Two months out from New Zealand’s general election, and we have yet to see new policy from any of the seven main political parties on media and communication.

Only the Greens have a media policy on their website — and it is effectively a repeat of the 2023 policy that was heavy on high-minded rhetoric but very light on functional detail. No party has yet presented voters with practical initiatives that take account of the significant shifts in the media industry since the last election.

Admittedly, this is not the sort of policy that will sway voters, but manifestos are more than vote-grabbers. They represent commitments by each party to use their best endeavours during the coming Parliamentary term to give effect to what they say they will do in the interests of the public good.

• READ MORE: Other Gavin Ellis articles on media

Unless there is a sudden avalanche of media policy promises, the signal the parties are sending is that, in this area of public policy, they plan to do very little.

I do not believe our politicians are unaware of the precarious state of journalism in this country. They have been lobbied by every media organisation and left in no doubt that the cuts that have kept newsrooms in operation are not sustainable in even the medium term.

The have been warned we will see the loss of significant news publications and news broadcasts within the term of the next government unless there is a reset. The playing field needs to be levelled to overcome the pernicious effects of uncontrolled foreign digital players in our media market.

Those effects are not only financial. They include significant civic, social and cultural consequences. We have already suffered damage caused by years of political inaction and ineffectiveness, but believe me, worse will come unless significant change is forthcoming.

Comfortable with less scrutiny
One of my worries is that, irrespective of high-minded utterances about the importance of journalism to democracy, most politicians are comfortable with less scrutiny of their activities by journalists than with an enhanced ability to speak truth to power.

Too many politicians, and the functionaries who spread their messages, mistakenly believe that their responsibility to keeping the public informed is met by speaking directly to constituents through social media and email lists, and that news media are no longer needed.

They are mistaken because scrutiny is the missing element in that interpretation of their social contract. Scrutiny includes ferreting out those matters of public interest that politicians would prefer you do not see or hear.

There is also a prevailing view that commercial news media are creatures of the marketplace and should, like any other business, stand or fall on the basis of their ability to sell goods or services.

Under the model prevailing when they were created, that is a valid viewpoint. However, that model is broken and has been dysfunctional long enough for some parts of it to become almost irretrievable.

Some will say that is the nature of the marketplace — ever changing and requiring nimble business practices to keep pace. It is only to be expected that some businesses will fail because they do not (or cannot) adapt.

Again, that is a valid viewpoint. But it is one that does not recognise two things. The first is the civic and social roles that news media play in a society that requires diverse and independent sources of information to properly function. The second is the inequity of a marketplace in which foreign players can plunder content with impunity and avoid the taxes and regulations that burden domestic media.

Untouchable foreign players
Beyond the marketplace are the social harms that are undeniably caused by those apparently untouchable foreign players and the as-yet-unquantifiable effects of their use of artificial intelligence.

The present government’s introduction (not passage) of legislation to introduce an Australian model under-16 ban on social media appears to be a calculated pre-election move, rather than an earnest attempt to deal with the problem (see below).

That Bill may look as if we are catching up with other countries on media policy, but the reality is that we have been left far behind. Inaction and widespread political indifference could see an incoming government face a firestorm of compounding consequences.

There are eight areas that all political parties need to address. I would like to think they could reach consensus on most of them.

The first is to create an enforceable environment that will allow all news organisations to negotiate financial compensation from foreign digital platforms for the use of content. That use would include search and social media plus large language models and other artificial intelligence assets.

The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill that has lain dormant in Parliament throughout the term of the present government should be resurrected, updated to bring its provisions in line with those of Australia, and extended to account for developments in artificial intelligence.

The second is to enforce the provisions of the OECD profit shifting framework to impose a tax on revenue that is currently moved offshore in the form of service payments. The resulting impost, which would be in addition to the money negotiated by news organisations, should be used to finance non-profit local and iwi news initiatives.

Sustaining local newsrooms
The third is the adoption of policies to help sustain local newsrooms. Two initiatives should be considered. Firstly, the State of California’s Community Newsroom Employment and Workforce Sustainability Act which will provide refundable tax credits to local newsrooms for each journalist they employ.

Such measures could be used to help sustain local and iwi news outlets. The Californian legislation, which passed the Senate and Assembly by overwhelming majorities and is awaiting Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature, extends eligibility to print, broadcast, digital, nonprofit, and independent family-owned news outlets. It is regarded as a blueprint for other states to follow.

Secondly, there is a British initiative that allows local authority rates relief on local news premises. The virtue of policies such as these is that they are effectively revenue neutral. Without the help, the newsrooms would not exist.

The fourth policy relates to public media. The amalgamation of Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand should be resurrected in light of TVNZ’s increasingly problematic advertising revenue base and the need to affect cost savings in both organisations.

The funding system for both organisations, together with Whakaata Māori and Iwi Radio, should be reviewed and consideration given to triennial funding.

The fifth policy should be a comprehensive review of the future of terrestrial broadcasting and the consequences of moves to digital-only delivery. Its deliberations should include possible disenfranchising of the elderly and poor; the impact on Māori broadcasting; the impact on TVNZ news services that could arise in a move to video streaming on demand; and the consequential uses of radio spectrum.

The sixth policy should be an urgent review of the harmful effects of social media that would include, but not be limited to, the effects on those under the age of 16. The proposed ban is based on that currently enacted in Australia, which has been been ineffective. Australia’s internet regulator, eSafety, last month issued the results of a study that found that more than eight in 10 Australian under-16s are continuing to use social media despite the ban.

Platform operators as publishers
The review should consider deeming social media platform operators to be publishers (on the basis that their algorithms and AI tools manipulate content and determine audiences) and liable for infringements of law and regulation.

The seventh policy initiative should be a comprehensive review of media regulation and the development of an independent framework for complaint and adjudication. The review should embrace not only local media but also foreign-controlled digital platforms with New Zealand user bases over a certain size. Pending the adoption of findings from the review, existing regulatory bodies (state and industry-led) should remain in place.

Finally, any policies relating to artificial intelligence should make specific reference to news media, the integrity of news content, and intellectual property rights. It should include measures to limit the spread of disinformation, the verification and validation of legitimate news content produced by journalists, and the identification of AI-generated content.

Our political parties — and the public — need to understand the consequences of failing to deal effectively with what will become increasingly existential issues for journalism. Perhaps their starting point should be a general enquiry into the viability of New Zealand journalism and our media infrastructure, even if it tells them what some of us already know.

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.

The Philippines’ Court of Tax Appeals has acquitted Nobel laureate Maria Ressa and Rappler Holdings Corporation (RHC) of four charges of tax evasion that were filed in 2018 by the previous Duterte government.

The CTA 1st Division decided yesterday to acquit Ressa and RHC, Rappler’s holding company, in the Duterte government’s charge that it evaded tax payments when it raised capital through its partnership with foreign investors North Base Media (NBM) and Omidyar Network (ON).

This involved the issuance to the two entities of Philippine Depositary Receipts or PDRs, financial instruments commonly used even among media companies like ABS-CBN and GMA Network.

• READ MORE: Other Mara Ressa and Rappler reports

In an 80-page decision, the court ordered the acquittal of Ressa and RHC for “failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt’.

The decision was signed by Associate Justices Catherine Manahan, Jean Marie Bacorro-Villena, and Marian Ivy Reyes-Fajardo. Presiding Justice Roman del Rosario inhibited from the proceedings but certified the decision.

The victory ends more than four years of trial of a case filed in March 2018, two months after the Philippines’ Securities and Exchange Commission issued a closure order against Rappler on the basis of the Duterte government’s charge that it broke the law by being foreign-owned.

Rappler is a 100 percent Filipino company, a point asserted by the company in its appeal of the SEC order at the Court of Appeals (CA).

An emotional Ressa said after the verdict: “Today, facts win, truth wins, justice wins,” calling for freedom of detained former senator Leila de Lima and jailed journalists like Frenchie Mae Cumpio.

De Lima will begin her seventh year in prison in February, while Cumpio will begin her fourth year also in February.

Rappler CEO Maria Ressa talks to the media.                                        Video: Rappler

The CTA voted 3-0 to decide the “non-taxability of the issuance of PDRs to North Base Media and Omidyar Network.” The court added, “No gain or income was realised by accused in the subject transactions.

“Since accused is not required to pay the income tax and VAT on the PDR transactions for the taxable year 2015, the elements of Sections 254 and 255 of the 1977 NIRC as amended, are rendered nugatory and without legal support. The plaintiff therefore failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt,” said the CTA decision.

The CTA also said, “There is nothing in the wordings of the PDR instruments and the PDR subscription agreements that would show the foreign entities NBM and ON will become owners of the shares of stock of Rappler.”

Ressa’s lawyer Francis Lim, the former president of the Philippine Stock Exchange, said that if PDRs were declared to be taxable income just to convict Ressa and Rappler, every business seeking to raise capital would be affected.

“At the end of the day, it’s our economy, it’s our people through job generation that will benefit. Imagine if Maria was convicted, the repercussions,” said Lim.

‘Keep the faith’
Lim also said: “We had no doubt this day would come. I told them keep the faith, because in our hearts we knew an acquittal would come. We trust our judiciary, everybody knew where this case came from.”

It was former Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) commissioner Caesar Dulay, a Duterte appointee, who initiated the lightning tax probe into Rappler on January 24, 2018; he filed the criminal complaints two months later, in March, before the justice department then headed by Menardo Guevarra, another Duterte appointee.

Guevarra charged Ressa and RHC at the CTA in November 2018.

The CTA’s acquittal of RHC and Ressa is expected to affect a related case that was filed by the Duterte government against the two before the Pasig City Regional Trial Court, which handles tax cases involving less than P1 million (about NZ$28,500).

Rappler is about to wrap up its presentation of evidence for that case; the facts are identical to the four charges that the CTA junked yesterday.

In general, an acquittal cannot be appealed against because of the right against double jeopardy.

Three cases left
With the junking of the four CTA cases, there remain only three active court cases against Rappler and Ressa: the appeal of Ressa and former researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. in their conviction for cyber libel pending at the Supreme Court, the lone tax case at the Pasig City RTC, and the appeal on the closure of Rappler pending at the CA.

The mother case, the SEC’s closure order that is pending at the appeals court, accuses Rappler of violating the constitutional requirement that Filipino media companies must be 100 percent Filipino-owned. The alleged violation was supposedly committed when it issued PDRs to foreign investor ON.

The court previously said that Rappler was entitled to a curing period, and that ON’s donation of the PDRs to Filipino managers had removed the problem. But the SEC in the last two days of the Duterte term in June 2022, stood firm on its order to close down Rappler — triggering another round of litigation at the appellate court which is still ongoing.

In the CTA cases, Rappler’s lawyers said that in the last 20 years, the BIR has treated PDRs as derivatives of stock for which only documentary stamp tax was due to be paid.

“This case exemplifies how the power of taxation can be used as a tool to cause a thousand cuts to our democracy. Rappler Inc., which has been at the forefront of providing independent journalism in the Philippines, caught the ire of the Duterte Government,” Rappler and Ressa said in a final memorandum submitted to the CTA before yesterday’s judgment.

“As a result, and for the first time in Philippine history, the BIR classified a holding company that issued PDRs as a dealer in securities and required the payment of income tax and VAT.

“The government’s targeted attack and investigations against Rappler Inc.’s parent company, accused Rappler Holdings Corporation and RHC’s president Maria Ressa, presents a clear example of how the law can be bent to the point that it is broken,” said Rappler’s memorandum.

Lian Buan is a senior Rappler journalist. Republished with permission.

People’s Alliance leader Sitiveni Rabuka says a People’s Alliance government will scrap the draconian Media Industry Development Act and allow a free press to thrive in Fiji.

Rabuka has condemned the decision of the FijiFirst government to amend its Media Act by outlawing the appointment of a media company manager without the approval of government.

He said this was the height of the government’s “arrogance and despotism”.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji media freedom reports

Rabuka asked what was the government’s business in the operations of a private media company, adding why should a private company seek the permission of a “basically dormant government office” on the manager it wanted to hire.

He said this was unheard of as government had no business “poking its nose” into the operations and management of a private company.

These were companies that ran on their own money, not depending on a single cent from taxpayers — unlike the pro-government media outlets, he said.

Rabuka asked what message was the government sending local and foreign investors in Fiji.

Challenge to investor confidence
At a time when the economy was slowly recovering from the economic lows of the covid-19 pandemic, Rabuka questioned how such “legislated interference’ in the running of private enterprise would boost investor confidence.

He also said the Media Industry Development (Budget Amendment) Bill was appalling, coming as it was after the naming of Fiji as the worst nation in the Pacific for press freedom and an open civic space in the 2022 World Press Freedom Index.

The former Prime Minister said the tag of Fiji being the worst nation for press freedom sank lower with this proposed amendment of the Media Act.

He said the government thrived on an oppressive and no consultative type of rule.

The 2022 World Press Freedom Index had labelled Fiji the worst nation in the Pacific for journalists, with intimidation and other restrictions threatening open civic space in the country.

Reporters Without Borders, the Paris-based global press freedom watchdog that operates the index, said journalists were often subjected to intimidation when they were overly critical of the government or attempted to hold leaders accountable by ensuring they delivered on their promises.

Fiji placed 102nd out of 180 countries.

Managing media affairs
The Media Industry Development (Budget Amendment) Bill 2022 which was being debated in Parliament this week, sought to amend the Act to prohibit a media organisation from entering into any agreement which allowed any other person from managing the affairs or operations of the media organisation without the prior approval of the authority.

It said this would ensure that control of a media organisation remained with the media organisation.

The Bill seeks to amend the Act to ensure that those who are directly in charge of a media organisation and its operations are shielded from any outside influence that may — by formal agreement or other arrangement — essentially take over or control the provision of services.

These services deal with the day-to-day operations of the media organisation, including its finances, staffing, productions or publications.

The Bill also amends the Act to require a media organisation to notify the authority where any such agreement exists and to provide details of the agreement in order to verify and ensure that the media organisation’s operations are not in any way unduly influenced.

The Media Industry Development Act 2010 Act provides for the regulation and registration of media organisations in Fiji.

Under section 33 of the Act, every media organisation that provides or intends to provide media services in Fiji must be registered.

Sworn affidavits
A media organisation is registered when the proprietor or proprietors of the media organisation deposit with the Media Industry Development Authority, a duly sworn and signed affidavit or affidavits containing the required information as specified under the Act.

Section 38 of the Act provides that in the case of a company, all directors of a media organisation must be Fijian citizens permanently residing in Fiji. In the case of any other legal entity, the person or persons with analogous powers in a media organisation, must also be Fijian citizens permanently residing in Fiji.

The Act also provides the limits of beneficial ownership of shares in a company or any other interest in the nature of ownership of a media organisation.

Up to 10 percent of the beneficial ownership or interest in the nature of ownership of a media organisation is allowed for any foreign person holding such shares or interests while 90 percent of any beneficial ownership of shares or any other interest in the nature of ownership of the media organisation, must be owned by Fijian citizens permanently residing in Fiji.

Vijay Narayan is news director of Fijivillage.

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”

Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) union is reconsidering its involvement in the Australian Press Council and has appealed to members to give feedback on this issue.

Vice-president media Karen Percy has appealed to delegates on a YouTube video to take part in this consultation.

“Members have raised concerns about the lack of financial transparency at the Press Council and rulings that are increasingly out of step with community expectations,” she said.

• READ MORE: Facebook and Google deals may leave small publishers out in the cold
• Download the media bargaining code

If the MEAA leaves, it needs to give four years notice “to end our contributions”, which last year were more than A$100,000.

“That four years gives us time to look at alternative regulatory options, and that’s in line with the MEAA submission to the Senate Inquiry into media diversity which proposes a single entity for self-regulation,” said Percy.

Meanwhile, the MEAA says in a recent statement on its website that Facebook’s recent “ham-fisted handling of its news sharing ban” in Australia – which initially blocked crucial community information and health and government information sites – had revealed the real dangers of an organisation that “abuses its dominant position” and “thumbs its nose at rules and regulations”.

Last month’s decision by Facebook to unilaterally ban news on hundreds of Australian pages was “the arrogant act of a company with too much power that thinks it is beyond the reach of any government”, the statement said.

Facebook was acting in retaliation to the proposed News Media Bargaining Code, which would force it and Google to compensate media outlets for content that until now has been published on their platforms for free.

While Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code was not a silver bullet to fix the problems within the news media, it was an important step to address the “blatant imbalance between the digital giants” and those who produced public interest news content.

Commercial broadcasting company MediaWorks has agreed to sell its television channels to Discovery Inc.

The US-based global entertainment company will become the biggest privately-owned player in New Zealand free-to-air TV industry in 2021.

MediaWorks has been trying to sell its television arm – including the free-to-air channel Three (formerly TV3) – since last year.

• READ MORE: MediaWorks confirms sale of TV operations to Discovery Inc
• NZ’s MediaWorks to sell free-to-air business to Discovery – New York Times

MediaWorks also owns half the country’s radio stations which have been profitable in recent years while the TV operations have lost money.

The deal will also include the news service Newshub, and on-demand platform 3Now. 

Bravo, an entertainment channel jointly-owned with US-based NBC Universal, and The Edge TV and The Breeze TV – music channels attached to MediaWorks radio stations – are also part of the deal.

MediaWorks says the sale is expected by the end of the year, subject to “a number of pre-completion approvals.”

Discovery already owns two free-to-air channels here. Choice, set up by local producers in  2012, was sold to a Canadian media company Blue Ant Media two years later which also introduced lifestyle channel HGTV. Discovery Inc acquired both channels without fanfare in 2019.

Discovery also has pay-TV channels here on Sky TV, including Discovery Channel, TLC and Animal Planet.

What is discovery?
Discovery Inc began as a content creation company making documentaries, natural history programmes and entertainment shows.

In the 1990s, Discovery Channel began launching its own channels for cable TV and subscription platforms and taking over other creators of “real life entertainment.”

In recent years it has also invested heavily in digital innovation and online distribution. Growing its slate of broadcast outlets and platforms across the world in markets big and small has gone hand-in-hand with its programme-making and digital content creation.

Who will be in charge?
MediaWorks CEO Michael Anderson had already announced he would step down by the end of this year once the sale of the TV channels was agreed.

Today’s announcement says MediaWorks current commercial director Glen Kyne  – also the current chair of umbrella group Think TV – is now general manager of TV and he will continue in that role when Discovery takes over.

Discovery’s Asia-Pacific operations have offices in Australia, but he will report to Discovery’s New York based president for the region, Simon Robinson. The statement says Discovery’s Sydney-based general manager for Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands Rebecca Kent will oversee free-to-air channels Choice and HGTV and Discovery’s pay-TV channels here.

Good news for the staff, stars and viewers?
After years of financial instability under the ownership of private equity funds, repeated refinancing and several months up for sale – during which there was speculation the TV channels could close before Christmas last year – MediaWorks TV staff will be relieved.

Very excited about this and what is to come! Some hugely positive news MediaWorks TV – including Newshub – has been bought by global player Discovery Inc. Celebrations all round! https://t.co/tygz5ZfbFJ

— Samantha Hayes (@SamHayes_) September 6, 2020

In 2019, Michael Anderson complained bitterly about government media policy cementing state-owned TVNZ’s pre-eminence in free-to-air TV. Covid-19 caused an immediate slump in revenue in March this year.

“It’s a cliff we can’t see the bottom of. It’s dark,” Michael Anderson told Parliament’s Pandemic Response Committee in April.

Any local media companies still pondering a play for MediaWorks TV would have shelved their plans at that point.

But Discovery Inc is a business which earned US$11 billion last year and has a track record of investment and innovation.

But its commitment to local content is unknown. News and local entertainment shows have been a critical part of the mix since TV3 was first established 30 years ago.

Many are publicly-funded by NZ On Air, but they are costly to make and don’t always pull a crowd. Very few of the top-rating free-to-air local shows appear on MediaWorks TV.

Discovery’s own shows
Discovery will certainly want to put the company’s own shows on its new channels in 2021.

But the current and prospective bosses were making the right noises though in today’s announcement.

“Under the ownership of Discovery, Three, Newshub and Bravo will have a long-term home and continue to play a vital role in New Zealand society,” said MediaWorks CEO Michael Anderson.

“We are committed to drive MediaWorks TV’s future growth and success, delivering increased value to audiences and advertisers across all screens in New Zealand,” said APAC head Simon Robinson.

“Our very talented teams continue to focus on bringing New Zealanders trusted, local news and current affairs and quality entertainment content,” said Glen Kyne.

The splitting of radio and TV operations will also create problems to solve by 2021.

Newshub was created in 2017 to serve MediaWorks radio, TV and online platforms. The AM show was designed to occupy the breakfast slot on Three and talk radio.

At the time, it was a signal MediaWorks’ owner had no interest in splitting off the profitable parts of the company from the TV bits.

But an awful lot has changed in the media industry since then.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Stuff chief executive Sinead Boucher has purchased Stuff from its Australian owners Nine Entertainment for $1 to return the media company to New Zealand ownership.

The sale is expected to be completed by May 31.

“Our plan is to transition the ownership of Stuff to give staff a direct stake in the business as shareholders,” Boucher said in a statement.

READ MORE: Court reveals new possible Stuff buyer in NZ media crisis

“Local ownership will bring many benefits to our staff, our customers and indeed to all Kiwis, as we take advantage of opportunities to invest in and grow the business.”

Nine will retain ownership of Stuff’s Petone printing plant site and lease it back to the media company. And Stuff will receive a percentage of the proceeds of its sale of Stuff Fibre to Vocus.

“As a result of the successful completion of the Stuff Fibre sale on 20 May 2020, Nine will receive 25 percent of those proceeds before completion of the Stuff sale, plus up to a further 75 percent over the subsequent 36 months, depending on the Stuff business’ ability to raise funding,” Nine said in a statement to the Australian stock exchange.

NZME had entered negotiations with Stuff’s owner on 23 April and earlier earlier this month announced it wanted to buy Stuff for $1 and asking for urgent government legislation allowing it to skirt the need for Commerce Commission approval.

Merger attempts knocked back
The owner of the Herald and Newstalk ZB had been trying to acquire Stuff since 2016, with its merger attempts knocked back by the Commission and the Court of Appeal.

Nine Entertainment insisted deal had been agreed and negotiations with NZME were already over, and the spat ended up in the High Court with NZME denied an injunction against the Nine.

Stuff journalists reacted positively to the news with one saying it’s the “best possible outcome” for the company, though several said they were under no illusions about the financial challenges facing the business, Mediawatch reported.

Employees were last month asked to take a 12-week pay cut because of the impact of the Covid-19 crisis.

“We have always said that we believe that it was important for Stuff to have local ownership and it is our firm view that this is the best outcome for competition and consumers in New Zealand,” Nine chief executive Hugh Marks said.

• This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.
• If you have symptoms of the coronavirus, call the NZ Covid-19 Healthline on 0800 358 5453 (+64 9 358 5453 for international SIMs) or call your GP – don’t show up at a medical centre.
• Follow RNZ’s coronavirus newsfeed

A High Court judgment has revealed that an entity other than New Zealand Herald owner NZME is interested in buying the country’s biggest news publisher Stuff – and a deal could be done by the end of this month.

Stuff’s owner – Nine Entertainment in Australia – abandoned its negotiations with NZME after getting another offer from a prospective buyer, the judgment from Justice Sarah Katz revealed this week.

But the identity of the prospective owner is still under wraps.

READ MORE: A NZ without journalists: The implications of the combustion of our biggest news groups – James Hollings

NZME went to court last week seeking an injunction to prevent Nine Entertainment bargaining with any other buyer. It argued Stuff’s owner had breached the 14-day exclusive negotiation agreement it entered into with NZME on April 23.

Earlier it had announced it wanted to buy Stuff for $1 and asked the government to pass legislation expediting the deal, allowing it to skirt the need for Commerce Commission approval.

Nine Entertainment insisted no such deal had been agreed and negotiations with NZME were already over.

In court, Nine Entertainment’s lawyer accused NZME of damaging Stuff with its actions.

Commerce Commission permission not needed
Nine Entertainment said the alternative offer wouldn’t require permission from the Commerce Commission. It is now planning to complete the sale with the prospective third-party buyer on May 31.

So far NBR owner Todd Scott – who recently completed a buyout of the publication which began in 2012 – is the only person to publicly express interest in buying the business.

“We are very serious about taking over the liabilities of Stuff NZ,” he said in an online post earlier this month.

He said the Commerce Commission, the Minister of Broadcasting and the opposition Broadcasting spokesperson had been informed of his plan.

On Wedesday, he described Nine’s move as “logical” on Twitter and shared a link to an under-construction website combining the names of two Stuff newspapers – DominionPress.co.nz

Scott has named Australian private equity firm Anacacia Capital as a backer. Last week the firm refused to confirm to RNZ if it had an interest in a deal for Stuff.

In the judgment outlining her reason for declining NZME’s application for an injunction against Nine Entertainment, Justice Sarah Katz said on the face of it, there was a legitimate argument that Nine Entertainment breached the conditions of its exclusive negotiations period with NZME.

Unlikely Nine would accept NZME offer
But she concluded that the potential cost to Nine Entertainment of forcing it back into exclusive negotiations outweighed the price NZME would have to pay if she refused an injunction.

It was unlikely Nine Entertainment would accept NZME’s offer even if she forced it back to the bargaining table, because it didn’t want to accept a deal that would require Commerce Commission approval. Katz pointed to the fact that the government had already signaled it wouldn’t pass special legislation to allow the NZME-Stuff merger.

Meanwhile, Nine Entertainment’s separate deal with a third party might fall through if it had to resume negotiations with NZME, the decision said. Justice Katz noted that would also essentially force Nine to open its books to a competitor, despite having no intention of selling Stuff to that business.

• This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.
• If you have symptoms of the coronavirus, call the NZ Covid-19 Healthline on 0800 358 5453 (+64 9 358 5453 for international SIMs) or call your GP – don’t show up at a medical centre.
• Follow RNZ’s coronavirus newsfeed
• The new DominionPress newspaper website “under construction

NZME is insisting a deal for it to purchase media rival Stuff is still on the cards, despite Stuff’s owner saying it has wrapped up talks with no deal.

Stuff and NZME are seeking leave to appeal the High Court decision blocking their merger.

NZME said today it was asking the government to allow it to buy Stuff for a nominal $1.

READ MORE: NZME seeks urgent approval … to help ‘save jobs, newspapers’

Stuff’s owner, Australia’s Nine Entertainment, responded that it had terminated talks with NZME over a purchase plan last week and no deal was in place.

In the latest twist, NZME has since told the NZX that it believed it was still in a “binding exclusive negotiation period with Nine and does not accept that exclusivity has been validly terminated.”

Stuff chief executive Sinead Boucher told staff this morning the announcement by NZME came as a surprise.

“There is no deal between NZME and Nine.

Clear no transaction message
“We are really not sure why NZME took this step, given the clear message from our owners that there would be no transaction.”

She said she would get more information and share it during the day.

In its initial announcement this morning, NZME said it was seeking Commerce Commission approval and special legislation from the government by the end of the month to purchase Stuff.

The commission has previously declined clearance for a merger of the two companies, saying it would substantially lessen competition, both for advertisers and readers. That decision was subsequently upheld by the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

NZME said in this morning’s market announcement the acquisition of Stuff would lower the costs of producing news, and ensure a committed local news media outlet into the future.

NZME believed the New Zealand media sector was too small for the current number of quality participants, the statement said.

“Consolidation is urgent in the face of dramatically declining advertising revenue and current general economic conditions.

NZME thinks it is ‘best owner’
“NZME continues to believe that it is the best owner for Stuff as it is best placed to preserve mastheads, newsrooms and jobs. NZME considers that in the current New Zealand media landscape, NZME’s acquisition of Stuff will not substantially lessen competition in any market.”

Last month NZME, which owns The New Zealand Herald, regional papers and radio stations including Newstalk ZB, announced 200 jobs would go due to sliding advertising revenue amid the covid-19 downturn. It also asked the remaining staff to take a 15 percent pay cut for the next three months.

Stuff also asked its employees to take a pay cut. Stuff staff earning more than $50,000 were asked to take a 15 percent reduction, the executive team 25 percent, and chief executive Sinead Boucher cut her salary by 40 percent.

Stuff was bought by Australian-listed media group Nine Entertainment in late 2018 but has been on the sale block for months.

In November last year NZME confirmed it had been in talks with Nine about a possible purchase and had put a proposal to the government regarding a possible transaction including a “ringfence” agreement for Stuff’s editorial operations.

Between them, NZME and Stuff own most of New Zealand’s newspapers.

• Other NZME and Stuff merger reports

Many newspapers betrayed their readers during the Great Depression and now some are doing so again during the coronavirus pandemic.

During the Depression, Australia’s major daily newspapers loudly resisted calls for economic stimulus to revive the economy. Even the tabloids – whose working class audiences were feeling the full brunt of unemployment – campaigned instead for government spending cuts that hit their readers hard.

Self-interest was behind this. The companies and individuals behind Australia’s most popular daily newspapers in the early 1930s were bondholders who had lent enormous sums of money to Australian governments before the Depression.

READ MORE: A matter of trust: coronavirus shows again why we value expertise when it comes to our health

So had banks, trustee and life insurance companies that were allied with newspaper owners, and also major newspaper advertisers.

If Australian governments had not made severe cuts to spending and instead injected money into the economy through welfare and job creation projects, they would not have been able to pay back their debts. Domestic bondholders would have lost millions in interest payments.

Now, we see some news outlets again betraying their readers by prioritising business over public health.

In the Murdoch News Corp/Fox Corporation stable in the US, Fox News downplayed the spread of the virus for as long as it could.

Its presenters ridiculed predictions about its impact as coming from “panic pushers” and liberals out to damage Trump, while the Wall Street Journal editorialised that shutdowns might be safeguarding public health but “at the cost of its economic health”.

Trump jumped on cue and began spouting the same shameful rhetoric that the cure might be worse than the disease because of its economic impact. He wanted Americans back to work by Easter.

Murdoch’s Sun in the UK represented shutdowns there with a bleak front page calling them “HOUSE ARREST” and showing a padlock over the Union Jack.

In the Murdoch outlets in Australia, these views are being faithfully reproduced by Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun and Sky News. Bolt’s column on March 30 was headed “Aussies should be back at work in two weeks”.

During the Great Depression, the mainstream press strongly reflected the economic conservatism of bankers, economists and business leaders. The most vehement outlets were the Argus and the Herald in Melbourne, The Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph in Sydney, the Mercury in Hobart, and the Brisbane Telegraph and Brisbane Courier. They attacked the Scullin Labor government’s plan to reflate the economy through government stimulus as “economic insanity”, “a dangerous experiment”, “grotesque and menacing”.

But in a turn of phrase that even those papers might have found too hysterical, Bolt recently described economic stimulus packages during coronavirus as “Marxism”. This is despite the fact that economic stimulus is now so widely accepted as part of a mainstream economic toolkit that conservative politicians are using it in Australia, the UK and the US.

Sky News host Alan Jones has also downplayed the virus, saying “we are living in the age of hysteria” and that he wants to see the emphasis placed on protecting people “in nursing homes and hospitals instead of schools and football stadiums”.

Sky News video: ‘We are living in the age of hysteria.’

Right-wing commentators – presumably working from home themselves – are keen to get everyone back to work in the midst of a pandemic, even though the medical advice says otherwise.

The usual pretence that they are on the side of their audience falls away at a time of crisis. They are representing the interests of business – particularly their own.

Media companies that were already financially fragile are extremely worried about coronavirus. The sudden halt to business has meant the loss of advertising revenue, possibly for a long period, but also the loss of reader income. This means people have less to spend on media and on buying advertisers’ products.

Combined with this is the dramatic loss of sport (of vital importance to the struggling Foxtel, Kayo Sports and tabloid newspapers) and also the end of house auctions when real estate sections and real estate websites were one of the few remaining bright spots for the newspaper groups. The bread-and-butter events that newspapers cover, from entertainment and leisure to restaurant and movies, have stopped, and nobody knows for how long.

These are unprecedented and menacing threats to commercial media groups. At News Corp, there is the added pressure of a transition in leadership from the 89-year-old Rupert Murdoch to his son, Lachlan Murdoch, a less tested – and less trusted – leader who is unlikely to have the business nous of his father or even his grandfather, Keith Murdoch.

As a journalist and editor, Keith Murdoch was one of those who promoted business interests during the Depression. Rupert’s father was also a vehement conscriptionist during the first and second world wars. Although Keith never signed up for military service himself, he propagandised, almost obsessively, for conscription and called on other men to make a sacrifice for a greater cause.

We need to beware the media commentators of today, anti-science and anti-expertise armchair generals, who likewise call on their fellow citizens to do things they won’t do themselves.

By Sally Young, professor of the University of Melbourne. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

After something of a love/hate relationship with The New Zealand Herald since I joined as a cadet reporter in 1957, I have decided to show some love by taking up this week a one-year $199 subscription to the paper’s new premium digital content offer.

This is in the context of a keen newshound who had made the Herald site for more than 15 years his alternative to a paid sub, with just the occasional purchase of a Saturday print Herald.

Good sign in terms of efficiency: the nzherald.co.nz website immediately (within seconds) enabled me to read the full David Fisher piece on the French beacon built on the Chathams which I had already open on my laptop.

READ MORE: NZ Herald launches premium paywall – how will it impact on other media?

When minutes later I spotted David’s piece spruiked on his FB page I thought I might have found a workaround for those unprepared to pay, but the same conditions (roughly only first 100 words free) still applied.

Earlier I confirmed that the new syndication agreements Granny has signed with the New York Times, Financial Times, The Times (UK) and the Harvard Business Review are not (as I suspected) in the too-good-to-be-true category of offering full digital access to their websites.

The Herald will just select some content to publish as it has done for years with existing agreements with the Daily Telegraph (UK), Washington Post and South China Morning Post (SCMP). Fair enough.

Put in context
Just to put the Herald’s Premium payment in context, you can get

Much of the Financial Times digitally for $NZ6.45 p.w. (or $11.25 for the lot),

Full Tele for GBP2 after a month free

The Harvard Business Review $NZ23 per month

The Washington Post US$45 per year (some free articles) but a separate payment for the archive

NY Times a few free articles, then US$1 p.w. (special offer, normally $3).

For Anglophiles the availability of 200 years of news archives of The Times makes its GBP5 per month (after a month free trial) look pretty inviting.

And the SCMP (now apparently owned by the Alibaba online sales empire) seems to offer full free access, including 20 years of archives.

I’ll be interested to see if the Herald experience persuades me to renew in a year’s time. As renewals roll over automatically I’ll need to be vigilant to cancel in good time.

Adrian Blackburn is lifelong journalist and writer. Staff writer on many publications, including The NZ Herald, Sydney Morning Herald, BBC World Service, Beaverbrook Newspapers, NZ Listener and NZ Woman’s Weekly. Author of The Shoestring Pirates (Hodder and Stoughton, 1974) a history of pirate Radio Hauraki. This brief commentary was originally a Facebook posting on Kiwi Journalists Association and is republished here with permission.

• Auckland Library’s newspaper digital collections

The Pacific Media Centre, well established as a champion for media freedom, celebrated its 10th anniversary last week and the milestone has been highlighted on the RNZ National Nine to Noon programme.

Media commentator Gavin Ellis compliments the centre at Auckland University of Technology (AUT) for its “comprehensive” and in-depth “overview” of the Asia-Pacific region, especially on media issues.

The PMC marked its event with a photojournalism book launching and panel featuring media freedom in the Philippines in the face of the spate of extrajudicial killings and also in West Papua.

He notes the contribution by the centre’s director Professor David Robie, both in reporting and scholarship for the regon. Listen at 9min 25sec:

Ellis also pays tribute to journalist Yasmine Ryan who has died tragically in Turkey.

She played a prominent role in reporting the so-called Arab Spring from Tunisia in a wide-ranging international journalism career.

The latest New Zealand media ownership report, also at AUT, highlights the number of privately-owned and digital media outlets. Ellis asks could our largest newspaper groups go the same way?

Gavin Ellis is a media commentator and former editor of The New Zealand Herald.

• Philippine media freedom riskier, traumatic under Duterte, says PCIJ director
• YouTube video on the PMC’s 10th anniversary

Thirty-three of New Zealand’s most senior editors have urged the Commerce Commission to rethink its plan to reject the proposed NZME-Fairfax merger, reports The New Zealand Herald.

They are at loggerheads with a group of 11 former editors who say the Commerce Commission got it right.

The current editors, all in senior roles at both companies, say the commission has “misinterpreted the state of New Zealand journalism” and believe a merger is the best option to sustain quality journalism.

They say that editorial independence would not be lost under a merger – it is “at the core of what we do”.

The editors have also addressed concerns that plurality of voice would be lost.

“Ensuring that a diversity of views, perspectives, experiences and issues are covered is an editor’s most fundamental task. It is our privilege and responsibility, not the job of shareholders,” their open letter said, published in full in the Weekend Herald.

The editors say rejecting a merger will not solve the real issue: the stability and sustainability of the business that funds journalism.

“We believe – no, we know – that the rapid dismantling of local newsrooms and journalism at scale in this country is inevitable if this merger does not proceed.”

Opposed go ahead
On Friday, a group of 11 former daily and Sunday newspaper editors said they backed the commission’s preliminary view that a merger should not go ahead.

“Though we acknowledge that such a merger is seen by some of us as a pragmatic response to the singular challenges that newspapers face, we all accept that the destruction of great mastheads and all that they have stood for at the heart of our communities since New Zealand settlement cannot possibly enhance content – it can only diminish it,” said the former editors, including Radio NZ media commentator Dr Gavin Ellis, Tim Pankhurst, Suzanne Carty and Suzanne Chetwin.

“Newspapers – across their print and digital sites – have been subject to waves of redundancies that have seen experienced staff culled, a severe loss of institutional knowledge and a pandering to the lowest common denominator…

“At the same time television has all but abandoned current affairs and our public discourse is increasingly glib.”

The open letter of current editors

The empires strike back: Media merger partners push their point in public

It was one of those fascinating contradictions of capitalism that the foreign-owned TV3 always took its journalistic obligations more seriously than the state-owned Television New Zealand.

Sadly that didn’t, and couldn’t, last (which doesn’t imply any improvement in TVNZ; simply that TV3 sank to the same level).

And the man who did the sinking was the now ex-CEO Mark Weldon. He enthusiastically applied himself to the task of converting TV3 to a sewerage farm with a most impressive output of the old proverbial.

MediaWorks, the company which owns TV3 as part of its media empire, was one of six finalists in the 2015 Roger Award for the Worst Transnational Corporation Operating in Aotearoa/New Zealand (the winner was announced on April 30).

To quote from what we wrote when the finalists were announced, back in December 2015:

“MediaWorks was another making its first appearance in the Roger Award, specifically for TV3 killing off Campbell Live. ‘The grounds for nomination are political interference, by killing off the only current affairs show anywhere on television that actually took seriously its mission to be the voice of the people and to hold the powerful to account.’ And considering that TV3 replaced John Campbell with rightwing mouthpiece Paul Henry, another ground for nomination is running an ideological crusade.

“The New Zealand Herald article headline ‘Campbell’s crusades irked TV3 bosses’ (23 May 2015) puts it in a nutshell. The article says that TV3 management considered that the show ‘over-emphasised charitable fundraising, and coverage of the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake, GCSB spying and child poverty’ (as well as subjects like Pike River).

“There was plenty of evidence that not only did Campbell Live piss off TV management but also senior figures among the directors with close connections to the Government and the Prime Minister.

“To add insult to injury, Campbell Live was, at first, replaced by yet another Australian police reality show, then by a cooking show. And MediaWorks has not stopped there in its relentless drive to kill off current affairs and any kind of serious news. More recently it has announced it is shutting down its newly created 3D current affairs show (which led to a fightback from its journalists).

“MediaWorks has moved in a heavy-handed fashion to extend the dumbing down of its programmes into the one remaining area (news and current affairs) that had previously stood in sharp contrast to the rest of the dismal crap produced by either major NZ network.

“It falls nicely into the playbook of capital’s inherent compulsion to provide a lowest common denominator market for advertisers”.

MediaWorks didn’t win the Roger Award (the Judges Report is at CAFCA). It didn’t even get into the top three. That simply shows what fierce competition there is in the transnational corporate race to the bottom.

The Roger Award includes an Accomplice Award. But that is only for New Zealand organisations or institutions, not individuals. Otherwise, Mark Weldon would have been a very strong contender.

So now, the poopmeister has gone. And good riddance too, from both viewers and his long suffering work force.

As a former Olympic swimmer, Mark Weldon would be very familiar with the axiom “to sink or swim”. He has sunk, but it remains to be seen whether he has taken TV3 with him.

Murray Horton is the secretary/organiser of the Campaign Against Foreign Control in Aotearoa (CAFCA).

The Roger Award judges’ report

Just living in Australia for a few months and watching television, makes you see clearly, how the Fiji public is so badly denied by the poverty of Fiji media offerings and silent censorship

There are wonderful Australian media programmes such as Q and A, Insiders, Catalyst, Landline, Insights, Foreign Correspondent, Four Corners, to name just a few, not even mentioning the many specials every week on ABC and SBS.

Just in the past two months alone, Landline explored how an Australian sugarcane farmer, successfully intercropped rice to pander to his Vietnamese wife. Another intercropped with sunflowers for the seeds and oil, and mung beans (which Fiji farmers have also tried on a very small scale).But what really stands out are the many robust public policy debating programs with sharp neutrality such as Q and A (Tony Jones) or Insider (Barry Cassidy) or Insights, where Opposition MPs or politically neutral commentators are given equal weight to that of government voices.

Often, intelligent studio audiences are allowed to comment or give their verdict on particular utterances with applause or sceptical silence,

Of course, we all remember that once upon a time, Fiji Television also had very robust programmes, such as Close Up, but sadly, no more.

Despite the ending of open censorship by the Fiji government, an invidious silent self-censorship is denying the public access to “alternative voices”.

My personal individual experience of censorship by the premier university – University of the South Pacific, by the Fiji media and by the Fiji Bureau of Statistics is only the tip of the iceberg of a much wider “silent censorship of many”.

The one rare exception is The Fiji Times whose survival must be defended, or the public won’t know what they have got, until it is gone.

Open and silent censorship
In the past, media censorship was quite easy to prove. Censors were physically in the newsroom, expatriate newspaper publishers were being expelled, large fines or jail terms were being handed down by courts, and warnings were given to certain media organisations.

Today’s censorship is not obvious simply because no journalist, media organisation or educational institution will publicly own up to “self-censorship”. But it is abundantly clear that there is an absence of dissenting voices from forums such as Close Up, 4 The Record, Talk Business, and the many talkback shows on TV and radio.

My personal absence from these programmes is obvious to many, given my obvious prominence in previous years. Also absent are other “dissenting” voices like Opposition Members of Parliament or critical NGO leaders, while voices sympathetic to government are given maximum exposure.

What is missing in government circles is any adherence to the dictum attributed to Voltaire (or Evelyn Beatrice Hall): “I disagree with your views but I will defend to the death your right to express them.”

The one bright media light in Fiji, is The Fiji Times which continues to serve the public as a channel for alternative views and as a proper watchdog on the government of the day, despite operating financially on a less than level playing field.

It saddens me that the Fiji public continues to show total apathy to the censorship of individuals such as me, or blatant unfairness with taxpayers’ advertising funds shown to The Fiji Times, the proven most popular print media in Fiji.

Censorship from USP
This individual has been a senior USP economist, former parliamentarian and well-known media commentator, yet there is no public comment on his continued censorship by not just that university but also the mainstream media and a supposedly neutral government department like the Fiji Bureau of Statistics.

Despite my decades of service from 1973, USP asked me to resign in 2012, alleging financial pressure from the government.

In 2013, USP refused to allow the Faculty of Business and Economics to host the launching of my FBS Report on the 2008-09 Household Income and Expenditure Survey, and the associated policy workshops for civil servants, NGOs and other stakeholders.

In 2013, an invitation by the USP Journalism Students Association to speak at USP for World Media Freedom Day was withdrawn.

This prominent economist has been excluded from several panel discussions in his area of expertise, organised by USP departments, while expatriate professors have been welcomed.

One Economics Department panel discussion on the Fiji government’s re-issue of a F$500 million (NZ$ 345 million) bonds (to which I had been invited) was cancelled.

A special edition of the Journal of Pacific Studies on the 2014 Election, excluded all writings by this academic, while pro-government non-academic outsiders were invited to contribute.

USP’s censorship is not confined to me. It is on record, that one senior member of the university management was strongly warned not to associate socially with a particular Member of Parliament (and former USP academic) or even with one of his friends, also a senior academic at USP.

Other senior USP academics, not perceived favourably by the management are deprived of acting headships, despite their proven experience.

The USP Staff Association fails to defend members’ rights and privileges, while USP students have been actively discouraged from responsible political activity.

The once robust intellectual life at USP of both academics and students, has been severely eroded without any show of concern by the University Council or the public.

Censorship by FBS
It is public knowledge that my FBS Report on the 2010-11 Employment and Unemployment Survey (Fiji Women and Men at Work and Leisure) completed in 2013 has still not been published. This denies the Fiji public essential and fascinating statistical results on gender gaps in employment, incomes, unpaid household work, sports and leisure activities like sports, kava drinking, watching television, and religious gatherings.

It is understandable that the FBS management cannot protest publicly for fear of loss of their employment. But sadly, neither has there been any public protest from university academics, or NGOs (like FWRM, WCC, CCF, Transparency International) or professional organisations such as the Fiji Institute of Accountants or Fiji Law Society, or social leaders, who all should be interested in the statistical findings being censored.

The public will not know that while the FBS has completed a 2013-14 Household Income and Expenditure Survey, this data is being processed now with World Bank assistance, while a local academic who did this work with them for the past seven years, has been completely shut out, undermining the self-reliance that has been built up these past 10 years.

Yet objective and freely disseminated statistics from FBS is vital for public policy decisions.

Media censorship of one
After the 2009 abrogation of the 1997 Constitution, not just my articles but also many letters to the editor were not accepted for publication by both Fiji Sun and The Fiji Times even when copied to the Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) chairman.

Media programmes such as Close Up, 4 The Record and Talk Business and the many radio talkback shows declined to invite this economist, who used to be ever-present on their programmes before 2009. On a rare positive note, just prior to the September 2014 Election, The Fiji Times began to publish and continues to publish my opinion pieces, sometimes only after vetting by its lawyers.

The Fiji public needs to appreciate the courage of The Fiji Times owners (Motibhai Patel family), FT publisher (Hank Arts) and editor (Fred Wesley) for their moral courage in producing a newspaper which remains the sole source of independent information in Fiji, and whose relative superiority has been independently verified by the Tebbutt Poll.

Lest we forget, in recent years, newspapers have been fined heavily, some expatriate publishers have been expelled, while editors have been given jail sentences.

A recent decision by government denying The Fiji Times fair access to taxpayers’ advertising funds, also drew no public comment from MIDA, the Commerce Commission, the Fiji Chambers of Commerce, or professional organisations such as the Fiji Institute of Accountants and Fiji Law Society, or NGOs (like FWRM, WCC, CCF, Transparency International) or social leaders, who all should be interested in ensuring that there is a robust competitive media environment.

If the Fiji public do not rise out of their apathy to defend the legitimate rights of The Fiji Times, then sadly, “the Fiji public won’t know what it has got, until it is gone”.

One day, they will also remember bitterly the words of Jawaharlal Nehru: “Evil unchecked grows and evil tolerated poisons the whole system.”

Oppressed people do leave
As occurred after the 1987 and 2000 military coups, there is also today an emigration of many educated and skilled people.

Sadly, that category now includes me, even though no comfortable refuge abroad will ever be the “home” that Fiji has been and will always be in my heart.

This will be my last article for The Fiji Times as I pursue professional work in Australia.

I thank the publisher, editor and other staff members of this newspaper who have facilitated my media contributions over the years.

I also thank its readers who have expressed appreciation for my articles.

Professor Wadan Narsey is adjunct professor at James Cook and Swinburne universities in Melbourne, Australia. This article was first published by The Fiji Times and is republished with the permission of the author.

Dr Wadan Narsey’s blog on fighting censorship in Fiji

The Fiji Times is challenging the selection of the Fiji Sun as the government’s exclusive carrier of newspaper advertisements for the 2016 year.

Digicel Fiji has been given three licenses for 12 years to fully operate Sky Pacific, six months after formally acquiring the pay television station from previous owners Fiji Television Limited.

Attorney-General and Minister for Communications Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum outlined in a press conference three different licences given to Digicel Fiji, effective from Monday:

• Broadcast licence under the Television Decree.
• Spectrum licence under the regulations of the National Spectrum Decree.
• Special licence under the Media Industry Development Decree.

Minister Sayed-Khaiyum said Digicel could not show any advertisement unless an agreement with the three existing free-to-air (FBC TV, Fiji One, Mai TV) channels is made.

They (Digicel) cannot advertise on Sky Pacific.  Advertisements cannot take place unless all the three free-to-air providers agree to it.  So all three of them have veto powers.

Minister Sayed-Khaiyum said the Ministry of Communications would be monitoring advertisements aired by Sky Pacific.  He added there were service level commitments built within the licence to protect consumers.

If the Sky channel goes off air, they have to pay a rebate to the subscribers, so if they are off air to four to eight hours there is a one percent rebate, eight to 16 hours there is a two percent rebate, 16 to 24hours there is a three percent rebate and plus there is an additional three percent for every 24 hours that the particular service is off air.

Minister Sayed-Khaiyum said  Sky Pacific would be showing 24 channels, most of them existing channels. The minister said viewers could expect a new channel called “TVWAN”.

Digicel Fiji chief executive officer Darren McLean was happy to get the licences from the government after an announcement was made in September last year about the purchase of Sky Pacific.

I want to thank the Fiji government and the Minister of Communications, Mr Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum for his commitment in helping to turn this opportunity into a reality. 

I would also like to thank our new partner Fiji Television Limited, who has been cooperating well with us and the government in this process. There is a lot more work to do to plan the transition from Fiji TV to Digicel ownership until such time there is no change to Sky Pacific operations and channel lineup.

The focus in the short term is to keep the business focused and delivering for customers, while we plan the improvements that are necessary over the coming months.

Channels of Sky Pacific announced by the minister:

• Super Channel
• MTV
• Nickelodeon
• Comedy Central
• ESPN
• History
• Lifetime
• FYI
• Toonami
• Warner TV
• CNN
• Net Geo Wild
• BCC
• Star Plus
• Colours
• Zee
• FX
• Fox Crime
• Fox Family Movies
• NHK
• Trinity