was appointed media director of the Vanuatu Daily Post group.

With the practice of “ear to the ground” journalism, he lists developments in a range of fields where information builds up, not always ready for publication.

Comments
Some comments:

On competition for influence between China and the “West”:
• Australia was “back in the infrastructure game”, after stepping back from development aid commitments, following the report of a Chinese naval base for Vanuatu.

• On that, he’d published criticism of the late awakening in Australia over the military base story, with commentators there dismissing repeated denials — signs of general disinterest in South Pacific business:

“The average Australian’s conception of Pacific island nations is so limited it makes some of us wonder if they even want to understand. Our voices – and our reality – have been pointedly and repeatedly ignored in the media and in the corridors of power.”

• Australia’s main undertaking, a A$40 million road-building project for the Port Vila city area, had been close to a “high profile debacle”; set back by cyclone damage and other delays, it had lost some 20 pe cent of its nominal value through currency fluctuations, and he believed had been slowed by contractors lacking experience in developing countries.

• Australia had overcome competition to secure a telecommunications equipment upgrade for the country.

• China had been running an expansionary programme, “but they do not always get what they want.”

On corruption:
• All contracts and tenders came under scrutiny, but news sources tended to agree the overall level of corruption had declined.

“Sometimes when decisions are made that you cannot understand, you think that would be something that could explain it.”

• Even with the roads projects, there had to be “murmurings”, but no source had information leading to publication.

• China’s problem for this year would be with the large numbers of its citizens lining up to buy Vanuatu passports through a system of agencies. Mainly useful for evading travel restrictions placed on Chinese passports in several countries, these had been selling for sometimes $A155,000.

• He has made a graphic depicting exponential growth in the passports revenue trade pushing to more than $90 million a year, bringing massive impacts on the small economy if it develops.

On the independence referendum in New Caledonia:

• While the Melanesian countries including Vanuatu were supporting a “Yes” vote in the poll this November, the Kanak independence movement, the FLNKS, did not look to be pressing hard enough for fresh backing.

“There is a bit of national empathy with the three Melanesian independence movements that are active – Bougainville, West Papua and New Caledonia – but not a lot of advocacy here. My impression is there is some indifference among many in the New Caledonia movement, compared to the movement from West Papua, who see a need to be out there and see the media as allies.”

• He said New Caledonia was appearing in regular regional news, such as reports on police actions in demonstrations, and there were signs of some capital being moved out, as with a Vanuatu company obtaining $A5 million dollars from the French territory for financial restructuring.

On stable government and politics in Vanuatu:
• While the government had kept together and weathered no-confidence motions, in the country’s multi-party system it would have to work on taking that through to elections in 2020.

• Already one opposition group had been working systematically to build up a financial base for a strong election campaign. The Foreign Minister, Ralph Regenvanu, with his new Land and Justice Party, had made gains and would be considering it was his time. The incumbent Prime Minister, Charlot Salwai, was a quiet performer, but had so far managed to unite divided French speakers to build a political base.

Political journalist and academic Dr Lee Duffield is an editorial board member of Pacific Journalism Review and a research associate of the Pacific Media Centre. This article was first published by the Australian Independent and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the permission of the author.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has called on Nauru to rescind its decision to bar Australia’s public radio and TV broadcaster, ABC, from covering the Pacific Islands Forum that is being hosted there next month.

Journalists must be able to work with complete freedom, the Paris-based media freedom watchdog RSF said.

Nauru’s government has cited “harassment” and “lack of respect towards our president” as grounds for banning the ABC from covering this annual meeting of 18 South and North Pacific island nations, which usually receives a great deal of media coverage due on September 1-9.

READ MORE: Nauru media ban on ABC targets Australian detention centre gag

A three-member Australian press pool had been envisaged, with ABC providing the TV coverage, until the Nauruan authorities announced that no ABC representative would be allowed into the country because of the broadcaster’s “continued biased and false reporting about our country.”

“The grounds given by Nauru’s authorities are completely specious, so we urge them to rescind this decision and to provide ABC with press accreditation,” said Daniel Bastard, head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

“This island has become a news and information black hole because of the refugee processing centre it hosts for the Australian government. We also condemn the hypocritical silence from the Australian authorities, who have not lifted a finger to defend their public broadcaster.”

When asked about the ban on the ABC, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull simply described it as “regrettable,” making it clear that his government was not going to try to persuade Nauru to allow journalists to work there freely

This small island nation is often described as a “Pacific gulag” or “Australia’s Guantanamo” because it allows Australia to operate a refugee detention centre there in exchange for millions of Australian dollars.

The UN has often criticised conditions in the camp.

Journalists are clearly unwelcome in Nauru. As RSF noted in its recent report on the obstacles to media coverage of refugee routes, Nauru charges 8000 euros for a visa application that is not refundable even when the visa is denied, which is usually the case.

And to further limit media attention, Nauru found another radical solution – blocking access to Facebook for three years.

Australia is ranked 19th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2018 World Press Freedom Index.

The Pacific Media Centre’s Pacific Media Watch freedom project collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

• Pacific Media Centre protest over the ‘flagrant’ Nauru ban
• Media rights group lashes ‘Pacific gulag’
• More Nauru ban stories

Nauru’s controversial ban on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation from attending the main annual Pacific political summit next month has appalled New Zealand journalists but they have stopped short of wanting to join a threatened boycott.

Host nation Nauru has restricted media access and banned the ABC from attending the 49th Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders Summit on September 3-6 due to alleged “biased and false reporting”.

Only seven accredited New Zealand journalists will be allowed to attend the summit.

READ MORE: Nauru’s ban on ABC splits commercial media

The chair of the NZ Parliamentary Press Gallery, Stacey Kirk, says she shares the concern of Australia’s Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery – which has threatened a boycott – and is appalled by Nauru’s efforts to control the media by banning and restricting the number of reporters.

Kirk told Asia Pacific Report “while infrastructure constraints play a role in the limited pooling numbers, we are appalled by this attempt to control the media coverage.

“To ban media based on unfavourable coverage is a clear violation of freedom of expression. This decision already follows restrictive reporting conditions, limiting the number of journalists who can attend this important regional summit.”

Shocked and furious
Claire Trevett, deputy political editor of the New Zealand Herald, says she is shocked and furious that only seven representatives from New Zealand would be allowed to attend and cover the summit.

She says that although there is limited accommodation in the island nation, the Nauruan authorities have the capacity to house more journalists then they intend to.

“Nauru has claimed the reason is limited space/accommodation there, but Niue – which is smaller – managed to host it without such strenuous limits in 2007, and Nauru itself has hosted it in the past without the limits.”

The Republic of Nauru said in this policy statement on its official website:

“No representative from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will be granted a visa to enter Nauru under any circumstances, due to this organisation’s blatant interference on Nauru’s domestic politics… harassment and lack of respect towards our President in Australia, false and defamatory allegations against members of our Government, and continued biased and false reporting about our country.”

The government has also said that limited accommodation has forced restrictions on the number of other reporters from covering the event, adding that “there has been no other restrictions placed on media attendance for any other reason”.

Australia’s Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery president David Crowe issued a response to the ban, saying the decision was appalling and threatened a media boycott from all Australian media from the event.

If the ABC could not go, the media pool should not go.

‘Dangerous precedent’
Crowe says a pool group of journalists who cover federal parliament had been set up to report on the summit which met restrictions previously set out by Nauru, but picking and choosing which journalists could cover the forum was going too far.

“If the ban is not reversed, the media pool will be disbanded. If one cannot go, none will go. It sets a dangerous precedent. What other Australian media might be banned from a similar group by another government in the future?

“We stand for a free press, not a banned one.”

ABC has declared it “does not intend to vacate” its place in Australia’s pool of journalists’ reporting on the summit.

Nauru has defied criticism and stood by its ban on the ABC, reminding journalists it was a privilege to enter Nauru and the country had the right to refuse entry to anyone entering whom they believed may pose a threat to their security.

“It is arrogant, disrespectful and a further example of the sense of entitlement shown by this activist media organisation. The Australian media does not decide who enters Nauru,” the government said.

Nauru said any restrictions placed on journalists other than ABC were due to limited accommodation, that all footage would be provided for media unable to attend and at least one Australian television media outlet would be invited to cover the summit.

Controlling the narrative
Host of RNZ’s Dateline Pacific programme Don Wiseman says it is clear Nauru is trying to control the narrative.

Wiseman says the journalists who get to Nauru are likely be stopped from reporting on any activities outside of the summit due to the severe restrictions.

However, rather than a boycott, any reporting is better than none, he says.

“It’s a good moral decision, but the other part is that it’s better to be there and to report on all the various and nefarious things going on in Nauru if you can.

“Nauru is a small place. It doesn’t have much accommodation, but it has more than it used to have. They’ve just chosen not to because they’re anti-media.”

Wiseman says the Australian government has been unwilling to criticise Nauru’s treatment of journalists, saying it is “compromised” because of its heavily criticised detention camps on Nauru.

“If no one speaks out it will become a battle between the guys running the show and some journalists, and if the Australian government doesn’t speak out, which it hasn’t done, it’s essentially been supportive of what Nauru’s done in the way in which it’s treated journalists.

“The reality is the boycott will go ahead. A number of people have been told they have visas, but if there are restrictions I would imagine it will be a universal say no.”

The Australian Federal press gallery is yet to confirm a boycott, but commentators say it is unlikely the Nauru government will reverse its ban on the ABC.

Maxine Jacobs is a postgraduate student journalist on the Asia Pacific Journalism Studies course at AUT University.

• Nauru ban on the ABC
• More Nauru ban stories

Protests have been gathering force over the Nauru government ban on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) from entering the country to cover the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders’ Summit in September.

Nauru accused ABC, which is Australia’s public broadcaster, of biased and false reporting.

The summit is an annual gathering of Oceania’s heads of state, where important matters concerning the region are addressed.

READ MORE: Nauru government’s move against press freedom ‘disgraceful’

On July 2, 2018, the Nauru government issued a statement restricting the number of people who can attend the summit because of “very limited accommodation.” But it singled out ABC and explained why it banned the broadcaster:

…no representative from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will be granted a visa to enter Nauru under any circumstances, due to this organisation’s blatant interference in Nauru’s domestic politics prior to the 2016 election, harassment of and lack of respect towards our President in Australia, false and defamatory allegations against members of our Government, and continued biased and false reporting about our country. It is our right, as it is the right of every nation, to choose who is allowed to enter.

ABC aired a documentary in 2016 alleging torture and child abuse linked to Australian government’s offshore asylum-seeker processing centers, which are managed by Nauru. It also published a report which alleged that Nauru’s president and some of his ministers received bribery from an Australian phosphate dealer.

Nauru condemned both reports as “racist” and “biased political propaganda”.

The small island nation was a mining site for several decades until phosphate deposits were exhausted in the 1980s. It received aid from Australia and hosted an Australian immigration detention facility.

ABC news director Gaven Morris criticised the decision of Nauru:

The Nauruan Government should not be allowed to dictate who fills the positions in an Australian media pool.

It can hardly claim it is “welcoming the media” if it dictates who that media will be and bans Australia’s public broadcaster.

The Nauru government quickly responded by describing the ABC statement as “arrogant, disrespectful and a further example of the sense of entitlement shown by this activist media organisation.” It added:

We remind the ABC that we – like Australia – have every right to refuse a visa to any person or organisation that we believe is not of good character, and that entry into our country is a privilege not a right. The Australian media do not decide who enters Nauru.

Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Nauru’s decision was “regrettable” but refused to intervene on behalf of ABC.

The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, an Australian network of media workers, said the government should pursue the issue with Nauru officials:

This is an attack on press freedom that our government needs to condemn in the strongest possible terms. Recognising the sovereignty of another nation does not extend to accepting they have the right to prevent free and open reporting.

Australia’s Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery threatened to boycott the event in Nauru:

If the ban is not reversed, the media pool will be disbanded. If one cannot go, none will go.

We oppose the Nauru edict because it is wrong in this instance and because it sets a dangerous precedent. What other Australians might be banned from a similar group by another government in future? We stand for a free press, not a banned one.

Red Ink of Australia’s Nine Network expressed support to ABC:

ABC is our competitor, and a tough one at that, but there is something bigger at stake here than beating a rival.

The ABC ban was also denounced by other media groups in the region. The New Zealand Parliamentary Press Gallery said:

This decision follows already restrictive conditions, limiting the number of journalists who can attend this important regional summit. While infrastructure constrains play a role in limited pooling numbers, we are appalled by this attempt to control media coverage.

Dan McGarry, the media director of Vanuatu Daily Post, explained why the newspaper will not be sending a delegate to Nauru in September:

I instructed the Daily Post’s editor to withdraw our reporter from the Vanuatu media delegation allotted to covering this event.

This isn’t a self-righteous, moralising action. It’s a survival tactic. If we allow ourselves to get into a situation where our ability to report is predicated on how positive our coverage is, then we can’t do our job.

Pacific Island News Association urged Nauru to reconsider its decision to promote media diversity:

The Pacific is on display and can be proud of its media diversity and efforts to strengthen our communities through dialogue and communication.

The International Federation of Journalists said Nauru had set a dangerous precedent:

Governments, leaders and politicians must remember the role of the media, and not use their powers to control and stifle press freedom. The Nauru government is setting a dangerous precedent by barring ABC journalists’ from covering the Pacific Island Forum.

The September event hosted by Nauru is the 49th Pacific Islands Forum.

Pacific Media Watch reports that the New Zealand-based Pacific Media Centre condemned the selective ban by the Nauru government in what it said was an authoritarian affront to media freedom in the region.

Director Professor David Robie, who also criticised Australian hypocrisy over Pacific media freedom, said:

Clearly the Nauru government is determined to gag any independent efforts to speak truth to power …

This is shocking and painfully obvious that Australia has much to hide in the region just like the Nauru government.

Nauru is unranked in the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index. However, the Nauru ban was criticised at an RSF Asia-Pacific media freedom summit in Paris last week.

Mong Palatino is an activist contributor to Global Voices and a two-term congressman in the Philippine House of Representatives. He blogs at Mongster’s Nest. This article is republished from Global Voices under a Creative Commons licence.

The Nauru government’s refusal to allow the ABC from entering the country to cover the upcoming Pacific Islands Forum is disgraceful.

It is against the fundamentals of a free press.

It cannot be condoned.

READ MORE: Nauru government bans ABC from Pacific Forum

To allow a government to dictate which media outlets covers a story is tantamount to censorship and as journalists and as members of a healthy democracy, we cannot accept it.

ABC is our competitor, and a tough one at that, but there is something bigger at stake here than beating a rival.

Even in the Nauru government’s attempt to explain the move, the hypocrisy was blatant.

While the government claimed it only placed restrictions “on a number of people from all sectors” due to “very limited accommodation” and there was “no restrictions placed on media attendance for any reason other than this indisputable fact of accommodation and facility available”, it also said the ABC was not welcome because the government does not like what it reports.

The statement said the ABC would not be granted access “under any circumstances due to this organisation’s blatant interference in Nauru’s domestic politics prior to the 2016 election, harassment of and lack of respect towards our president in Australia, false and defamatory allegations against members of our government, and continued biased and false reporting about our country.

“It is our right, as it is the right of every nation, to choose who is allowed to enter.”

Many Australian media outlets are standing in solidarity with the ABC – as the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery president David Crowe said: “If the ban is not reversed, the media pool will be disbanded. If one cannot go, none will go.”

And it’s not just Aussie media dismayed by this move by the Nauru government.

Vanuatu’s Daily Post has withdrawn its reporter from the Vanuatu media delegation allotted to covering the event.

“This isn’t a self-righteous, moralising action. It’s a survival tactic. If we allow ourselves to get into a situation where our ability to report is predicted on how positive our coverage is, then we can’t do our job,” Daily Post media director Dan McGarry explained.

Of course, not all are of that view – the ABC’s natural enemy News Corp will still be attending.

Red Ink is Australia’s Nine Network “ears and eyes behind the big decisions, the gossip and spin” in the media world. Nauru is due to host the 49th Pacific Islands Forum and related meetings from September 3-6, 2018.

• Nauru’s ban on ABC splits commercial media
• Vanuatu Daily Post editorial on the issue
• IFJ calls on Nauru president to revoke ban on ABC journalists
• Outrageous Nauru ban on ABC journalists
• World public broadcasters group says ban is unacceptable

Since the New South Wales State government was elected in 2012, the massive WestConnex super expressway system in Sydney has been a great example of how this administration just can’t seem to get its head around planning transport. Poorly justified, poorly planned and critiqued by infrastructure experts, the project is still steaming ahead, driven by the Berejiklian LNP corporate-backed machine, hell bent on getting the 33 km network of tollways sold before the next election, early next year.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: By Wendy Bacon

You may not be able to see it but it’s the deadliest form of air pollution. It can penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream, causing heart attacks, lung cancer, and premature death. It’s called particulate matter, also known as particle pollution or PM.

Over the last month, I’ve been investigating Particulate Matter in the context of WestConnex. The results are disturbing. So far, this year air pollution has exceeded daily average national goals on at least 10 occasions along the route of the WestConnex M4 East, a tunnel between Homebush and Haberfield that is expected to open next year.

Daily exceedances of national goals are supposed to be rare in Sydney.

Before I report in more detail on the results of my investigation, I need to explain some background information. If you already know these facts, you can skip to the results section.

PM, roads and your health
Particulate matter is extremely small solid particles and liquid droplets suspended in air. PM10 is 10 micrometers or less in diameter, PM2.5 is 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter. There are also even smaller ultrafine particles that are not currently measured in Australia.

Short or long exposure to PM can damage your health. The smaller the particle the more dangerous it is. There are no known safe levels of PM 2.5. As well as being linked to cancer and heart disease, PM can also worsen pre-existing respiratory illnesses including asthma. These facts have been well established by scientific research.

More recently, research has shown that PM 2.5 may be linked to increased risks of dementia.

Vehicle emissions, especially diesel, contain PM. Government departments responsible for health, environment, transport and urban planning have known for years that living close to busy roads increases health risks due to PM exposure.

In 2017, University of Sydney Professor of Respiratory Medicine Paul Torzillo told a meeting in Camperdown (where a major WestConnex Stage 3 construction site is planned) that,

Every major program and project like this around the world leads to more cars and more vehicles coming into cities. It’s been very well looked at by a number of research groups. Every single infrastructure project like this leads to more cars and more vehicles coming into cities and you have a greater contribution to air pollution from traffic-related pollution.

Traffic-related pollution – there is a huge amount of evidence that air pollution increases death from cardiovascular disease, that’s the leading cause of death in Australia. It leads to increased hospital admissions from heart disease. It leads to increased stroke. It leads to increased respiratory disease, and it leads to increased deaths from respiratory disease. It leads to higher rates of low birth weight in kids. And there are major reviews by WHO that occur every few years or from groups that are consulted by them and every time one of these reviews occurs the evidence about the strength of the relationship between pollution and bad health get stronger and stronger. There’s no question about this……It’s absolutely true that pollution levels for half a kilometer each side of roads are much higher than they are outside that. Pollution levels will be higher at entry and exit points. They’ll be higher at stack points. But there are big measurement problems here.

• Professor Paul Torzillo, Executive Clinical Director and Head of Respiratory Medicine at Sydney’s Royal Prince Alfred (RPA) hospital, May 2017.

The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) measures PM 10 and PM 2.5 in accordance with national standards. (Two weeks ago City of Sydney Deputy Mayor Jess Miller raised concerns about the effectiveness of this OEH monitoring because some OEH monitors do not meet national standards. I’ll discuss this further in another post.)

National Standards
PM 10
An annual average of 25.0 μg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter). Victoria wanted 20 but NSW would not agree. Victoria has adopted the stronger standard for itself.

Average 24-hour levels must be no higher than 50 µg/m3.

PM 2.5
An annual average of 8.0 μg/m3 and a 24-hour average of 25.0 μg/m3.

No exceedances are allowed.

Exceptional events
In 2016, Federal and State governments introduced the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (NEPM) ‘exceptional event’ rule for determining compliance against PM10 and PM2.5 goals:

Exceptional event means a fire or dust occurrence that adversely affects air quality at a particular location, and causes an exceedance of 1 day average standards in excess of normal historical fluctuations and background levels, and is directly related to: bushfire; jurisdiction authorised hazard reduction burning; or continental scale windblown dust.

National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure,

Any exceedance day deemed to be “exceptional” is not included when determining compliance with NEPM goals, while an exceedance determined to be a ‘non-exceptional’ event is (NEPM Section 18, 3C and 3D). Note that “exceptional'” is defined narrowly. A hot and dusty day in Sydney does not qualify, and does count against the goals, unless it is during seasonal burn-off, directly linked to an actual fire, or a continental scale dust storm.

Westconnex M4 East and air quality
Construction of the M4 East has now been underway for two years. However, back in 2015, it had not yet been approved. With all this evidence about PM available, it’s not surprising that residents who live or have children attending schools near:

• major construction sites serviced by heavy diesel trucks
• future portals where traffic will concentrate
• unfiltered ventilation stacks
• major roads that will become busier due to toll avoidance

and many other citizens and health professionals were concerned about how the project would negatively affect air quality, both during construction and after the tunnel opens. At WestConnex EIS sessions, NSW Roads and Maritime Services representatives were like a broken record, constantly reassuring residents that their concerns were unfounded. But residents and community action groups didn’t trust them and submitted thousands of submissions to NSW Planning objecting to WestCONnex M4 East on the grounds of air quality. Councils’ hired independent experts whose analysis found major flaws in the WestConnex EIS.

Jozefa Sobski, a highly respected retired senior public servant recently awarded an Order of Australia for her services to women, included these words in her submission:

The air quality issues have not been addressed. The ventilation stacks will be close to Haberfield Public School, the Infant’s Home and residents of Walker Avenue, Ramsay Street and Denham. What scientific proof will be provided that air quality will not be considerably affected for the worse during and after construction is complete?

On November 15, 2015, the Inner West Courier reported:

“The parents at Haberfield Public School fear our children will be at the centre of a toxic triangle of pollution stack and portals after three or more years of construction just metres away from the school,” Haberfield Public School P & C vice president Sherrill Nixon said. Ms Nixon said the streets around Haberfield Public School will see three years of noise and heavy truck movements during construction, only to end up with polluting exhaust stacks less than 500m away.

“The impact on our school community is devastating,” she said. “We insist our kids’ learning and wellbeing comes first.”

Read Sharon Laura’s submission. Her home is 150m from the Ashfield/Haberfield interchange, 300 metres from the Stage 1 and Stage 3 tunnel ventilation stacks, and 600 metres from the City West Link, Haberfield interchange. All of these are currently being constructed. In her submission, she expressed concerns about the impact of diesel trucks, hundreds of which now move around Haberfield each day. She wrote:

I also object to the increase in localised pollution around construction sites. In particular around the Parramatta Rd construction exit onto Bland St, Ashfield by large numbers of diesel vehicles heavily laden, revving up or idling and thus spewing out the most dangerous pollutants. Pollutants which will sit and hang low around the natural gully which surrounds the Parramatta Rd and Bland St intersection, and pollutants that may not disperse quickly or at all, – depending on the local weather conditions and volume of trucks using this location.

In other words, many citizens, councillors, local MPs and action groups did all in their power to warn of the potential harm that could be done to residents and workers. The problem is that no one listened or if they did, they were not prepared to refuse the WestCONnex M4 East application.

In its response, WestConnex EIS dismissed construction impacts as ‘temporary’ and not sufficiently significant to quantify. Temporary in this case can be as long as three years or even six years if you are unlucky enough to live in St Peters Haberfield or parts of Ashfield. This could encompass a child’s first five years or his or her primary school years. It is not temporary. Nevertheless NSW Planning adopted this view.

Under political pressure from the NSW LNP government, NSW Planning overrode the concerns of Councils, residents and independent health experts and approved the M4 East.

Monitoring along the M4 East
The Sydney Motorway Corporation is currently operating 6 monitors along the route of the M4 East, which will open next year along with two huge unfiltered ventilation stacks. One stack is in Homebush, the other in Haberfield. NSW Planning requires the monitors to be operated for one year before the tunnel opens. The monitoring is designed to reveal the impacts of the stacks on local air quality. There are a lot of problems with this strategy, which is aimed at allaying residents’ concerns.

Planning does not require any monitoring to measure the impacts on residents living near the tunnel portals or of the construction impacts that last for years. Nevertheless, the SMC monitoring is useful and provides us with a rare glimpse of air quality in the Inner West Parramatta Road corridor and evidence to use in evaluating WestConnex’s environmental claims for the M4 East and other WestConnex projects, the Western Harbour Tunnel, the F6 and Northern Beaches Link.

Sydney Motorway Corporation, which controls WestConnex, hired a company called Ecotech to do the monitoring. The monitors were turned on in mid-December 2017. Since February, I have been taking snapshots of the data on the website. The data shows the average 24 hour level ( at one point each day) and the average so far for the year (only 3 months of 12).

The readings are taken at ten-minute intervals. Frustratingly, the data disappears altogether after 30 days. Also, no rolling hourly averages are shown, which means that peaks during the day are hidden from view. This means that the daily average graphs are rathre misleading because they have a straight line from one point in the day to a point in the next. By comparison, the NSW OEH monitors show rolling hourly averages.

The hourly averages can only be calculated by following the website closely. So far I have taken many snapshots of the data. Getting a more nuanced picture is important because the short-term effects of both PM 10 and 2.5 can be serious.

The data published on SMC Ecotech website has to go through a validation process before it used for monthly reports, which only include very general results. So far there has only been one monthly report—I will come back to that in another post.

Measuring and predicting air quality is a highly complex and technical matter but some basic points can be made. Local air quality strongly reflects broader regional air quality. It can also reflect local impacts including dusty construction sites and nearby traffic. In following the website, it quickly becomes apparent that wind direction is a strong influence at all locations. Wind changes in Sydney are very frequent and can cause readings to go quite rapidly up and down. It’s important to remember that when the wind changes, it may be blowing pollution across the road or to another suburb. The monitors only measure the air quality at one particular location. The air quality may be better or worse at other locations in the area. For example, nearby trees can reduce levels of pollution.

I will begin with some reporting about Haberfield.

Results
In this post, I will report only on the two of 6 M4 East monitors that are in Haberfield.

Haberfield
Haberfield has been suffering the impacts of WestConnex for more than two years. Hundreds of homes and trees were torn down. Huge construction sites were established. Road building, tunneling and spoil recovery happens 24 hours a day. When the road opens there will be portals on both Wattle Street and Parramatta Road. If Stage 3 is approved, there will be more construction sites for another three years.

There are two monitors in Haberfield, one at Haberfield Public School and one at Ramsay Street.

Haberfield Public School
Haberfield Public School (HPS) fronts Bland Street. With the school’s approval, a monitor was placed at the back of the school. It is 200 metres from Parramatta Rd which is a major traffic route and the site of a future portal. Currently the road is being widened and the portal constructed. The HPS monitor is about 410 metres from the location of the unfiltered ventilation stack.

So far the results at the monitor for Haberfield Public School are worrying. However only three months of data have been collected, so the annual average is only an indication of the trends.

PM 2.5

According to the January report (the actual results are no longer on the website), the average for was 9 µg/m³. Since I started monitoring the site in early February, the average has been slowly rising until it is now just over 10 µg/m³.

Here is a search I did of PM 2.5 between February 7th and March 7th 2018.

This snapshot below of a graph of Haberfield School average daily levels of PM 2.5 between February 23 and March 7 shows that the levels were only below 10 μg/m3 on a few days. Not surprisingly, the annual average graph was climbing steadily towards 10 μg/m3. The spikes in levels show the weaknesses of measuring only averages.

On March 5, the daily average reached 23 μg/m3, only two below a national exceedance.

PM 10
On February 15, the PM 10 daily average shot up to just over 50 μg/m3. (Some of the other five WestCONnex monitors also recorded more than 50 μg/m3 on that day.) If this was a NSW OEH site, that would be a national exceedance unless it was later classed as an ‘exceptional event’.

This is a screenshot of a search I did of PM 10 levels at Haberfield Public School between February 1 and 27, 2018. This graph also shows that the annual average for PM 10 so far this year is hovering around the 20 μg/m3. If we were in Victoria, anything above 20 μg/m3 would be an exceedance for a full 12 months.

It shows the daily exceedance on February 15 but doesn’t show that on February 23 around midday, the PM 10 climbed to 131 μg/m3. One of the disadvantages of averages is that it doesn’t show the peaks and troughs. The data could easily presented in a way that showed the variation and still show the averages.

Ramsay Street
The Ramsay Street monitor is about 100m west of the corner of Wattle Street and Ramsay Street. Major construction work is happening not far away. It’s also near a very busy road which would be expected to get even busier when the tunnel portal opens nearby. Many trees in this area have been destroyed, including very large ones. Trees help reduce PM.

The results at this monitor are also disturbing.

There has been at least one exceedance of the PM 2.5 daily average of 25 μg/m3. The annual average for PM 10 is about 9.6 μg/m3 for the first three months of the year. There have been at least 3 days exceedance of the daily average limit of 50 μg/m3 for PM 10. The annual average for PM 10 is so far showing at about 23 μg/m3, which is only two below the national daily average limit of 25 μg/m3. This is well above the limit that has been agreed to in Victoria.

A bad day in Sydney
The weather on Sunday, March 18 was unusually hot and gusty for a Sydney autumn day. Temperatures soared across Sydney and by late afternoon the PM 10 levels were climbing. The weather was unusual but is likely to become more common as climate change progresses.

In the evening, I checked the website and noticed some very high levels of PM 10, both at Haberfield School and the site of the Ramsay Street monitor. Night work was scheduled near the corner of Ramsay Street and Wattle Streets. not far from the Ramsay Street monitor.

According to the website, at 8.30 pm, the PM 2.5 level at Ramsay Street was an extraordinarily high 51 μg/m3 and the PM 10 was 48 μg/m3. At Haberfield School, the levels were 15 μg/m3 for PM 2.5 and 68 μg/m3 for PM 10. Ten minutes later, the levels remained nearly the same at Haberfield school but at Ramsay Street, the PM 2.5 was still very high at 51 μg/m3 and the PM 10 levels had shot up to 112 μg/m3. At 9.50 pm, the Ramsay Street levels remained the same for PM 2.5 μg/m3 and had climbed to 88 for PM 10.

I wanted the check whether levels were rising at other monitors in Sydney on the OEH site on which rolling daily averages get updated hourly. Unfortunately, the OEH website for that page was not working and was not fixed until Monday morning. I later confirmed that the levels were high for PM 10 but mostly not nearly as high as Ramsay Street.

By 9.10 pm, at Haberfield School, the website showed PM 2.5 had increased to 21 and the PM 10 to 54 μg/m3. By this time, the PM 2.5 levels at Ramsay Street had dropped back to 12 μg/m3 but the PM 10 was an extraordinary 438 μg/m3. Twenty minutes later it was still at that level at 9.30 pm. The PM 10 was also rising higher at Haberfield School.

At 10 pm, the air quality had deteriorated even further. By this time the PM 10 levels at Haberfield School was 260 μg/m3 and the PM 2.5 was at 23. Other sites along the route were also high. Ramsay Street PM 10 had dropped back to 239 μg/m3 but even more worrying the more dangerous PM 2.5 was **183 μg/m3 ** where it stayed until sometime between 10.50 and midnight. In case, you don’t believe me, I took a snapshot.

I would like to know what caused the very high levels of PM 2.5 at Ramsay Street on Sunday night. While the PM 10 levels were high (although mostly not nearly as high) at monitors across the region, the PM 2.5 levels were much lower elsewhere. Does WestConnex have monitors on site? Were workers including young night traffic controllers warned? If the levels were that high at the monitor, could they have been even higher elsewhere? How many residents were exposed?

When early risers were getting up around Haberfield School on March 19th, the PM 2.5 levels were 27 μg/m3. At midday, the PM 2.5 was 30 μg/m3. By the time children were getting ready to leave school, the PM 2.5 was still 27 and PM 10 was 117 μg/m3.

According to the OEH website, it appears that only at Liverpool in Sydney’s South West were PM 2.5 levels nearly as high as at Haberfield School for most of Monday, March 19th. (The fact that there was somewhere else in Sydney was as bad as Haberfield, doesn’t make the situation any better.)

On March 20th, between 6 am and 2 pm, the PM 10 levels at Haberfield School averaged approximately 65 μg/m3. For short periods, the level was higher than 110 μg/m3. This observation is for 8 hours so it does not represent another national exceedance. It does, however, provide evidence of the air quality experienced by children at school that day.

As I finish writing this report, it’s now 9.30 pm on the evening of March 22nd. The air has cooled and it has been pouring for hours. The wind is low. The levels of PM 10 have gone down in Haberfield and elsewhere in Sydney. When I last checked at 8.10 pm on Thursday, the PM 2.5 level at Haberfield School was 10 μg/m3 and at Ramsay Street, 13 μg/m3. This is much higher than other monitors across Sydney.

Update: When I checked the Ecotech website at 8 am on March 23, the levels were 12 μg/m3 and 11 μg/m3.

Conclusion
I have a lot more information and analysis to present about air quality, including about other sites along the M4 East. I would appreciate any assistance with further information or analysis.

Apart from being seriously concerned about the impact of WestConnex on the health of Sydney’s communities, there are several specific issues that concern me.

• How does this information reflect on the methodology and results of the AIr Quality report in the WestConnex EIS? What should be done if the assumptions and predictions on which the approval was based turn out to be based on misleading or false information?
• Why were the community’s views not shown more respect by decision makers in NSW Planning? Consultation without respect is meaningless. An EIS that is controlled by Sydney Motorway Corporation and conducted by a company [AECOM that has a big commercial in WestCONnex], was bound to present the material in a positive way. I’m not suggesting that information was falsified but that the process was limited and hopelessly biased towards approving the project without sufficient protection for the community. For more on AECOM’s role, read one of my investigations published in New Matilda or this piece by Carmen Lawrence .)
• What is the situation at other WestConnex construction sites in St Peters, Arncliffe, and Kingsgrove where there are no monitoring reports available? Or further West on the widened M4 at Auburn North Public School that lies on a narrow strip of land between the WestConnex M4 and Parramatta Rd, which is busier since tolls were imposed on the widened M4.
• Originally Haberfield residents were promised that there would be no major above-ground construction in Haberfield even if Stage 3 was approved. But this has now changed. If Stage 3 is approved, WestCONnex wants to establish a major construction site even closer to the school on the corner of Bland Street and Parramatta Rd. This Stage 3 proposal is currently being actively considered by NSW Planning. We must try to stop its approval. In the light of the evidence available, I find it hard to believe that any responsible person could approve these sites.
• How much worse will the air quality get when the tunnels are opened? How many people will suffer life-threatening health illnesses or other health problems as a result of WestConnex, NorthConnex and other major road projects? What about the apartments on the southern side of Parramatta Rd where there is no monitor? WestConnex tore down buildings that sheltered these buildings from Parramatta Rd traffic and now they look directly over the construction site.

• The community needs more independent experts on their side. Many health experts warn against the health impacts of car dependency and massive road projects but detailed professional research and analysis on specific locations need time and money. Many environmental firms only work for big government and corporate players. Is there a role for citizen scientists that could amplify the work of independent scientists?
• If you start following the website, you’ll find that there are quite a few negative results, mostly for PM 10. You obviously can’t have negative PM. The community needs to know how these odd readings affect the overall findings and what a negative reading at one point of time means for the readings shortly before or afterward. Do these get adjusted upwards later? I contacted two industry sources who did not wish to be named. Both confirmed they are errors. One attributed the errors to intense moisture. The other said it could be moisture but could also be caused by other factors. Extremely positive results of 985 also occasionally appear and I have assumed those as errors which also need explaining.

This is a complex situation that needs more media attention. If any other journalist needs information, I am happy to share information.

Research support: Luke Bacon. Thanks to Lorrie Graham for 2015 photos of children protesting in Haberfield.

Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who is also a political activist. She wants her journalism to be useful to those who resist abuses of power and seek social justice rather than supporting existing power structures, which is what most journalism does. She is also a board member of the Pacific Media Centre and Frontline editor of Pacific Journalism Review. She blogs at Wendy Bacon.

Social media is a new phenomenon which enables easy and instant access to voters. Papua New Guinea’s freedom of information is #51 on the Paris-based Reporters Without Border’s World Freedom Index and this study investigates traditional sources, social media and independent blogging websites to determine where a voter can locate quality information.

The Papua New Guinea general election which begins next week has been impacted on by social media and provides a community platform for voters to express their opinions, and share news not found in traditional media.

This has aided voters because they are able learn more about the candidates. It has also disadvantaged voters because PNG journalism does use any recognised fact-checking mediums to confirm information and this leads to an ill-informed public.

There is no one completely trustworthy source of information which voters can depend on. This essay will firstly determine how this research was conducted.

Secondly, there is an abundance of candidates campaigning for this election and social media helps people learn about their policies and promises. Next, this upcoming election needs to be conducted fairly and freely so that people’s votes are counted. However, PNG does acknowledge corruption in government.

Finally, we include information gathered from interviews with local identities to determine that social media positively and negatively impacts the election.

Papua New Guinea’s elections are not regarded widely as democratically fair and free. Currently, PNG has many democratic features. It has a unicameral parliament, a Prime Minister who is the head of the elected party, a preferential voting system and conducts regular elections.

Encouraging free and fair process
The government is attempting to encourage a free and fair election process. For example, during the voting period electoral officer’s wages must be paid directly into their bank accounts rather than carrying bags of money around.

This aims to make it more difficult for officers to take bribes and for candidates to enter extra ballots and corrupt the results. This means that each individual vote gets to be counted, making the election free and fair. Former Prime Minister Sir Mekere Morauta said: “It is also important to ensure that the conduction of the election itself is free and fair and that electoral systems and processes are transparent.”

If an election is not democratic, it can breed corruption and mismanagement into the nation because votes are not counted properly and an individual can exploit the election. Currently, candidates visit voters’ homes and hand out goods such as money, food or a carton of beer to win votes.

The voters will not see the candidates again until the next election. Citizens are voting according to the free goods they are receiving instead of the policies which candidates support.

The culture of PNG elections is not focused on the future but rather immediate benefits that candidates give. PNG is aiming to improve the free and fairness within the upcoming elections however candidates are still trading goods for votes instead of good policies.

This report researches a multitude of sources of information to conclude where voters can find quality information for the upcoming election. We interviewed local Papua New Guineans to provide insight of how social media has affected the election and compares with traditional media sources.

Facebook pages are used “to educate our people about the difference between politicians and the consequences of not voting wisely”, said Northern Governor Gary Juffa, himself a major user of social media (May 25).

Community of voters
Facebook offers a community of voters who are invested in a democratic election and provides information and connections with thousands of people. In measuring the growing impact of the use of social media, we interviewed PNG locals to understand the positives and negatives of social media.

The National newspaper and the Post-Courier are two of Papua New Guinea’s top selling news sources, with The National a major advantage over its opponent’s circulation. We regularly checked these sites to gather data.

Printing presses located in Port Moresby and Lae on the opposite side of the country, enable faster distribution by road instead of expensive air freight.

However, internet usage in PNG has been increasing since 2000 from 44,887, to a predicted 906,695 users in 2016. Social media such as Facebook and Twitter provide instant news to a growing number of users and therefore are serious contenders to local newspapers who are now uploading information online.

We also collaborated information from independent blogs such as Keith Jackson & Friends: PNG Attitude and PNG Blogs. Independent blogs were essential to our research as they highlighted articles which are noticeably absent on traditional new sites.

These are popular among voters as there are always hundreds of comments and they are often linked to the platform of Facebook. Gathering information from social media, traditional sources and independent blogs has provided a wealth of information on the upcoming election.

One of the primary difficulties faced by voters in the elections in PNG is the sheer volume of candidates vying for seat. Of the 44 political parties who will be contesting for the 111 seats in Parliament, there are “2614 candidates (preliminary figure) nominated nationwide.”

In some areas of PNG, such as the Eastern Highlands province, there are 396 candidates.

Impossible for understanding
With so many candidates running for seats, voters are not able to make fully informed decisions when casting their votes as it is near impossible to develop a comprehensive understanding of each candidate and the policies they are arguing for.

However, social media allows candidates instant, rapid and easy access to share policies, promises and their personalities with voters. Paul Barker (2017) confirmed that social media is being used this election.

“Candidates and parties are devoting a fair bit of attention to the social media, as well as media and on the ground publicity,” he said.

There are still too many candidates for voters to follow. With each candidate attempting to gain attention, promises made in the run up to the election have become increasingly esoteric.

“Plenty promise to end corruption, build sealed roads and bring services to remote communities, things for which there is simply no money and sometimes no economic justification”, says ABC correspondent Eric Tlozek.

The upcoming election has 2614 candidates rallying for votes and social media is providing a platform for candidates to stand out

Social media has impacted the 2017 election and this provides both positive and negative outcomes. Locals who were interviewed agreed that social media was gaining traction among voters.

Post-Courier journalist Gorethy Kenneth said: “It is the first election where almost every party is using social media. The opposition have been using it to promote themselves and kick up controversy and the current government uses it to promote their achievements”.

Northern Province Governor Gary Juffa also says: “Social media is going to have a huge impact. It’s helping people learn and communicate far more effectively than ever before”.

Influence ‘marginal’
Countering this, Dr Susan Merrell said: ‘’I believe social media will eventually have a profound impact on issues such as elections. Now, I think the influence is marginal”.

Various ways social media benefit voters in the election includes that it creates easy and quick access for individuals with internet and voters are able to join established communities on Facebook such as PNG News, Media Monitors and The Voice of PNG.

In these Facebook groups, people are regularly documenting the progress of the election, giving their opinions on the happenings of government and traditional media and informing voters on what the media has missed.

An example of this occurred on the Media Monitors Facebook Page.

“So no official protests about PNG journalists being banned from the Australian PM’s press conference? The silence is deafening,” Bob Howarth, a former Post-Courier chief executive and publisher, wrote on April 9.

A commentor extended this thought with, “If PNG media is banned that’s an insult to our sovereignty as a country”.

From this point community members work together to uncover why this happened.

Alexander Rheeney, president of the PNG Media Council, had messaged local media stations to learn why journalists were not present at the conference. Only one news organisation replied.

“The single response from the Post-Courier did not constitute a quorum that would have compelled the council to act on their behalf”, said Rheeney, a former editor-in-chief of the Post-Courier on April 24.

Neglected issues in traditional media
Throughout the networks that Facebook creates it uncovers issues that traditional media is neglecting. Independent blog sites also reported on the banning of local journalists during the Australian Prime Minister’s visit.

The benefits of social media is that it is an easily accessible network of people who provide information and can clarify information.

Despite the benefits there is criticism that social media can lead to an ill-informed public.
Information is being spread rapidly and is not always accurate.

Rheeney said: “Both traditional media and new media in PNG continue to experience quality control issues leading to media organisations broadcasting and publishing incorrect information.”

There are currently no media which news articles or opinions are processed through. This allows articles to enter the public which are not legitimate or do not investigate issues thoroughly.

There is no one reliable source of information for voters to gather information. The current solution is for a voter to read from difference sources for political information such as social media and traditional news sources.

Dr Susan Merrell says: “I find that relying on only one is no good – you need a variety.”

Ill-informed voters ‘dangerous’
An ill-informed voter is dangerous. They may not see the benefits of voting at all or may miss the chance of voting for a leader who supports their goals or they’ve voted according to bias media, says Dr Joseph McMurray.

This means that there are wrong votes or none at all entering the election. As social media becomes a source of information for the election, it cannot be guaranteed to be accurate and a voter must consume information from multiple sources.

The social media phenomenon has introduced a new facet of information for Papua New Guinean voters for the upcoming election. The PNG election is currently battling corruption to become more democratic, the former Prime Minister has acknowledged that the election process is corrupt.

PNG is implementing reforms to create free and fairness applicable to the upcoming election. This makes freedom of information to the public essential as they need to know what is happening to their vote.

This essay gathered information from an assembly of sources including traditional media, social media sites, independent bloggers and PNG locals.

It was discovered that social media provided a platform for voters to gain information about their candidates, however it is unlikely for any voter to make an informed decision because there just too many candidates for them to gain a good understanding of their policies.

There are many benefits to a functioning social media community. This includes a network of people prepared to learn about issues which the traditional media has missed. Most people have said that social media is a great place to gather information and that it is gaining popularity.

No completely trusted
However, it is not to be completely trusted. Any article can be posted to traditional and social media websites without having to pass through any fact-checking mediums.

This is dangerous as individuals can be ill-informed and repercussions include people not voting or voting for the wrong person.

Therefore, until there are media for articles to be processed through there is no one accurate source to locate information. It is essential for voters to read a range of information to be well-informed.

The Papua New Guinea 2017 general election runs from June 24 until July 8.

Jess Hopkinson and Holly Driscoll are Community Volunteer Interns in Law/Communication at Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus.

The source list is abridged and embedded in the article. Interviews:
Barker, P 2017, PNG Interview, May 1.
Juffa, G 2017, PNG Interview, May 25.
Kenneth, G 2017, PNG Interview, May 2.
Merrel, S 2017, PNG Interview, May 28.
Rheeney, A 2017, PNG Interview, April 24.

OPINION: By David Robie

Surprising that a conference involving some of the brightest minds in journalism education from around the world should be ignored by New Zealand’s local media.

Some 220 people from 43 countries were at the Fourth World Journalism Education Congress (WJEC) conference in Auckland.

The range of diversity alone at the Auckland University of Technology hosted event was appealing, but it was the heady mix of ideas and contributions that offered an inspiring backdrop.

Topics included strategies for teaching journalism for mobile platforms – the latest techniques; “de-westernising” journalism education in an era of new media genres; transmedia storytelling; teaching hospitals; twittering, facebooking and snapchat — digital media under the periscope; new views on distance learning, and 21st century ethical issues in journalism are just a representative sample of what was on offer.

Keynote speakers included Divina Frau-Meigs (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle) with a riveting account on how “powerful journalism” makes “prime ministers jump”, the Center of Public Integrity’s Peter Bale (a New Zealander) on the need to defend press freedom, and Tongan newspaper publisher and broadcaster who turned “inclusivity” on its head with an inspiring “include us” appeal from the Pacific,”where we live in the biggest continent on planet Earth”.

But for me, the most moving message of all came not from those who spoke about “reporting dangerously” (such as Simon Cottle) or the very future of journalism, but from a young quietly spoken Papua New Guinean woman who has “lived” through a freedom of speech and the press struggle while facing live bullets.

Emily Matasororo, leader of the Journalism Strand at the University of Papua New Guinea, was on campus that fateful day last month (June 8) when heavily armed PNG police in camouflage fatigues opened fire with tear gas and live rounds on the peaceful students. She was actually in the crowd fired on.

Emily’s testimony
Matasororo gave her testimony at a WJEC16 panel on journalism education in the Pacific chaired by me, with the presence of the panel members being sponsored by the NZ Institute of Pacific Research.

Explaining how the two months of student unrest began across Papua New Guinea’s six universities – but mostly centred on UPNG in the capital of Port Moresby, and the University of Technology in the second city Lae – she said it was an irony that protests were triggered on World Press Freedom Day (May 3).

“The Journalism Strand was preparing to celebrate freedom of the press that day. However, this did not eventuate because the academic space was taken up by a student forum.

“This was the beginning of an eight-week stand-off by the students who demanded that the Prime Minister, Peter O’Neill, step down from office and face police over allegations of fraud. However, the prime minister said: ‘I will not step down.’”

Matasororo said O’Neill had challenged the issue of an arrest warrant against him, saying this case was now before the courts. Under the Papua New Guinea Constitution, O’Neill could be removed by a no-confidence vote, or on criminal charges. But the former option was shut down this week when O’Neill survived a no-confidence vote by 85 to 21 votes.

Among other issues that spurred the students into organising class boycotts and protests was the O’Neill government’s actions in dismantling the police fraud squad [National Fraud and Anti-Corruption directorate] – the very office that would investigate the prime minister. But, as Matasororo pointed out, the squad was later reinstated.

Another O’Neill move was adjourning Parliament until November to stave off the possibility of the no-confidence vote. (A Supreme Court ruling forced the reconvening of Parliament and the vote).

Violating the Constitution
Students became convinced that Prime Minister O’Neill was acting in violation of the Constitution and they saw themselves as defending the rule of law on behalf of all Papua New Guineans.

Earlier in the protests, students at UPNG had set on fire 800 copies of the two national dailies being sold at the Waigani campus front gates in frustration over what they perceived to be the news media taking sides and promoting the O’Neill government’s agenda.

“The burning was an indication that they disliked the papers’ coverage of events leading up the [first] protest. Why should the Student Representative Council go as far as preferring certain media outlets over others?” Matasororo asked the forum which was syndicated globally on livestream.

“The Post-Courier, The National and television station EM TV were banned covering student activities on campus. The UPNG is a public and government-run institution and is a public space open to everyone, including the media. If students reacted that way, it brought up issues of credibility and integrity of the freedom of the press in Papua New Guinea.

“Which brings to light the question of ethics.”

Matasororo quoted from a Loop PNG report bylined Carmella Gware, who talked to a student leader in spite of the ban on local media:

“We saw the newspapers and saw that the reports were very shallow and biased.

“They were not actual reports of what we students are portraying at the university. That’s why, to show our frustration, we went out to the bus stop and burnt those papers.

“What we displayed in the morning shows that we have no trust in the media,” the student leader stated (sic) said.

— Carmella Gware – Loop PNG

Investigation needed
“While I acknowledge and appreciate the tireless efforts of the media’s coverage of the student protests,’ said Matasororo, “for me this is a very strong statement that needs to be investigated.

“This needs to be done by all stakeholders concerned to promote fair and just reporting and the essence of good ethics and good journalism.

“The stakeholders must include, but not be limited to he following: the publisher and managements of the papers, the Media Council of PNG, Transparency International, Ombudsman Commission and the journalism educators of the UPNG and the Catholic-run Divine Word University.

“For the publishers, credibility is questioned; for the Media Council it is a threat against the profession; and for the educators – where are we going wrong in teaching ethics, are we giving enough prominence that it deserves?

“These are questions that need to be answered, in order to promote a robust and conducive environment in which journalists should operate in.”

On June 8, said Matasororo, the protests – until then peaceful – “took an ugly turn”. Several students were wounded, some news reports saying as many as 30. But there were no deaths.

“Social media was running hot with images and comments uploaded in real time. Some of what was coming from social media was emotional reporting.

“Information was distorted with some news stations reporting casualties.

“An Australian-based media outlet reported four deaths and isolated reports on radio, television and social media that day created a new level of fear, confusion and anxiety among residents.

“For me that day, I saw how powerful the media was, and when it is not applied correctly, it can be tragic.”

This article is republished with permission from David Robie’s blog Café Pacific.

The full panel discussion on Pacific journalism education at WJEC16.

By Stefan Armbruster

Nauru’s newly re-elected justice minister has accused Australian media of “bias” that “failed dismally” to destabilise the government of President Baron Waqa.

The Nauru Justice Minister has accused the “ABC and others” of supporting “ringleaders of riots against the government” and opposition MPs who lost their seats in the election.

Since last weekend’s election, the Australian Federal Police has confirmed it is still investigating allegations of bribery of Nauruan MPs by an Australian company.

The Waqa government was returned to office at a general election that was declared “free and fair” by Commonwealth and Pacific election observer missions.

Head of the Commonwealth observer mission, former Kiribati president Anote Tong, questioned why no foreign media were permitted access to the country to cover the poll, including SBS World News.

Nauru has no independent media and the government operates a state television and radio service.

In a statement, the Nauru government said: “(Justice minister) David Adeang said certain media outlets like the ABC, Fairfax, The Guardian and Radio New Zealand have “unethically attempted to influence our domestic politics by spreading lies, promoting Opposition MPs and refusing to report the huge progress Nauru has made over the past three years under the Waqa government”.

‘Failed dismally’
“However he said their campaign to destabilise the government has failed dismally, with the defeat of their favoured candidates leaving them humiliated.

“We understand that we receive more scrutiny because the agenda of these organisations is really against the Australian Government’s offshore processing policy, but we are sick of the lies and the lack of respect of our sovereignty,” the statement said, quoting Adeang directly.

“They (the media) now must accept the will of the Nauruan people in a democratic vote, respect our country, our Government and the fact that we are a sovereign country not beholden to them, and start reporting the truth,” Adeang said.

Nauru charges a non-refundable $8000 journalist visa application fee and only two media organisations, The Australian and Channel 9’s A Current Affair, have been granted access in the last two years.

Australia is Nauru’s major aid donor and operates the controversial refugee and asylum seeker detention centre on the tiny Pacific island nation of about 10,000 people.

On election day, one of the former opposition MPs, Roland Kun, slipped out of the country on a New Zealand passport after his Nauruan one was cancelled for alleged involvement in the anti-government protests last year.

Kun told Radio New Zealand International he was barred from leaving because he was a potential witness in a long-running Australian Federal Police investigation into Australian phosphate dealer Getax and allegedly bribery of Nauruan government MPs.

Willing witness
“I will be availing myself to the Australian Federal Police if that investigation continues. I still want to be presenting evidence and I am more than willing to be a witness in that matter,” Kun said.

The AFP in a statement to SBS said: “The AFP can confirm it is conducting an investigation into Getax. As this investigation is ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment any further”.

Details of the AFP investigation, know as Operation Zurzach, have been revealed by the Australian media, including the ABC and Fairfax, through freedom of information (FOI) requests.

A Nauru government spokesman last year told the ABC the bribery allegations were “offensive to our nation”.

“They are of no interest to the people of Australia as they are domestic issues of Nauru.

Getax have consistently denied any wrongdoing.

Stefan Armbruster is Brisbane-based Pacific affairs reporter for SBS News. This article is republished with permission.

• Former Nauru MP Roland Kun returns to NZ
• Nauru government accuses foreign media

Journalism education is challenged by issues in all regions of the world and the South Pacific is no different. At the 4th World Journalism Education Congress (WJEC), held at the Auckland University of Technology this week, four educators from different countries in the Pacific put forward their issues and challenges.

To set the tone for the session, panel chair Professor David Robie, director of the Pacific Media Centre, showed a “citizen media” video clip of police opening fire on students at the University of Papua New Guinea last month, wounding at least 23.

PNG: Traumatised
Emily Matasororo, journalism and public relations strand leader at the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) gave some insights into the incident.

She said the majority of students in UPNG come from rural backgrounds and are trying to get into tertiary education to support their families, tribes and communities in search of a better life.

“I was there among the students when the police opened fire and I was really traumatised by that,” Matasororo said.

The students had burnt newspapers in front of the campus gate because they thought the media was taking sides and promoting the government’s agenda.

Matasororo said one of the student leaders told her that they had seen newspaper reports and found them “shallow and biased”.

“For me that was a very strong statement coming from a student leader,” Matasororo said.

Fiji: Home grown media
Dr Shailendra Singh, head of journalism at the University of South Pacific (USP), highlighted the lack of journalism training in the region, saying the situation was “critical”.

He said the Pacific faced major threats like climate change, overfishing and corruption on a grand scale.

“There is lack of support throughout the region for journalism education and for tertiary teaching in journalism,” Dr Singh said.

Dr Singh expressed his concern over the many expatriates that are teaching journalism in the Pacific.

“[It’s important to have] home grown media educators who understand the terrain and also have a stake in it.”

Giving advice to journalism lecturers, he said: “Educators should take up research topics for the sake of their own intellectual and professional development and enhance teaching through their research.

“USP is encouraging a lot of research, including with cash incentives and opportunities to attend conferences if you publish material.

“Cross-discipline research with people of other universities can also work wonders,” he said.

Samoa: Bridge the gap
Misa Vicky Lepou, head of journalism at the National University of Samoa (NUS), said answers were needed to “bridge the gap” between the media industry and journalism education.

“Another important requirement is building trust between the media and the community. I wonder if the community respects media as a honourable profession?” she asked the audience.

According to Misa, Samoan media outlets need a lot of training in ethics.

Vanuatu: Work in progress
Charlie David Mandavah, course coordinator of journalism at the Vanuatu Institute of Technology (VIT), said although the success rate of the course was high, the school lacked qualified trainers.

“There is a success rate of 60 percent of students finding jobs in the media industry.

But we haven’t been able to find qualified trainers or journalists to take up the role of teaching and the evolution of the course remains a work in progress.”

Other issues Mandavah highlighted was the “fraught” relationship between the media and the government in Vanuatu, computer illiteracy which leaves students unprepared for the real world, and the “subdued” role of females, meaning they often lacked confidence to ask the hard questions.

A Papua New Guinea media educator today called for an investigation into coverage of the two months of protest at the nation’s universities, including last month’s incident when police opened fire on peaceful students.

Emily Matasororo, leader of the journalism strand at the University of Papua New Guinea, was critical of students protesting against the media earlier in the period of unrest for burning the two national newspapers, PNG Post-Courier and The National, on campus.

But she added that they did this to “show their frustrations” over how they viewed the media as taking sides in the dispute.

The students were calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Peter O’Neill and for him to cooperate with a police investigation into corruption allegations.

“The burning was an indication that they disliked the paper’s coverage of events leading up to the protest,” Matasororo said in a Pacific journalism education panel session at the Fourth World Journalism Education Congress hosted at Auckland University of Technology.

“Why should the Student Representative Council go as far as preferring certain media outlets over others?”

The Post-Courier, The National and television station EMTV were banned from covering student activities on campus.

‘Public space’
“The UPNG is a public and government-run institution and is a public space open to everyone, including the media.

“If students reacted that way, it brought up issues of credibility and integrity of the freedom of the press in Papua New Guinea.”

Matasororo also said that this brought to light questions of ethics.

She quoted a statement from a student leader online in PNGLoop that described the news reports and “shallow and biased” and saying they “have no trust in the media”.

“While I acknowledge and appreciate the tireless efforts of the media’s coverage of the student protest, for me, this is a strong statement that needs to be investigated,” she said.

It needs to be done by all stakeholders concerned to promote “fair and just reporting” and “the essence of good ethics and journalism”.

The stakeholders included the newspaper publishers and management, the Media Council of PNG, Transparency International, Ombudsman Commission and journalism educators at UPNG and Divine Word University at Madang.

‘Black Wednesday’
Matasororo presented an analysis of the unfolding events in PNG.

On June 8, heavily armed police fired upon the peaceful protesters at UPNG after a scuffle and up to 30 were reportedly wounded. Some international media reported four deaths but this was later denied by Port Moresby hospital authorities.

To mark what has been dubbed “black Wednesday”, UPNG’s journalism Strand plans to unveil and wall display to tell the “untold stories” and a photo montage of “unseen images” for future students to “ponder over”.

Dr David Robie, director of the Pacific Media Centre, was chair of the Pacific journalism education panel.

Journalism educators from across the Pacific have raised concerns about the current state of journalism globally at the 4th World Journalism Education Congress (WJEC) at the Auckland University of Technology this week.

The panel of educators from across New Zealand and Australia agreed better practice in journalism is required in order to truly represent diverse communities and those seen as “minorities” and disadvantaged.

Bernard Whelan, manager of Whitireia’s journalism programme, Tara Ross of the University of Canterbury, Professor David Robie of the Pacific Media Centre, and Kathryn Shine of Western Australia’s Curtin University, all said better practice could be achieved through instilling improved methods with young and aspiring journalists. 

This echoed points raised by both Dr Lee Duffield and journalism educator Dr Philip Cass on Wednesday at the JEERA preconference that students were at the heart of developments in the industry.

‘Bicultural responsibility’
Whelan noted how the mainstay of American news values left no apparent room in the mainstream media to explore more “indigenous” and alternative models of reporting.

He stressed journalists, particularly in New Zealand regarding Māori, had a “bicultural responsibility” to at least consider these forms and hoped that through his PhD research a bicultural model for journalism education could be “deeply ingrained” into Whitireia’s programme.

Ross noted how students needed to report with and not on the community, which was not currently the norm as it was different from “normative” educational process.

She stressed the importance of students understanding the consequences of their stories and noted how they need a measure of accountability.

This evoked a vocal response from one of the delegates present, who stressed that a journalist’s stories are not momentary for those that are featured, as the story has a “lasting, lifelong digital attachment”.

Negative focus detrimental
Shine however, raised the important issue of the prevalence of negativity in the media and the media’s seeming inability to pull away from the “if it bleeds, it leads” mentality that continues to drive the mainstream news cycle.

She said such a negative focus might mean the media was “out of sync” with the very community it sought to inform. This echoed sentiments delivered earlier by Ross, who noted that what the media perceived as the community needing was not necessarily what it wanted.

Shine also highlighted the importance of pulling away from such negative stories and perceptions with her research into teachers’ perceptions of the news and journalists.

She found more than 80 percent of teachers believed coverage of their work was negative, while 60 percent said “sweeping generalisations” resulted in media coverage being biased.

More than half concluded that the media did not convey the realities of both schools and teaching, she said.

Such revelations were concerning, as it led the community to question the credibility of the media.

In the Q and A session following the panel, one delegate raised the concern that such issues in the coverage of education posed serious dilemmas for the potential influx of young journalists, as “teachers have a fundamental influence in students career choices”.

Independent media important
Pacific Media Centre director Professor David Robie drew on the examples of Pacific Scoop and Asia Pacific Report in a case study to stress the importance of the presence of independent, alternative media in journalism schools for students to explore their potential.

Dr Robie highlighted how such media demonstrated best practice as a “cornerstone of democracy”.

He said it was integral to involve students in such a process, and noted the “innovative” work that had been achieved by postgraduate students on the PMC’s Asia-Pacific Journalism Studies course over the past few years, including missions to the Pacific.

Students from the course had covered the the 2014 general election in Fiji — the first since the 2006 militrary coup — and had assignments involving climate change in Fiji, and the Pacific Islands Forum in the Cook Islands and Vanuatu.

Both the panelists and delegates noted that if changes were not made to dominant paradigms and mainstays of journalism soon that the “rubber would hit the road” leading to an internal moral crises within the industry.

• WJEC16: Role of journalism students
• Asia Pacific Report

Both deputy mayor Penny Hulse and Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy were critical in the opening session about communities that were rendered “invisible” and challenged the media to give a more balanced reflection of the diversity in New Zealand.

Various speakers also described most mainstream media as being biased in its representations of Māori communities and failure to live up to the obligations of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi partnership.

Several speakers were critical of the “whiteness” of the country’s major newsrooms, saying they did not “represent the face of Auckland today”.

But the strongest criticisms came in a panel addressing the theme “ethnic communities and their representation by mainstream and ethnic media” facilitated by broadcaster Wallace Chapman and featuring both mainstream journalists and community commentators.

Agricultural researcher Dr Mustafa Farouk, chairman of the Federations of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ), cited research in both Britain and New Zealand that indicated news media coverage about Islam and Muslims was overwhelmingly negative (ranging between 90 percent and 70 percent).

Asked by a member of the audience how long had this gone on for, he replied: “Ever since 9/11”, in reference to the September 11, 2001, attack on New York’s Twin Towers by jihadists.

Muslim diversity
Dr Farouk stressed the diversity of New Zealand’s Muslim population at just over 46,000, noting that a quarter of them were born in this country. Of the overseas Muslims, 21 percent were from the Pacific, 27 percent Asian and 23 percent African or Middle East origin, with the balance being Māori or European.

New Zealand Herald’s social issues reporter Simon Collins and diversity, ethnic affairs and immigration reporter Lincoln Tan commented on how mainstream media could improve the quality of their reporting with greater diversity among news teams.

Both journalists were complimented on their own contribution to reporting ethnic affairs.

Several speakers acknowledged that there had been an improvement in recent years but there was still a long way to go.

Jenny Rankine, co-founder of Kupu Taea: Media and the Tiriti research project, advised seminar participants to “ignore mainstream media” and “tell your own story through ethnic and social media”.

• Asia Pacific Report picture gallery at the summit
• NZ attitudes improving on ethnic diversity
• Migrant Action Trust
• Multicultural New Zealand

Prominent Auckland academics and community leaders have called on the New Zealand police to formally apologise for “rubbishing” new research alleging that police are racially harassing and assaulting African youth.

The two-year research project was led by Auckland University of Technology associate professor in social sciences, Dr Camille Nakhid.

Last week, New Zealand police issued a press statement claiming that the research was nothing more than “unsubstantiated claims from anonymised individuals” made online.

Yesterday, at the official launch of the research in Mt Roskill, Auckland, about 400 people called on the police to acknowledge that the research was credible and legitimate.

AUT associate professor of public policy, Love Chile, said the police had been “completely dismissive”.

“This research went through a stringent ethics approval. We are demanding an apology”, said Dr Chile.

Dr Chile called on police to issue everyone they stopped with a leaflet advising them of their human rights, similar to those displayed in hospitals.

‘Tip of the iceberg’
“The issue of racism within the police is fundamental. We may deny it but what we are seeing in this report is only the tip of the iceberg. Insidious racism has to be addressed” said Dr Chile.

Noah Ghebremichael, vice-president of the African Communities Forum Inc. (Acofi), also called on the police to retract their claims that the research was unsubstantiated.

Marvin Kamau – Postgraduate student, AUT University

Presenting the report, co-researcher Kizito Essuman said it was very unfair that the positive relationship African youth organisations had tried to foster with the police did not seem to positively influence the culture of policing on the streets.

Dr Nakhid emphasised that the alleged police abuses were not isolated incidents.

“It is not one or two police. It is a police culture” said Dr Nakhid.

The police abuses of African youth had far reaching effects – the African community in general did not trust the police and so even when they were victims of crime, they did not always call the police, Dr Nakhid said.

Māori activists at the meeting welcomed the new research, pointing out that Māori were the original victims of police racism.

‘Country based on racism’
“This country is based on racism. If you stand up now, maybe you can stop the mass incarceration of African youth” said one speaker.

The police have said they will not take action based on the research unless individual participants (whose identities were protected in the report) come forward and lay complaints.

This was rejected by the audience at the meeting with one speaker saying that the Independent Police Conduct Authority of New Zealand was not “independent” at all, but was “80 percent police investigating police”.

Dr Nakhid said instead of arguing about why African youth did not come to police after being abused by other police, the police could solve the problem by ending their mistreatment of African youth.

Members of the audience also rejected the notion that the arrests and alleged abuses of African youth may have come about because of “unconscious bias” on the part of the police.

With “prisons full of Māori and Pacific Islanders, that is a bit more than unconscious bias” said criminologist Dr John Buttle of AUT, while another speaker said Muslim youth were also racially profiled by the police.

The police, represented at the meeting by Senior Sergeant Joe Tipene, the police Māori Responsiveness Adviser, would not commit to apologising for their dismissal of the report and maintained that “the full details of everything that has been said” should be brought to them.

Anna Majavu is an independent journalist and a former contributing editor on the Pacific Media Centre’s Pacific Media Watch freedom project.

Photo gallery at the forum by Del Abcede

Africa On My Sleeve website

African Youth: Experiences with the police and the New Zealand justice system – the full report

THE PRICE OF POLITICS … CONTINUED

By Dan McGarry

The [Vanuatu] Prime Minister’s Office has wrongly accused the Daily Post of calling Sato Kilman’s name into disrepute, and of partisan bias. These allegations cannot go unanswered.

We thank Prime Minister Sato Kilman and his team for their contribution to this nationally important dialogue. We regret that it took the publication of our editorial to get a response, but any kind of talk—no matter how heated—is preferable to the silence that preceded it.

The PM’s response adds useful context to the conversation. We spent over a thousand words detailing the most recent chapter in what he rightly notes is a series of failures that has spanned a decade.

But the PM helped to pull the timeline further back, and to show how even the World Bank plan—which we described as having “warts”—was flawed in important ways. This is useful context, and we are better off for it.

But the accusation that we have somehow politicised the issue is simply false. The entire piece is an argument against politicising this topic.

Yes, Mr Kilman’s government is hardly the only one guilty of playing political football with the lives of our travellers. We agree on that point. The key point in the editorial was:

“Three different governments, three different plans. That’s no way to run a country.”

Back to 2008
We can extend the blame all the way back to 2008, when a runway resurfacing plan should have been started.

Daily Post publisher Marc Neil-Jones asks, “why didn’t Mr Kilman demand that something be done during his term as Prime Minister when it was well known that the situation was getting critical? At the end of the day, the decision to stop flights landing at Bauerfield has come directly under Mr Kilman’s watch as Prime Minister.

“In politics someone else is always at fault and we accept that in the case of Bauerfield runway, there have clearly been errors made by successive governments that have culminated in the current situation which will be catastrophic for the economy in Vanuatu.

“We hope that the arguments over who is responsible do not detract from the real questions demanding urgent answers. When is the runway going to be fixed? When will Air New Zealand and Virgin flights resume? When will Qantas resume its code share?”

The World Bank confirmed [on Friday] it had just received a letter from the government of Vanuatu, asking them to continue their work on this critical task. The government has clearly come to the same conclusion that we advocated in the first place:

“Why the World Bank plan? Because it’s the one we have. It’s got warts, sure, but it’s the one plan that has the shortest time to completion, and the only one that’s survived a proper and public due diligence. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about pragmatism.”

Bias accusation rejected
Finally, concerning the accusation that the Daily Post is guilty of political bias: We reject that accusation.

Marc Neil-Jones: “We can assure you that Daily Post has never sided and will never side with any political party to try and get them into government.

“We know that it is a sensitive time after elections but do not accept the comment that ‘Daily Post is using a very serious issue to clearly attempt to bring disrepute to the current caretaker Prime Minister’. We would simply say that the 14 MPs, including ministers in this government, who were jailed on bribery and corruption charges, have already brought your government into disrepute well before news of the cancellation of flights to Bauerfield.”

That said, my door is always open. Email me at dan@dailypost.vu. Call me at 55 44 602. Drop by our office.

Note: Some have said that the Daily Post has traditionally leaned away from the Moderate and toward the Nationalist political agenda. I suspect that this perception is the colonial legacy of French and English rivalry rearing its ugly head. I can only respond that, having grown up in Québec, I sympathise deeply. I firmly believe we should cast off this last vestige of colonialism and quit fighting Europe’s cultural wars.

Venez me voir. Je vous écouterai, et j’espère qu’on s’entendra.

Caretaker PM slams Vanuatu Daily Post

Full Office of PM letter

‘The price of politics’ editorial