On this World Press Freedom Day, we in the Pacific stand together to defend and promote the right to freedom of expression — now facing new and complex challenges in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

This year’s global theme is “Reporting a Brave New World: The impact of Artificial Intelligence on Press Freedom.”

AI is changing the way we gather, share, and consume information. It offers exciting tools that can help journalists work faster and reach more people, even across our scattered islands.

• READ MORE: Rabuka salutes Fiji media but warns against taking freedom for granted
• NZ fares well in latest RSF press freedom index as authoritarian regimes stifle Asia-Pacific media
• RSF 2025 World Press Freedom rankings
• RSF World Press Freedom Index 2025: economic fragility a leading threat to press freedom

But AI also brings serious risks. It can be used to spread misinformation, silence voices, and make powerful tech companies the gatekeepers of what people see and hear.

In the Pacific, our media are already working with limited resources. Now we face even greater pressure as AI tools are used without fair recognition or payment to those who create original content.

Our small newsrooms struggle to compete with global platforms that are reshaping the media landscape.

We must not allow AI to weaken media freedom, independence, or diversity in our region.

Respect our Pacific voices
Instead, we must ensure that new technologies serve our people, respect our voices, and support the role of journalism in democracy and development.

Today, PINA calls for stronger regional collaboration to understand and manage the impact of AI. We urge governments, tech companies, and development partners to support Pacific media in building digital skills, protecting press freedom, and ensuring fair use of our content.

Let us ensure that the future of journalism in the Pacific is guided by truth, fairness, and freedom — not by unchecked algorithms.

Happy World Press Freedom to all media workers across the Pacific!

 Kalafi Moala is president of the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and also editor of Talanoa ‘o Tonga. Republished from TOT with permission.

An Aotearoa New Zealand-based community education provider is preparing a new course aimed to help media professionals in the Pacific region understand and respond to the complex issue of disinformation.

The eight-week course “A Bit Sus (Pacific)”, developed by the Dark Times Academy, will be offered free to journalists, editors, programme directors and others involved in running media organisations across the Pacific, beginning in February 2025.

“Our course will help participants recognise common tactics used by disinformation agents and support them to deploy proven educational and communications techniques including lateral reading and ‘pre-bunking’,” says Dark Times Academy co-founder Mandy Henk.

• READ MORE:  Welcome to Dark Times Academy and course information
• Ramping up counter-misinformation training

As well as teaching participants how to recognise and respond to disinformation, the course offers an understanding of how technology, including generative AI, influences the spread of disinformation.

The course is an expanded and regionalised adaption of the “A Bit Sus” education programme which was developed by Henk in her former role as CEO of Tohatoha Aotearoa Commons.

“As the Pacific Islands have experienced accelerated growth in digital connectivity over the past few years — thanks to new submarine cable networks and satellite technology — the region has also seen a surge in harmful rumours and disinformation that is increasingly disrupting the ability to share accurate and truthful information across Pacific communities,” Henk says.

“By taking a skills-based approach to countering disinformation, our programme can help to spread the techniques needed to mitigate the risks posed by digital technologies.”

Evidence-based counter disinformation
Henk says delivering evidence-based counter disinformation education to Pacific Island media professionals requires a depth of expertise in both counter-disinformation programming and the range of Pacific cultures and political contexts.

“We are delighted to have several renowned academics advising the programme, including Asia Pacific Media Network’s Dr David Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report and founder of the Pacific Media Centre, and Professor Chad Briggs from the Asian Institute of Management.

“Their expertise will help us to deliver a world class programme informed by the best evidence available.”

The programme will be co-taught by Henk, as well as American journalist and counter disinformation expert Brooke Binkowski, and New Zealand-based extremism expert Byron Clark, who is also a co-founder of the Dark Times Academy.

“Countering disinformation and preventing the harm it causes in the Pacific Islands is crucially important to communities who wish to maintain and strengthen existing democratic institutions and expand their reach,” says Clark.

Binkowski says: “With disinformation narratives on the rise globally, this course is a timely and eye-opening look at its existence, its purveyors and their goals, and how to effectively combat it.

“I look forward to sharing what I have learned in my years in the field during this course.”

The course is being offered by Dark Times Academy using funds awarded in a public competitive grant offered by the US Embassy in New Zealand.

While it is funded by the US, it is a completely independent programme overseen by Dark Times Academy and its academic consultants.

• More information on Dark Times Academy and register your interest in the course at: https://www.darktimesacademy.co.nz

The New Zealand Herald and its publisher are failing to follow a golden rule: Engage with readers when they question your actions.

The Herald is currently confronted by two controversies. The first is its decision to use artificial intelligence to write editorials. The second is its decision to publish a highly divisive advertising wrap-around paid for by the lobby group Hobson’s Pledge.

In neither case has the newspaper or its owner NZME offered an explanation that justifies its decisions. Indeed, it has given little insight into what its decision-making processes were on either matter.

• READ MORE: AI-created editorials: What in HAL’s name was The Herald thinking?
• Hobson’s Pledge front page ad is propaganda disguised as news — Shilo Kino

Following RNZ’s revelations over The Herald’s use of iterative AI to write editorials, The Herald’s reaction was to simply say it did not apply sufficient “journalistic rigour” and that it would be calling a meeting of all editorial staff to discuss AI policy.

This commentary last week posed a series of questions relating to the processes that went into the publication of those editorials. If they were answered at the staff meeting, neither I nor The Herald’s other readers are any the wiser.

Staff were left in absolutely no doubt that what went on at that meeting was confidential and Herald staff I have spoken to have scrupulously observed that obligation not to disclose what occurred. NZME declined to comment to other media that enquired about the meeting (the fact it was taking place had been publicly disclosed).

Instead, several days later the company used its customary conduit, editor-at-large Shayne Currie’s Media Insider column, to ensure the narrative remained positive.

Review of protocols
Currie disclosed some of what was discussed at the meeting (I guess he had a waiver on confidentiality) and said The Herald “will review and further tighten artificial intelligence protocols”. He did not, however disclose the mood of the newsroom in reaction to the news that editorials had been written by AI, choosing instead to merely report editor-in-chief Murray Kirkness “addressing concerns from staff”.

Kirkness apparently told the meeting critical issues were “the level of human oversight, that the publication was transparent with readers, and that policies were continually reviewed and updated”.

None of that told readers how or why the editorials came to be robotically written in the first place, nor why the publication had failed to be transparent with readers. It certainly did not reveal whether the editor-in-chief had been taken to task by staff who, in private correspondence before the meeting, had expressed their dismay.

The Herald’s current statement on its use of artificial intelligence includes no requirement for public disclosure of its use on any story. The only requirement for disclosure is when AI generated images are used on features or opinion pieces: “When we do this, we will acknowledge this in the image caption or credit.”

I get the impression all other use of AI by The Herald is covered by its general statement that, yes, it does employ artificial intelligence. That disclosure is in a statement that you will find at the very bottom of The Herald website. You’ll find it here.

Initially I went looking for it on the mobile app, then the app on my iPad. I gave up. I assume it’s there somewhere.

NZME is doing the right thing by reviewing its policy, but it should not wait until that review is completed — and the current AI statement on the website presumably replaced — before offering adequate explanations and assurances to its readers.

Fundamental principles
There are fundamental principles here that do not require prolonged analysis. Editorials are the opinion of the newspaper — not iterative content — and must be written by designated staff overseen by the most senior editor on duty. Transparency is paramount and stories created by artificial intelligence should carry a disclosure, just as stories from non-Herald sources carry a credit line.

Stuff’s Code of Practice is clear: “Any content (written, visual or audio) generated or substantially generated using generative AI will be transparently labelled outlining the nature of AI use, including the tool used.” It should be clear, too, to The Herald and its readers.

Assurances can and should be given now.

The Hobson’s Pledge advertisement that wrapped last Wednesday’s Herald is a different issue but, again, one the publisher has not handled well. It followed a government announcement that it disagrees with the Court of Appeal’s interpretation in a case defining the customary interests of iwi in the eastern Bay of Plenty, and it intends to change the Marine and Coastal Areas Act to set the bar higher for claims. The advertisement painted a picture of wholesale Māori “ownership” of the foreshore if the law did not change.

The Herald was immediately condemned for publishing the wrap-around, with Māori journalists expressing “profound shock and dismay”, Te Pāti Māori saying it “will no longer engage” with the newspaper, and social media posts calling for boycott.

The response from NZME was a statement that the company was “keenly aware of its obligations as a publisher and broadcaster, including in respect of legislation and Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) codes”.

“Advertising responsibility sits with NZME’s commercial team and is separate to NZ Herald editorial.

“The content is a paid ad from an independent advertiser and is clearly labelled as so.

“There are thousands of ads placed across our platforms every week and publishing an ad is in no way NZME’s endorsement of the advertised message, products, services or other.

“We’re reviewing our processes and policies around advocacy advertising.”

Answer to obvious questions?
All true (although in my day as editor I had responsibility for all published content), but that does not answer some obvious questions, the most important of which is whether it passed tests devised to deal with the thorny issue of advocacy advertising.

Last night The Herald announced — again through Shayne Currie — that it had rejected a second advocacy advertisement that Hobson’s Pledge had tried to place with the newspaper. As to why, it again said no more than “we are reviewing our policies and processes”. There was no expression of the reasons, in the meantime, the ad had been rejected.

The right to free expression is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights Act. That right, however, is not unlimited and judgment needs to be exercised in determining the boundaries in individual cases.

The Advertising Standards Authority has acknowledged advocacy advertising presents some of the greatest challenges facing its complaints procedures. Before they reach the complaints stage (and the Hobson’s Pledge advertisement is apparently the subject of a number already), the same challenges face the publications asked to publish them.

For that reason, the ASA has issued a fulsome guidance note on advocacy advertising. You can read the guidance here.

This was a wrap-around of The Herald, meaning that, although it was clearly labelled as a paid advertisement, it sat directly beneath the paper’s own masthead, which is more significant than if it had been carried on an inside page. The connection with the masthead means even greater care needs to be taken by the publisher in determining whether to accept the advertisement for publication or not.

The question NZME has yet to answer is whether it subjected the material to all of the tests set out in the ASA guidance note. If it did so and all the tests were passed by the first advertisement, there is a compelling free speech argument for its publication.

Disclosure statement
A decision to publish in such circumstances would benefit immensely from a disclosure statement from the editor (the custodian of the masthead) attesting to all of the steps that had been taken in judging fitness for publication. Similarly, readers should be informed whether the same tests had been applied in rejecting a second advertisement and how it differed from the one judged fit for publication.

The guidance note sets out a list of points against which an advocacy advertisement should be weighed:

• It must be clearly identified as an advertisement
• It must clearly state the identity and position of the advertiser
• Opinion must be clearly distinguishable from factual information
• Factual information must be able to be substantiated
• Any combination of opinion and fact must be justifiable
• It must not contain anything that is indecent, or exploitative, or degrading or likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence, or give rise to hostility, contempt, abuse, or ridicule
• Heed must be taken of the likely consumer takeout of the advertisement (in other words, whether there is there a contextual justification)

The guidelines also deal with the weight given to academic studies, the status of the organisation placing the advocacy advertisement, and the use of such advertising by official bodies.

I am making no judgement on the Hobson’s Pledge advertisements. If the first had been subjected to those tests by The Herald and had satisfactorily passed each of them, NZME could (and should) have informed readers of the fact.

If the advertisement had failed any of the tests, the company would have had legitimate and defensible reasons for rejecting it. It presumably has those solid grounds for rejecting the second advertisement.

Obviously contentious
The published wrap-around’s subject matter was so obviously contentious that The Herald should have gone to some lengths in the same edition to explain its decision to run it. Assuming the application of the ASA guidelines determined that it could be published, readers should have been informed of that fact.

Instead, they were given a bland statement of NZME’s awareness of standards, and little more in the announcement of the rejection of the second.

Given the likelihood of adverse reaction from some quarters to publication, the first advertisement should also have been a statement from the publisher justifying publication, perhaps as a matter of free expression in which all sides of an issue should be allowed to be aired because, in the words of John Milton’s Areopagitica, “in a free and open encounter” truth would prevail.

Similarly, last night it should have explained why the second iteration should not be subjected to that “free and open encounter”. In doing so, it might have invoked Stanley Fish’s essay There’s no such thing as free speech, and it’s a good thing, too in which he discusses the way in which free speech is, in fact, a space we carve out. It acknowledges that some forms of speech “will be heard as (quite literally) intolerable” and sit outside that space.

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

Media publisher NZME has come under fire for admitting it used artificial intelligence to create editorials that ran in the Weekend Herald and other publications, with a media commentator saying it “can only damage trust”.

RNZ’s Mediawatch revealed late yesterday that NZME had used AI to write an editorial about “Who the All Blacks should pick to play at centre” that ran first in the Weekend Herald on July 20 and another piece about MMA professional Israel Adesanya.

A statement from NZME editor-in-chief Murray Kirkness said AI was used in a way that fell short of its standards and “more journalistic rigour would have been beneficial”.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MIDDAY REPORT: NZME admits AI editorial lacked journalistic rigour
• Herald deploys AI for editorial, admits lack of rigour — Mediawatch

NZME’s standards don’t mandate disclosure but do say stories should be attributed to “the author and/or the creator/provider of the material” in accordance with the company’s Code of Ethics.

A co-author of the annual AUT Trust in News report, Dr Greg Treadwell, told Midday Report it was a poor experiment in AI use.

“I think New Zealanders have to be realistic about the fact AI is going to work its way into the production of news, but I think the Herald has kind of admitted this was a pretty poor experiment in it for a number of reasons, I think.”

Treadwell said the role of the editorial in any major news publication was to be an opinion leader.

‘Not world-shattering’
“I don’t know how many of your readers have actually gone back to have a look at the editorial that the Herald published, but it was sort of a generalist round-up of the arguments for and against Reiko Ioane at centre in the All Blacks back line — not a world-shattering issue, but a really good example of how AI doesn’t really, can’t really do what an editorial should do, which is to take a position on something.

“If you ask it to take a position, it will, and if you ask it to take another position, it will take that position.

“What is lacking here, even if you ask [AI] to take positions, is the original argument we would look to our senior journalists to put into the public domain for us about important issues.”

Public trust in the media was falling and media companies needed to reassure the public it could be trusted, he said.

“When the public hears that AI is being used in places — and perhaps most importantly here is that it wasn’t acknowledged that was being used to create this editorial — then that can only damage trust.

“I think there’s a lot of issues here including that AI can be incredibly useful for data analysis and other things in journalism, but we just have to be incredibly transparent about how we’re using it.”

‘Another world first’
Former Herald editor-in-chief and prominent media commentator Tim Murphy joked on social media the editorial may “have achieved another world first for NZ”.

On the upside, this has got to have achieved another world first for NZ https://t.co/e6UvHMRwXg

— Tim Murphy (@tmurphyNZ) July 31, 2024

The revelation was also panned by some competitor publications, with the National Business Review’s official X account noting that “NBR journalists are intelligent. Not artificial.”

NBR journalists are intelligent. Not artificial.
Just saying.https://t.co/aUJfld3taf

— NBR (@TheNBR) August 1, 2024

RNZ also approached New Zealand Rugby to ask their thoughts on NZME using AI to analyse the All Black team selection.

In a statement, NZR said it recognised the need for media organisations to have well-established editorial policies and standards.

“These ensure high quality sports journalism and play an important role in telling rugby’s stories.

“NZR is satisfied that the New Zealand Herald has made the appropriate steps to amend the story in question.”

“The Herald and other NZME publications use AI to improve our journalism. In some cases, we also create stories entirely using AI tools,” says an explanatory article headlined NZME, NZ Herald and our use of AI.

“We believe that smart use of AI allows us to publish better journalism. We remain committed to our Code of Ethics and to the integrity of our journalism, regardless of whether or not we use AI tools to help with the production or processing of articles.”

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