Fiji’s High Court has granted an application seeking the release of seven electronic devices seized by police from British-Fiji journalist and sports marketing official Charlie Charters.

The application was heard before Justice Pita Bulamainaivalu after preliminary issues were raised concerning the proper parties to the proceedings and the transfer of the matter between the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC), the Fiji Police Force and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Acting DPP Nancy Tikoisuva, appearing as a interested party, told the court that, following the stay of proceedings, the matter should have come to an end and the devices and other property belonging to Charters should have been released.

• READ MORE: Fiji judge orders motion seeking return of journalists’ e-devices seized by police
• Other Charlie Charters reports

Tikoisuva said the office had discussed the matter with police and agreed with the application seeking the release of the devices.

She also acknowledged that the continued retention of the devices should not have occurred after the stay was granted.

She further submitted that any consequential orders following the stay should have included the release of the exhibits and property belonging to Charters.

Lawyer Juleen Fatiaki for Charters welcomed the DPP’s position and thanked the office for its assistance to the court.

The court subsequently granted the application and ordered the release of Charter’s seven electronic devices.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

Fiji’s media workers finally got to celebrate their World Press Freedom Day this week 11 days late — on Thursday, May 14.

The event was pushed back from its traditional May 3 global date — which fell on a Sunday this year — to accommodate a packed news cycle dominated by parliamentary sittings and the Coca-Cola Games.

The events across Suva and Savusavu highlighted both the grit of local journalists and the very real threats still hovering over the industry.

• READ MORE: Other World Press Freedom Day reports

In the capital Suva, the day started before sunrise. At 5am journalists met at the Bowling Club for a morning walk down to My Suva Park and back, catching up over a networking breakfast.

Later that evening, the focus shifted to Gordon House at the British High Commissioner’s Residence for a reception backed by BBC Media Action, Women in Media Fiji, and the Fijian Media Association (FMA).

Permanent Secretary for Information Eseta Nadakuitavuki described reporters as “real warriors” who required courage and “a very thick skin”.

While she praised the media’s fearless role in holding the powerful accountable, she also pointed to modern digital threats. She warned that while AI brought innovation, the rise of fake news and deepfakes meant ethical journalism and rigorous fact-checking were more crucial than ever.

BBC Media Action mentorship
The night also carved out time to recognise seven local journalists who completed a BBC Media Action content production mentorship under seasoned journalist Elenoa Baselala.

Up North, a different kind of gathering took place at the Hot Springs Hotel in Savusavu. FMA general secretary Stanley Simpson joined journalists for a dinner supported by the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme (PACMAS).

The Savusavu event was an acknowledgment of the mental toll carried by reporters outside the capital who usually “survive on roti and bean between assignments”.

Remembering the heavy weight these journalists carry, it was highlighted that in 2017, Northern reporters had to cover two back-to-back tragedies involving children: a fatal house fire, followed just two days later by a father drowning his three kids and himself.

With no debrief rooms or on-call counselors in the North, these reporters — including Peceli, Shratika, Naca, Feroz, Sampras, Nitesh, and Josese — just had to file their heartbreaking stories and keep going.

There was plenty of reason to celebrate on a national level, as Fiji recently jumped 16 spots to 24th globally on the 2026 Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index — a massive climb from 84th place in 2023.

However, the FMA made it clear that Fiji’s press freedom gains remained fragile.

Navigating complexities
The industry is still navigating the complexities of Fiji’s hard-drugs crisis and dealing with disquieting developments like journalists being summoned to testify in court. There is also ongoing friction with government officials; recently, Minister for Information Lynda Tabuya criticised the media in Parliament over “mal-information” regarding a broken lift at the CWM Hospital, subsequently calling for an end to “doorstop-style” interviews.

The FMA firmly defended the practice as a necessary tool for holding officials accountable in a democracy.

Despite the challenges, the media fraternity is already looking ahead to its next major gathering. In September, the focus will return to Fiji as it hosts the region for the Pacific Media Summit.

Republished from the Fijian Media Association FB page.

Politicians are under fire overseas. But New Zealand should take note too.

The US Justice Department’s release of more than three million Epstein files (including 180,000 images and 2000 videos) has blown the doors off the most protected social network of the late 20th century.

What these documents reveal is not just a catalogue of one man’s depravity. It is, as Helen Rumbelow wrote in The Times, like “taking the back off the world clock”, exposing how power actually works at the top of the Western world.

• READ MORE:  ‘The girl from Tahiti’ – Pacific Islands in the Epstein files
• Other Epstein Files reports

And the implications reach all the way to New Zealand.

New Zealand media has done useful work tracking the Kiwi names that appear in the files.

Paula Penfold at Stuff searched more than a thousand New Zealand references. Joel MacManus at The Spinoff, Ben Tomsett and Ethan Manera at The New Zealand Herald, and Steve Braunias at Newsroom have reported on the local angles — Peter Thiel’s investment relationship with Epstein, the New Zealand Defence Force couple who managed Epstein’s properties, Auckland academic Brian Boyd, physicist Lawrence Krauss and his pursuit of Epstein money for an Otago University role.

These stories matter. But the fixation on which Kiwis appear in the files misses the real story. The Epstein scandal is not fundamentally about which individuals had dinner with a monster. It is about what kind of political systems allow monsters to operate at the centre of global power for decades without consequence.

On that score, New Zealand should be paying very close attention, because our systems are weaker than those now failing spectacularly in countries around us.

The Mandelson masterclass
The most instructive case study is not American but British. The fall of Peter Mandelson (the architect of New Labour, the self-described “Prince of Darkness”) is a textbook case of how politics and money have gone rotten in liberal democracies.

The Epstein files revealed that Mandelson, while serving as “Deputy PM” to Gordon Brown, and in the position of Business Secretary, forwarded highly sensitive government tax plans to Jeffrey Epstein.

He told Epstein he was “trying hard to amend” a planned tax on bankers’ bonuses and suggested that JPMorgan’s CEO should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor to water down the policy. He gave Epstein advance notice of a €500 billion EU bailout before public announcement.

On Christmas Day, he wrote to a convicted paedophile: “I do not want to live by salary alone”.

So, a sitting Cabinet minister was leaking government intelligence to a convicted sex offender, lobbying against his own government’s financial regulation on behalf of that offender’s banking contacts, and angling for post-politics employment — all at the same time.

Within weeks of leaving office, his lobbying firm Global Counsel was chasing work with the Russian state investment fund and the state-owned China International Capital Corporation.

The Starmer government is bleeding credibility. Police opened a criminal investigation, Mandelson’s properties were searched, and yesterday Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney resigned, saying the appointment decision “has damaged our party, our country and trust in politics itself”.

The Economist magazine has called it “Britain’s worst political scandal of this century”. UK Labour now trails Reform UK in the polls.

As former Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote in The Guardian last Friday, in a remarkable act of public contrition: “I greatly regret this appointment . . .  He seems to have used market-sensitive inside information to betray the principles in which he said he believed”.

Brown’s piece was not merely an apology. It was a manifesto for integrity reform. Brown called for an independent anti-corruption commission with statutory powers, a fully accountable vetting system for major political appointments, mandatory parliamentary hearings for senior ambassadors and ministers, a five-year cooling-off period for former ministers entering lobbying, and the creation of corruption as a new statutory offence.

Brown argued for nothing less than a “century-defining rebalancing of power and accountability”, and he warned that without fundamental change, the revelations would be “acid in our democracy, corroding trust still further”.

Heather Stewart, writing in The Guardian, drew out the structural lesson: Mandelson’s personal disgrace is “deep and unique, and may yet bring down a prime minister — but by laying bare the dark allure of the filthy rich, it also underlines the need for tougher constraints on money in politics”.

Stewart documented how Epstein’s efforts to influence government policy — working to water down Alistair Darling’s bonus tax at a time when the banks had crashed the economy — “underline the powerful forces with which politicians are faced”.

She noted that Transparency International warned last summer: “We stand at the beginning of a new and dangerous era, where big money dominates in a way that has corroded US politics across the Atlantic”. The campaign group Spotlight on Corruption warned the current system is “full of major loopholes and gaps”.

The real takeaway is this: when it comes to money and politics, whether post-parliamentary employment, lobbying, or party funding, it is unwise to take honesty and decency as a given. As Stewart concluded: “It is not too late to pull up the drawbridge . . .  by introducing stringent new rules to protect British democracy from the malign influence of powerful companies, and dodgy billionaires”.

The global rot at the top
What is striking is the convergence. Left, right, and libertarian commentators from across the ideological spectrum are reaching the same conclusion: the Epstein network was not an aberration. It was a symptom of what happens when wealth, power, and access operate without transparency or accountability.

As Josie Pagani observed in The Post, “there appears to be a high degree of crossover between the sort of people who attend World Economic Forum jamborees at Davos, and the sort of people who hung out with Jeffrey Epstein”. The Economist noted the files read “like a ‘Who’s Who’ which has gathered only a thin layer of dust”.

These are not fringe figures being exposed. These are the people who run things.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a political theorist at Princeton, described the files as “a sobering x-ray of some of America’s elites — immature, full of impunity, corrupt, venal, venial, and venereal all at once”. He warned that “an elite so needy, greedy, and now so vulnerable can hardly be trusted to exercise good judgment”.

Owen Jones put it bluntly: Mandelson is “the logical culmination of the career politician, attracted to government office not because of any commitment to a set of values or public service, but simply for power, position, and profit”. Jones asked the question that should haunt every democracy: “What is being done now by ministers and politicians to secure preferment and nice jobs later?”

The Economist observed on the Epstein-Mandelson scandal that “a weakened elite is also more vulnerable to populism” and that “public opinion is less tolerant of hypocrisy than of sex scandals or corruption”. A record 43 percent of Americans surveyed by Gallup now say they have “very little faith” in big business.

The political lesson people take from the documents is broader: elites protect elites. And once voters accept that as a general pattern, they start to look at their own politics differently. They see the local versions: the donor dinners, the quietly arranged appointments, the lobbyists writing submissions, the ministers lining up post-parliament careers. They start to interpret routine insider politics as corruption-by-another-name.

So what does this mean for New Zealand?
It’s easy to shrug this off as a foreign horror story. That shrug is the vulnerability.
New Zealand has no lobbying regulations. None. No register, no code of conduct, no cooling-off period for ministers who walk out of the Beehive and into lobbying firms or corporate boardrooms.

We rank 42nd out of 48 OECD countries on lobbying transparency. NZ is ahead of only Slovakia, Luxembourg, and Turkey. Yet Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has said lobbying reform “is not a priority”.

As The NZ Herald editorial argued on the Epstein scandal, “what this all reveals . . .  is how utterly certain those in power are that they will be protected”. That certainty, and that sense of impunity, is not confined to Manhattan townhouses and Caribbean islands. It operates wherever wealth and politics intersect without adequate transparency.

Our own political history provides uncomfortable parallels. Minister Stuart Nash was sacked in 2023 for emailing confidential Cabinet information to wealthy donors, a mini-parallel to Mandelson’s alleged leaking of market-sensitive information to Epstein.

But in Nash’s case, he lost his ministerial role without ever facing a police investigation. The structural failure is the same: the revolving door, the undisclosed lobbying, the donation loopholes, the absence of any meaningful cooling-off period.

If the Mandelson affair teaches one lesson, it is this: weak integrity systems do not just allow bad behaviour, they incentivise it. New Zealand has all of these mechanisms for embedding soft corruption, in weaker form than the UK. We rely on a “she’ll be right” attitude in place of the institutional safeguards that comparable democracies take for granted.

The example of Peter Thiel sharpens this further. Thiel is a New Zealand citizen. He is also a billionaire power broker in Silicon Valley and a funder of rightwing politics who appears prominently in the Epstein files.

That is a reminder: New Zealand has granted citizenship, and effectively social legitimacy, to a man who sits inside the very global plutocratic networks now being publicly scrutinised for moral collapse and elite impunity. Thiel is symbolic because he represents something New Zealand has not seriously confronted: the country’s relationship with the global super-rich, and the way money can smooth entry into our political community.

Meanwhile, public trust in New Zealand’s institutions has collapsed. The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer showed New Zealand’s trust index falling below the global average for the first time: 47 percent compared to 56 percent globally. Political parties are the least trusted institution, at just 32 percent according to the OECD’s 2024 survey. And the anti-politics mood is deepening.

The recent McSkimming police corruption scandal, where a Deputy Commissioner’s misconduct was systematically covered up, has already forced a national debate about the “C-word”. The ground was prepared before the Epstein files even arrived.

An election-year wake-up call
So what happens when this mood hits an election year? November 7 is nine months away, and the Epstein scandal feeds directly into a public mood that was already getting toxic.
The danger here is not that the public demands accountability. The danger is that the public concludes accountability is impossible, because the system is so captured by insiders and vested interests that reform cannot come from within.

Scandals like this feed anti-politics. People conclude that “they’re all the same,” that it’s a rigged game, that power protects itself. But the same disgust can create reform pressure. When trust collapses, political promises about integrity stop being an optional add-on.

They become central. Voters start demanding answers: who is lobbying whom? Who is funding whom? Why do politicians leave office and immediately cash in? Why are conflicts of interest treated as personal errors rather than structural failures?

No party in New Zealand “owns” the anti-corruption space. That’s also both a vulnerability and an opening. The party or leader who takes integrity reform seriously in 2026 — who makes the lobbying register, the donation caps, the Integrity Commission a genuine campaign commitment rather than a footnote — will be tapping into something powerful and real.

The party that ignores it will be betting that public anger stays diffuse. That would be a bad bet.

The global mood of elite scepticism will shape this election whether our politicians like it or not. Voters are more suspicious than ever of cosy relationships between politicians and the wealthy. They are less willing to accept opacity, conflicts of interest, and the revolving door as the price of doing business.

Chris Trotter, writing today in The Interest, argues there are “heaps of lessons New Zealanders can learn from what is unfolding in the United Kingdom”. He is right. New Zealand has an opportunity to get ahead of the global backlash. We can build the transparency infrastructure — the lobbying register, the Integrity Commission, the cooling-off rules — that most comparable democracies already have.

Or we can keep pretending that we are too small and too decent for this kind of corruption, and wait for the next scandal to prove us wrong.

Starmer’s warning to his own cabinet, that “the public don’t really see individuals in this scandal, they see politicians”, applies here too. New Zealanders are watching the Mandelson affair, they’re reading the files, and they’re drawing the obvious conclusion: that the people who run the world are not to be trusted, and the systems meant to hold them accountable are broken.

A country can’t keep shrugging at unregulated influence while telling voters to trust the system. If New Zealand’s political class wants to avoid the kind of legitimacy collapse now unfolding overseas, the time to act is now. Not after the next (inevitable) scandal.

An immediate test
And here is the immediate test. Transparency International is releasing its annual Corruption Perceptions Index. For the last couple of decades, New Zealand’s showing in the index has been in decline. Our score has slipped from the mid-90s to 83, and our ranking has dropped to fourth globally, now seven points behind Denmark.

Will this decline continue? If it does, it will be one more data point confirming what voters already sense: that the gap between New Zealand’s self-image as a clean, transparent democracy and the reality of our thin integrity architecture is growing wider.

The Epstein files have taken the back off the world clock. New Zealanders can see the mechanism now. The question is what do we do about it?

Dr Bryce Edwards is a political commentator and analyst. He is director of the Democracy Project, focused on scrutinising and challenging the role of vested interests in the political process. Republished with the author’s permission.

UPDATES: By Cole Martin in Occupied Bethlehem

Fifty six Palestinians were killed by Israel in Gaza today, 38 of them while seeking aid, while five were killed and 20 wounded in an Israeli attack on aid workers northwest of Gaza City.

Al-Qassam Brigades reportedly blew up a house in southern Gaza where a number of Israeli soldiers were operating from.

Israel’s forced starvation and indiscriminate targeting of civilians continues.

• READ MORE: Attack on Iran’s state media – Israel bombs IRIB building in new war crime
• Why Israel’s ‘humane’ propaganda is such a sinister facade
• Other Israeli war on Iran reports

Israeli media report that Iranian missile strikes on Haifa oil refinery yesterday killed 3 people and closed down the installation.

The Israeli death toll has risen to 24, with 400 injured and more than 2700 people displaced.

Israeli authorities report 370 missiles fired by Iran in total, 30 reaching their targets. Iranian military report they have carried out 550 drone operations.

224 killed in Iran
Two hundred and twenty four people have been killed by Israeli attacks on Iran, with 1277 hospitalised.

The state radio and television building was targeted by Israeli strikes twice — while broadcasting live — with the broadcast back online within 5 minutes despite the attack.

In response, Iran has issued a warning to evacuate the central offices of Israeli television channels 12 and 14.

An Israeli attack on a Red Crescent ambulance in Tehran resulted in the deaths of two relief workers.

Israel’s Finance Minister Belazel Smotrich, who is accused of being a war criminal and the target of sanctions by five countries including New Zealand, claims they have hit 800 targets in Iran, with aircraft flying freely in the nation’s airspace.

In the West Bank, the tension continues, with business continuing at a subdued level, everyone waiting to see how the situation will unfold.

Israel’s illegal siege continues, cutting off cities and villages from one another, while blocking ambulances and urgent medical access in several locations today.

Israeli and Iranian strikes are expected to continue, and potentially escalate, over the coming days.

Israel’s genocide in Gaza continues.

Cole Martin is an independent New Zealand photojournalist based in the Middle East and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

The US District Court for the District of Columbia has granted a preliminary injunction in Widakuswara v Lake, affirming the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) was unlawfully shuttered by the Trump administration, Acting Director Victor Morales and Special Adviser Kari Lake.

The decision enshrines that USAGM must fulfill its legally required functions and protects the editorial independence of Voice of America (VOA) journalists and other federal media professionals within the agency and newsrooms that receive grants from the agency, such as Radio Free Asia and others with implications for independent media in the Asia-Pacific region.

Journalists, federal workers, and unions celebrate this important step in defending this critical agency, First Amendment rights, resisting unlawful political interference in public broadcasting, and ensuring USAGM workers can continue to fulfill their congressionally mandated function, reports the NewsGuild-CWA press union.

• READ MORE: RSF and VOA coalition secure first court victory against Trump administration
• Other Voice of America and Radio Free Asia reports

“Today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law, for press freedom and journalistic integrity, and for democracy worldwide,” said the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) national president Everett Kelley.

“The Trump administration’s illegal attempt to shutter Voice of America and other outlets under the US Agency for Global Media was a transparent effort to silence the voices of patriotic journalists and professionals who have dedicated their careers to spreading the truth and fighting propaganda from lawless authoritarian regimes.

“This preliminary injunction will allow these employees to get back to work as we continue the fight to preserve their jobs and critical mission.”

President Lee Saunders of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees AFSCME), the largest trade union of public employees in the United States, said: “Today’s ruling is a major win for AFSCME members and Voice of America workers who have dedicated their careers to reporting the truth and spreading freedom to millions across the world.

Judge’s message clear
“The judge’s message is clear — this administration has no right to unilaterally dismantle essential agencies simply because they do not agree with their purpose.

“We celebrate this decision and will continue to work with our partners to ensure that the Voice of America is restored.”

“Journalists hold power to account and that includes the Trump administration,” said NewsGuild-CWA president Jon Schleuss. “This injunction orders the administration to reverse course and restore the Congressionally-mandated news broadcasts of Radio Free Asia, Voice of America and other newsrooms broadcasting to people who hope for freedom in countries where that is denied.”

“We are gratified by today’s ruling. This is another step in the process to restore VOA to full operation.” said government accountability project senior counsel David Seide.

“VOA is more than just an iconic brand with deep roots in American and global history; it is a vital, living force that provides truth and hope to those living under oppressive regimes.

“We are thrilled that its voice — a voice for the voiceless — will once again be heard loud and clear around the world.

Powerful affirmation of rule of law
“This decision is a powerful affirmation of the rule of law and the vital role that independent journalism plays in our democracy. The court’s action protects independent journalism and federal media professionals at Voice of America as we continue this case, and reaffirms that no administration can silence the truth without accountability,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, co-counsel for the plaintiffs.

“We are proud to be with workers, unions and journalists in resisting political interference against independent journalism and will continue to fight for transparency and our democratic values.”

“Today’s decision is another necessary step in restoring the rule of law and correcting the injustices faced by the workers, reporters, and listeners of Voice of America and US Agency for Global Media,” said former Ambassador Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of the State Democracy Defenders Fund.

“By granting this preliminary injunction, the court has reaffirmed the legal protections afforded to these civil servants and halted an attempt to undermine a free and independent press. We are proud to represent this resilient coalition and support the cause of a free and fair press.”

“This decision is a powerful affirmation of the role that independent journalism plays in advancing democracy and countering disinformation. From Voice of America to Radio Free Asia and across the US Agency for Global Media, these networks are essential tools of American soft power — trusted sources of truth in places where it is often scarce,” said Tom Yazdgerdi, president of the American Foreign Service Association.

“By upholding editorial independence, the court has protected the credibility of USAGM journalists and the global mission they serve.”

A critical victory
“We’re very pleased that Judge Lamberth has recognised that the Trump administration acted improperly in shuttering Voice of America,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders (RSF) USA.

“The USAGM must act immediately to implement this ruling and put over 1300 VOA employees back to work to deliver reliable information to their audience of millions around the world.”

While only the beginning of what may be a long, hard-fought battle, the court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction marks a critical victory — not just for VOA journalists, but also for federal workers and the unions that represent them.

It affirms that the rule of law still protects those who speak truth to power.

In 1979, Sam Neill appeared in an Australian comedy movie about hacks on a Sydney newspaper.

The Journalist was billed as “a saucy, sexy, funny look at a man with a nose for scandal and a weakness for women”.

That would probably not fly these days — but as a rule, movies about Australian journalists are no laughing matter.

• READ MORE: Other reports on Peter Greste’s The First Casualty
• Listen to RNZ Mediawatch

Back in 1982, a young Mel Gibson starred as a foreign correspondent who was dropped into Jakarta during revolutionary chaos in The Year of Living Dangerously. The 1967 events the movie depicted were real enough, but Mel Gibson’s correspondent Guy Hamilton was made up for what was essentially a romantic drama.

There was no romance and a lot more real life 25 years later in Balibo, another movie with Australian journalists in harm’s way during Indonesian upheaval.

Anthony La Paglia had won awards for his performance as Roger East, a journalist killed in what was then East Timor — now Timor-Leste — in December 1975. East was killed while investigating the fate of five other journalists — including New Zealander Guy Cunningham — who was killed during the Indonesian invasion two months earlier.

The Correspondent has a happier ending but is still a tough watch — especially for its subject.

Met in London newsrooms
I first met Peter Greste in newsrooms in London about 30 years ago. He had worked for Reuters, CNN, and the BBC — going on to become a BBC correspondent in Afghanistan.

He later reported from Belgrade, Santiago, and then Nairobi, from where he appeared regularly on RNZ’s Nine to Noon as an African news correspondent. Greste later joined the English-language network of the Doha-based Al Jazeera and became a worldwide story himself while filling in as the correspondent in Cairo.

The Correspondent                 Video: Trailer

Greste and two Egyptian colleagues, Baher Mohamed and Mohamed Fahmy, were arrested in late 2013 on trumped-up charges of aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation labeled “terrorist” by the new Egyptian regime of the time.

Six months later he was sentenced to seven years in jail for “falsifying news” and smearing the reputation of Egypt itself. Mohamed was sentenced to 10 years.

Media organisations launched an international campaign for their freedom with the slogan “Journalism is not a crime”. Peter’s own family became familiar faces in the media while working hard for his release too.

Peter Greste was deported to Australia in February 2015. The deal stated he would serve the rest of his sentence there, but the Australian government did not enforce that. Instead, Greste became a professor of media and journalism, currently at Macquarie University in Sydney.

Movie consultant
Among other things, he has also been a consultant on The Correspondent — now in cinemas around New Zealand — with Richard Roxborough cast as Greste himself.

Greste told The Sydney Morning Herald he had to watch it “through his fingers” at first.

“I eventually came to realise it’s not me that’s up there on the screen. It’s the product of a whole bunch of creatives. And the result is … more like a painting rather than a photograph,” Greste told Mediawatch.

“Over the years I’ve written about it, I’ve spoken about it countless times. I’ve built a career on it. But I wasn’t really anticipating the emotional impact of seeing the craziness of my arrest, the confusion of that period, the claustrophobia of the cell, the sheer frustration of the crazy trial and the really discombobulating moment of my release.

“But there is another very difficult story about what happened to a colleague of mine in Somalia, which I haven’t spoken about publicly. Seeing that on screen was actually pretty gut-wrenching.”

In 2005, his BBC colleague Kate Peyton was shot alongside him on their first day in on assignment in Somalia. She died soon after.

“That was probably the toughest day of my entire life far over and above anything I went through in Egypt. But I am glad that they put it in [The Correspondent]. It underlines … the way in which journalism is under attack. What happened to us in Egypt wasn’t a random, isolated incident — but part of a much longer pattern we’re seeing continue to this day.”

‘Owed his life’
Greste says he “owes his life” to fellow prisoner Alaa Abd El-Fattah — an Egyptian activist who is also in the film.

“There’s a bit of artistic licence in the way it was portrayed but . . .  he is easily one of the most intelligent, astute and charismatic humanitarians I’ve ever come across. He was one of the main pro-democracy activists who was behind the Arab Spring revolution in 2011 — a true democrat.

“He also inspired me to write the letters that we smuggled out of prison that described our arrest not as an attack on … what we’d actually come to represent. And that was press freedom.

“That helped frame the campaign that ultimately got me out. So, for both psychological and political reasons, I feel like I owe him my life.

“There was nothing in our reporting that confirmed the allegations against us. So I started to drag up all sorts of demons from the past. I started thinking maybe this is the universe punishing me for sins of the past. I was obviously digging up that particular moment as one of the most extreme and tragic moments. It took a long time for me to get past it.

“He’d been in prison a lot because of his activism, so he understood the psychology of it. He also understood the politics of it in ways that I could never do as a newcomer.”

“Unfortunately, he is still there. He should have been released on September 29th last year. His mother launched a hunger strike in London . . . so I actually joined her on hunger strike earlier this year to try and add pressure.

“If this movie also draws a bit of attention to his case, then I think that’s an important element.”

Another wrinkle
Another wrinkle in the story was the situation of his two Egyptian Al Jazeera colleagues.

Greste was essentially a stranger to them, having only arrived in Egypt shortly before their arrest.

The film shows Greste clashing with Fahmy, who later sued Al Jazeera. Fahmy felt the international pressure to free Greste was making their situation worse by pushing the Egyptian regime into a corner.

“To call it a confrontation is probably a bit of an understatement. We had some really serious arguments and sometimes they got very, very heated. But I want audiences to really understand Fahmy’s worldview in this film.

“He and I had very different understandings of what was going … and how those differences played out.

“I’ve got a hell of a lot of respect for him. He is like a brother to me. That doesn’t mean we always agreed with each other and doesn’t mean we always got on with each other like any siblings, I suppose.”

His colleagues were eventually released on bail shortly after Greste’s deportation in 2015.

Fahmy renounced his Egyptian citizenship and was later deported to Canada, while Mohamed was released on bail and eventually pardoned.

Retrial — all ‘reconvicted’
“After I was released there was a retrial … and we were all reconvicted. They were finally released and pardoned, but the pardon didn’t extend to me.

“I can’t go back because I’m still a convicted ‘terrorist’ and I still have an outstanding prison sentence to serve, which is a little bit weird. Any country that has an extradition treaty with Egypt is a problem. There are a fairly significant number of those across the Middle East and Africa.”

Greste told Mediawatch his conviction was even flagged in transit in Auckland en route from New York to Sydney. He was told he failed a character test.

“I was able to resolve it. I had some friends in Canberra and were able to sort it out, but I was told in no uncertain terms I’m not allowed into New Zealand without getting a visa because of that criminal record.

“If I’m traveling to any country I have to say … I was convicted on terrorism offences. Generally speaking, I can explain it, but it often takes a lot of bureaucratic process to do that.”

Greste’s first account of his time in jail — The First Casualty — was published in 2017. Most of the book was about media freedom around the world, lamenting that the numbers of journalists jailed and killed increased after his release.

Something that Greste also now ponders a lot in his current job as a professor of media and journalism.

Ten years on from that, it is worse again. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) says at least 124 journalists and media workers were killed last year, nearly two-thirds of them Palestinians killed by Israel in its war in Gaza.

The book has now been updated and republished as The Correspondent.

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

One of the many casualties of the Trump administration’s crackdown on “soft power” that enabled many democratic media and truth to power global editorial initiatives has been BenarNews, a welcome contribution to the Asia-Pacific region.

BenarNews had been producing a growing range of insightful on powerful articles on the region’s issues, articles that were amplified by other media such as Asia Pacific Report.

Managing editor Kate Beddall and her deputy, Imran Vittachi, announced the suspension of the decade-old BenarNews editorial operation this week, stating in their “Letter from the editors”:

• READ MORE: Evicted PNG settlement fears collective punishment over gang rape and killing
• Other BenarNews reports on Asia Pacific Report

“After 10 years of reporting from across the Asia-Pacific, BenarNews is pausing operations due to matters beyond its control.

“The US administration has withheld the funding that we rely on to bring our readers and viewers the news from Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, the Philippines and island-states and territories in the Pacific.

“We have always strived to offer clear and accurate news on security, politics and human rights, to shed light on news that others neglect or suppress, and to cover issues that will shape the future of Asia and the Pacific.

“Only last month, we marked our 10th anniversary with a video showcasing some of the tremendous but risky work done by our journalists.

“Amid uncertainty about the future, we’d like to take this opportunity to thank our readers and viewers for their loyalty and trust in BenarNews.

“And to Benar journalists, cartoonists and commentary writers in Washington, Asia, Australia and the Pacific, thank you for your hard work and passion in serving the public and helping make a difference.

“We hope that our funding is restored and that we will be back online soon.”

BenarNews: A decade of truth in democracies at risk.    Video: BenarNews

One of the BenarNews who has contributed much to the expansion of Pacific coverage is Brisbane-based former SBS Pacific television journalist Stefan Armbruster.

He has also been praising his team in a series of social media postings, such as Papua New Guinea correspondent Harlyne Joku — “from the old school with knowledge of the old ways”. Armbruster writes:

“Way back in December 2022, Harlyne Joku joined Radio Free Asia/BenarNews and the first Pacific correspondent Stephen Wright as the PNG reporter to help kick this Pacific platform off.

“Her first report was Prime Minister James Marape accusing the media of creating a bad perception of the country.

“Almost 90 stories in just over two years carry Harlyne’s byline, covering politics, geopolitics, human and women’s rights, media freedom, police and tribal violence, corruption, Bougainville, and also PNG’s sheep.

“Her contacts allowed BenarNews Pacific to break stories consistently. She travelled to be on-ground to cover massacre aftermaths, natural disasters and the Pope in Vanimo (where she broke another story).

“Particularly, Harlyne — along with colleagues Victor Mambor in Jayapura and Ahmad Panthoni and Dandy Koswaraputra in Jakarta — allowed BenarNews, to cover West Papua like no other news service. From both sides of the border.

“And it was noticed in Indonesia, PNG and the Pacific region.

“Last year, she was barred from covering President Probowo Subianto’s visit to Moresby, a move condemned by the Media Council of Papua New Guinea.

“At press conferences she questioned Marape about the failure to secure a UN human rights mission to West Papua, as a Melanesian Spearhead Group special envoy, which led to an eventual apology by fellow envoy, Fiji’s Prime Minister Rabuka, to Pacific leaders.”

The Aotearoa New Zealand union representing many of NZME’s journalists says it is “deeply worried” by a billionaire’s plans to take over its board.

Auckland-based Canadian billionaire Jim Grenon is leading a move to dump the board of media company NZME, owners of The New Zealand Herald and NewsTalk ZB.

He has told the company’s board he wants to remove most of the current directors, replace them with himself and three others, and choose one existing director to stay on.

• READ MORE:Trump’s ‘free speech’ vision comes at expense of press freedom
• NZ media freedom stakes

He took a nearly 10 percent stake in the business earlier in the week.

Michael Wood, negotiation specialist at E tū, the union that represents NZME’s journalists, said he had grave concerns.

“We see a pattern that has been incredibly unhealthy in other countries, of billionaire oligarchs moving into media ownership roles to be able to promote their own particular view of the word,” he said.

“Secondly, we have a situation here where when Mr Grenon purchased holdings in NZME he was at pains to make it sound like an innocent manoeuvre with no broader agenda . . .  within a few days he is aggressively pursuing board positions.”

What unsaid agendas?
Wood said Grenon had a track record of trying to influence media discourse in New Zealand.

“We are deeply concerned about this, about what unsaid agendas lie behind a billionaire oligarch trying to take ownership of one of our biggest media companies.”

“We are deeply concerned about this, about what unsaid agendas lie behind a billionaire oligarch trying to take ownership of one of our biggest media companies.”

He said it would be important for New Zealand not to follow the example of the US, where media outlets had become “the mouthpiece for the rich and powerful”.

E tū would consult its national delegate committee of journalists, he said.

Grenon has been linked with alternative news sites, including The Centrist, serving as the company’s director up to August 2023.

The Centrist claims to present under-served perspectives and reason-based analysis, “even if it might be too hot for the mainstream media to handle”.

Grenon has been approached for comment by RNZ.

Preoccupations with trans rights, treaty issues
Duncan Greive, founder of The Spinoff and media commentator, said he was a reader of Grenon’s site The Centrist.

“The main thing we know about him is that publication,” Greive said.

“It’s largely news aggregation but it has very specific preoccupations around trans rights, treaty issues and particularly vaccine injury and efficacy.

“A lot of the time it’s aggregating from mainstream news sites but there’s a definite feel that things are under-covered or under-emphasised at mainstream news organisations.

“If he is looking to gain greater control and exert influence on the publishing and editorial aspects of the business, you’ve got to think there is a belief that those things are under-covered and the editorial direction of The Herald isn’t what he would like it to be.”

Greive said the move could be connected to the NZME announcement in its annual results that it was exploring options for the sale of its real estate platform OneRoof.

“There are a lot of investors who believe OneRoof is being held back by proximity to the ‘legacy media’ assets of NZME and if it could be pulled out of there the two businesses would be more valuable separate than together.

“If you look at the shareholder book of NZME, you don’t image a lot of these institutional investors who hold the bulk of the shares are going to be as excited about editorial direction and issues as Grenon would be . . .  but they would be excited about the sale of OneRoof.”

Wanting the publishing side
Greive said he could imagine a scenario where Grenon told shareholders he wanted the publishing side, at a reduced value, and the OneRoof business could be separated off.

“From a pure value realisation, maximisation of shareholder value point of view, that makes sense to me.”

Greive said attention would now go on the 37 percent of shareholders whom Grenon said had been consulted in confidence about his plans.

“It will become clear pretty quickly and they will be under pressure to say why they are involved in this and it will become clear pretty quickly whether my theory is correct.”

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

A New Zealand-based community education provider, Dark Times Academy, has had a US Embassy grant to deliver a course teaching Pacific Islands journalists about disinformation terminated after the new Trump administration took office.

The new US administration requested a list of course participants and to review the programme material amid controversy over a “freeze” on federal aid policies.

The course presentation team refused and the contract was terminated by “mutual agreement” — but the eight-week Pacific workshop is going ahead anyway from next week.

• READ MORE: New course planned to help Pacific media professionals counter disinformation
• US sponsorship of Pacific disinformation workshop ends after dispute
• NZ education provider has US Embassy grant terminated
• Explainer: what will the withdrawal of USAid mean for the Pacific?

“As far as I can tell, the current foreign policy priorities of the US government seem to involve terrorising the people of Gaza, annexing Canada, invading Greenland, and bullying Panama,” said Dark Times Academy co-founder Mandy Henk.

“We felt confident that a review of our materials would not find them to be aligned with those priorities.”

The course, called “A Bit Sus”, is an evidence-based peer-reviewed series of classes that teach key professions the skills needed to identify and counter disinformation and misinformation in their particular field.

The classes focus on “prebunking”, lateral reading, and how technology, including generative AI, influences disinformation.

Awarded competitive funds
Dark Times Academy was originally awarded the funds to run the programme through a public competitive grant offered by the US Embassy in New Zealand in 2023 under the previous US administration.

The US Embassy grant was focused on strengthening the capacity of Pacific media to identify and counter disinformation. While funded by the US, the course was to be a completely independent programme overseen by Dark Times Academy and its academic consultants.

Co-founder Henk was preparing to deliver the education programme to a group of Pacific Island journalists and media professionals, but received a request from the US Embassy in New Zealand to review the course materials to “ensure they are in line with US foreign policy priorities”.

Henk said she and the other course presenters refused to allow US government officials to review the course material for this purpose.

She said the US Embassy had also requested a “list of registered participants for the online classes,” which Dark Times Academy also declined to provide as compliance would have violated the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020.

Henk said the refusal to provide the course materials for review led immediately to further discussions with the US Embassy in New Zealand that ultimately resulted in the termination of the grant “by mutual agreement”.

However, she said Dark Times Academy would still go ahead with running the course for the Pacific Island journalists who had signed up so far, starting on February 26.

Continuing the programme
“The Dark Times Academy team fully intends to continue to bring the ‘A Bit Sus’ programme and other classes to the Pacific region and New Zealand, even without the support of the US government,” Henk said.

“As noted when we first announced this course, the Pacific Islands have experienced accelerated growth in digital connectivity over the past few years thanks to new submarine cable networks and satellite technology.

“Alongside this, 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.

“This course will help participants from the media recognise common tactics used by disinformation agents and support them to deploy proven educational and communications techniques.

“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,” Henk said.

Especially valuable for journalists
Dark Times Academy co-founder Byron Clark said the course would be especially valuable for journalists in the Pacific region given the recent shifts in global politics and the current state of the planet.

“We saw the devastating impacts of disinformation in the Pacific region during the measles outbreak in Samoa, for example,” said Clark, author of the best-selling book Fear: New Zealand’s Underworld of Hostile Extremists.

“With Pacific Island states bearing the brunt of climate change, as well as being caught between a geopolitical stoush between China and the West, a course like this one is timely.”

Henk said the “A Bit Sus” programme used a “high-touch teaching model” that combined the current best evidence on how to counter disinformation with a “learner-focused pedagogy that combines discussion, activities, and a project”.

Past classes led to the creation of the New Zealand version of the “Euphorigen Investigation” escape room, a board game, and a card game.

These materials remain in use across New Zealand schools and community learning centres.

• More information on Dark Times Academy or to register for this course.

On my office wall hangs a framed portrait of Shireen Abu Akleh, the inspiring and celebrated American-Palestinian journalist known across the Middle East to watchers of Al Jazeera Arabic, who was assassinated by an Israeli military sniper with impunity.

State murder.

She was gunned down in full blue “press” kit almost two years ago while reporting on a raid in the occupied West Bank’s Jenin refugee camp, clearly targeted for her influence as a media witness to Israeli atrocities.

• READ MORE: The plan is to turn Palestine into a historical footnote so it’s too late to save it

As in the case of all 22 journalists who had been killed by Israeli military until that day, 11 May 2022, nobody was charged.

Now, six months into the catastrophic and genocidal Israeli War on Gaza, some 137 Palestinian journalists have been killed — murdered – by Israeli snipers, or targeted bombs demolishing their homes, and even their families.

Also in my office is pasted a red poster with a bird-of-paradise shaped pen in chains and the legend “Open access for journalists – Free press in West Papua.”

The poster was from a 2017 World Media Freedom Day conference in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, which I attended as a speaker and wrote about. Until this day, there is still no open door for international journalists

Harassed, beaten
Although only one killing of a Papuan journalist is recorded, there have been many instances when local news reporters have been harassed, beaten and threatened – beyond the reach of international media.

Ardiansyah Matra was savagely beaten and his body dumped in the Maro River, Merauke. A spokesperson for the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI), Victor Mambor, said at the time: “‘It’s highly likely that his murder is connected with the terror situation for journalists which was occurring at the time of Ardiansyah’s death.”

Frequently harassed himself, Mambor, founder and publisher of Jubi Media, was apparently the target of a suspected bomb attack, or warning, on 23 January 2023, when Jayapura police investigated a blast outside his home in Angkasapura Village.

At first glance, it may seem strange that comparisons are being made between the War on Gaza in the Middle East and the long-smouldering West Papuan human rights crisis in the Asia-Pacific region almost 11,000 km away. But there are several factors at play.

Melanesian and Pacific activists frequently mention both the Palestinian and West Papuan struggles in the same breath. A figure of up to 500,000 deaths among Papuans is often cited as the toll from 1969 when Indonesia annexed the formerly Dutch colony in controversial circumstances under the flawed Act of Free Choice, characterised by critics as the Act of “No” Choice.

The death toll in Gaza after the six-month war on the besieged enclave by Israel is already almost 33,000 (in reality far higher if the unknown number of casualties buried under the rubble is added). Most of the deaths are women and children.

At least 27 children have died of malnutrition so far with numbers expected to rise sharply.

Ethnic cleansing
But there are mounting fears that Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Gazans has no end in sight and the lives of 2.3 million people are at stake.

Both Palestinians and West Papuans see themselves as the victims of violent settler colonial projects that have been stealing their land and destroying their culture under the world’s noses — in the case of Palestine since the Nakba of 1948, and in West Papua since Indonesian paratroopers landed in a botched invasion in 1963.

They see themselves as both confronting genocidal leaders; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose popularity at home sinks by the day with growing protests, and Indonesia’s new President-elect Prabowo Subianto who has an atrocious human rights reputation in both Timor-Leste and West Papua.

And both peoples feel betrayed by a world that has stood by as genocides have been taking place — in the case of Palestine in real time on social media and television screens, and in the case of West Papua slowly over six decades.

Last November, outgoing Indonesian President Joko Widodo confronted US President Joe Biden on his policies over Gaza, and appealed for Washington to do more to prevent atrocities in Palestine.

Indonesian politicians such as Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi have been quick to condemn Israel, including at the International Court of Justice, but Papuan independence leaders find this hypocritical.

“We have full sympathy for the struggle for justice in Palestine and call for the restoration of peace,” said United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) president Benny Wenda.

‘Where’s Indonesian outrage?’
“But what about West Papua? Where was Indonesia’s outrage after Bloody Paniai [2014], or the Wamena massacre in February?

“Indonesia is claiming to oppose genocide in Gaza while committing their own genocide in West Papua.”

“Over 60 years of genocidal colonial rule, over 500,000 West Papuans have been killed by Indonesian forces.”

Wenda said genocide in West Papua was implemented slowly and steadily through a series of massacres, assassinations and policies, such as the killings of the chair of the Papuan Council Theys Eluay in 2001; Mako Tabuni (2012); and cultural curator and artist Arnold Ap (1984).

He cited many independent international and legal expert reports for his “considered position”, such as Yale University Law School, University of Wollongong, and the Asian Human Rights Commission – The Neglected Genocide.

In the South Pacific, Indonesia is widely seen among civil society, university and community groups as a ruthless aggressor with little or no respect for the Papuan culture.

Jakarta is engaged in an intensive diplomacy campaign in an attempt to counter this perception.

Unarmed Palestinians killed in Gaza – revealing Israel’s “kill zones”.  Video: Al Jazeera

Israel’s ‘rogue’ status
But if Indonesia is unpopular in the Pacific over its brutal colonial policies, it is nothing compared to the global “rogue” status of Israel.

In the past few weeks, as atrocity after atrocity pile up and the country’s disregard for international law and United Nations resolutions increasingly shock, supporters appear to be shrinking to its long-term ally the United States and its Five Eyes partners with New Zealand’s coalition government failing to condemn Israel’s war crimes.

On Good Friday — Day 174 of the war – Israel bombed Gaza, Syria and Lebanon on the same day, killing civilians in all three countries.

In the past week, the Israeli military ratcheted up its attacks on the Gaza Strip in defiance of the UN Security Council’s order for an immediate ceasefire, expanded its savage attacks on neighbouring states, and finally withdrew from Al-Shifa Hospital after a bloody two-week siege, leaving it totally destroyed with at least 350 patients, staff and displaced people dead.

Fourteen votes against the lone US abstention after Washington had earlier vetoed three previous resolutions produced the decisive ceasefire vote, but the Israeli objective is clearly to raze Gaza and make it uninhabitable.

As The Guardian described the vote, “When Gilad Erdan, the Israeli envoy to the UN, sat before the Security Council to rail against the ceasefire resolution it had just passed, he cut a lonelier figure than ever in the cavernous chamber.”

The newspaper added that the message was clear.

‘Time was up’
“Time was up on the Israeli offensive, and the Biden administration was no longer prepared to let the US’s credibility on the world stage bleed away by defending an Israeli government which paid little, if any, heed to its appeals to stop the bombing of civilian areas and open the gates to substantial food deliveries.”

Al Jazeera interviewed Norwegian physician Dr Mads Gilbert, who has spent long periods working in Gaza, including at al-Shifa Hospital. He was visibly distressed in his reaction, lamenting that the Israeli attack had “destroyed” the 78-year legacy of the Strip’s largest and flagship hospital.

Speaking from Tromso, Norway, he said: “This is such a sad day, I’ve been weeping all morning.”

Dr Gilbert said he did not know the fate of the 107 critical patients who had been moved two days earlier to an older building in the complex.

“The maggots that are creeping out of the corpses in al-Shifa Hospital now,” he said, “are really maggots coming out of the eyes of President Biden and the European Union leaders doing nothing to stop this horrible, horrible genocide.”

Australia-based Antony Loewenstein, the author of The Palestine Laboratory, who has been reporting on Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories for two decades, described Israel’s attack on the hospital as the “actions of a rogue state”.

Gaza health officials said Israel was targeting all the hospitals and systematically destroying the medical infrastructure. Only five out of a total of 37 hospitals still had some limited services operating.

Strike on journalists’ tent
Yesterday, four people were killed and journalists were wounded in an Israeli air strike on a tent in the courtyard of al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir el-Balah in central Gaza.

The Israeli military claimed the strike was aimed at a “command centre” operated by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad armed group, but footage screened by Al Jazeera reporter Hind Khoudary clearly showed it was a tent where displaced people were sheltering and journalists and photographers were working.

The Israeli military have killed another photojournalist and editor, Abdel Wahab Awni, when they bombed his home in the Maghazi refugee camp. This took the number of journalists killed since the start of the war to 137, according to Gaza’s Government Media Office.

Al Jazeera has revealed that Israel was using “kill zones” for certain combat areas in Gaza. Anybody crossing the “invisible” lines into these zones was shot on sight as a “terrorist”, even if they were unarmed civilians.

The chilling practice was exposed when footage was screened of two unarmed civilians carrying white flags being apparently gunned down and then buried by bulldozer under rubble. A US-based civil rights group described the killings as a “heinous crime”.

The kill zones were confirmed at the weekend by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which said the military had claimed to have killed 9000 “terrorists”, but officials admitted that many of the dead were often civilians who had “crossed the line” of fire.

Call for sanctions
The Israeli peace advocacy group Gush Shalom sent an open letter to all the embassies credited to Israel calling for immediate sanctions against the Israeli government, saying Netanyahu was “flagrantly refusing” to comply with the ceasefire resolution.

“We, citizens of Israel,” said the letter, “are calling on your government to initiate a further meeting of the Security Council, aiming to pass a resolution which would set effective sanctions on Israel — in order to bring about an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip until the end of Ramadan and beyond it.”

A Palestinian-American professor of law Dr Noura Erakat, of Rutgers University, recently told a BBC interviewer that Israel had made its end game very clear from the beginning of the war.

“Israel has made its intent clear. Its war cabinet had made its intent clear. From the very beginning, in the first week of October 7, it told us its goal was to depopulate Gaza.

“They have equated the decimation of Hamas, which they cannot achieve militarily, with the depopulation of the entire Gaza strip.”

A parallel with Indonesia’s fundamentally flawed policies in West Papua. Failing violent settler colonialism.

The Paris-based global media freedom watchdog RSF (Reporters Without Borders) has appealed for information about the “disappearance” of Palestinian journalist Bayan Abusultan.

She was reportedly last seen on March 19 among people “sequestered” in this week’s raid and siege of Al Shifa hospital by Israeli troops in northern Gaza.

RSF has demanded that the Israeli military “shed light on the disappearance of @BayanPalestine”, her X handle.

• READ MORE: 103 journalists killed in 150 days in Gaza — a tragedy for Palestinian journalism
• Other Gaza journalism reports

On March 19, she posted a message on her X account saying “Israeli forces just murdered my only brother in front of my eyes”.

Israeli forces just murdered my only brother in front of my eyes.
أخويا شهيد.

— Bayan (@BayanPalestine) March 19, 2024

She has not been heard from since and RSF is investigating.

Meanwhile, to support journalists in the region affected by the war in Gaza, RSF has opened a new press freedom centre in the Lebanese capital of Beirut.

Following the opening of two centres in Ukraine in the aftermath of Russia’s large-scale invasion of the country in 2022, this initiative by RSF underlines the organisation’s ongoing commitment to helping information professionals meet the specific challenges they face.

Equipped with internet access, the Beirut centre, a regional hub for the media in the Middle East, will welcome journalists to work there if they wish.

RSF and its local partners will offer training in physical and digital security, particularly for those wishing to travel to Palestine.

Bullet-proof vests
Access to psychological support and legal assistance will also be provided, as well as protective equipment to cover dangerous areas (bullet-proof vests, helmets, first-aid kits, etc.).

“There is a clear and urgent need to support Palestinian journalism and the right to information throughout the Middle East, particularly the parts of the region most affected by the war in Gaza,” said RSF campaign director Rebecca Vincent.

“Drawing on our experience in Ukraine, where we opened two press freedom centres during the war, RSF is launching a regional centre in Beirut dedicated to supporting journalists.

“The centre will provide a crucial space, and essential services to reinforce the safety of journalists working in the region, and to defend press freedom.”

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with RSF.

A senior Nine staff journalist has resigned and readers are angrily cancelling their newspaper subscriptions as Sydney Morning Herald and Age editors defend a decision to ban staff who signed a letter protesting about Australian media’s handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict from covering the war.

The fallout continues from a last Friday afternoon announcement in response to the open letter addressed to Australian newsrooms that called on them to “support ethical reporting on Israel and Palestine”.

The petition, which had more than 100 signatures from journalists, including some from Nine’s mastheads, advocated covering credible allegations of war crimes and disclosing whether staff had taken sponsored trips to the region.

• READ MORE: Which Australian journalists and politicians have gone on trips to Israel and Palestine?
• Open letter from journalists to Australian media outlets
• War on Gaza live: Israel resumes bombing after truce expires

Editors for Nine’s metro papers SMH, The Age, Brisbane Times and WAToday — comprising executive editor Tory Maguire, SMH editor Bevan Shields, Age editor Patrick Elligett and SMH national editor David King — reacted by saying they would remove any staff who signed the letter from reporting or producing content related to the war.

Following the letter, the editors organised an in-person meeting on Tuesday morning and invited Nine’s signatories to the open letter along with the mastheads’ house committee members of journalist union Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA).

According to five staff who spoke to Crikey on the condition of anonymity, little was known about the meeting prior to it being held. Initially, some staff were concerned the meeting would be about further repercussions for the letter’s signatories while others wondered if the editors were planning on softening their stance.

What became clear soon into the 90-minute meeting was that the editors had no intention of backing down. Multiple staff described them as “doubling down” in a “tense” meeting.

‘Mostly defensiveness’
“I would say the vibe was a lot of open discussion but mostly defensiveness from the editors,” one staff member told Crikey.

Editors stressed that their decision to sideline staff who had signed the letter was motivated by a desire to protect their mastheads’ reputations from a perception of bias.

They argued that the bans — while saying they were hesitant to use the word “ban” to describe them — were not punitive and were set to last as long as the conflict does.

A point of contention was the “hypocrisy” of treating staff as potentially biased for signed the letter about media coverage, while not applying that same standard to staff who have attended sponsored trips to Israel. (Crikey reported earlier this week that Maguire, Shields, Elligett and King have all made such trips.)

When one editor raised that a hypothetical reader coming across a Nine journalist’s name on the open letter would affect their perception of the paper, a staff member asked why it would not be the same for someone who had been on a trip, especially given that they were not required to disclose it.

While saying that going on a junket “years ago” would not affect a journalist’s coverage, editors singled out two journalists in the newsroom for having gone on trips — one supported by a movie studio and the other by environmental advocacy group Greenpeace — and whether they would need to disclose this.

In both cases, these journalists, who declined to comment to Crikey, had disclosed the relationship as part of their coverage.

“They [the editors] tried to make comparisons that weren’t really comparisons,” one journalist said.

‘Punished’ over backgrounds
Staff also used the meeting to raise concerns about what management was doing to retain diverse staff, describing feeling as being “punished” for their own backgrounds.

Maguire, Shields, Elligett and King did not respond to questions from Crikey about the meeting, including asking what Nine’s leadership was doing to retain diverse staff. A Nine spokesperson responded with a general statement instead.

“The editorial leaders are in constant communication with a vast range of newsroom staff, representing all perspectives, and will continue to encourage open dialogue on all issues, including this one,” they said in an emailed statement.

Shortly after the meeting on Wednesday afternoon, 17-year Age veteran and environment reporter Miki Perkins posted on X (formerly known as Twitter) that she was resigning from her role.

“I have made the decision that it’s time to seek broader horizons and I will be leaving,” she wrote.

Perkins, who hopes to stay working in journalism, was one of the journalists singled out in the meeting and had been assisting in circulating the open letter to journalists. She did not mention the meeting but Age staff believe that Nine management’s handling of the matter was the final straw.

Angry comments
Meanwhile, Nine’s Slack channel #feedback-smh-website, which automatically posts responses to a feedback survey, has been filled with angry comments from current and former readers who took issue with the editors’ response to the letter.

One metro paper journalist said that the last time they had seen such directed reader feedback was during the backlash to SMH‘s outing of Rebel Wilson.

“My family has been a subscriber to the Age consistently for around 100 years — but this is too far. Please end my subscription immediately,” wrote one respondent.

“Vale Herald. You shall be missed,” wrote another.

Cam Wilson is a journalist for the independent Crikey website in Australia. Republished by Pacific Media Watch.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has hailed the news that Narges Mohammadi — an Iranian journalist RSF has been defending for years — has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her “fight against the oppression of women in Iran,” her courage and determination.

Persecuted by the Iranian authorities since the late 1990s for her work, and imprisoned again since November 2021, she must be freed at once, RSF declared in a statement.

“Speak to save Iran” is the title of one of the letters published by Mohammadi from Evin prison, near Tehran, where she has been serving a sentence of 10 years and 9 months in prison since 16 November 2021.

• READ MORE: Iran’s jailed rights advocate Narges Mohammadi wins 2023 Nobel Peace Prize
• Other Narges Mohammadi reports

She has also been sentenced to hundreds of lashes. The maker of a documentary entitled White Torture and the author of a book of the same name, Mohammadi has never stopped denouncing the sexual violence inflicted on women prisoners in Iran.

It is this fight against the oppression of women that the Nobel Committee has just saluted by awarding the Peace Prize to this 51-year-old journalist and human rights activist, the former vice-president of the Defenders of Human Rights Centre, the Iranian human rights organisation that was created by Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian lawyer who was herself awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003.

It is because of this fight that Mohammadi has been hounded by the Iranian authorities, who continue to persecute her in prison.

She has been denied visits and telephone calls since 12 April 2022, cutting her off from the world.

New charges
At the same time, the authorities in Evin prison have brought new charges to keep her in detention.

On August 4, her jail term was increased by a year after the publication of another of her letters about violence against fellow women detainees.

White Torture: The infamy of solitary confinement in Iran with Narges Mohammadi.

Mohammadi was awarded the RSF Prize for Courage on 12 December 2023. At the award ceremony in Paris, her two children, whom she has not seen for eight years, read one of the letters she wrote to them from prison.

“In this country, amid all the suffering, all the fears and all the hopes, and when, after years of imprisonment, I am behind bars again and I can no longer even hear the voices of my children, it is with a heart full of passion, hope and vitality, full of confidence in the achievement of freedom and justice in my country that I will spend time in prison,” she wrote.

She ended the letter with a call to keep alive “the hope of victory”.

RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said:

“It is with immense emotion that I learn that the Nobel Peace Prize is being awarded to the journalist and human rights defender Narges Mohammadi.

At Reporters Without Borders (RSF), we have been fighting for her for years, alongside her husband and her two children, and with Shirin Ebadi. The Nobel Peace Prize will obviously be decisive in obtaining her release.”

On June 7, RSF referred the unacceptable conditions in which Mohammadi is being detained to all of the relevant UN human rights bodies.

During an oral update to the UN Human Rights Council on July 5, the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran expressed concern over the “continued detention of human rights defenders and lawyers defending the protesters, and at least 17 journalists”.

It is thanks to Mohammadi’s journalistic courage that the world knows what is happening in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s prisons, where 20 journalists are currently detained.

They include three other women: Elaheh Mohammadi, Niloofar Hamedi and Vida Rabbani.

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

No government likes to be called out for human rights abuses and it’s uncomfortable to do so, particularly when the abuser is either a friend or a country with which we have strong economic links.

In our relations with China, this is a difficult issue for us.

However, we should always expect our government to speak out for human rights and the case can be made that Chris Hipkins was too soft on his visit to China last week. The impression was of a laid-back Prime Minister failing to convey any of the serious concerns expressed by credible and principled human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

• READ MORE: ‘A real massacre’: Israel’s attack on Palestinians in Jenin
• Israelis kill nine in attack on Jenin refugee camp
• Other Palestine reports

It seems New Zealand is leaving the heavy lifting on human rights to Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta who, in her own words, had a robust discussion with China’s Minister of Foreign Affairs on these issues earlier this year.

An Australian report said she was “harangued” from the Chinese side, although this was denied by Mahuta.

Hipkins, as Prime Minister, has our loudest voice and he should have publicly backed up our Foreign Minister.

If we want to be regarded as a good global citizen, we have to speak out clearly and act consistently, irrespective of where human rights abuses take place. This is where New Zealand has fallen down repeatedly.

Looking the other way
We have been happy to strongly condemn Russia and announced economic and diplomatic sanctions within a few hours of its invasion of Ukraine but we look the other way when a country guilty of abuses is close to the US.

In regard to the longest military occupation in modern history, Israel’s occupation of Palestine, we have been weak and inconsistent over many decades in calling for Palestinian human rights.

It hasn’t always been like that.

In late 2016, the National government, under John Key as prime minister, co-sponsored a United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSC2334 – NZ was a security council member at the time) which was passed in a 14–0 vote. The US abstained.

The resolution states that, in the occupied Palestinian territories, Israeli settlements had “no legal validity” and constituted “a flagrant violation under international law”. It said they were a “major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace” in the Middle East.

Video shows the moment journalists said they were directly fired at by Israeli soldiers whilst they were covering the raid in Jenin refugee camp pic.twitter.com/OBQ5aS5c0A

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) July 3, 2023

So why does this matter now?

Because Israel has elected a new extremist government that has declared its intention to make illegal settlement building on Palestinian land its “top priority”. Early this week it announced plans for 5000 more homes for these illegal settlements, which a Palestinian official described as “part of an open war against the Palestinian people”.

Israel shows world middle finger
Israel is showing Palestinians, and the world, its middle finger.

At least nine people have been killed and scores wounded in the latest Israeli military attack on Palestinians in what is being described as a “real massacre” in Jenin refugee camp.

UNSC 2334 didn’t just criticise Israel. It called for action. It also asked member countries of the United Nations “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967″.

In practical terms, this means requiring our government and local authorities to refuse to purchase any goods or services from companies (both Israeli and foreign-owned) that operate in illegal Israeli settlements.

This ban should also be extended to the 112 companies identified by the UN Human Rights Council as complicit in the building and maintenance of these illegal Israeli settlements.

The government should be actively discouraging our Superannuation Fund and KiwiSaver providers from investing in these complicit companies but an analysis earlier this year showed the Super Fund investments in these companies have close to doubled in the past two years.

Some countries have begun following through on UNSC 2334 but New Zealand has been inert. We have not been prepared to back up our words at the United Nations with action here.

West Papua deserves our voice
Following through would mean we were standing up for human rights for everyone living in Palestine. We could expect our government to face false smears of anti-semitism from Israel’s leaders and their friends here but we would receive heartfelt thanks from a people who have suffered immeasurably for 75 years.

Palestinians are the largest group of refugees internationally — 5.9 million — after being driven off their land by Israeli militias in 1947-1949. Every day, more of their land is stolen for illegal settlements while we avert our gaze.

The Indonesian military occupation of West Papua and Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara also deserve our voice on the side of the victims.

Standing up for human rights is not comfortable when it means challenging supposed friends or allies. But we owe it to ourselves, and to those being brutally oppressed, to do more than mouth platitudes.

These peoples deserve our support and solidarity. Let’s not look the other way. Let’s act.

John Minto is national chair of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa. This article was first published in The New Zealand Herald but is republished with the permission of the author.

The Fiji government is signalling that it will not completely tear down the country’s controversial media law which, according to local newsrooms and journalism commentators, has stunted press freedom and development for more than a decade.

Ahead of the 2022 general elections last December, all major opposition parties campaigned to get rid of the Media Industry Development Act (MIDA) 2010 — brought in by the Bainimarama administration — if they got into power.

The change in government after 16 years following the polls brought a renewed sense of hope for journalists and media outlets.

• READ MORE: Repeal Fiji’s media law and start with ‘clean slate’, says CFL chief
• Other Fiji media freedom reports

But now almost 100 days in charge it appears Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition is backtracking on its promise to get rid of the punitive law, a move that has been condemned by the industry stakeholders.

“The government is totally committed to allowing people the freedom of the press that will include the review of the Media Act,” Rabuka said during a parliamentary session last month.

“I believe we cannot have a proper democracy without a free press which has been described as the oxygen of democracy,” he said.

Rabuka has denied that his government is backtracking on an election promise.

“Reviewing could mean eventually repealing it,” he told RNZ Pacific in February.

“We have to understand how it [media act] is faring in this modern day of media freedom. How have other administrations advance their own association with the media,” he said.

He said he intended to change it which means “review and make amendments to it”.

“The coalition has given an assurance that we will end that era of media oppression. We are discussing new legislation that reflects more democratic values.”

And last week, that discussion happened for the first time when consultations on a refreshed version of a draft regulation began in Suva as the government introduced the Media Ownership and Registration Bill 2023.

The bill is expected to “address issues that are undemocratic, threatens freedom of expression, and hinders the growth and development of a strong and independent news media in Fiji.”

The proposed law will amend the MIDA Act by removing the punitive clauses on content regulation that threatens journalists with heavy fines and jail terms.

“The bill is not intended as a complete reform of Fiji’s media law landscape,” according to the explanations provided by the government.

No need for government involvement
But the six-page proposed regulation is not what the media industry needs, according to the University of the South Pacific’s head of journalism programme Associate Professor Shailendra Singh.

“We have argued there is no need for legislation,” he said during the public consultation on the bill last Thursday.

“The existing laws are sufficient but if there has to be a legislation there should be minimum or no government involvement at all,” he said.

The Fijian Media Association (FMA) has also expressed strong opposition against the bill and is calling for the MIDA Act to be repealed.

“If there is a need for another legislation, then government can convene fresh consultation with stakeholders if these issues are not adequately addressed in other current legislation,” the FMA, which represents almost 150 working journalists in Fiji, stated.

Speaking on behalf of his colleagues, FMA executive member and Communications Fiji Limited news director Vijay Narayan said “we want a total repeal” of the Media Act.

“We believe that it was brought about without consultation at all…it was shoved down our throats,” Narayan said.

“We have worked with it for 16 years. We have been staring at the pointy end of the spear and we continue to work hard to build our industry despite the challenges we face.”

‘Restrictions stunts growth’
He said the Fiji’s media industry “needs investment” to improve its standards.

Narayan said the FMA acknowledged that the issue of content regulation was addressed in the new law.

But “with the restrictions in investment that also stunts our growth as media workers,” he added.

“The fact that it will be controlled by politicians there is a real fear. What if we have reporting on something and the politician feels that the organisation that is registered should be reregistered.”

The FMA has also raised concerns about the provisions in relation to cross-media ownership and foreign ownership as key issues that impacts on media development and creates an unequal playing field.

Sections 38 and 39 of the Media Act impose restrictions on foreign ownership on local local media organisations and cross-media ownership.

According to a recent analysis of the Act co-authored by Dr Singh, they are a major impediment to media development and need to be re-examined.

“It would be prudent to review the media ownership situation and reforms periodically, every four-five years, to gauge the impact, and address any issues, that may have arisen,” the report recommends.

But Suva lawyer and coalition government adviser Richard Naidu is of the view that all issues in respect to the news media should be opened up.

Naidu, who has helped draft the proposed new legislation, said it “has preserved the status quo” and the rules of cross-ownership and foreign media ownership were left as they were in the Media Act.

“Is that right? That is a question of opinion…because before the [MIDA Act] there were no rules on cross-media ownership, there were no rules on foreign media ownership.”

Naidu said the MIDA Act was initially introduced as a bill and media had two hours to to offer its views on it before its implementation.

“So, which status quo ought to be preserved; the one before the [MIDA Act] was imposed or the one as it stands right now. Those are legitimate questions.”

“There is a whole range of things which need to be reviewed and which will probably take a bit of time.”

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

SPECIAL REPORT: By Phil Thornton

In the two years since Myanmar’s military seized power from the country’s elected lawmakers it has waged a war of terror against its citizens — members of the Civil Disobedience Movement, artists, poets, actors, politicians, health workers, student leaders, public servants, workers, and journalists.

The military-appointed State Administration Council amended laws to punish anyone critical of its illegal coup or the military. International standards of freedoms — speech, expression, assembly, and association were “criminalised”.

The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), reported as of 30 January 2023, the military killed 2901 people and arrested another 17,492 (of which 282 were children), with 13,719 people still in detention.

One hundred and forty three people have been sentenced to death and four have been executed since the military’s coup on 1 February 2021. Of those arrested, 176 were journalists and as many as 62 are still in jail or police detention.

The Committee to Protect Journalists ranks Myanmar as the world’s second-highest jailers of journalists. Fear of attacks, harassment, intimidation, censorship, detainment, and threats of assassination for their reporting has driven journalists and media workers underground or to try to reach safety in neighbouring countries.

Journalist Ye Htun Oo has been arrested, tortured, received death threats, and is now forced to seek safety outside of Myanmar. Ye Htun spoke to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) of his torture, jailing and why he felt he had no choice, but to leave Myanmar for the insecurity of a journalist in exile.

They came for me in the morning
“I started as a journalist in 2007 but quit after two years because of the difficulty of working under the military. I continued to work, writing stories and poetry. In 2009 I restarted work as a freelance video and documentary maker.”

Ye Htu said making money from journalism in Myanmar had never been easy.

“I was lucky if I made 300,000 kyat a month (about NZ$460) — it was a lot of work, writing, editing, interviewing and filming.”

Ye Htun’s hands, fingers and thin frame twist and turn as he takes time to return to the darkness of the early morning when woken by police and military knocking on his front door.

“It was 2 am, the morning of 9 October 2021. We were all asleep. The knocking on the door was firm but gentle. I opened the door. Men from the police and the military’s special media investigation unit stood there — no uniforms. They’d come to arrest me.”

Ye Htun links the visit of the police and army to his friend’s arrest the day before.

“He had my number on his phone and when questioned told them I was a journalist. I hadn’t written anything for a while. The only reason they arrested me was because I was identified as a journalist — it was enough for them. The military unit has a list of journalists who they want to control, arrest, jail or contain.”

Ye Htun explains how easy it is for journalists to be arrested.

“When they arrest people…if they find a reference to a journalist or a phone number it’s enough to put you on their list.”

After the coup, Ye Htun continued to report.

“I was not being paid, moving around, staying in different places, following the protests. I was taking photos. I took a photo of citizens arresting police and it was published. This causes problems for the people in the photo. It also caused some people to regard me and journalists as informers — we were now in a hard place, not knowing what or who we could photograph. I decided to stop reporting and made the decision to move home. That’s when they came and arrested me.”

In the early morning before sunrise, the police and military removed Ye Htun from his home and family and took him to a detention cell inside a military barracks.

“They took all my equipment — computer, cameras, phone, and hard disks. The men who arrested and took me to the barracks left and others took over. Their tone changed. I was accused of being a PDF (People’s Defence Force militia).

“Ye Htun describes how the ‘politeness’ of his captors soon evaporated, and the danger soon became a brutal reality. They started to beat me with kicks, fists, sticks and rubber batons. They just kept beating me, no questions. I was put in foot chains — ankle braces.”

The beating of Ye Htun would continue for 25 days and the uncertainty and hurt still shows in his eyes, as he drags up the details he’s now determined to share.

“I was interrogated by an army captain who ordered me to show all my articles — there was little to show. They made me kneel on small stones and beat me on the body — never the head as they said, ‘they needed it intact for me to answer their questions’”.

Ye Htun explained it wasn’t just his assigned interrogators who beat or tortured him.

“Drunk soldiers came regularly to spit, insult or threaten me with their guns or knives.”

Scared, feared for his life
Ye Htun is quick to acknowledge he was scared and feared for his life.

“I was terrified. No one knew where I was. I knew my family would be worried. Everyone knows of people being arrested and then their dead, broken bodies, missing vital organs, being returned to grieving families.”

After 25 days of torture, Ye Htun was transferred to a police jail.

“They accused me of sending messages they had ‘faked’ and placed on my phone. I was sentenced to two years jail on 3rd November — I had no lawyer, no representative.”

Ye Htun spoke to political prisoners during his time in jail and concluded many were behind bars on false charges.

“Most political prisoners are there because of fake accusations. There’s no proper rule of law — the military has turned the whole country into a prison.”

Ye Htun served over a year and five months of his sentence and was one of six journalists released in an amnesty from Pyay Jail on 4 January 2023.

Not finished torturing
Any respite Ye Htun or his family received from his release was short-lived, as it became apparent the military was not yet finished torturing him. He was forced to sign a declaration that if he was rearrested he would be expected to serve his existing sentence plus any new ones, and he received death threats.

Soon after his release, the threats to his family were made.

“I was messaged on Facebook and on other social media apps. The messages said, ‘don’t go out alone…keep your family and wife away from us…’ their treats continued every two or three days.”

Ye Htun and his family have good cause to be concerned about the threats made against them. Several pro-military militias have openly declared on social media their intention against those opposed to the military’s control of the country.

A pro-military militia, Thwe Thauk Apwe (Blood Brothers), specialise in violent killings designed to terrorise.

Frontier Magazine reported in May 2022 that Thwe Thauk Apwe had murdered 14 members of the National League of Democracy political party in two weeks. The militia uses social media to boast of its gruesome killings and to threaten its targets — those opposed to military rule — PDF units, members of political parties, CDM members, independent media outlets and journalists.

Ye Htun said fears for his wife and children’s safety forced him to leave Myanmar.

“I couldn’t keep putting them at risk because I’m a journalist. I will continue to work, but I know I can’t do it in Myanmar until this military regime is removed.”

Air strikes target civilians – where’s the UN?
Award-winning documentary maker and artist, Sai Kyaw Khaing, dismayed at the lack of coverage by international and regional media on the impacts of Myanmar’s military aerial strikes on civilian targets, decided to make the arduous trip to the country’s northwest to find out.

In the two years since the military regime took illegal control of the country’s political infrastructure, Myanmar is now engaged in a brutal, countrywide civil war.

Civilian and political opposition to the military coup saw the formation of People Defence Force units under the banner of the National Unity Government established in April 2021 by members of Parliament elected at the 2020 elections and outlawed by the military after its coup.

Thousands of young people took up arms and joined PDF units, trained by Ethnic Armed Organisations, to defend villages and civilians and fight the military regime. The regime vastly outnumbered and outmuscled the PDFs and EAOs with its military hardware — tanks, heavy artillery, helicopter gunships and fighter jets.

Sai Kyaw contacted a number of international media outlets with his plans to travel deep inside the conflict zone to document how displaced people were coping with the airstrikes and burning of their villages and crops.

Sai Kyaw said it was telling that he has yet to receive a single response of interest from any of the media he approached.

“What’s happening in Myanmar is being ignored, unlike the conflict in Ukraine. Most of the international media, if they do report on Myanmar, want an ‘expert’ to front their stories, even better if it’s one of their own, a Westerner.”

Deadly strike impact
Sai Kyaw explains why what is happening on the ground needs to be explained — the impacts of the deadly airstrikes on the lives of unarmed villagers.

“My objective is to talk to local people. How can they plant or harvest their crops during the intense fighting? How can they educate their kids or get medical help?

“Thousands of houses, schools, hospitals, churches, temples, and mosques have been targeted and destroyed — how are the people managing to live?”

Sai Kyaw put up his own money to finance his trip to a neighbouring country where he then made contact with people prepared to help him get to northwestern Myanmar, which was under intense attacks from the military regime.

“It took four days by motorbike on unlit mountain dirt tracks that turned to deep mud when it rained. We also had to avoid numerous military checkpoints, military informers, and spies.”

Sai Kyaw said that after reaching his destination, meeting with villagers, and witnessing their response to the constant artillery and aerial bombardments, their resilience astounded him.

“These people rely on each other, when they’re bombed from their homes, people who still have a house rally around and offer shelter. They don’t have weapons to fight back, but they organise checkpoints managed by men and women.”

Sai Kyaw said being unable to predict when an airstrike would happen took its toll on villagers.

Clinics, schools bombed
“You don’t know when they’re going to attack — day or night — clinics, schools, places of worship — are bombed. These are not military targets — they don’t care who they kill.”

Sai Kyaw witnessed an aerial bombing and has the before and after film footage that shows the destruction. Rows of neat houses, complete with walls intact before the air strike are left after the attack with holes a car could drive through.

“The unpredictable and indiscriminate attacks mean villagers are unable to harvest their crops or plant next season’s rice paddies.”

Sai Kyaw is concerned that the lack of aid getting to the people in need of shelter, clothing, food, and medicine will cause a large-scale humanitarian crisis.

“There’s no sign of international aid getting to the people. If there’s a genuine desire to help the people, international aid groups can do it by making contact with local community groups. It seems some of these big international aid donors are reluctant to move from their city bases in case they upset the military’s SAC [State Administration Council].”

At the time of writing Sai Kyaw Khaing has yet to receive a reply from any of the international media he contacted.

It’s the economy stupid
A veteran Myanmar journalist, Kyaw Kyaw*, covered a wide range of stories for more than 15 years, including business, investment, and trade. He told IFJ he was concerned the ban on independent media, arrests of journalists, gags and access restrictions on sources meant many important stories went unreported.

“The military banning of independent media is a serious threat to our freedom of speech. The military-controlled state media can’t be relied on. It’s well documented, it’s mainly no news or fake news overseen by the military’s Department of Propaganda.”

Kyaw lists the stories that he explains are in critical need of being reported — the cost of consumer goods, the collapse of the local currency, impact on wages, lack of education and health care, brain drain as people flee the country, crops destroyed and unharvested and impact on next year’s yield.

Kyaw is quick to add details to his list.

“People can’t leave the country fast enough. There are more sellers than buyers of cars and houses. Crime is on the rise as workers’ real wages fall below the poverty line. Garment workers earned 4800 kyat, the minimum daily rate before the military’s coup. The kyat was around 1200 to the US dollar — about four dollars. Two years after the coup the kyat is around 2800 — workers’ daily wage has dropped to half, about US$2 a day.”

Kyaw Kyaw’s critique is compelling as he explains the cost of everyday consumer goods and the impact on households.

“Before the coup in 2021, rice cost a household, 32,000 kyat for around 45kg. It is now selling at 65,000 kyat and rising. Cooking oil sold at 3,000 kyat for 1.6kg now sells for over double, 8,000kyat.

“It’s the same with fish, chicken, fuel, and medicine – family planning implants have almost doubled in cost from 25,000 kyat to now selling at 45,000 kyat.”

Humanitarian crisis potential
Kyaw is dismayed that the media outside the country are not covering stories that have a huge impact on people’s daily struggle to feed and care for their families and have the real potential for a massive humanitarian crisis in the near future.

“The focus is on the revolution, tallies of dead soldiers, politics — all important, but journalists and local and international media need to report on the hidden costs of the military’s coup. Local media outlets need to find solutions to better cover these issues.”

Kyaw stresses international governments and institutions — ASEAN, UK, US, China, and India — need to stop talking and take real steps to remove and curb the military’s destruction of the country.

“In two years, they displaced over a million people, destroyed thousands of houses and religious buildings, attacked schools and hospitals — killing students and civilians — what is the UNSC waiting for?”

An independent think tank, the Institute for Strategy and Policy – Myanmar, and the UN agency for refugees confirm Kyaws Kyaw’s claims.The Institute for Strategy and Policy reports “at least 28,419 homes and buildings were torched or destroyed…in the aftermath of the coup between 1 February 2021, and 15 July 2022.”

The UN agency responsible for refugees, the UNHCR, estimates the number of displaced people in Myanmar is a staggering 1,574,400. Since the military coup and up to January 23, the number was 1,244,000 people displaced.

While the world’s media and governments focus their attention and military aid on Ukraine, Myanmar’s people continue to ask why their plight continues to be ignored.

Phil Thornton is a journalist and senior adviser to the International Federation of Journalists in Southeast Asia. This article was first published by the IFJ Asia-Pacific blog and is republished with the author’s permission. Thornton is also a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

*Name has been changed as requested for security concerns.

Murder charges have been reinstated against the man suspected of killing French Polynesian journalist Jean-Pascal Couraud, known as “JPK” — his byline, who vanished in 1997.

Francis Stein, a former head of the territory’s archive service, was first charged in 2019 but France’s highest court accepted his appeal last year that investigative magistrates had breached rules during his questioning.

The investigative magistrates have now revived their probe against Stein and Miri Tatarata, who was JPK’s partner.

• READ MORE: Missing – Jean-Pascal Couraud, last seen in French Polynesia
• Other JPK reports

The pair are both accused of killing JPK, an investigative journalist who was editor-in-chief of the French-language newspaper Les Nouvelles de Tahiti, whose body has never been found.

An investigation was first opened in 2004 after a former spy claimed that JPK had been abducted and killed by the government’s GIP militia, which allegedly dumped him at sea between Moorea and Tahiti.

Murder charges against two members of the now disbanded GIP were dismissed eight years ago, but kidnapping charges have been upheld.

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

A new study suggests that the news media’s tanking levels of public trust may be made worse merely by association with social media.

The study, released this month by the Reuters Institute at Oxford University, has exposed gaps between trust in news via conventional delivery and the same thing consumed via social media.

It doesn’t matter whether people use social media or not: Levels of trust is lower if they simply associate news with the platforms.

• READ MORE: The trust gap: how and why news on digital platforms is viewed more sceptically versus news in general

The gap varies between platforms and between countries but the overall finding is that levels of trust in news on social media, search engines, and messaging apps is consistently lower than audience trust in information in the news media more generally.

And our media is becoming more and more associated with social media.

Many of the country’s main news outlets have done deals with Google to appear on its Google News platform. Click on the app and you’ll see stories from Stuff, Newshub, New Zealand Herald and NewstalkZB, Radio New Zealand, Television New Zealand, Newsroom, and the Otago Daily Times.

NZME has brokered a deal with Facebook for the use of content, and other publishers are using the Commerce Commission in the hope of leveling the negotiating playing field.

Split between north and south
The Reuters study (part of the institute’s on-going research into trust in the media) was a split between north and south. The four countries surveyed were the United Kingdom, the United States, India, and Brazil. Two thousand people were surveyed in each country and covered seven platforms: Facebook, Google, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, WhatsApp, and YouTube.

New Zealand use of social media more closely follows that of the United States and the United Kingdom than India and Brazil so the data relating to those two nations are quoted here. The full results can be found here.

Google showed the smallest gap between platform and general trust in news. It was only one percentage point behind in Britain where 53 percent express general trust in news. In the US, where the general trust level sits at 49 percent, Google was actually four percentage points ahead.

The same could not be said for other platforms.

To ease the calculation, we’ll say roughly 50 percent of respondents in both countries express trust in news in general. Contrast that with news on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, which score in the mid to high twenties.

TikTok news is trusted by only 20 percent on those surveyed, the same number as WhatsApp rates in the United States (the UK is higher on 29 percent).

Only YouTube emerged from the twenties, with its news content being rated by 33 percent in Britain and 40 percent in the United States.

Complex reasons
The reasons for these gaps in perception of news on social media are complex. This is due in part to the fact that social media serves many different purposes for many different users.

News is only a small part of the interchange that occurs. The study shows that no more than a third use Google or Facebook for daily access to news, with other platforms below 20 percent, and on TikTok only 11 percent.

Large portions of the public, in fact, do not use social media platforms at all (although this does not stop them having opinions about them in the survey). Usage varies between Britain and America but a quarter to a third never use Facebook, Google or YouTube and half to three quarters do not use the remaining platforms.

Previous Reuters research has shown levels of trust in news are higher in those who access it on a regular basis. Distrust is highest among those who have least contact with news and with social platforms. This is confirmed by the latest survey.

News organisations may take some comfort from the findings that young people are more trusting of news on social platforms than older people. The gap is huge in some cases.

An average 14 percent of Americans and Britons over 55 trust news on Facebook. That rises to 40 percent among those under 35. The gap for Google is similar and even greater on other platforms.

News aside, however, people have generally positive views of platforms. More than two-thirds give Google a tick and almost as many give the thumbs-up to YouTube. Both are seen as the best platforms on which learn new things.

Facebook doesn’t fare so well
Facebook does not fare quite so well but at 40-45 percent positive rating, while fewer than a third feel positively about Twitter and TikTok.

In spite of these warm fuzzies, however, the surveys reveal “big problems”, particularly with Facebook.

Almost two-thirds of respondents blame Facebook for propagating false or misleading information and it is also seen as the worst culprit in on-platform harassment, irresponsible use of personal data, prioritising political views, and censoring content.

Although opinions expressed by non-users has complicated the Reuters study, both users and no-users express similar views when it comes to these problems. For example, the proportion of Facebook users that say false or misleading information is a problem on the platform (63 percent) is virtually the same as those who say it is in the overall sample.

The study, which includes an even wider range of variables than are included here, attempts to correlate platform usage and ideas about journalism. After all, it is on such platforms — and from the mouths of some politicians — that users encounter discussions about journalism and criticism of journalists.

The survey asked specific questions about journalists. Half the respondents thought journalists try to manipulate the public to serve the agendas of powerful politicians and care more about getting attention than reporting the facts.

Forty percent thought journalists were careless in what they reported, and a slightly higher proportion thought they were only in it for the money.

Criticism of journalism
The researchers then attempted to identify where and how criticism of journalism is encountered. Twitter users are most likely to encounter it. In the United States almost half said they often see criticism of media there and the UK is not far behind.

More than 40 percent of Facebook and Google users in America encounter it and a third of British users of those two platforms say they see it there. Other (newer) platforms have even higher incidences.

So that is where the criticism of journalists is propagated, but who is doing the criticising? Almost half those surveyed in the United States pointed the finger at politicians and political parties, although a similar number also say the hear it from “ordinary people”.

The figures are slightly lower in the UK but around a third identify political or government sources.

The survey also asked whether other public figures were responsible for criticism of journalists. Celebrities and activists figure in around a third of responses but so, too, do journalists themselves.

The surveys also give some pointers about the relative importance of “clicks” or how much attention our newsrooms should give to real-time analytics. The answer is  . . . some.

Respondents were asked to pick the factors that were important in deciding whether they could trust information on online platforms. In both countries fewer than 40 percent said the number of likes or shares were important or very important.

Media source familiarity
Around half paid attention to comments on items but far more important was whether they had heard of the media source. Two thirds were influenced by the tone or language used in headlines and almost 60 percent were influenced by accompanying images.

That finding correlates with another in which respondents were asked who should be responsible for helping to differentiate between trustworthy and untrustworthy content on the internet.

More than two-thirds put that responsibility on media organisations, higher than on tech companies, and significantly higher than on government (although Britons were more inclined toward regulation than their American cousins).

However, if the research proved one thing, it was that the media/social media environment is deeply nuanced and manifests the complexities of human behaviour. The conclusions drawn by the researchers say as much. They leave a couple of important take-aways.

“As a trade-off for expanding reach and scale, newsrooms have often ceded considerable control to these outside companies in terms of how their content is distributed and how often and in what form their work appears on these services.

“Such relationships have been further strained as publishers become increasingly dependent on platforms to reach segments of the public least interested in consuming news through legacy modes, even as platforms themselves have pivoted to serving up other kinds of experiences farther removed from news, recognising that many of their most active users have less interest in such content, especially where politically contentious issues are involved.”

They say the gap they have identified is likely a reflection of this mismatch in audience perceptions about what platforms are for, the kinds of information they get when using the services, and how people think more generally about news media.

“It is possible that the main challenge for news organisations when it comes to building and sustaining audience trust is less about the specific problem of how their journalism is perceived when audiences encounter it online, and more about the broader problem of being seen at all.”

My conclusion
Years ago, we heard the term “News You Can Use” as a response to the challenge of declining newspaper circulation. That was a catchy way of saying “We must be relevant”. The Reuters study is further proof that journalism’s real challenge lies in producing content that ordinary people need to live their daily lives. If that means collating and publishing daily lists of what every supermarket chain is charging for milk, bread, cabbages and potatoes then so be it.

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 a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Upon assuming the Philippines presidency on 30 June 2022, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr — the only son and namesake of the former dictator Ferdinand Marcos — delivered an inaugural address that did not mention press freedom.

Press freedom also went unmentioned when he delivered his first State of the Nation Address before the joint Senate and House of Representatives on 25 July 2022.

His silence on the issue was notable given that the former press secretary Trixie Cruz-Angeles, who stepped down on 4 October 2022 due to health reasons, had stressed that press freedom would be guaranteed under the Marcos Jr administration and that the administration would “work closely” with news media.

• READ MORE: Other Philippine media freedom reports

But as he pledged to protect press freedom on the campaign trail, certain journalists were pushed for getting too physically close to Marcos Jr.

It also remains to be seen whether his representatives will continue to evade critical questions during press briefings or if Marcos Jr will be more accommodating of interview requests. The normalisation of these practices would be a death knell for press freedom in the Philippines.

Media restrictions and abuse under Marcos Jr evoke memories of the Philippine media’s dark history under former Philippines president and dictator Ferdinand Marcos’ martial law from 1972–86.

The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility identifies five similarities between the Marcos regime in the 1970s and the current Marcos Jr administration.

Distribution of propaganda
These are the distribution of propaganda through government agencies and social media, the ABS–CBN shutdown, attacks and threats against journalists, crony press and media selectivity and propaganda films.

There are chilling similarities between the two administrations despite Marcos Jr’s promise that he would not declare martial law.

For the current administration, “working closely” with journalists means putting them in touch with pro-Marcos Jr vloggers, content creators and influencers. Cruz-Angeles is prioritising the accreditation of pro-regime reporters to cover official functions.

But her claim that accreditation is open to those of all political beliefs rings untrue as pro-Marcos Jr vloggers recently established a new group (upon the suggestion of Cruz-Angeles herself) to help gain government accreditation.

Celebrity vlogger Toni Gonzaga was granted a one-on-one interview with Marcos Jr at the Malacañang Palace in September 2022, showing how the administration accommodates those who ask soft questions. That reminds many Filipinos of Marcos Jr’s non-participation in most presidential debates and interviews during the campaign, opting to accommodate events organised by his supporters.

During the 2022 election campaign, there were times when his handlers did not invite critical journalists, asking those invited to submit questions in advance to control the flow of press briefings.

By accrediting pro-administration, hyper-partisan non-journalists, the Marcos Jr administration gives them legitimacy as “truth seekers” even if there is evidence they proliferate disinformation. It is also a strategy to discredit critical journalists for peddling “fake news”.

Critical journalists harassed
Critical journalists and media organisations are harassed and intimidated under the Marcos Jr administration, just as they were under the 2016–2020 Duterte administration. Disinformation remains rampant even after the 2022 elections.

Red-tagging — the blacklisting of journalists and media outlets critical of the government — has continued.

Shortly after Marcos Jr assumed the presidency, the Court of Appeals upheld the “cyber libel” convictions of Nobel Prize laureate Maria Ressa and former Rappler writer Reynaldo Santos Jr.

While these convictions appeared to carry over the selective harassment and intimidation of the vengeful Duterte administration, the chilling effect on the media is real. Those targeted become grim reminders of what can happen if journalists and news media organisations incur the ire of the powers that be.

The date 21 September 2022 marked the 50 years since martial law was imposed. Marcos Jr repeatedly claims martial law was necessary to tackle communist and separatist threats, dismissing accusations that his father was a dictator.

Even the funding for the planned memorial for Martial Law victims was cut by 75 percent in the 2023 National Expenditure Programme.

Marcos Jr intends to rewrite history textbooks to include his family’s version of the truth. By silencing his critics, he can further engage in historical denialism. This is important not just to erase his father’s dictator image but to escape his family’s legal problems like the unpaid estate tax and his mother’s conviction for seven counts of graft.

Media repression ‘normalised’
Media repression continues to be normalised under the Marcos Jr regime. One of his allies in the House of Representatives blocked the return of ABS–CBN, whose franchise bid was denied in 2020. Rappler and its editorial staff, including Ressa, continue to face legal problems as well as the threat of closure.

The National Telecommunications Commission blocked 27 websites accused of having communist links in June 2022. It took a court order for the online publication Bulatlat Multimedia to be unblocked, while journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio remains in detention on questionable charges after being red-tagged and subjected to death threats.

The murder of broadcaster Percy Lapid on 3 October 2022 — the second journalist to be killed under the new administration — also reflects the dire state of press freedom in the Philippines.

That Marcos Jr did not mention press freedom in his inaugural speech and first State of the Nation Address reflects his disregard for critical journalism.

Although it is still early days, his efforts to whitewash the dictatorship’s dark past and continue his predecessor’s media repression indicate that his pre-election promise of a “free press” is long abandoned.

Danilo Arana Arao is associate professor at the Department of Journalism, the University of the Philippines Diliman, special lecturer at the Department of Journalism, the Polytechnic University of the Philippines Santa Mesa, associate editor at Bulatlat Multimedia and editor at Media Asia. This article was first published in East Asia Forum.

New Zealand’s Ombudsman, Peter Boshier, has given government agency media teams a well-deserved kick up the fundamental over some of their dealings with journalists.

Last week he released his report Ready or not? Thematic OIA compliance and practice in 2022. It is highly critical of the way the teams handle some media requests for information. Incredibly, many did not see such requests as falling under the Official Information Act.

The 66-page report revisits 12 government agencies that were investigated by his predecessor in 2015 and it picks out media teams for particular scrutiny.

• READ MORE: Other Gavin Ellis commentaries

“Most of the agencies I investigated have a Media Team responsible for handling information requests from the news media. These Media Teams operate separately from centralised OIA Teams, which typically process information requests from the public.

“While separating requests in this way is not unreasonable in itself, I am concerned that some of the practices associated with this method of request handling has helped to create a false perception that media requests are not OIA requests and, as a result, that agencies do not need to adhere to OIA obligations when handling them.”

The Ombudsman’s report states unequivocally that media information requests are OIA requests, with the core legislative obligations that those confer.

Some excellent service
As one might expect, there were examples of excellent service provided by media teams. He singled out the Ministry of Health Manatū Hauora and the Public Service Commission Te Kawa Mataaho.

The former was praised for its information handling during the pandemic, while the latter’s performance should be a given — it is the lead agency on implementation of the government’s commitments under the international Open Government Partnership.

However, he didn’t mince words over some of the actions of media teams: “In most of the agencies I investigated, I saw evidence of breaches of the law.”

Given some of Peter Boshier’s other findings, that conclusion should not come as a surprise.

“I was deeply concerned to find that the responses from some agencies to my investigation suggested they did not consider that media information requests fall under the OIA. As a result, it had become embedded in the culture and practice of staff in some Media Teams to refuse information without providing a valid reason under the OIA.

“Those staff considered that the OIA did not apply to their actions and decisions on information requests from the media—in stark contrast to their counterparts in OIA Teams operating in the same agency.”

When he gave the agencies a preliminary assessment of this aspect of their operations, one replied that “placing the constraints of the OIA over the work of the ministry’s media team will add a layer of formality over those relationships and despite the best endeavours of staff, will add to the time required to respond.”

Another said it would affect relationships with the media.

Misperceptions a problem
The Ombudsman disagrees with that assessment. And he went further, saying the perception that the OIA did not apply to media information requests was “simply incorrect”. He saw the misperception as the cause of media teams operating contrary to the law.

He called on the leaders of errant agencies to take immediate responsibility for a cultural shift within media teams and ensure policy, practice, and process changes were made to ensure compliance with the law.

The most common breaches have been failure to give reasons for refusing to give information, and failure to acknowledge a right of appeal to the Ombudsman.

He found distinct types of breaches of the requirement to give reasons for refusal:

• The agency acknowledged that information was being refused, but the reason given for refusal was not a valid one under the OIA, e.g. “That information is not centrally located’ and “We’re unable to provide that information within the given timeframe”.
• No information was given and it was not acknowledged there had been a refusal.
• The agency responded with general information but did not actually answer the question, and it was not acknowledged there had been a refusal.

The investigation revealed a curious relationship between media teams and an agency’s OIA team.

Media teams used a “triaging system” to determine when it was more appropriate for the OIA Team to handle the request. The 12 agencies’ media teams “triaged” requests in a broadly similar manner. Where the request could be answered by the media team within the requester’s specified timeframe — typically a matter of hours or days, to accommodate media deadlines — it would be answered by the media team.

Lack of clarity
If the request could not be answered within the timeframe specified by the requester because it was complex, voluminous, or if it was anticipated that withholding grounds may apply, the media team typically advised the requester that their request would need to be handled by the agency’s OIA team.

Some media teams would tell the requester that their request “would need to be an OIA” without making it clear whether they had forwarded the request on, or whether the requester would need to resubmit their request.

“This language and the practice of separating requests in this way is problematic,” the Ombudsman said, “because it helps propagate the misapprehension that quick turnaround ‘media requests’ are distinct from other information requests. It also implies that the OIA does not apply to them, while ‘formal’ OIA requests ‘must’ go through a regimented, multi-stage process which invariably takes the maximum statutory time limit (20 working days).”

The report is couched in measured terms but I cannot help but feel this two-tiered system is a weapon used against the media. Twenty working days is as good as a refusal in the fast moving world of digital daily news. Peter Boshier acknowledges as much in his report.

“Where requested information cannot be provided in a matter of days, but the journalist finds it untenable to wait up to 20 working days, there is rarely a middle ground; the request is sometimes abandoned by the requester­. It is here that Media Teams’ commitment to responding in only hours or days may be a double-edged sword: when Media Teams cannot reply within the media’s specified timeframe, the request may not get answered at all.

Few agencies I investigated have effective mechanisms in place for providing information ‘without undue delay’, or under urgency if it falls outside the media’s requested timeframe. This ‘now or never’ approach to media information requests reinforces the false perception that the OIA requires a separate process for handling ‘formal’ information requests, and it creates a potential gap in the provision of information which is of great concern to me and does not serve the public interest.”

And he concedes that the two-tiered system fuels perceptions that the Official Information. Act is used as a shield by delaying or frustrating requests for information. However, he denies that the Act itself is at fault. It does not prescribe the processes to be followed, “and an agency’s OIA process can be as agile, flexible and swift as the agency is prepared to make it.”

Loopholes to be exploited
He is absolutely right. What he does not acknowledge, however, is the fact that the sometimes loosely-defined and voluminous reasons for refusing information that are contained in the legislation send a signal to agencies and their employees that there are loopholes to be exploited.

And even outside the OIA there are pressures that work against its spirit. For example, the Ombudsman notes that agencies employ a blanket approach to responses sent to ministers ‘for your information’ under the No Surprises Principle. Even when no input is required from the minister, the material is usually sent three to five days before it is due to be sent to the requester.

The Ombudsman puts it rather delicately — “[It] may lead to the perception that input from the Minister is being sought by the agency that might alter the decision planned for release” — but I read that as saying nothing contentious is released without political approval.

Throughout the report there are sensible and workable solutions to the problem that the Ombudsman has uncovered. Training, policy guidelines and culture change led from the top are all ways in which the spirit of the OIA can be met.

And media teams can start obeying the law.

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 a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

“These are dark times for our nation”, former US President Donald Trump declared when he announced his mansion at Mar-A-Lago had been raided by FBI agents on Monday night Florida time.

An assault like this “could only take place in broken, Third World countries […] corrupt at a level not seen before”.

“They even broke into my safe!” he went on, comparing the FBI action to Watergate:

What is the difference between this and Watergate, where operatives broke into the Democrat National Committee? Here, in reverse, Democrats broke into the home of the 45th President of the United States.

• READ MORE: The January 6 hearings have been spectacular TV, but will they have any consequences for Trump?
• Watergate at 50: the burglary that launched a thousand scandals
• US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade – but for abortion opponents, this is just the beginning

Watergate was the hotel–office complex in Washington, home to the Democratic Party national headquarters, which was famously burgled in June 1972 by political operatives working for the re-election of Richard Nixon.

After more than two years of tortuous judicial and political inquiries, Nixon became the first — and still the only — American president to resign.

Trump says MAL has been searched by feds pic.twitter.com/UEC5KE5pJm

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 8, 2022

The differences between the raid on Trump’s mansion and Watergate are obvious. Trump’s mansion was raided by law officers executing a legally issued search warrant.

They entered by the front door and searched openly. Watergate was an illegal break in by political operatives acting secretly.

And where Trump, playing to his shrinking base, claimed last night’s raid was undertaken by “Democrats”, it was in fact conducted by a group of FBI agents. The Florida raid took place to enforce the law; the Watergate action broke the law.

Speculation intense
As of late Monday night Washington time, neither the FBI nor the Justice Department had made an official announcement about the raid.

However, on the basis of background comments by various officials, most media reports agree that its purpose was to secure various documents, including classified material, from Trump’s presidency. Some reports said the FBI officers left with 15 boxes of documents.

Trump had failed to meet the requirements of the innocuous-sounding national Archives Act, which exists to minimise the scope for corruption and abuse of process.

Trump has treated these legal obligations, and any accountability provisions, with contempt. Indeed, a soon to be published book by New York Times political correspondent, Maggie Haberman, includes photos showing Trump used to flush unwanted documents down the toilet.

The FBI raid follows the recent critical scrutiny of Trump’s actions in inciting a riot against the Capitol on January 6, 2021, when the congressional vote for the presidential election was declared. While politically humiliating to Trump, it is not clear that any legal action will follow from those hearings.

Congress has no power to initiate such action, and some speculate that Attorney-General Merrick Garland is reluctant to be seen to be undertaking politically motivated prosecutions.

Trump, speaking of himself in the third person, asserted in his statement on the FBI raid that “the political persecution of President Donald J. Trump has been going on for years.”

Loyalty or else
More than anything, that response is testimony to Trump’s paranoid worldview, which demands the loyalty of those around him despite any inconvenient principle or evidence to the contrary.

In another soon-to-be published book, Trump’s former White House chief-of-staff, John Kelly, a retired marine general, recounts how Trump said he wanted his generals to be loyal to him the way Hitler’s were loyal to him under Nazi rule.

One of the Watergate reporters, Bob Woodward, wrote a series of books about Trump and interviewed him several times. He reported an episode where Trump went through the faces of various Democratic congressional figures watching him deliver his State of the Union address, most of whom — according to Woodward — looked bland, bored or unemotional.

After each of them, Trump exclaimed to Woodward “look at the hate” – “they hate me”.

“It was a remarkable moment,” Woodward commented.

A psychiatrist might say it was a projection of his own hatred of Democrats. But it was so intense that it did not resemble the subdued reaction of the Democrats. His insistence that it was “Hate!” was unsupported by the images […] This Trump spectacle was unforgettable and bizarre.

From the Roe v Wade anti-abortion and anti-gun control rulings of the Supreme Court, to charges against Trump’s supporters for violence on January 6, to the various dubious activities of Trump himself, much in American politics looks likely to be played out in the courts over the next year or two — far more than is healthy in a democracy.

But when Trump has slashed and burnt his way through many political conventions, recourse to legal sanction may be the only means of protecting democracy. These are dark times for the American nation, but for precisely the opposite reason Trump asserted.

Dr Rodney Tiffen is emeritus professor, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

A media freedom advocacy group has called on New Zealand to end its silence over the Julian Assange case in what it called a “dark day for global press freedom”.

The UK Home secretary Priti Patel yesterday signed the extradition to send Australian journalist Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, to the US, which has charged him for publishing leaked evidence of their war crimes.

The Guardian’s editorial said the decision “ought to worry anyone who cares about journalism and democracy”.

Assange, 50, has been charged under the US Espionage Act, including publishing classified material. He faces up to 175 years in jail if found guilty by a US court. This action potentially opens the door for journalists anywhere in the world to be extradited to the US for exposing information deemed classified by Washington.

• READ MORE: UK approves US extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
• Other Julian Assange reports

Human rights groups have called for Assange’s release.

The International Federation of Journalists, representing more than 600,000 journalists tweeted: “The UK decision to allow the extradition of Assange is vindictive and a real blow to media freedom.

“He has simply exposed issues that were in the public interest and Patel’s failure to acknowledge this is shameful and sets a terrible precedent.”

Lack of accountability
Aotearoa 4 Assange (A4A) said in a statement that the New Zealand government could no longer remain silent on this case.

A4A’s Matt Ó Branáin asked: “What will our government’s position be when it’s a New Zealand investigative journalist being imprisoned or extradited?

“What will this total lack of accountability mean the next time the US asks us to send our troops to die in another war?.”

The Guardian warned this “potentially opens the door for journalists anywhere in the world to be extradited to the US for exposing information deemed classified by Washington”.

The editorial said: “The charges against him should never have been brought. As Mr Assange published classified documents and he did not leak them, Barack Obama’s administration was reluctant to bring charges.

“His legal officers correctly understood that this would threaten public interest journalism. It was Donald Trump’s team, which considered the press an ‘enemy of the people’, that took the step.”

Ó Branáin said: “We reiterate our call for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to stand with Australian Prime Minister Albanese’s calls for our allies the UK and US to bring an end to this, and bring Assange home.”

Israel’s fatal shooting of leading Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh as she covered clashes in the West Bank city of Jenin is a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions and UN Security Council Resolution 2222 on the protection of journalists, says the Paris-based media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

It has called for an independent international investigation into her death as soon as possible.

Witnesses said Abu Akleh, a Palestinian American, was killed by a shot to the head although she was wearing a bulletproof vest with the word “PRESS” that clearly identified her as a journalist.

• READ MORE: John Minto: NZ government and media must own up to their silence over Shireen Abu Akleh
• Behind the tears for Shireen, more evidence of Israel’s daily crimes with impunity
• Photos: Israeli forces attack Shireen Abu Akleh’s funeral
• Other Shireen Abu Akleh reports

Ali al-Samudi, a Palestinian journalist working as an Al Jazeera producer who was beside her at the time, was also targeted, sustaining a gunshot wound in the back, RSF reported.

Samudi, who is now in hospital, said in a video: “We were filming. They did not ask us to stop filming or to leave. They fired a shot that hit me and another shot that killed Shireen in cold blood.”

Following Abu Akleh’s death, Israeli security forces raided her East Jerusalem home as her family was making arrangements for her funeral.

Her body was transferred to Nablus for an autopsy prior to be taken to Jerusalem, where her funeral took place yesterday in emotional scenes with massive crowds. She was buried beside her parents in Mount Zion.

Israeli riot police attacked the pallbearers and a hearse carrying her coffin in the peaceful march, and ripped away Palestinian flags. International protests have followed this latest attack.

Popular in Middle East
Abu Akleh was very popular in the Middle East and was respected by fellow journalists for her experience in the field.

Al Jazeera issued a statement accusing the Israeli security forces of “deliberately” targeting Abu Akleh and of killing her “in cold blood.”

The Israel Defence Forces announced an investigation into her death, but IDF spokesman Amnon Shefler said Israeli soldiers “would never deliberately target non-combatants”.

Several witnesses, including an AFP photographer, denied seeing any armed Palestinians at the place where Abu Akleh was killed. Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas said he held the Israeli authorities “fully responsible” for her death.

“RSF is not satisfied with Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid’s proposal of a joint investigation into this journalist’s death,” said RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire.

“An independent international investigation must be launched as soon as possible.”

The shooting of these two Palestinian reporters during an IDF “anti-terrorist operation” in Jenin is the latest of many disturbing cases.

Two journalists fatally shot
In the spring of 2018, two Palestinian journalists were fatally shot by Israeli snipers while covering the weekly “Great March of Return” protests near the Israeli border in the Gaza Strip.

Also in 2018, Ain Media founder Yaser Murtaja was killed on the spot on March 30, while Radio Sawt al Shabab reporter Ahmed Abu Hussein died in hospital on April 25 from the gunshot injury he suffered on April 13.

According to RSF’s tallies, more than 140 journalists have been the victims of violations by the Israeli security forces on Friday’s marches since 2018, and at least 30 journalists have been killed since 2000.

Israel is 86th in the RSF 2022 World Press Freedom Index, and Palestine is 170th.

And now they won’t even let one of Palestine’s giants in journalism have a dignified and peaceful funeral — all in plain sight. (There’s a reason Reporters Without Borders ranks Israel 86th in Press Freedom.) https://t.co/y8SLL1qY7P

— Abdallah Fayyad (@abdallah_fayyad) May 13, 2022

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

Groups representing journalists around the world have expressed concern that billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s move to buy Twitter would damage media freedoms on the online platform.

Musk, who has reached a $44 billion deal for Twitter, describes himself as a “free speech absolutist” who would encourage no holds barred exchanges between the network’s 400 million users.

But the International Federation of Journalists and the European Federation of Journalists said his move would place too much power in the hands of one owner and could harm efforts to curtail bullying and disinformation on the site, reports The Jakarta Post citing AFP.

• READ MORE: Twitter: Elon Musk’s deal is bad news for media freedom

“Twitter is an extension of journalists’ offices. This is where journalists promote their work, express ideas or find sources of information,” said IFJ general secretary Anthony Bellanger.

“This space must be duly moderated, while respecting freedom of speech. It is a fine balance that any Twitter owner must pay attention to” he said.

“We are concerned that Elon Musk’s plans for Twitter are going the wrong direction by exacerbating opportunities to attack journalists and threatening the anonymity of users.”

Musk has said that he wishes to expand Twitter’s user verification system to “authenticate all humans”.

Raising fears among vulnerable groups
This might curtail some anonymous abuse on the platform, but will raise fears among vulnerable groups who prefer to keep their identities secret.

The purchase of Twitter by Musk means the company is now owned by one single person instead of multiple shareholders.

EFJ general secretary Ricardo Guitterez said: “The billionaire has never hesitated in the past to use Twitter to manipulate information, influence stock prices and control media coverage of his own business.

“We have every reason to believe that he will tighten his grip on the social network for his own benefit, with no regard for the public interest.

“It is high time to regulate the ownership of media and social networks in order to counteract a concentration of power that is harmful to pluralism, public debate and democracy”

As China seeks greater influence in the South Pacific, its manipulation of local news outlets is having a serious impact on media independence.

Most Pacific media organisations are struggling financially, many journalists have lost their jobs and China is offering a way for them to survive — at the cost of media freedom.

It’s not just the “no strings attached” financial aid and “look and learn” tours of China for journalists; it’s about sharing an autocratic media model.

• READ MORE: An unprecedented RSF investigation: The Great Leap Backwards of Journalism in China
• China on the RSF World Press Freedom Index
• Other Chinese media in the Pacific reports

Prominent journalists and media executives say Pacific leaders are copying Chinese media tactics and stopping them from doing their jobs.

China is one of the worst countries in the world for media freedom. It ranks 177 on the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index.

Now it’s trying to influence media around the world, especially in countries which have signed up to its Belt and Road Initiative. That includes 10 Pacific island nations. Four remain with Taiwan.

China has spent an estimated US$6.6 billion over 13 years strengthening its global media presence. It took over Radio Australia’s shortwave transmitter frequencies in the Pacific when the ABC shut down its shortwave service in 2017.

Satellite service for Vanuatu
China’s national television service is about to start broadcasting by satellite into Vanuatu.

In a 2020 report, the International Federation of Journalists warned that foreign journalists were wooed by exchange programs, opportunities to study in China, tours and financial aid for their media outlets. Beijing also provides free content in foreign newspapers and ambassadors write opinion pieces for local media.

The federation’s report found that journalists frequently think their media is strong enough to withstand this influence, but a global survey suggests that’s not the reality and China is reshaping the media round the world.

These attempts at ‘sharp power’ go beyond simply telling China’s story, according to Sarah Cook, research director for China, Hong Kong and Taiwan at Freedom House. Their sharper edge often undermines democratic norms, erodes national sovereignty, weakens the financial sustainability of independent media, and violates local laws.

Journalists say this is an ideological and political struggle, with China determined to combat what it sees as decades of unchallenged Western media imperialism.

There’s mounting evidence from the Pacific of the impact of Beijing’s worldwide campaign, particularly in Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

The situation for journalists in Solomon Islands has rapidly changed since the country swapped diplomatic allegiance from Taipei to Beijing in 2019. Media freedom has deteriorated and journalists say leaders are now taking their cues from China.

Vulnerable media outlets
Media outlets are vulnerable to offers of financial help. Many journalists have lost jobs and others haven’t been paid for months. It’s estimated there are just 16 full-time journalists left in Honiara.

There’s been little advertising since the November 2021 riots, a situation exacerbated by the covid pandemic. The only income for one privately owned media outlet is from the small street sales of its newspapers.

Earlier this month, the Solomon Islands government held its first news conference for 2022 after months of pressure to talk to journalists. The government denied there were restrictions on media freedom.

As the media struggles to survive, China’s ambassador is offering support, such as more trips to China (after the pandemic) and donations including two vehicles to the Solomon Star and maintenance of the newspaper’s printing presses. In the experience of other media, these offers are often followed with pressure to adhere to editorial positions congruent with those of the Chinese embassy.

While some journalists are resisting the pressure and holding a strong line, others are being targeted by China with rewards for “friends”.

Chinese embassies throughout the South Pacific are active on social media. In Solomon Islands, the embassy’s Facebook site includes posts about its aid assistance for covid-19, joint press releases with the Solomons government and stories from official Chinese news outlets.

There are numerous examples of the growing impact on media freedom.

Harassment over investigation
A freelance journalist has relocated to Australia after her investigations into the relationship between Solomons Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and a Chinese businessman resulted in harassment from police. She said police told her an order for her arrest came directly from the prime minister.

She was advised by Australia’s high commissioner to move to Australia for her safety.

Veteran journalist Dorothy Wickham was among a group of Solomon Islands journalists who accepted an invitation for a “look and learn” tour of China soon after the Sogavare government swapped allegiance to China in 2019.

She said the trip left her concerned about how Solomon Islands would deal with its new diplomatic partner.

“By the time our tour concluded in Shanghai, I was personally convinced that our political leaders are not ready or able to deal effectively with China. Solomon Islands’ regulatory and accountability mechanisms are too weak,” she says.

“We have already shown some spirit with our attorney-general rejecting a hasty deal to lease the island of Tulagi, the capital of one of our provinces, to a Chinese company, but I fear how fragile and weak my country is against any large developed nation let alone China,’ she wrote in an article for The Guardian.

One senior media executive that said if his own government, Australia, and New Zealand didn’t assist, he would look to China.

“There is too much talk about the role of media in democracy,” he said. He thought the Chinese ambassador understood that his organisation had its own editorial policy.

Soon after that, though, he was asked to publish a press release word for word.

No expense spared
Another media executive said he only had to ring the Chinese embassy and help arrived. He said China was rapidly moving into his country’s media space with no expense spared.

High-profile Vanuatu journalist Dan McGarry says he has no doubt that some Pacific governments are following China’s lead and adopting its contempt for critical speech and dissent.

In 2019, McGarry left Vanuatu to attend a forum in Australia, but his visa was revoked and he was banned from re-entering Vanuatu. He told the ABC’s Media Watch programme at the time that he had no doubt it was because of a story he wrote about the secret deportation of six Chinese from Vanuatu.

The six were arrested and detained without charge on the premises of a Chinese company with numerous large government contracts before being escorted out of Vanuatu by Chinese and Vanuatu police. McGarry said he was summoned by the prime minister, who told him he was disappointed with his negative reporting.

McGarry said he had no evidence that China tried to influence the Vanuatu government over his residence, but he’d seen a tendency in Pacific leaders to emulate behaviour they saw elsewhere.

Now back in Vanuatu, he said the decision to refuse his work permit was still under judicial review and he’s seeking financial compensation.

In 2018, Papua New Guinea journalist Scott Waide was suspended by EMTV under pressure from Prime Minister Peter O’Neill for a story he wrote about a diplomatic Chinese tantrum and a scandal over the purchase of Maserati cars for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Port Moresby.

Waide told the ABC that Pacific governments were taking lessons from China in dealing with their critics using media clampdowns and intimidation. That didn’t necessarily involve direct instructions from Beijing, “but people watch, people learn”.

Head of news sacked
A dispute over media freedom has escalated with the sacking of the head of news and 24 journalists at EMTV in PNG. They were initially suspended but later terminated for supporting their editor over interference from a government minister about a story involving an Australian man charged with drug trafficking.

On March 9, the EMTV news manager was sacked for insubordination. The network has since hired a new team of recent graduates with little experience — just months before the scheduled elections in June.

These examples give a sharper edge to concerns about China’s growing influence in the South Pacific and the lack of an Australian media voice there. The ABC’s presence has been described as a whisper.

There’s only one Australian journalist based in the region, the ABC’s Natalie Whiting in PNG. Meanwhile, Xinhua has a correspondent based in Fiji and China has recently been recruiting Pacific journalists for its global TV network.

The situation worries Australia’s national broadcaster. ABC managing director David Anderson told a Senate hearing in February 2022 of growing Chinese influence in the Pacific.

“The single biggest piece of information that comes back to us from the public broadcasters is concern over the pressure the Chinese government put on them to carry content,” he said.

In November 2019, the Melanesian Media Freedom Forum at Griffith University expressed concern about growing threats to media freedom. It called on Pacific governments to fund public broadcasters properly to ensure they have sufficient equipment and staff to enable their services to reach all citizens and to adequately play their watchdog role.

Australian journalist, media development consultant and trainer Jemima Garrett says media executives are at risk of being captured by China.

She has no doubt that China’s growing influence is a major story, but with so few Australian journalists based in the region, even significant developments in the China story are going unreported.

Sue Ahearn is the creator and co-editor of The Pacific Newsroom and co-convenor of the Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative. She was a senior executive at ABC Radio Australia and is currently studying Pacific development at the Australian National University. Image: Media Association of Solomon Islands/Facebook. This article was first published by The Strategist and is republished with the author’s permission.

• Author’s note: Some of the Pacific journalists in this story have asked not to be named or identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Micronitor News and Printing Company founder Joe Murphy moved the goal posts of freedom of press and freedom of expression in the Marshall Islands, a country that had virtually no tradition of either, by establishing an independent newspaper that today is the longest running weekly in the Micronesia region.

Murphy’s sharp intellect, fierce independence, vision for creating a community newspaper, bilingual language ability, and resilience in the face of adversity saw him navigate hurdles — including high tide waves that in 1979 washed printing presses out of the Micronitor building and into the street — to successfully establish a printing company and newspaper in the challenging business environment of 1970s Majuro.

Murphy, who died at age 79 in the United States last week, was the original sceptic, who revelled in the politically incorrect.

• READ MORE: The Marshall Islands Journal

At 25, he arrived in the Marshall Islands capital Majuro in the mid-1960s and was dispatched by the Peace Corps to Ujelang, the atoll of the nuclear exiles from Enewetak bomb tests that was a textbook definition of the term “in the back of beyond.” A ship once a year, and no radio, TV, telephones or mail.

Still, Joe thrived as an elementary teacher, survived food shortages and hordes of rats, endearing him to a generation of Ujelang people as an honorary member of the exiled community.

After Ujelang, he wrapped up his two-year Peace Corps stint by taking over teaching an unruly urban centre public school class after the previous teacher walked out. He rewrote what he deemed boring curriculum and taught in military style, replete with chants in English.

These experiences in pre-1970s Marshall Islands fuelled his desire to return. After his Peace Corps tour, some time to travel the world, and a brief return to the US, Murphy headed back to Majuro.

No money, but a vision
He had no money to speak of, but he had a vision and he set out to make it happen.

“He was determined to start a newspaper written in both the English and Marshallese languages,” recalls fellow Peace Corps Volunteer Mike Malone, the co-founder with Murphy of what was initially known as Micronitor.

In late 1969, they began constructing a small newspaper building, mixing concrete and laying the foundation block-by-block with the help of a few friends.

Before the building was completed, however, they launched the Micronitor in 1970, printing from Malone’s house.

The Micronitor would be renamed later to the Micronesian Independent for a bit before finding its identity as the Marshall Islands Journal.

Writing in the Journal in 1999, Murphy commented: “The 30th anniversary of this publication is an event most of us who remember the humble beginnings of the Journal are surprised to see.

“February 13, 1970 was a Friday, an unlucky day to begin an enterprise by most reckonings, and the two guys who were spearheading the operation were Irish-extract alcohol aficionados with very little or no newspaper experience.

A worthy undertaking
“They also, between the two of them, had practically no money, and of course should never, had they any commonsense, even attempted such a worthy undertaking.

“But circumstances and time were on their side, and with all potential serious investors steering clear of such a dubious exercise they had the opportunity to make a great number of mistakes without an eager competitor ready and willing to capitalise on them.”

With Murphy at the helm, it wasn’t long before the Journal earned a reputation far beyond the shores of the tiny Pacific outpost of Majuro. Murphy encouraged local writers, and spiced the newspaper with pithy comment and attacks on US Trust Territory authorities and the Congress of Micronesia.

In the late 1980s and 1990s Murphy built two bars and restaurants, local-style places that appealed to Majuro residents as well as visitors. He also built the Backpacker Hotel, a modest cost accommodation that turned into a popular outpost for fisheries observers awaiting their next assignment at sea, low-budget journalists, environmentalists and assorted consultants.

“The first thing that people think about when it comes to my father is that he is a very successful businessman here in the Marshall Islands,” said his eldest daughter Rose Murphy, who manages the company today.

“But we need to remember him as someone who wanted to give the Republic of the Marshall Islands a voice.”

“To say Joe was a unique person is a large understatement,” said Health Secretary and former Peace Corps Volunteer Jack Niedenthal.

An icon with impact
“He was an icon and had a profound impact on our country because he fostered free speech and demanded that those in our government always be held publicly accountable for their actions.”

A plaque in his office defined his independent personality and his appreciation of the power of the press. It quoted the famous American journalist AJ Liebling: “Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.” This was followed by a three-word comment: “I own one.” – Joe Murphy.

“He fought for freedom of speech and fought against discrimination,” said Rose Murphy. “Regardless of race, religion, and even status, he befriended people from all parts of the world and from all walks of life.”

In the mid-1990s, Joe Murphy created what became the justly famous motto of the Journal, the “world’s worst newspaper.” It was a reaction to the more politically correct mottos of other newspapers.

Those three words led to wide international media exposure. In 1994, the Boston Globe conducted a survey of the world’s worst newspapers, reviewing a batch of Journals Murphy mailed.

When the Globe reporter concluded that despite its claim, the Journal not only didn’t rank as the world’s worst newspaper it was “a first-class newspaper,” Murphy’s reaction was to say, “We must have sent you the wrong issues.”

Murphy knew the key to successful newspaper publishing was not how nicely or otherwise the newspaper was packaged, or if a photograph was in colour. The most important ingredient in any successful local newspaper is original content, intelligently and interestingly written.

‘Livened up’ the Journal
He did more than his fair share to liven up the Journal, from the time of its launch until poor health after 2019 prevented his engagement in the newspaper.

“My father experienced extreme hardships on Ujelang along with his adopted Marshallese family, the exiled people of Enewetak Atoll, who were moved to Ujelang to make way for US nuclear tests in the late 1940s,” said daughter Rose.

“He shared these hardships with his children to give them the perspective of being grateful for any little thing we had. If we had a broken shoe or little food, he shared with us this story.

“Our father, to us, is a symbol of resilience and gratitude. Be resilient in tough situations.”

From growing up among eight children of Irish immigrant parents in the United States to the austerity of Ujelang Atoll to the early days of establishing what would become the longest publishing weekly newspaper in the Micronesia region, Murphy was indeed a symbol of resilience and independence, able to navigate tough situations with alacrity.

“Democracy was able to establish a toehold, and then a firm grip, in the Western Pacific in part because of a handful of journalism pioneers who believed in the power of truth, particularly Joe Murphy on Majuro,” said veteran Pacific island journalist Floyd K Takeuchi.

“He had the courage to challenge the powers that be, including those of the chiefly kind, to be better, and to do better.

“People forget that for many years, the long-term future of the Marshall Islands Journal wasn’t a sure thing. With every issue of the weekly newspaper, Joe’s legacy is made firmer in the islands he so loved.”

Murphy is survived by his wife Thelma, by children Rose, Catherine “Katty,” John, Suzanne, Margaret “Peggy,” Molly, Fintan, Sam, Charles “Kainoa,” Colleen “Naki,” Patrick “Jojo”, Sean, Sylvia Zedkaia and Deardre Korean, and by 32 grandchildren.

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

It is common practice for journalists to share contact details and locations in hostile environments such as war zones. Something is very wrong when news organisations in New Zealand share those details about their staff covering a story in downtown Wellington.

Stuff’s head of news Mark Stevens disclosed last Friday that “competing media have shared contacts of journalists in the field to provide a safety network if things get dangerous”.

It followed incidents during the “Convoy 2022” protest in the grounds of Parliament when journalists were abused, spat on, and assaulted. A Stuff reporter was pushed and shoved and a protester abused a Newshub news crew member and threatened to destroy his video camera.

• READ MORE: Police to act against NZ protester vehicles but admit tow truck operators unwilling to help
• Other NZ covid outbreak media reports

Protesters told reporters to “watch your backs on the street tonight” and that they would be “executed” for their reporting. Placards read “Media is the Virus”, “Fake News”, and accused journalists of treason.

One placard parodied a covid-19 health message: “UNITE AGAINST MEDIA 22”.

Anti-media sentiment is nothing new. The 2020 Acumen-Edelman Trust Barometer showed New Zealanders scored media poorly — and below the global average — in terms of competence and ethics and only 28 percent thought they served the interests of everyone equally and fairly.

Those results did make me wonder what news media Kiwis were actually seeing and hearing but, in such things, perception is everything.

Journalists reasonably thick-skinned
But journalists are reasonably thick-skinned: They can take criticism and even insults. I doubt there is a reporter in the country who hasn’t been on the receiving end. Even death threats are something that goes with the territory.

I’ve received a few in my career. Most were of the “Drop Dead” or “You don’t deserve to be here” variety and only one was a credible threat. That one could have endangered others and was not specifically directed at me (it was reported to the police).

However, something has changed.

A reporter I hold in high regard told me last week that he had received more death threats in the last three months of 2021 than in the previous three decades. I’m not going to name him because to do so will simply increase the likelihood of further attempts at intimidation.

He told me reporters had become the focus of a great deal of anger and resentment:

“A few recent events I’ve covered have seen members of the anti-crowd deliberately moving to within a foot of me, maskless, and breathing or coughing at me, or trying to physically rub against me. That’s not an uncommon experience for those out in the field. And there’s the odd occasion, too, where the threat of physical violence is such that I’ve needed to back-peddle quickly.”

We are seeing a migration of behaviour. The US Press Freedom Tracker recorded 439 physical attacks on journalists in that country in 2020 (election year) and a further 142 in 2021. That compared with 41 in 2018 and 2019.

Tightened security
Last June the BBC tightened security around its staff after an escalation in the frequency and severity of abuse from anti-vaxxers. During Sydney anti-mandate protests last September, 7News reporter Paul Dowsley was sprayed with urine and hit in the head by a thrown drink can.

Then, in November, it came here. A 1News camera operator on the West Coast graphically recorded a foul-mouthed middle-aged man carrying an anti-vaxx placard who shoved him backwards and tried to dislodge his camera: “Do you want this [expletive] camera smashed in your face, you [expletive]?”

The current anti-vaxx movement in Canada has generated similar behaviour. Brent Jolly of the Canadian Association of Journalists said several reporters covering the trucker convoy in Ottawa have said they have been harassed on the scene and online and feel like they have a “target on their backs”.

Evan Solomon, a reporter for CTV, told the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) that he had a full can of beer thrown at his head. It missed but exploded inside a camera case. All CTV crews now have a security person with them when filming outside, no longer use lights or tripods, and in one province have removed CTV identification from vehicles.

In Ottawa people have asked reporters to remove their names from stories because they are getting death threats. Broadcasting journalists have been targeted – probably because their presence is more obvious – although one print reporter told the CPJ that she does not wear a mask during protests because it draws attention to her (she is triple vaccinated), does not go into protest crowds at night, and liaises with other reporters to advise current locations and risks.

None of this should suggest a coherent and organised anti-media campaign is sweeping the globe. We are seeing something that is a good deal more orchestrated than organised, in which the anti-vaccination movement is no more than a rallying point, and the media are a target because they are messengers for inconvenient truth.

The proof of that became apparent while I was watching the live feed of the protest in the grounds of Parliament.

‘End the Mandate’ signs
A string of images spelled out how incoherent it was. There were printed “End the Mandate” signs, “My body, my choice” t-shirts, a loony sign saying natural immunity was 99.6 per cent effective, Canadian flags, a figure in Black Power regalia wearing a full-face plastic mask, someone wearing a paramilitary “uniform”, and a man waving the ultimate conspiracy theory sign: “Epstein didn’t kill himself”.

Then there were the actions of the protesters. A few were gesticulating to police and the media, uttering things I could not (and arguable did not want) to hear. Many more were gyrating to rhythms playing over loudspeakers, beaten out on the plastic barriers on the forecourt, or generated in their own heads. It was a sort of group euphoria.

And in a perverse sort of way I think that is what is behind the attitude toward media. 1News reporter Kristin Hall had been reporting the protest and wrote a commentary on the broadcaster’s website. In it she said that despite their varying opinions and causes, the protesters were “united in their distaste for the press”. Then she gave an example of just how incoherent this united front can be:

“‘You’re all liars,’ a man told me today. When I asked if he could be more specific, he said he doesn’t consume mainstream media. People have asked me why I’m not covering the protests while I’m in the middle of interviewing them.”

Unfortunately, it is this lack of logic that makes abuse of media so hard to counter. Media cannot make peace with leaders of a movement because it is a moving feast and the orchestrators are hidden from sight. It cannot be remedied simply by stating facts because these people accept only what supports and ennobles their own disinformation-fuelled world view, a view fed by inflammatory social media that conflates then amplifies discontent on a global scale.

Nor can media offer immediate solutions to pent-up anger aggravated by two years of pandemic.

What media can — and must — do is prevent contagion. They need an inoculation campaign to ensure that the malaise infecting a small group of people does not spread.

Duty of care a priority
Mark Stevens alluded to cooperation between media to keep staff safe and that duty of care is a priority. However, media organisations need to go further. They must, on the one hand, earn the trust of a population that does not generally hold them in high regard. It is best done by demonstrating that journalists are following best professional practice and that means quality reporting and presentation.

On the other hand, they must ensure that the community understands that journalists have a right (indeed, a duty) to report on events in its midst — irrespective of whether or not its members agree with what they are being told.

The United States has an excellent track record in openly discussing professional standards and the role of media in society. We should take some leaves from their book and bring the community more into the conversation.

That is challenging, because the problem does not lie solely with the media but with the system of democracy of which it is a vital part.

Rod Oram, in a commentary on the Newsroom website last weekend, discussed the need for democratic reform:

“We have really struggled, though, to conceive, plan and execute deep systemic change, let alone get as many people as possible involved in that and benefiting from it. But that’s the only way we’ll tackle our deeply rooted economic, social and environmental failures.”

That democratic reform must include the media rethinking how it engages with the public. They must introduce open industry-wide governance to replace anachronistic and sometimes self-serving structures. They must demonstrate their commitment to accuracy, fairness and balance. They must find new ways to be inclusive and pluralistic. They must secure recognition as trusted independent sources of verified facts.

Calling out manipulation
That will take time. Meanwhile the problem of media abuse will continue. The short-term solutions will include calling out those who seek to manipulate a minority to destabilise our society. Here are two good examples:

• New Zealand Herald investigative reporter David Fisher’s (paywalled) enquiry into the activities of one of the rallying voices behind the protest at Parliament, Kelvyn Alp and his use of the Counterspin website.
• Kevin Norquay’s profile of the protest in the Sunday Star-Times that included this resonating quote from Hone Martin of Kaitaia as he was leaving the protest: “We’re not getting solutions here. We’re all in the waka paddling in different directions”.

The short term also requires media organisations to continue to meet that duty of care toward their staff. The Committee to Protect Journalists has developed a four-part “Safety Kit” to provide journalists and newsrooms with basic safety information on physical, digital and psychological safety. It’s a good starting point for any journalist.

Of course, journalists also need to keep matters in perspective. The threats represented by a group of disorganised protesters remains relatively small and, with the right training, journalists can judge the level of risk they face in most situations.

When it came to death threats, for example, I soon learned that I could bin the ones that were written in crayon.

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 a blog called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

• Read the full Gavin Ellis article here:

https://knightlyviews.com/2022/02/15/copycat-media-abuse-from-ragtag-bag-of-protesters/

It was probably one of those rare times when I “became the news” as a journalist.

I had accompanied Greenpeace activists to the Port Moresby headquarters of the Rimbunan Hijau (RH) in June 2006 to report on the presentation of the “golden chainsaw award” to the Malaysian logging giant.

And I literally got “arrested” by security guards for trespassing and ended up at the Gordons Police Station.

• READ MORE: Other PNG election reports

Police later let me go, saying I was only doing my job.

I covered Papua New Guinea’s forestry sector extensively between 2003–2007 as a journalist and reported on many cases of human rights abuses, dodgy timber permit licences and the often clandestine relationship between loggers and Papua New Guinean politicians in successive national and provincial governments.

I was sued a couple of times by logging companies in Papua New Guinea’s National Court along with my then employer, the PNG Post-Courier, and I was sent numerous warning letters by lawyers — a favourite tactic employed by a lot of logging companies at that time to keep away nosy journalists.

That has probably become standard practice today, as PNG media companies with dwindling advertising revenue fearing hefty legal bills pushing them to bankruptcy back off.

Support of ‘true patriots’
My reportage wouldn’t have hit the printing press without the support of Papua New Guinean conservationists and true patriots who had a heart for the traditional landowners as well as international environmental groups.

Also, officials at Morauta House, Waigani, who leaked official documentation from a government review of PNG’s logging sector in early 2000s which uncovered massive breaches of logging permit extensions and alleged human rights abuse, often perpetrated by rogue landowner-individuals in collision with corrupt officials.

Papua New Guinea’s traditional landowners of the country’s tropical rainforest to this day remain the custodians of 5 percent of the world’s biodiversity, but continue to face increasing pressure from unscrupulous developers.

With the 2022 General Election just 6-7 months away, the media in PNG should be vigilant as history shows that the country is at its most vulnerable state in the lead-up to, during and after a general election.

Alexander Rheeney is a former PNG journalist and ex-editor of the PNG Post-Courier and now an editor of the Samoa Observer.

If anyone is wondering why the Fijian media hasn’t reported the details of my reporting on Grubsheet Feejee of the Prime Minister’s secret role in the sacking of the Solicitor-General, his alleged action in shutting down a police drug investigation into a close family member, or his Attorney-General’s alleged behaviour in inviting his female staff to give him massages in his hotel rooms on overseas trips, it is because they are terrified of the AG’s draconian 2010 Media Industry Development Decree and the very real prospect of prosecution.

The following is what can happen to any Fijian news media outlet that Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum decides has breached the terms of the decree, which became legislation on the return to parliamentary rule in 2014 and has had the effect of gagging the media and preventing it from reporting stories that are genuinely in the national interest.

As you can see, the national interest is not defined in the legislation, which means the AG effectively decides what is in the national interest.

• READ MORE: ‘Secrets and Skeletons’ and other reports
• UN urges Fiji to amend media law

And if he thinks that it is not in the national interest for allegations against him and the PM to be aired in the local media, then he can use the law against any organisation that republishes my disclosures.

Fortunately, I am beyond his reach but these stories go untold for anyone without the internet.

[MED 22] CONTENT REGULATION:

The content of any media service must not include material which—

(a)is against the public interest or order;
(b)is against national interest; or
(c)creates communal discord.

[MED 24] OFFENCES RELATING TO CONTENT REGULATION:

A breach of any of the provisions in or under section 22 … by a media organisation shall constitute an offence and the media organisation shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or in the case of a publisher or editor to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.

The details of what I reported are in my Secrets and Skeletons: The Inside Story.

But how tragic it is that accessing the work of journalists outside Fiji is the only way the Fijian people can gain information on anything remotely approaching the truth about what is really happening in their country.

Republished with permission.

Reporters Without Borders

The 2021 Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Press Freedom Awards have been given to Chinese journalist Zhang Zhan in the courage category, Palestinian journalist Majdoleen Hassona in the independence category, and the Pegasus Project in the impact category.

RSF’s press freedom prizes are awarded every year to journalists or media that have made a notable contribution to the defence or promotion of freedom of the press in the world.

This is the 29th year they have been awarded.

• READ MORE: The RSF Press Freedom Awards

The 2021 awards have been given in three categories — journalistic courage, impact and independence. Six journalists and six media outlets or journalists’ organisations from a total of 11 countries were nominated.

Courage Prize
The 2021 Prize for Courage, which aims to support and salute journalists, media outlets or NGOs that have displayed courage in the practice, defence or promotion of journalism, has been awarded to Chinese journalist Zhang Zhan.

Despite constant threats, this lawyer-turned-journalist covered the covid-19 outbreak in the city of Wuhan in February 2020, live-streaming video reports on social media that showed the city’s streets and hospitals, and the families of the sick.

Her reporting from the heart of the pandemic’s initial epicentre was one of the main sources of independent information about the health situation in Wuhan at the time.

After being arrested in May 2020 and held incommunicado for several months without any official reason being provided, Zhang Zhan was sentenced on 28 December 2020 to four years in prison for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”.

In protest against this injustice and the mistreatment to which she was subjected, she went on a hunger strike that resulted in her being shackled and force-fed. Her friends and family now fear for her life, and her health has worsened dramatically in recent weeks.

Independence Prize
The 2021 Prize for Independence, which rewards journalists, media outlets or NGOs that have resisted financial, political, economic or religious pressure in a noteworthy manner, has been awarded to Palestinian journalist Majdoleen Hassona.

Before joining the Turkish TV channel TRT and relocating to Istanbul, this Palestinian journalist was often harassed and prosecuted by both Israeli and Palestinian authorities for her critical reporting.

While on a return visit to the West Bank in August 2019 with her fiancé (also a TRT journalist based in Turkey), she was stopped at an Israeli checkpoint and was told that she was subject to a ban on leaving the territory that had been issued by Israeli intelligence “for security reasons”.

She has been stranded in the West Bank ever since but decided to resume reporting there and covered the anti-government protests in June 2021 following the death of the activist Nizar Banat.

Impact Prize
The 2021 Prize for Impact, which rewards journalists, media outlets or NGOS that have contributed to clear improvements in journalistic freedom, independence and pluralism, or increased awareness of these issues, has been awarded to the Pegasus Project.

The Pegasus Project is an investigation by an international consortium of more than 80 journalists from 17 media outlets* in 11 different countries that was coordinated by the NGO Forbidden Stories with technical support from experts at Amnesty International’s Security Lab.

Based on a leak of more than 50,000 phone numbers targeted by Pegasus, spyware made by the Israeli company NSO Group, the Pegasus Project revealed that nearly 200 journalists were targeted for spying by 11 governments — both autocratic and democratic — which had acquired licences to use Pegasus.

This investigation has made people aware of the extent of the surveillance to which journalists are exposed and has led many media outlets and RSF to file complaints and demand a moratorium on surveillance technology sales.

“For defying censorship and alerting the world to the reality of the nascent pandemic, the laureate in the ‘courage’ category is now in prison and her state of health is extremely worrying,” said RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire.

“For displaying a critical attitude and perseverance, the laureate in the ‘independence category has been unable to leave Israeli-controlled territory for the past two years.

“For having revealed the scale of the surveillance to which journalists can be subjected, some of the journalists who are laureates in the ‘impact’ category are now being prosecuted by governments.

“This, unfortunately, sums up the situation of journalism today. The RSF Award laureates embody the noblest journalistic qualities and also pay the highest price because of this. They deserve not only our admiration but also our support.”

Chaired by RSF president Pierre Haski, the jury of the 29th RSF Press Freedom Awards consisted of prominent journalists and free speech defenders from across the world: Rana Ayyub, an Indian journalist and Washington Post opinion columnist;  Raphaëlle Bacqué, a leading French reporter for Le Monde; Mazen Darwish, a Syrian lawyer and president of the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression; Zaina Erhaim, a Syrian journalist and communication consultant; Erick Kabendera, a Tanzanian investigative reporter; Hamid Mir, a Pakistani news editor, columnist and writer; Frederik Obermaier, a German investigative journalist with Munich’s Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper; and Mikhail Zygar, a Russian journalist and founding editor-in-chief of Dozhd, Russia’s only independent TV news channel.

Previous winners of this prize, which was created in 1992, have included Russian journalist Elena Milashina (2020 Prize for Courage), Saudi blogger Raif Badawi (Netizen category prize in 2014) and the Chinese Nobel Peace laureate Liu Xiaobo (Press Freedom Defender prize in 2004).

Pacific Media Watch works in association with Reporters Without Borders.

*(Aristegui Noticias, Daraj, Die Zeit, Direkt 36, Knack, Forbidden Stories, Haaretz, Le Monde, Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, Proceso, PBS Frontline, Radio France, Le Soir, Süddeutsche Zeitung, The Guardian, The Washington Post and The Wire)

SPECIAL REPORT: By Phil Thornton of the International Federation of Journalists

It is six months since Myanmar’s military began dismantling the institutional framework supporting the country’s fledgling democracy by propelling a deadly coup to wrest parliamentary control away from the newly-elected National League of Democracy (NLD) government.

Soon after the coup in February 2021, the military swiftly targeted voices of dissent and launched a deadly campaign of violence to silence critics. Rooftop snipers were ordered to shoot to kill, police and army raided homes of journalists, doctors, politicians and protesting citizens.

Independent media were outlawed and journalists were forced into hiding.

• READ MORE: Other Myanmar crisis reports

Critics of the “coup”, or even naming it as such in reporting or on social media, resulted in arrest warrants for breaches of section 505(a) of the Penal Code.

Non-profit human rights organisation Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) confirmed as of August 4, 2021, the military had killed 946 people, including 75 children and arrested 7051 protesters.

Among them, seven health workers have been killed, another 600 doctors and nurses have arrest warrants issued against them, a further 221 medical students have been arrested and 67 medical staff are in detention.

AAPP reported the military has arrested at least 98 journalists, six of whom have been tried and convicted. Journalists may have gone into hiding for their safety, but this hasn’t stopped the military targeting and threatening their families.

A country in chaos
Myanmar is now in crisis. The economy has crashed. The already threadbare healthcare system has collapsed from the strain of the covid-19 pandemic.

Military restrictions prevent people receiving medical treatment, while doctors and nurses continue to be arrested for protesting against the coup. Meanwhile, people infected by the covid-19 virus face certain death via the military’s heartless restrictions on hospitals, oxygen and medicine.

Doctors who manage to work from clandestine pop-up clinics are exhausted by the huge surge in cases needing treatment.

International health experts estimate as many as half the country’s population could become infected with the various covid-19 strains and the risk of death is high.

United Nation’s human rights expert Tom Andrews has urged Myanmar’s military at the end of July to join a “covid ceasefire” to combat the pandemic sweeping the country. But international pleas are unlikely to sway the military coup leaders or its puppet, the State Administration Council, now reformed as a caretaker government under the leadership of General Min Aung Hlaing as its so-called prime minister.

The military has a certain form when handling natural disasters — its strategy is to treat them as security threats. When Cyclone Nargis battered Burma on 2 May 2008, killing as many as 138,000 people and affecting at least another 2.4 million, the military’s response was to block international aid and jail those who reported on or tried to help storm victims.

The same strategy has been used with the ceasefires it negotiates with ethnic armed groups. A senior Karen National Liberation Army officer told the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) that ceasefires with the military produce little for the people.

“Our experience is they tie us up in endless meetings that yield little of value. They are a delaying tactic and we know they map our army positions and those of displaced people camps and later attack us as happened in March this year,” he said.

In March 2021, the Myanmar armed forces launched a series of airstrikes and ground attacks in ethnic regions that left as many as 200,000 villagers displaced. These people are now in desperate need of basic shelter, medicine, food and security.

The military’s go-to strategy is to block critical aid and medicine getting to displaced people and to jail and kill those it classifies as its enemies. Since the February coup, these “enemies” have included doctors, lawyers, politicians, community leaders, activists and journalists.

AAPP said people are now having to face the covid-19 pandemic with under-resourced hospitals and clinics with most unable to buy basic medicine from pharmacies that have run out of stock. Basic medicine is hard to find and expensive to buy.

The military is forcing public hospitals to close and is actively stopping people buying or refilling oxygen cylinders. Cemeteries and crematoriums are unable to cope with the huge numbers of fatalities, leaving corpses to pile up.

Through all this, the State Administration Council is accused by international, regional and opposition health professionals of withholding statistics and issuing false information.

‘I’m only doing my job’
Senior journalist Win Kyaw, who is now in hiding on the Myanmar border, spoke with IFJ about the ongoing difficulties of trying to keep reporting six months on from the coup.

“I fled my home months ago. I left everything behind. Now it’s much worse for journalists worried about catching covid. We can’t move around because of soldiers at checkpoints checking phones and who we are. It is very hard to keep going,” said Kyaw.

He said there is no way to counterbalance the false information and quackery remedies circulating among people desperate for ways to combat the virus.

“Before the coup, I reported the first and second wave freely. We only worried about catching the infection. Authorities willingly gave us data, information. Since the coup it’s the opposite.

“The military is trying to arrest us, we have to work secretly, we can’t get any information from authorities or our old sources. How can people make informed decisions about treatments and what medicines to take with all the misinformation being spread?”

Win Kyaw has an arrest warrant issued against him for what the military claims are breaches of section 505(a) of the Penal Code.

“I was only doing my job as a journalist, but they saw our news coverage as a threat. If we are not allowed to do our job uncensored at such a critical time it causes all sorts of problems. People need to know what to do and what not to do during the pandemic.

“We also know important stories putting the military under scrutiny need to be reported. For example, what’s happened to the US$350 million donated to the country by the International Monetary Fund (to help prevent covid)? It’s important accredited journalists cover these stories and we are allowed to do our job.”

Win Kyaw acknowledges the difficulty of confirming actual death rates from covid-19 as the State Administration Council reports are sanctioned and approved by military leaders.

“We know the military is restricting oxygen and medical supplies and jailing doctors. We know people are dying in their thousands.”

A recent incident involving a senior Myanmar Army officer highlighted the need to keep the spotlight on corruption, he said. The story the journalist is referring to involved Myo Min Naung, an army colonel who ordered the seizure of 100 oxygen cylinders crossing from Thai border town Mae Sot to Myawaddy on the Myanmar side.

Myo Min Naung first denied he had taken the cylinders but was later quoted in state-owned media saying he had only “borrowed” the oxygen for emergency use in Karen State hospitals.

“This is a clear case of abuse of authority,” says Win Kyaw. “It was clear the oxygen had the official paperwork and been ordered by a Yangon charity to treat covid patients. As far as we know the oxygen has not been returned.”

The journalist is convinced the military is deliberately using covid-19 against citizens.

“Government hospitals are full – they cannot take anymore covid-19 patients. People are forced to rely on home treatment. Knowing this, the military blocked people refilling oxygen cylinders for private use, restricted medicine and closed hospitals – the military is using covid-19 as a weapon to kill people.”

Win Kyaw has just recovered from fighting the virus while in hiding.

“It was hard. Out of our seven people in the household, four were sick. We had the symptoms, we couldn’t get tested, we didn’t know if it was the flu or covid. We were lucky … we could get oxygen, medical advice and medicine.”

Every journalist the IFJ has spoken to during the past six months since he coup has either been infected and or had a family member die.

Despite knowing the risks and the fact that the military is actively hunting him, Win Kyaw is determined to keep reporting.

“Most of us don’t get salaries now, as most independent media houses have been outlawed by the military, but we feel we have a duty to cover the news as best we can.

“We have to try to travel to confirm stories and this puts us at risk. We need money for masks and PPE, medicine and oxygen concentrators.”

When their media organisations’ operating licences were cancelled by the military, many independent journalists had to go underground or risk arrest. Without paid work many journalists resorted to selling their equipment – laptops, drones, voice recorders and cameras – keeping only the essentials needed to keep reporting.

People dying alone
Than Win Htut, a senior executive with the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), is still managing to send out regular daily reports despite having to hide on the border of a neighboring country.

Like other journalists interviewed, Than Win Thut is dismayed at the carnage caused by the military’s refusal to stop harassing and jailing doctors and let them tackle the pandemic as a public health issue.

“It’s sad. People are dying alone, collapsing in the street. Yet high ranking officers are taking oxygen and medicine for themselves and leaving lower rank soldiers to fend for themselves.

“The people have to manage the best they can, they can no longer expect anything from the government.”

Than Win Htut explains that reporting the health crisis is proving problematic.

“We cannot risk sending our reporters to confirm what’s happening at crematoriums or graveyards. Official sources won’t confirm or talk – they’re too scared.

“We keep in contact with our sources, but we can only manage to give estimates. State media can’t be relied on… nobody believes what it reports.”

The need for accurate reporting was never more important, he said.

“People are sceptical of vaccines, schools are closed, everywhere is overcrowded, there have been jail riots by anti-coup prisoners… unconfirmed killings of 20 jail protesters, doctors are being jailed, the cost of living is sky high, no work … no wages, medical supplies are being blocked… charity workers jailed.”

He says the pandemic has completely changed social media interactions.

“Facebook and social media sites have become our obituary pages. We see posts everyday of friends or their family members who have died. It’s tragic. We can’t do our job because the military has weaponised covid.”

Lost hope waiting on UN intervention
Wei Min Oo is still managing to work for a news agency and told IFJ he is lucky he still has a job.

“When the junta closed eight independent media outlets, hundreds of employed journalists were suddenly forced out of work. Journalists, like everyone, have to eat.

“Some journalists have opened online shops, young ones have become delivery riders and some can’t do anything, but try to live on their meagre savings.”

Trying to report when you can be arrested for just doing your job is one of the big difficulties.

“We can’t carry our journalist’s IDs. We have to make sure our phones are cleaned off as anything like Facebook that could get us in trouble at checkpoints. No bylines on stories. Journalists have to rely on social media as sources.”

Wei Min Oo said the massive number of covid-19 infections in the community means that reporters dare not go to areas under martial law or known crisis areas for fear of being arrested.

The actions of the military during the pandemic has exposed its disregard for civilians and community institutions critical to a democratic society, according to Wei Min Oo.

“The military is taking its revenge on doctors, health workers, teachers, students, politicians and charity volunteers for taking a stand by striking and speaking out.”

Meanwhile,people in Myanmar are scathing of international interventions happening and have resigned to opposing the military alone, he said.

“People now say ‘we have lost hope any international intervention will come — if we want a revolution we have to do it alone through our Civil Disobedience Movement’.”

There is no plan
Saw Win, a senior journalist who has worked in ethnic media for more than 20 years spoke to the IFJ about the greater effects the coup has had.

“The country is in chaos. The coup is a citizen’s nightmare. People have given up on international help. Working the borderline we see – displacement, refugees, corruption, armed conflict – any help will come with restrictions imposed on it by the military.

“Aid will eventually be allowed in and available, but it will not reach the people in need.”

Saw Win stresses the importance of accredited journalists being allowed to cover the pandemic.

“People don’t believe what they hear or see on state media. It’s total rubbish. Data, death rates, number of cases and health information are not believed. People joke the military run pictures and names of those they intend to arrest under 505(a) on state television and newspapers to get people to tune in – it’s the only item we can believe, the rest is useless.”

Covid’s impacts in the cities are worse than those experienced in rural areas, he says.

“We have pharmacies unable to buy or sell medicines, we hear of groups and individuals with links to the military profiting from selling oxygen cylinders, people can’t bury or cremate their loved ones, wet season floods, farmers not farming, food shortages, cooking oil prices have increased by as much as 33 per cent, essential shops are closing, refugee camps are struggling, there’s more than 200,000 displaced people in our region in desperate need of everything – these are all important stories our journalists need to keep covering.”

Phil Thornton is a journalist and senior adviser to the International Federation of Journalists in Southeast Asia.

• Names have been changed for the protection of journalists. The Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Centre reports 322,838 infection cases and 11,262, but as the author points out the real statistics are far worse than what is reported officially.

Australia’s journalists’ union – the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) – has voted to end its decades long relationship with the Australian Press Council, citing concerns about governance and consistency of rulings at the press regulator.

Formed in 1976 as an alternative to government intervention, the Australian Press Council has been an important arbiter of media standards, adjudicating complaints from the public about material in newspapers, magazines and online news sites at publishers that belong to the Press Council.

MEAA’s predecessor, the Australian Journalists’ Association, played a crucial role in establishing the Press Council after more than 20 years of lobbying for self-regulation. Despite not being a publisher itself, MEAA has contributed more than A$100,000 each year to the organisation within recent years.

• READ MORE: Turnbull tells Senate inquiry Rupert Murdoch admitted ‘crazy agenda’
• How large is Rupert Murdoch’s reach through News Corp in Australian media, old and new?

The Press Council also draws on media academics and selected public representatives to run its adjudication processes.

In recent years, MEAA members have become increasingly frustrated by a lack of financial transparency and accountability at the Press Council and the inconsistent manner in which it has adjudicated on complaints, some of which are out of step with community expectations.

In April, delegates to MEAA’s National Media Section committee, made up of rank-and-file union members, voted to formally quit the Press Council.

Under the rules of the APC, four years notice must be given to withdraw, which means MEAA will officially leave the organisation in 2025.

Overwhelming feedback
The decision to withdraw came after MEAA – which represents more than 5000 journalists and other media workers – consulted with its members, who overwhelmingly gave feedback that the union should leave the Press Council.

The federal president of MEAA’s Media section, Marcus Strom, said there was a pervasive dissatisfaction among MEAA members about the role played by the regulator.

He said it had failed to change with the times during more than a decade of media convergence and was not effective in the contemporary industry where there is cross-over between print, digital and broadcast journalism.

Australia’s broadcast media are regulated by a government agency, the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

“The Press Council has lost credibility with journalists and even with the publishers who make up its membership. There have been too many cases in recent years where adjudications have been mocked or ignored,” Strom said.

“Currently our members are more concerned about being hauled over the coals on Media Watch [a weekly national television program that regularly exposes misdemeanours and unethical practices by journalists and publishers] than being called before the Press Council. That’s obviously not an acceptable situation.”

MEAA Media federal vice-president Karen Percy said readers who made complaints were also frustrated with the response they received from the Press Council, which eroded trust in journalists and the media.

Credible regulator ‘is critical’
“In order to maintain integrity in journalism in Australia, a credible regulator – where there are real consequences for breaches – is critical,” Percy said.

“Unfortunately, the Press Council is no longer fit-for-purpose for the modern, cross-platform media industry.”

Percy said MEAA’s Journalist Code of Ethics should play a more prominent role in media standards.

First established in 1944, and updated twice since, the Code of Ethics is the most enduring and best-known set of guidelines for journalists.

The public are also able to make complaints about union members who breach the code, with a range of sanctions available including termination of membership of MEAA.

“The industry needs a simpler system of self-regulation that is consistent across all platforms and organisations, upholds the standards of public interest journalism, and serves the needs of members and the public who want ethical practices and accountability,” Percy said.

“The status quo is serving no-one – not the industry, nor the public.”

Senate media inquiry
The decision by MEAA to withdraw from the Press Council coincides with an inquiry into media ownership by the Australian Senate, with the future of media regulation and questions of how to maintain trust in journalism coming under scrutiny by inquiry.

Strom said many journalists regarded the Press Council as toothless and wanted a more robust regulator to ensure standards of good journalism were maintained.

“Arbitrations at the Press Council have been inconsistent, slow and are increasingly out of touch with community expectations.

He said it was time for a broad review of media regulation in Australia. MEAA has publicly stated it would like to see a one-stop-shop regulator to replace the multitude of confusing, inconsistent bodies and processes currently in place.

“We want our notice to leave the Press Council to spark a serious discussion about media regulation,” he said.

As part of its decision to withdraw from the Press Council, MEAA will engage with the Press Council and other industry stakeholders to discuss what shape the regulatory environment should take in future.

As the IFJ’s Australian affiliate, MEAA is the largest and most established union and industry advocate for Australia’s creative professionals.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is dismayed by the sudden intensification of the ruling junta’s crackdown on journalists during the past three days, one month after the military coup in Myanmar on February 1, and warns the junta of its responsibility in the eyes of history.

In all, at least 28 journalists have been arrested in the course of the past month of pro-democracy street protests, against which – after hesitating for weeks – the junta suddenly began making much wider use of deadly force last weekend.

But, whereas reporters covering past protests were quickly released after being arrested, things have changed radically in the past few days, and at least 11 journalists were in detention, said the RSF statement.

• READ MORE: Myanmar’s Bloody Sunday – security forces ‘live tracking’ media, protesters
• More killed as Myanmar forces open fire against anti-coup protesters

The latest to be arrested was Kaung Myat Naing (aka Aung Kyaw) of the Democratic Voice of Burma news agency, who livestreamed police coming to arrest him at his home in the far south city of Myeik at around 10:30 pm on Tuesday.

You can hear him ask the police if they have a warrant, to which they respond with shouts and gunfire.

“We call on Myanmar’s government to order the immediate and unconditional release of all the journalists currently detained, and to drop the charges against them,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

“It is absolutely crucial that reporters should be able to cover this dramatic moment in Myanmar’s history. The generals who took power must realise that the world is looking at them and that history will judge them.”

Badly beaten
The 11 journalists currently detained include Chinland Post reporter Salai David, who was arrested on Tuesday morning in Hakha, the capital of the western state of Chin.

Monywa Gazette reporter Lay Min Soe was arrested yesterday in Monywa, in the central region of Sagaing, but was released later in the day after sustaining injuries in the beating he received from the police.

A Chinese reporter for the Xinhua news agency was meanwhile hit by rubber bullets while covering a protest in Yangon, Myanmar’s largest city, in the south of the country.

Six journalists were arrested in various parts of the country on February 28.

YamaNya Taing reporter Lin Tun was released the next day after being arrested in the southern city of Mawlamyine. 74 Media website reporter Paung Lan Taung was released later the same day after being arrested in the northern city of Myitkyina.

Ye Yint Tun, a journalist with the Than Taw Sint newspaper, was jailed after being arrested in the southwestern city of Pathein.

Chun Journal editor Kyaw Nay Min was taken to Inn Sein prison after being arrested in Yangon. Freelance reporter Soe Yarzar Tun suffered the same fate.

The sixth journalist to be arrested on February 28 was Shin Moe Myint, a Yangon-based psychology student who was covering the protests as a freelancer. Two witnesses told RSF she was badly beaten before being bundled into a police van and taken in the direction of Inn Sein prison.

She was finally released on Tuesday.

Multiple arrests
Six reporters were arrested on February 27 while covering protests in their respective cities. Associated Press photographer Thein Zaw and Myanmar Pressphoto Agency photographer Ye Myo Khant were briefly arrested in Yangon’s Hle Dan district.

Myanmar Now reporter Kay Zon Nwe was livestreaming the crackdown on a protest at Yangon’s Myaynigone Junction when the police arrested her and took her away. Freelance editor Banyar Oo was also arrested and sent to Inn Sein prison.

In the central region of Sagaing, the staff of the Monywa Gazette reported on Facebook that their CEO Kyaw Kyaw Win was badly beaten by plainclothes police on February 27 before being taken away in a police van.

He was released the next day. Hakha Times CEO Par Pwie was also released the next day after being arrested while livestreaming a protest in the western state of Chin.

Myay Latt newspaper’s Zar Zar was arrested in the central city of Magway. She was released the same day.

Two years in jail
According to the information obtained by RSF, which has not been confirmed by the authorities, the 11 journalists currently being detained are to be charged under article 505 (a) of the penal code with spreading false information, which carries a possible two-year jail sentence.

Those close to Ye Myo Khant, one of the photographers arrested on February 27, said they shared this fear.

On February 26, before this wave of arrests, RSF posted a video of Yuki Kitazumi, a Japanese reporter and documentary filmmaker, being arrested in Yangon. He was released the same day.

Wai Yan, a Chinese photojournalist working for the Xinhua news agency, was also briefly arrested on February 26.

Two Monywa-based reporters, Tin Mar Swe of MCN TV News and Khin May San of The Voice magazine, were quickly released after being arrested on February 25 but have been charged under article 505 (a) of the penal code.

The February 1 coup cut short a transition to democracy in Myanmar and has set press freedom back 10 years, back to when prior censorship was the rule and independent media were constantly persecuted.

Myanmar is ranked 139th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2020 World Press Freedom Index.

Award-winning editor Mata’afa Keni Lesa is moving on from the Samoa Observer after 22 years, reports Samoa Global News.

Mata’afa Keni Lesa joined the Samoa Observer in April 1999 as a junior reporter and within seven years had moved up the ranks to his appointment as editor, a position he has held for the past 15 years.

Among his achievements and awards, Mata’afa was the first Pacific Islander to win the Boerma Award by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in 2017 for his reporting on food security.

• READ MORE: Mata’afa Keni Lesa retires as editor of Samoa Observer

Mata’afa has also been recognised by the United Nations for upholding gender equality and giving a voice to victims of violence, as well as several awards by the Journalism Association of Samoa (JAWS).

Samoans will have memories of Mata’afa’s articles and reports over the past two decades as political correspondent, sports editor, news editor and his tell-it-as-it-is editorials that have challenged the status quo and pushed boundaries of Samoa’s decision makers and policy setters.

Mata’afa’s career has spanned major events in Samoa’s history such as the 2009 tsunami.

As one of the first journalists to arrive on site. His vivid description of what he saw and experienced that morning and in subsequent weeks would be republished widely by international media outlets and organisations.

Never a dull moment
The editor says there was never a dull moment and the most rewarding part of the work was to see the change in people’s lives through empowering them to tell their stories.

“Whether it’s helping someone build a new fale, giving food to people who need it or enabling a family to send a sick relative overseas for medical treatment, those are things I would remember,” he said.

“It’s about empowering people to find their voice and tell their stories.

“Also, I’ve worked with so many people who have gone on to do great things in life, just being able to help them along the way is greatly rewarding.”

“I believe in a God of times and seasons”.

Mataafa said he would always cherish the time he has had with the Samoa Observer, but believed it was time to move on.

“I believe in a God of times and seasons,” says Mata’afa.

“I am grateful for the season I have enjoyed with the Samoa Observer and I will always cherish it. But it is time for the newspaper to take another step, and for some new faces and new talent to take over and shine.”

Reflects on his journey
Mata’afa reflected on his journey and the challenges of getting a daily newspaper out on time, and paid tribute to those who had supported him over the years.

“I have the greatest admiration for all my colleagues in the newsroom, layout, printing, advertising, sales, accounts, production, including the newspaper sellers on the streets and I will miss them. I want to thank them for all their hard work.

“I also want to thank our dear readers for their loyalty and support..

In a joint statement, the founders of the Samoa Observer, Gatoaitele Savea Sano Malifa and Muliagatele Jean Malifa, thanked Mata’afa for his contribution to the newspaper over the past two decades.

“He has worked in the service of the readers of the Samoa Observer for a long time and for that we thank him and wish him all the best as he moves on.”

Australian authorities’ heavy-handedness and the use of the covid-19 pandemic to curb civic and media freedoms are major concerns in the latest report, People Power Under Attack 2020, released by the international non-profit organisation CIVICUS.

Australia was downgraded last year (2019) and is still rated as having freedoms “narrowed” with Fiji, Nauru and Papua New Guinea remaining in the “obstructed” category.

However, there are bright spots for civic freedoms across the Pacific compared globally with the report finding that 87 percent of the world’s population now live in closed, repressed or obstructed countries.

• READ MORE: People Power Under Attack – the full report

“For many observers, the state of civic space in Pacific may seem relatively positive. However civil society groups are concerned about the increasing use of laws to silence dissent,” said Josef Benedict, Asia-Pacific civic space researcher for the CIVICUS Monitor.

“They are also worried about attempts to censor journalists and cover up criticism, especially around governments’ mishandling of the pandemic,” he said, as reported widely in Asia Pacific Report in May.

In the Pacific region, the CIVICUS Monitor documented the use of restrictive laws against activists and critics.

Australia deployed its Intelligence Services Act to prosecute a whistleblower for disclosing the bugging of Timor-Leste government buildings in 2004, with essential parts of the trial to be held in secret.

Criminal libel laws ‘chilling’
In Fiji, the Public Order (Amendment) Act 2014 has been used to silence and prosecute critics, including trade union leader Felix Anthony, while in Samoa, criminal libel laws continue to create a “chilling effect” for those wanting to speak up and criticise the authorities, the report found.

There were concerns raised about the promulgation of a public health emergency law in Papua New Guinea which was passed hurriedly without adequate consultation and contains various provisions that could restrict human rights without adequate oversight.

Censorship was another major another violation documented by the Monitor in the region; and it was particularly concerning during a pandemic, when access to accurate information is vital.

In August 2020, Fijian Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama ordered the Fiji Broadcasting Corporation, which is run by Riyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, brother of Fiji’s Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, to stop airing a debate.

n Vanuatu, media outlets were not allowed to publish articles on covid-19 without government authorisation, and in the Solomon Islands the authorities sent out a memo threatening to sack staff who post comments online criticising the government’s covid-19 response.

Tonga passed new regulations that could be used to restrict press freedom in August 2020, while Nauru continued to impose high visa fees on foreign journalists hoping to access the country to report on human rights issues.

Also alarming were reports of harassment of activists and journalists.
In Australia, even as fires and floods swept the country, environmental and climate action protesters were publicly vilified, with the Prime Minister Scott Morrison branding environmental activists as “anarchists”.

Experienced journalists attacked
In Papua New Guinea, the police minister attacked two experienced journalists in April 2020 and called for them to be sacked.

“Australia was downgraded last year to ‘narrow’ but still we continue to see restrictions on civic freedoms and a growing climate of intimidation aimed at discouraging dissent,” said Benedict.

“A range of problematic security laws have had a chilling effect on journalists and whistle-blowers. There have also been efforts to weaken privacy rights in the name of national security while stricter anti-protests laws are being pushed through.”

Despite this onslaught against civic freedoms, in the past year there have been some small victories such as the passage of the whistleblowers law in Papua New Guinea. In April 2020, four women made history by winning seats in the Kiribati parliament, the highest number of women so far.

Civil society and community groups in the region have also continued to organise and mobilise against mining, logging and development projects affecting environmental and indigenous rights, including in the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand.

More than 20 organisations collaborate on the CIVICUS Monitor to provide an evidence base for action to improve civic space on all continents.

The Monitor has posted more than 500 civic space updates in the last year, which are analysed in People Power Under Attack 2020.

Civic space in 196 countries is categorised as either closed, repressed, obstructed, narrowed or open, based on a methodology which combines several sources of data on the freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression.

• More information

Media freedom defenders from Commonwealth countries have criticised many governments across the world that threaten and censor the work of journalists.

A virtual conference on media freedom in the Commonwealth was hosted by the Institute of Commonwealth Studies (ICwS) in a webinar in London this week.

Three speakers condemned Chinese pressure “behind the scenes” on Pacific media and in Southeast Asia, the “backsliding” of media freedom in Australia, and raised the West Papua “self-determination” issue in the opening panel of the day-long webinar.

• READ MORE: Global journalists are increasingly faced with punitive media laws
• A crusade for media truth and justice

The speakers, UNESCO professor of journalism at the University of Queensland, Peter Greste, who was jailed in 2013 by the Egyptian regime while he was a foreign correspondent covering the Arab Spring for Al Jazeera English; Pacific Media Centre director Professor David Robie and editor of Pacific Journalism Review; and Reporters Without Borders East Asian bureau chief Cédric Alviani, who has lived in Asia since 1999, gave robust criticisms.

Media freedom has been taken up as a serious issue in Commonwealth nations, such as in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries.

Conference facilitator Professor Philip Murphy, who is also director of the institute, said people from across the world were “using technology to bring in speakers from right across the Commonwealth – it is a fantastic opportunity”.

Panel chair Sue Onslow said a key objective of the institution had been exploring how serious the Commonwealth cared about media freedom.

Open dialogue on ‘free flow’
“The Commonwealth charter signed in 2013 affirmed the members’ commitments to a peaceful and open dialogue on the free flow of information, including free and responsible media,” said Murphy.

The opening speaker, Professor David Robie, who is also convenor of the Pacific Media Watch freedom project at Auckland University of Technology, said Pacific governments were becoming increasingly “authoritarian” in dealing with the media, making it difficult for journalists to work independently and securely.

He condemned the Solomon Islands government’s decision this week to ban Facebook because of “abusive language” and “character assassination” against politicians, saying that little thought had begin given to implementing such a draconian gag.

Dr Robie said Facebook and social media were vital for communication in the region and for many small media organisations that had integrated social media strategies into their news operations.

The Solomon Islands government itself was using Facebook for communicating with the public.

Dr Robie also criticised China for its media policies in the region, saying there had been “a trend in clamping down on Facebook in a number of countries in the Pacific” emulating a mainland Chinese lead.

He cited the Facebook threatening moves in Papua New Guinea and Samoa and the ban in Nauru as examples of Chinese influence.

China ‘undermining’ media norms
“China is undermining the long-established independent media freedom norms,” he said.

There was speculation behind the scenes about the influence from China over governments because of extraction industries, such as logging, in an attempt to force silence.

“So, there is a worry and I think an increasing worry in the region about this,” said Dr Robie.

He also criticised the lack of coverage in Commonwealth countries such as Australia and New Zealand about issues concerning Pacific nations such as the decolonisation issue for French Polynesia, New Caledonia – “and especially West Papua”.

“These issues are becoming increasingly critical issues for the Pacific media with a particularly strong proactive line on this around the Pacific about West Papua, a cause célèbre if you like.

“Of course, it’s difficult because it is regarded as part of Indonesia and sometimes the statistics around media freedom issues in West Papua are hidden across statistics in Indonesia as a whole,” Dr Robie said.

He said that despite the lack of coverage from mainstream media in the region, West Papua was increasingly an issue for the independent Pacific media.

West Papua will be ‘big issue’
“This will become a very big issue in the next few years,” he said.

“Globally, you get international news organisations like Al Jazeera covering West Papua while much of the mainstream media in Australia and New Zealand don’t. Pacific nations news media are taking it up it as a critical issue for them.”

Professor Peter Greste , who is also spokeperson for the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom, said that the practice of journalism was now being “weaponised” with anti-terrorism laws such as introduced by the Australian government.

He recalled his experience while working in Egypt before he was jailed for 400 days over alleged “terrorism” and then deported.

Governments were increasingly taking national security legislation as an anti-terrorism law and using it to “come after the journalists”. Two of his Al Jazeera colleagues were still in jail in Cairo.

“I started to realise what was happening in Egypt was one of the greatest examples of the kind of things that were taking place all over the world. Not just in an authoritarian regime like Egypt or Turkey or China where journalists were being locked up with great impunity, but equally in liberal Western democracies, including here in Australia.”

However, Professor Greste said some progress had been made about reforming such laws.

Law reform progress in Australia
“We are seeing some progress here in Australia to change the law, at least getting some legislative reform. In Australia, there is an opportunity to move.”

Reporters Without Borders’ Cédric Alviani said that citizens had a fundamental right to information, it was not just an issue about media freedom for media owners.

“We have to insist that press freedom is the freedom of the people to receive quality information, and somehow it should be called Freedom of Information – or maybe under another name – but somehow it would be less confusing as it’s a right of the citizens. It is enshrined in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” he said.

“I believe we should start from the public spaces. Politicians or decision takers will only do this if it suits their interests, so I would say the public has to push for this. This is a right, and we have to push for our rights because every other person basically has an interest to remove this right.”

Alviani said that it was important for journalists to be accountable for their work as otherwise they would amplify disinformation and lead to a negative impact.

“Disinformation can boost the national security threat and only journalists can debunk fake news before it has become viral,” he said.

“If the journalists don’t do their job properly, they are going to amplify fake news, instead of debunking it.”

The seminar included panels on South Asia, Africa, Europe and Canada, the Caribbean with more than 16 journalists and media freedom defenders taking part, and with a large audience.

Laurens Ikinia is a Papuan Masters in Communication Studies student at the Auckland University of Technology who has been studying journalism. He is on an internship with AUT’s Pacific Media Centre.

• More about the media freedom seminar

The Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom has called for a voluntary certification programme for Australian journalists as an essential step towards building trust in journalism, and distinguishing journalists from what can be false and misleading commentary on social and digital channels.

“We believe that a voluntary certification programme is needed now,” says AJF spokesperson Professor Peter Greste in a statement.

“As journalism and the platforms through which it is practised undergo rapid change, it will help to ensure the high standards of professionalism and independence necessary for it to continue to make its important contribution to democracy and transparency.

• READ MORE: The AJF programme

“Central to this is the need to distinguish journalists from others who post news and commentary on social media.

“A voluntary certification programme that includes a minimum level of training will, for instance, ensure the certified journalist understands the law and their code of conduct, and is prepared to be held accountable to it.

“This is about building trust in journalism. It is no different from the trustworthiness accountants, doctors, engineers, lawyers and many other professions gain by being certified.

“The voluntary certification program must be completely independent of government.

“In that respect it is similar to the Australian Institute of Company Directors program, which certifies directors who have completed their voluntary graduate course.”

The AJF sees the certification as an essential component of the AJF’s proposed Media Freedom Act (MFA).

“It does not mean that non-certified journalists would be unprotected by the legislation,” said the AJF statekent.

“Certification is simply an accredited acknowledgement of a certain level of understanding of journalists’ principles.”

How certification might work
As the aim is to increase the quality of journalism and public confidence in the work that journalists produce, certification must include the following:

• A training component, to confirm that anyone who is certified has done a requisite level of training in the law, professional practice and ethics;
• Evidence of a process for producing work that meets the standards required of certified journalists;
• Evidence of published journalism;
• A commitment to abide by a recognised journalists’ code of conduct;
• Accountability to that code of conduct.

Once an applicant has completed the requisite training and produced evidence of published work that meets the minimum standards, they would qualify for certification. Such a denomination would allow a journalist to place a “kite mark” next to their name in any published work or on social media. That would signal to readers and audiences that they have been recognised by their peers as someone who produces a high standard of work.

Any member of the public who thinks a certified journalist has breached the code and general principles would have the right to complain to the certifying body. If the complaint is upheld and found to be serious enough, the body would have the power to withdraw certification.

Certification would also work in concert with the Media Freedom Act. The Act could determine that anyone who is certified, is assumed to be a journalist and benefit from its protections. It would then be up to the investigating authorities to show why an individual had breached their obligations as a journalist and should be treated as an ordinary person.

This does not mean a person cannot work as a journalist without certification. Nor does it mean that an uncertified journalist would not be protected by an MFA. It simply means that they would need to show the authorities why, for the purposes of the Act, they should be treated as one.

Today, October 16, marks the 45th anniversary of the Balibo Five – the five Australian-based Australian, British and New Zealand – journalists murdered in East Timor in 1975. Their case remains unsolved.

Roger East, a former ABC journalist, was later murdered when in Timor-Leste investigating the earlier killings and running a Timorese news agency.

This was a marked moment in press freedom history in Australia, yet after investigations were launched to find those responsible and prosecute them, after 1868 days – according to the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) – the AFP (Australian Federal Police) had not made one attempt to question the suspect identified by a prior inquest.

• READ MORE: The betrayal of the Balibo Five
• Other stories on the Balibo Five

The investigation was subsequently dropped.

Since then, nine other Australian journalists have also been murdered, again with complete impunity, reports the Brisbane-based Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom (AJF).

Globally, impunity in cases of journalist murders remains at almost 90 percent.

Professor Peter Greste, director and spokesperson of the AJF, said:

“This trajectory shows a broad and continuing failure of our judicial process, and a lack of political will to address one of the most egregious attacks on the media in our history.

“A liberal democracy stands on the shoulders of a sound legal system, a free press, transparent governance and security forces that protect both the people and the integrity of the system itself.

“Failure to hold those responsible for the Balibo Five murders and those subsequent to them is a failure of our democracy. If we hope to be a strong and flourishing country in the region in future, we must ensure this never happens again.”

Murdered were the three-man Channel Seven crew reporter Greg Shackleton, (29), New Zealand cameraman Gary Cunningham, 27; and 21-year-old sound recorder Tony Stewart; and the two-man Channel Nine crew Scottish-born reporter Malcolm Rennie, 28, and British cameraman Brian Peters.

Roger East opened a one-man news agency in Timor-Leste, stringing for both ABC Radio in Darwin and the AAP news agency in Sydney.

He filed reports on East Timor’s calls for international support and provided the first accounts of the killing of the five journalists at Balibo.

As the sole remaining foreign reporter in East Timor his stories described the approaching Indonesian forces and the plight of the civilian population.

Roger East’s final story for ABC Radio was heard on Correspondents Report on the afternoon of 7 December 1975.

The AJF promotes press freedom and the right of journalists to report the news in freedom and safety. This includes working with Australian governments to ensure legislation supports press freedom. Professor Peter Greste is a director of the AJF and is UNESCO chair in journalism and communication at the University of Queensland (UQ).

When I first met Julian Assange more than 10 years ago, I asked him why he had started WikiLeaks. He replied: “Transparency and accountability are moral issues that must be the essence of public life and journalism.”

I had never heard a publisher or an editor invoke morality in this way. Assange believes that journalists are the agents of people, not power: that we, the people, have a right to know about the darkest secrets of those who claim to act in our name.

If the powerful lie to us, we have the right to know. If they say one thing in private and the opposite in public, we have the right to know. If they conspire against us, as Bush and Blair did over Iraq, then pretend to be democrats, we have the right to know.

• READ MORE: For years, journalists cheered Assange’s abuse. Now they have his path to a US gulag
• Assange’s UK detention violates international law – Australia must intervene

It is this morality of purpose that so threatens the collusion of powers that wants to plunge much of the world into war and wants to bury Julian alive in Trumps fascist America.

In 2008, a top secret US State Department report described in detail how the United States would combat this new moral threat. A secretly-directed personal smear campaign against Julian Assange would lead to “exposure [and] criminal prosecution”.

The aim was to silence and criminalise WikiLeaks and its founder. Page after page revealed a coming war on a single human being and on the very principle of freedom of speech and freedom of thought, and democracy.

The imperial shock troops would be those who called themselves journalists: the big hitters of the so-called mainstream, especially the “liberals” who mark and patrol the perimeters of dissent.

Fabricated character assassination
And that is what happened. I have been a reporter for more than 50 years and I have never known a smear campaign like it: the fabricated character assassination of a man who refused to join the club: who believed journalism was a service to the public, never to those above.

Assange shamed his persecutors. He produced scoop after scoop. He exposed the fraudulence of wars promoted by the media and the homicidal nature of America’s wars, the corruption of dictators, the evils of Guantanamo.

He forced us in the West to look in the mirror. He exposed the official truth-tellers in the media as collaborators: those I would call Vichy journalists. None of these imposters believed Assange when he warned that his life was in danger: that the “sex scandal” in Sweden was a set up and an American hellhole was the ultimate destination. And he was right, and repeatedly right.

The extradition hearing in London this week is the final act of an Anglo-American campaign to bury Julian Assange. It is not due process. It is due revenge. The American indictment is clearly rigged, a demonstrable sham. So far, the hearings have been reminiscent of their Stalinist equivalents during the Cold War.

Today, the land that gave us Magna Carta, Great Britain, is distinguished by the abandonment of its own sovereignty in allowing a malign foreign power to manipulate justice and by the vicious psychological torture of Julian – a form of torture, as Nils Melzer, the UN expert has pointed out, that was refined by the Nazis because it was most effective in breaking its victims.

Every time I have visited Assange in Belmarsh prison, I have seen the effects of this torture. When I last saw him, he had lost more than 10 kilos in weight; his arms had no muscle. Incredibly, his wicked sense of humour was intact.

As for Assange’s homeland, Australia has displayed only a cringeing cowardice as its government has secretly conspired against its own citizen who ought to be celebrated as a national hero. Not for nothing did George W. Bush anoint the Australian prime minister his “deputy sheriff”.

The Judases in the media
It is said that whatever happens to Julian Assange in the next three weeks will diminish if not destroy freedom of the press in the West. But which press? The Guardian? The BBC, The New York Times, the Jeff Bezos Washington Post?

No, the journalists in these organisations can breathe freely. The Judases on The Guardian who flirted with Julian, exploited his landmark work, made their pile then betrayed him, have nothing to fear.

They are safe because they are needed.

Freedom of the press now rests with the honourable few: the exceptions, the dissidents on the internet who belong to no club, who are neither rich nor laden with Pulitzers, but produce fine, disobedient, moral journalism – those like Julian Assange.

Meanwhile, it is our responsibility to stand by a true journalist whose sheer courage ought to be inspiration to all of us who still believe that freedom is possible. I salute him.

John Pilger is an Australian journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He has been mainly based in Britain since 1962. Pilger is a strong critic of American, Australian, and British foreign policy, which he considers to be driven by an imperialist and colonialist agenda. Quote: “It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and myths that surround it.”

A journalist has been taken in for police questioning while documenting the land struggles of Temiar Orang Asli, an indigenous community in Kampung Sungai Papan, Malaysia, reports the Malay Mail.

Alexandra Radu from Romania said she was taken to the Gerik district police station yesterday morning after talking to the indigenous villagers about the blockade they had set up to prevent loggers from felling trees on their customary land.

“First the police told me that they are arresting me, but later they said that they only took me to the police station for documentation purposes,” she said.

READ MORE: Precarious politics pose threats to world’s three biggest rainforests

“I’m still here at the police station,” she told Malay Mail when contacted yesterday.

A journalist for Japanese news organisation The Diplomat, Radu said she went to Temiar village on her own and not at the invitation of anyone.

“I went there to cover the life of the Orang Asli there and their blockade issue,” she said.

According to online news site Malaysiakini, loggers and forestry officials destroyed the blockade yesterday which was blocking access to 42 hectares of Orang Asli customary land.

Speaking about the incident, the Organisation for the Preservation of Natural Heritage Malaysia (Peka Malaysia) said: “We regret that the state authorities and loggers are adamant and continuously encroaching upon their (Temiar) customary lands, despite numerous police reports and complaints being lodged with the relevant authorities and ongoing investigations.

“We hope there should not be any attempt to curb any media’s right of information and the public’s right to know any matters pertaining to Orang Asli in this regard.”

Alexandra Radu has since been released. Police have told media that she was not arrested, only brought in to record her statement as a witness to the demolition of the blockade.

While the local government approved logging in the area last year, it has been met with dogged resistance with three Orang Asli villages arrested in mid-July for impeding logging activity.

The Orang Asli are the indigenous people and the oldest inhabitants of peninsula Malaysia and have a powerful connection with the land.

According to Al Jazeera, much of their customary land and its biodiversity is being lost to palm oil plantations which are expanding rapidly throughout Malaysia.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2019/06/07/media-raids-raise-questions-of-police-power-over-journalists-whistleblowers/ Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:14:54 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=38629 ANALYSIS: By Denis Muller of the University of Melbourne

In their raids on media organisations, journalists and whistleblowers, the Australian Federal Police have shown themselves to be the tool of a secretive, ruthless and vindictive executive government.

Secretive because the extensive web of laws passed under the rubric of national security, on top of the secrecy provisions of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, gives the executive wide powers to classify as secret anything it wishes to hide.

As the former investigative reporter Ross Coulthart once memorably said, it could include the office Christmas card.

READ MORE: Why the raids on Australian media present a clear threat to democracy

Ruthless because the stories revealed by whistleblowers and reporters targeted by the AFP and other security agencies have offered accounts of cruelty, misconduct, dishonesty and slyness. These include:

• harm done to the mental health of asylum-seeker children on Manus Island and Nauru
• bugging the East Timor cabinet office as part of an attempt to cheat the Timorese out of their fair share of the Timor Sea oil reserves
• alleged breaches of the rules of engagement by Australian military personnel in Afghanistan
• proposals to intensify domestic spying on Australian citizens.

Real threat lacking
Vindictive because in the most recent two cases it has taken more than a year after publication for the AFP to take action, revealing how utterly lacking in any real threat to national security the leaks and publications were.

It follows that these raids are a naked attempt to take revenge on whistleblowers and intimidate the journalists who published their stories.

As for the AFP, while it is true they are acting in response to references from other government agencies, it raises questions about the way they exercise their vaunted operational independence.

What weight do they give to how real a threat to national security is posed by any particular leak? What weight do they give to the imperative that leakers be made an example of and journalists be intimidated?

Or do they just want to show the rest of the executive branch that they are on the team?

In addition to this question of AFP culture, many interrelated factors have brought Australia to this point – a clear and present danger to freedom of the press.

One is the catch-all nature of section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. This makes it an offence punishable by up to two years’ jail for a public servant or former public servant to make an unauthorised disclosure of any fact or document they come across in their role as a public servant.

70 national security laws
Another is the vast body of national security laws — about 70 of them at last count.

In the context of press freedom, one of the most oppressive is the so-called metadata law of 2015, which makes it relatively easy for the police and security forces to carry out electronic surveillance of communications between journalists and their sources.

Not only do these laws provide for the criminal prosecution of journalists, they also contain very limited public-interest defences. In many instances, they reverse the onus of proof, so the journalist has to prove a defence rather than the prosecution having to prove guilt.

A third factor is the Commonwealth’s weak whistleblower protection law, the Public Interest Disclosure Act. This offers no specific protection for a whistleblower who goes to the media, even after he or she has tried to get the wrongdoing corrected internally.

We are seeing this play out in the courts now with the prosecution of Tax Office whistleblower Richard Boyle.

Three government ministers — Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Attorney-General Christian Porter — have all batted away questions about the latest police raids, taking refuge in saying it is the law taking its course.

That is not the point. The point is that the politicians have constructed a repressive legal regime designed to protect the executive branch of government, impede accountability to the public and exert a chilling effect on the press.

Labor support
This is not a party-political argument. Labor has largely supported the creation of this regime, although to be fair it has forced through some amendments to give some protection to journalists.

A fourth factor is that Australia is alone among the “Five Eyes” countries that make up the West’s main intelligence network in having no constitutional protection for freedom of the press. The US, Britain, Canada and New Zealand all have this protection in some form.

Finally, laws that do exist in Australia to protect journalists’ sources offer no protection from police raids and electronic surveillance.

These laws – called “shield laws” because they are designed to shield the identity of confidential sources – apply only in court proceedings. They allow a journalist to claim a privilege against disclosing information that may identify a confidential source. The court then has to weigh up the consequences of forcing the journalist to identify the source.

If a source is identified by electronic surveillance or seizure of files or electronic devices, the journalist is powerless to keep any promise of confidentiality.

We are back to the days when communicating with confidential sources can be done safely only through snail mail or – after leaving mobile devices behind – in underground car parks.

• Denis Muller is 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.
• Other Australian media raids stories
• Pacific Media Watch updates

New debates in Timor-Leste are circulating about political interference in newsrooms. Attempts to condition or determine that somebody cannot make news on a subject or interview this person or that person.

It’s a problem affecting both public and private media groups.

This debate is important in Timor-Leste. There is a lot of promiscuity between “journalists” who work for government or other state institutions, and journalists who work in the news media.

READ MORE: An analysis of the Timor-Leste media at Pacific Journalism Review

And this is reflected in the coverage.

Ensuring the independence of public media is even more important. Interference in newsrooms is unacceptable and should always be tackled. Whoever does this is weakening the quality of the Timorese state.

As for private ownership of the media, organisations may have an editorial line but they must be transparent about this.

They cannot use the “cover” of supposed impartiality one moment, and then fail to meet that impartiality on a day-to-day basis because of “business”.

Editorial transparency
If they support an editorial idea there must be transparency.

But at the same time, the media cannot only act when it considers their own independence is at stake. It is the responsibility of journalists to work ethically, impartially, and responsibly. They should not spread false news, or help advertise party or group propaganda.

They cannot always give their opinion on the subjects they write about when writing factual articles. And they must be careful how they write, not give incomplete information.

Journalists are not just microphones that reproduce, without any contradiction or analysis, what the political leaders say.

If they do that then we don’t need journalists.

Journalists have a responsibility to verify what they are told is true. And they must be very careful about the headings and content of what they post because they can help ignite already tense situations.

The responsibility of journalists and the media is essential.

António Sampaio is a news agency journalist. This column is a personal view expressed on his Facebook page. It was translated from Portuguese.

• Sacked head of state broadcaster RTTL claims ‘political axe’
• How Timor-Leste’s media bloomed from the ashes of violence and bloody conflict

The statistics globally are chilling. And the Asia-Pacific region bears the brunt of the killing of journalists with impunity disproportionately.

Revelations in research published in the latest edition of Pacific Journalism Review on the trauma experienced by television journalists in the Philippines covering President Rodrigo Duterte’s so-called ‘war on drugs’ are deeply disturbing.

More than 12,000 people have reportedly been killed – according to Amnesty International, although estimates are unverified – in the presidential-inspired purge.

READ MORE: Killing the messenger

According to UNESCO, about 1,010 journalists globally have been “killed for reporting the news and bringing information to the public” in the 12 years until 2017 – or on average, one death every four days.

Many argue that the Philippines, with one of the worst death tolls of journalists in the past decade, is a prime example of the crisis.

Journalists covering the “graveyard shift” were the first recorders of violence and brutality under Duterte’s anti-illegal drugs campaign.

The first phase in 2016, called Oplan Tokhang, was executed ruthlessly and relentlessly.

Chilling study
This chilling post-traumatic stress study in the latest PJR by ABS-CBN news executive Mariquit Almario-Gonzalez examines how graveyard-shift TV journalists experienced covering Oplan Tokhang.

The Tagalog phase in English means “to knock and plead” and was supposed to be bloodless – a far cry from the reality.

Almario-Gonzalez’s colleague, award-winning photographer Fernando G Sepe Jr, has also contributed an associated photoessay drawn from his groundbreaking ‘Healing The Wounds From the Drug War’ gallery.

He reflects on the impact of Duterte’s onslaught on the poor in his country.

Compared to the Philippines and other Asian countries – such as Cambodia, Indonesia and Myanmar – media freedom issues in the Pacific micro states and neighbouring Australia and New Zealand may appear relatively benign – and certainly not life threatening.

Nevertheless, the Pacific faces growing media freedom challenges.

The phosphate Micronesian state of Nauru banned the Australian public broadcaster ABC and “arrested” Television New Zealand Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver while she covered the Pacific Islands Forum leaders summit in September 2018.

Media freedom crises
In this context, Auckland University of Technology’s Pacific Media Centre marked its tenth anniversary in November 2017 with a wide-ranging public seminar discussing critical media freedom crises.

The “Journalism Under Duress in Asia-Pacific” seminar examined media freedom and human rights in the Philippines and in Indonesia’s Papua region – known as West Papua.

Keynote speakers included Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) executive director Malou Mangahas and RNZ Pacific senior journalist Johnny Blades.

Papers from this seminar and 14 other contributing researchers from seven countries on topics ranging from the threats to the internet, post-conflict identity, Pacific media freedom and journalist safety are featured in this edition of PJR.

Unthemed paper topics include representations of Muslims in New Zealand, ASEAN development journalism, US militarism in Micronesia and the reporting of illegal rhino poaching for the Vietnamese market.

The issue has been edited by Professor David Robie, director of the PMC, Khairiah A. Rahman of AUT, and Dr Philip Cass of Unitec. The designer was Del Abcede.

• The November edition of Pacific Journalism Review
• Journalism under duress in Asia-Pacific

By RNZ Pacific

Civic freedoms in three Pacific nations are under threat, according to the international civil society watchdog group Civicus.

The watchdog, which represents civil society groups around the world, has released its annual “People Power Under Attack” report which tracks respect for fundamental freedoms in nearly 200 countries.

It downgraded Papua New Guinea and Nauru to join Fiji in the “obstructed” category.

READ MORE: Civic freedoms occupy a shrinking space in Asia Pacific

Nauru’s rating is due to increasing restrictions on press freedom in the country.

Civicus said this hampered independent scrutiny of Nauru’s policies and practices, especially of the Australian-run refugee detention centres on the island, where there have been widespread reports of abuse.

In Papua New Guinea, media freedom continues to deteriorate with journalists subject to harassment and attacks because of their reporting, it said.

Condemned censorship
The report condemned censorship it said was prevalent in parts of the Pacific and pointed to governments such as Fiji’s that tried to control the public narrative by interfering with the media.

However, there are seven countries in the Pacific deemed to be in the Civicus “open” category, although it said freedoms continued to be impinged on in two other Pacific countries in its “narrowed” category.

And it noted improvements such as Solomon Islands’ new Whistleblowers Protection Act, which protects activists exposing corruption.

Civicus also said land rights, environmental and anti-corruption activists faced threats and arrests in the Pacific.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Two new legal codes – civil and criminal – have been introduced in Nepal, threatening the medical profession and media industry, and dividing the country over the consequences.

Global and local media freedom groups have condemned the penal code because of limitations imposed on the freedom to provide news and information in the public interest.

Doctors went on strike over the new penal code earlier this month in protest against the criminalising of medical negligence and lodged a petition with more than 6000 signatures to the Nepal Medical Council.

READ MORE: Free press on edge as Nepal’s new laws take effect

The government has agreed to address the issue and opened negotiations with the Nepal Medical Association.

The Paris-based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has protested to the Nepalese authorities about the implications for news organisations, saying the new law constitutes an “unacceptable censorship tool”.

Journalists in Nepal could face up to three years in prison if they publish information deemed to be “confidential” under the new criminal code, says RSF.

Protection of privacy provisions also pose a “serious threat” to journalism.

Showing ‘disrespect’
“Sections 293, 294 and 295 criminalise publishing private information, recording conversations or taking pictures without permission,” says RSF in its review of the law.

“Under article 306.2, showing ‘disrespect’ towards someone either directly or through satire is also punishable by up to three years in prison.”

Critics of the new laws – replacing the general code, nationally known as Muluki Ain – say there was no consultation on the draft provisions before they were enacted.

Two people given the responsibility to draft the two laws were Khil Raj Regmi, a former de facto Prime Minister of Nepal and former Chief Justice Khel Kalyan Shrestha. Neither of them had discussed the the laws with relevant stakeholders before adopting them.

The two codes were implemented on August 17, replacing a 55-year-old law, which was created during the previous Panchyaat Kall self-government political system in the early 1960s.

The two new codes were passed without any formal discussion with stakeholders – journalists, lawyers and medical doctors, this has led to protests from doctors and journalists.

Doctors protest
“Halting medical services, hundreds of doctors — both government and private — participated in a protest march … The protesting doctors, who were joined by retired doctors as well, wore aprons and stethoscopes,” reports The Himalayan Times.

Reporting on the September 2 rally, The Times quoted senior orthopaedic surgeon Dr Govinda KC as saying the new law would directly affect patients rather than doctors.

“Instead of proposing tougher penalties, it will be more prudent to thoroughly investigate negligence on the part of doctors during treatment,” he was quoted as saying.

After the strike, the government agreed to start talks with the Nepal Medical Association.

But there has been some negative feedback from the public arguing that the government should not have come under pressure to change the penal code as it was undermining government credibility.

The government has also taken steps to communicate with the Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ) and has decided to amend certain legal provisions in the laws to protect the freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

The government had failed to discuss the laws before passing them through Parliament, says Radheshyam Adhikari a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of Nepal.

Stakeholders unconvinced
Also, after passing the codes, the government had failed to convince stakeholders about the new laws.

“In reality [the] penal code has not affected the civil code, although – due to the current government misusing the law by suing people under cyber law – there has been widespread panic within Nepal’s doctor community and the FNJ as well,” says Adhikari.

“Furthermore, the law regarding the press is different and this is a civil law, if we were to choose between the press law and civil law, we will have to choose the press law.

“Press law is the same old law, which clearly states that the journalists shouldn’t be prosecuted for expressing their freedom of speech,” Adhikari says.

“In the press, there is a civil law, that law is not created to target the journalists. Rather, it’s a law to change the relationship among the civilians in order to protect the right to privacy.

However, now there is a new privacy law separate from civilian law.

Government has agreed to the demands of the press and implemented more liberal provisions under the privacy law too, which should “protect the press,” says Adhikari.

‘No need for panic’
“There is no need for much panic over these laws.”

But the major concern in regard for journalists is that when an article is “shared on social media by someone once it is in the public domain, the sharer will be jailed rather than the government questioning the publisher of the content,” says Adhikari

Raju Basnet, editor-in-chief of Khojtalas Weekly and Khojtalasa.com, was arrested on September 10 over alleged cybercrime because of a report exposing an attempt to transfer the ownership of land by Harisiddhi Brick Industries in Lalitpur to a few private individuals.

It was alleged that the transaction of the land had the involvement of the Nepal Communist Party’s (NCP) lawmaker Pampha Bhusal and other leaders in the party, reports Myrepublic.

“I have spoken against this bill in the Parliament, and now the government has taken a high road and the journalist Raju Basnet has been released,” says Adhikari.

“A different person has been jailed for sharing information on social media,” he adds.

The government has taken matters into their own hands and have started prosecuting people.

Misuse of the law
“It is not right for the state to prosecute the individual by using the police force,” he says.

“Should there be an issue of defamation, we can always work under the defamation law. But without evoking the defamation law, going against the constitution is not a right thing,” says Adhikari.

“If there is an issue of defamation and if the subject doesn’t want to take a legal process, there is always an option to express your grievance to the Press Council”, says Adhikari.

“People are not being prosecuted due to the law, however, it is due to the misuse of the law, that has created panic in the country”, says Adhikari.

But Gopal Basnyat, news editor at Radio Nepal, says the new law makes a journalist “reveal their sources,” which is not only a threat to the press but also a threat to whistleblowers.

“We cannot reveal the sources as a journalist, it is our duty to protect them, it is against our press code of conduct,” says Basnyat.

Risk of prosecution
Under the new law, “if we don’t reveal the source, we risk being prosecuted.”

“It does affect free speech. The FNJ has been protesting against this law,” says Basnyat.

Many other journalists who have been protesting against this law, which some describe as more draconian than the Nepali law during the Panchyaat Kall era.

A Practising Advocate at the Supreme Court, Ashish Adhikari, says that the “Act in itself is good but the implication of the Act [by the government] part is questionable”.

He adds: “The first publisher isn’t being convicted but, the person who shares information that is already in the public domain is being charged and prosecuted.”

Rahul Bhattarai is a student journalist on the Postgraduate Diploma in Communication Studies (Journalism) reporting on the Asia-Pacific Journalism course at AUT University.

• New Nepal criminal code raises fears of curbs on free press
• 15 things in the new national law every Nepali should know about

A New Zealand journalist and associate of the Pacific Media Centre has been killed in a fall from a building in Istanbul, reports the Turkish-based news service TRT World.

Media industry sources have cited police as treating the death of Yasmine Ryan, 34, in a five-storey fall as “suspicious”.

Her death has shocked colleagues and friends around the world.

A colleague, Ashfaaq Carim, at TRT World said Ryan had left behind a “rich legacy of stories that have left a deep impact on people and journalists”.

“This morning, I woke up to the tragic news that a trusted friend, colleague, and fellow journalist, Yasmine Ryan, had passed away,” he wrote in a TRT opinion blog.

“I have been blessed to know Yasmine for more than eight years. Throughout she had been an epitome of courage,” he wrote.

“A selfless human. A fearless woman.”

Tragedy at friend’s house
The journalist was staying at a friend’s house when the tragedy happened, according to news reports.

“The pair had retired for the day and gone to sleep in separate rooms. The friend was awoken at 2pm by a noise,” said The New Zealand Herald.

“They discovered an open window and Ryan on the ground below.
RT World reported emergency services were called but declared her dead at the scene.

Police were now investigating the death.

A Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesperson said the ministry was aware of the death of a New Zealander in Istanbul and was providing consular assistance to the family.

Zaoui book
One of her colleagues in New Zealand, independent journalist Selwyn Manning, recalls her early work in a collaborative book,  I Almost Forgot About The Moon – about the disinformation campaign against refugee Algerian theologian Ahmed Zaoui.

“Her research and writing of various chapters in the book were so exact and thorough,” Manning said.

“Her passion for human rights shone through and led her, I believe, to pursue a career reporting in North Africa and the Middle East.

“Early on, when I was editor of Scoop, I assigned her to report in the Solomons when unrest became evident after some arson attacks in Honiara.

“We flew her and Jason Dorday up there to cover events. She immediately was in her element.”

Pacific Media Centre director Professor David Robie described Ryan as one of the most professional New Zealand journalists he had encountered working as a foreign correspondent.

He paid tribute to her Arab Spring reportage from Tunisia for Al Jazeera.

“Her reporting broke the mould and alerted the world to the forces of would-be change heralded by the Arab Spring, even if the early hopes dwindled in the end.”

• TRT World report
• ‘The world a better place’ because of Kiwi journalist who died in Turkey
• ‘Her journalism lives on, her legacy is strong’. Kamahl Santamaria on Yasmine Ryan

An interview with Yasmine Ryan by media commentator Gavin Ellis.