The US on Wednesday night destroyed civilian water utilities serving 20,000 Iranian people.

“The mission is a proportional response to unjustified Iranian aggression,” US Central Command said in a statement on X.

The punishment was “in response to yesterday’s downing of a US Army Apache helicopter,” the US Centcom said.

• READ MORE: Iran, US signal deal within reach as Israel continues attacks on Lebanon
• US bombs Iran’s water facilities: Why that’s so significant
• Israel-Gaza war death toll: Live tracker
• Global conflict tracker

So, one item of military transport (crew escaped without harm) is deemed equivalent to bringing harm and misery to 20,000 people.

And this was just hours before a so-called “peace deal” was announced as close to signing.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces began launching self-defense strikes against Iran at 5 p.m. ET today at the Commander in Chief’s direction, in response to yesterday’s downing of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter. The mission is a proportional response to unjustified Iranian…

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) June 9, 2026

Yes, it was war crime
Destroying water utilities is a war crime. Under Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, it is strictly prohibited to attack or destroy infrastructure essential to civilian life, including water installations.

And the US committed this war crime for what?

The truth is that the destruction of the helicopter was no big deal.

Who said that? Donald Trump did. “Wasn’t a big deal. The pilot is fine,” he told the press.

Even more galling is the fact that the Iranians downed the helicopter as part of its self-defence efforts against a US-Israeli war that has been deemed illegal by multiple countries and organisations, including many in the US.

The lack of “proportionality” is the key to understanding what is really happening in West Asia. Here are three examples with up-to-date statistics.

1. Compare Lebanon and Israel numbers
Lebanon reported this week that Israeli attacks have now killed at least 3696 people and injured 11,413 others since March 2. More than 1.2 million people have been displaced.

On the Israeli side, 29 soldiers and one civilian contractor have been killed in Lebanon, according to the military.

Just 29 soldiers on the Israel side. On the Lebanon side, even if we ONLY count women, children or medics killed by Israel, there have been 730. So far.

And before anyone is tempted to say that Lebanon’s figures are untrustworthy, let’s remember that Lebanon’s government has long been US-aligned and opposed to Hezbollah.

2. Compare Iranian and US numbers
How many times have we heard about the 13 members of the US armed forces who lost their lives as part of the attack on Iran? Each was given a lengthy obituary in multiple media, including the The Guardian.

Just 13. And what about the 2988 men and 511 women killed by the US and Israel in Iran, as reported on Wednesday?

They’re just statistics.

3. Compare Israeli and Gaza numbers
In recent days, Israel killed at least 11 more Palestinians in Gaza, including women and children, adding to a total of more than 72,000 lives lost. The majority have been women and children.

Since the beginning of the retaliation after the October 2023 attack, Israel has lost just 1152 personnel, identified by its government as soldiers, police, and security officials.

See what I mean about proportionality? The contrast between casualties on the US-Israel side and those they are targeting is startling.

This week, the richest nation on earth lost a helicopter.

“No big deal.”

Nury Vittachi is a Sri Lankan-born author, writer and political commentator based in Hong Kong. He has written the novel series, The Feng Shui Detective and non-fiction works.

As the US and Israel battle to control the narrative of their war against Iran, their messaging gets harder to defend, reports Al Jazeera’s Listening Post.

With the war entering its third week, the upper hand that the United States and Israel hold militarily is being countered asymmetrically by Iran which has been targeting various economic pressure points outside of its borders.

With censorship and propaganda shaping coverage on all sides, news audiences are having to navigate a confused and often misleading maze of information.

Contributors:
Vali Nasr – Professor, Johns Hopkins University
Michael Omer-Man – Director of research for Israel-Palestine, DAWN
Matt Duss – Executive vice-president, Center for International Policy (CIP)
Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi – Lecturer, University of St Andrews

On our radar
Israeli media outlets published near-simultaneous reports, citing anonymous officials, claiming Gulf states had attacked Iran. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates quickly denied the allegations, forcing corrections.

Critics say that the aim of the coverage was to suggest Gulf support for Israel and pull those states into the conflict. Tariq Nafi looks at how the episode has fuelled anger across the Arab world towards Washington and Tel Aviv.

Out Of Control: An escalating war accompanied by escalating war rhetoric    Video: AJ Listening Post

Battlefield AI: An interview with Matt Mahmoudi
Since the first attacks on Iran, the White House and Pentagon have been eager to test new military technologies.

As seen previously in Gaza, AI systems appear to be playing a central role in identifying targets and guiding strikes.

This raises serious ethical and accountability questions about how life-and-death decisions are being made on the battlefield.

Amnesty Tech researcher and assistant professor at the University of Cambridge, Matt Mahmoudi joins The Listening Post to discuss AI-assisted warfare.

Two Extinction Rebellion activists joined the speakers today at an Auckland protest over Israel’s genocide and ecocide in Gaza and occupied Palestine, condemning the “apocalyptic” assault on both people and their living environment.

Caril Cowan, a de facto coordinator of Extinction Rebellion Tāmaki Makaurau, spoke of the climate crisis this month in Aotearoa New Zealand to provide an insight into the Gaza emergency.

“One of our climate scientists, says this is normal — get used to it. We are going to have killing storms over, and over, and over …

• READ MORE: In Gaza, Trump’s Board of Peace met with deep scepticism, little hope
• UN begins clearing of massive waste dump in Gaza
• Freedom Flotilla journalists speak out on Israeli ill-treatment
• Other Gaza reports

“As we are saying, ‘We are all Palestine’, I just think of the people of South America, I think of the people of Africa, I think of Europe, where people are dying now because of the climate.

“They are dying of heat exhaustion, they are dying from floods, they are dying from landslides, like we have been having, not just a few. It’s happening. It is here now.”

After the rally, the protesters marched around the corner from Te Komititanga Square to the US Consulate in Auckland for a “Blood on your hands “ protest over the US role in funding and enabling Israel’s atrocities in Gaza.

Cowan was among those protesters who symbolically raised blood on their hands over the “shameful” US role under President Donald Trump and previous presidents.

US pays part UN dues
This week in Washington, a UN spokesperson said the United States had paid about US$160 million (NZ$268 million) of the more than US$4 billion it owes to the UN, just as Trump hosted the first meeting of his so-called “Board of Peace” initiative over Gaza that critics say could undermine the United Nations.

The US is the biggest contributor to the UN budget, but under the Trump administration it has refused to make mandatory payments to regular and peacekeeping budgets, and slashed voluntary funding to UN agencies with their own budgets.

Washington has also withdrawn from dozens of UN agencies.

Another speaker at today’s rally, Adam Jordan, from both Extinction Rebellion and the Palestinian movement, talked about the “connection” between the Gaza genocide and anthropogenic climate breakdown.

“As is so often the case with colonialism, and the capitalist system more generally, ecological destruction has always been inherent to the Zionist, settler-colonial project,” Jordan said.

“From contaminated soil and groundwater to decimated farmland and burning down centuries old olive groves that had been lovingly tended by countless generations of Palestinians.

“Rather than ‘making the desert bloom’ as they often claim, the colonisers are engaged in a process of ‘desertification’ — transforming once fertile and active farmland into an area devoid of both vegetation and biodiversity.”

Damage visible from space
Jordan said that destruction of both people and the land itself in Gaza had reached such “apocalyptic proportions that the damage is visible from space”.

“The people who have not yet been killed by the bunker buster bombs, the forced starvation, disease, sniper fire and autonomous killer drones live in a wasteland of undrinkable water, unexploded munitions, overflowing landfills, contaminated soil and toxic debris, with orchards and fields reduced to dust in which life itself is being rendered impossible for the long term,” he said.

Gaza pollution environmental threats                Video: Al Jazeera

“Ecocide here fuses with genocide in a manner never seen before.”

But where was the real connection between Palestine and the climate crisis?

“Despite all the rhetoric from governments and corporations about how they’re taking climate change seriously, the 2020s have so far seen an accelerated expansion of fossil fuel production, just when it had to be reined in and inverted into a sustained dismantling — for the world to avoid a warming of more than 2°C, and ideally no more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial baseline.

“Currently we’re at 1.6°C above that baseline, and this is already proving to be absolutely catastrophic. In fact it’s proving again and again to be deadly,” Jordan said.

“The destruction of Gaza is of course executed by tanks and fighter jets, sending their projectiles that turn everything into rubble — but only after the explosive force of fossil fuel combustion has put them on the right path.

“All these military vehicles run on oil. As do the supply flights from the US, UK and Germany.”

Emissions burden
One study had estimated that from October 2023 to January 2025 the emission burden of the Gaza genocide by Israel and the West to be 32 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

“That’s more than the annual emissions of many countries,” Jordan said.

“It has generated more than 36 million metric tonnes of debris from buildings being either severely damaged or completely destroyed. It would take as long as four decades to remove and process all of this debris.”

Jordan said what was happening in Gaza was not just a transnational effort, but “a stain on the so called ‘international law’ that cannot be washed clean”.

“For over two years now we have watched as the corrupt corporate media has dehumanised the victims and attempted to humanise those committing this genocide,” he said.

“We have watched as academic institutions, politicians and governments all over the world have denied or justified the unspeakable horrors taking place in Gaza, just as they deny the severity and the consequences of the climate crisis and justify the continuation of business as usual, no matter how destructive it is to our environmental life support systems.

“But this is just business, this is just how the capitalist system works. Both people and the environment are seen as expendable, here only for the purposes of wealth extraction by the ultra wealthy ruling class — or as I prefer to call them, ‘The Epstein class’.”

New flotilla plans
Among other speakers, Rana Hamida spoke about the new Global Sumud Flotilla plans to break the military siege of Gaza in April.

The flotilla has announced plans to send more than 100 boats carrying up 1000 activists, including medics and war crimes investigators, to the besieged enclave.

Hamida appealed for more volunteers from New Zealand to join the fleet.

SPECIAL REPORT: By Michael West and Stephanie Tran

Amid revelations of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s association with Jeffrey Epstein, the Australian government and media have entirely lost control of the Israel narrative.

As thousands massed around the country tonight to protest against the visit of President Herzog, the government’s claims of fostering “social cohesion” are a shambles.

The mainstream media, too. Any remaining shred of credibility shattered.

• READ MORE: Herzog’s visit to Australia builds conflict not social cohesion – Wendy Bacon
• Jonathan Cook: The criminal elite exposed in the Epstein files are burying the truth about Gaza
• Other Gaza genocide reports

Amid the soft-shoe interviews published over the weekend, did any of them bother to ask Herzog whether he was the Herzog in the email from Jeffrey Epstein?

The Herzog “coming to the island this weekend” with former Israel PM and Epstein confidante Ehud Barak?

It appears not. What of the “ceasefire” in Gaza, where dozens are still being slaughtered daily, or the destruction of UN infrastructure, West Bank land theft, allegations of organ harvesting of Palestinians, and prison torture? Any questions?

There is no record of it from the “journals of record”.

Instead, blatantly peddling the tired rhetoric of the government and Israel lobby, critics of Herzog are branded by Herzog in the Murdoch press as

waging a brainwash campaign against Jews.

While in the Nine papers, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald debunked critics as “futile fury” and had the Israel president calling for a new dawn which would “reignite the passion and love between our nations”.

The plain fact of the matter is that Australians, like most people in the world, don’t like genocide.

They don’t like apartheid either, or lies.

By the time Isaac Herzog turned up at the International Convention Centre (ICC) this evening for “an evening of light and solidarity”, hundreds of thousands of Australians were protesting across the country.

How long can politicians and lobbyists continue to peddle the line that the protesters are tearing up the social cohesion, not themselves?

Herzog sponsors – IDF links
Sponsoring tonight’s dinner at the ICC are Australian charities involved in funding the IDF, which is in turn accused of myriad war crimes and genocide.

Founded in 1927, the ZFA describes itself as the peak body representing Zionist organisations in Australia, with more than 200 affiliated groups. It is the Australian branch of the World Zionist Organisation (WZO)

In its 2024 financial report, the federation said it was dependent on funding from the WZO and Keren Hayesod for “the majority of its revenue used to operate the business”. The ZFA also maintains an office in Israel.

The WZO has long played a role in Israeli settlement policy.

Israeli advocacy group Peace Now says the WZO’s Settlement Division, funded by the Israeli government, has since the 1970s helped plan, finance and manage illegal settlements and outposts in the West Bank, including administering land transferred to settlers.

Ties to UIA and JNF
The ZFA’s constitution commits it to supporting the fundraising of two bodies it calls the “National Funds”: Keren Hayesod — United Israel Appeal (UIA) and Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael — Jewish National Fund (JNF).

It states that one of the Federation’s objects is “to support the fundraising activities of the National Funds”, and that state Zionist councils must take steps to ensure the “maximum success” of United Israel campaigns.

An investigation by Michel West Media found that UIA and JNF have been funnelling hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-deductible donations to Israel, where some of these funds are used to fund the IDF and illegal settlements.

The ZFA is also the organisation behind the racial discrimination case against journalist Mary Kostakidis over social media posts relating to the genocide.

The federation has publicly rejected United Nations and International Court of Justice (ICJ) findings critical of Israel.

It described a UN Commission of Inquiry finding that Israel committed genocide in Gaza as “a baseless and biased assault on truth and justice”, and rejected the ICJ advisory opinion that Israel has committed a “plausible” genocide in Gaza as “politically driven” and “deeply flawed”.

The ZFA did not respond to requests for comment.

Scope for Herzog arrest
“There is both a legal scope and a moral duty to arrest Isaac Herzog on arrival,” said Chris Sidoti, a Commissioner on the UN Commission of Inquiry into the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem and Israel, in a live broadcast on The West Report.

Despite these concerns, Herzog’s visit has proceeded as planned. When asked about Sidoti’s remarks and the ICJ’s findings on genocide, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said, “President Herzog is being invited to Australia to honour the victims of Bondi and to be with and provide support to Australia’s Jewish community.”

Michael West established Michael West Media in 2016 to focus on journalism of high public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. West was formerly a journalist and editor with Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and even, once, a stockbroker.

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

Here is another example of utterly irresponsible journalism from the BBC on News at Ten.

Diplomatic correspondent Caroline Hawley starts the Thursday edition by credulously amplifying a fantastical death toll of “tens of thousands of dead” from recent protests in Iran — figures provided by regime opponents.

Contrast that with the BBC’s constant, two years of caution and downplaying of the numbers killed in Gaza by Israel.

• READ MORE: Trump doubles down on Iran threats as US puts more sanctions
• Open letter: Seven warning signals to the global warmongers who are claiming to lead
• Other Iran reports

The idea that in a few days Iranian security forces managed to kill as many Iranians as Israel has managed to kill Palestinians in Gaza from the prolonged carpet-bombing and levelling of the tiny enclave, as well as the starvation of its population, beggars belief. The figures sound patently ridiculous because they are patently ridiculous.

Either the Iran death toll is massively inflated, or the Gaza death toll is a massive underestimate. Or far more likely, both are intentionally being used to mislead.

The BBC pushes the case for an illegal war on Iran with even bigger lies than Trump’s.

Read my latest here: https://t.co/ge4QSBwpbp pic.twitter.com/utynu3KImq

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) January 29, 2026

The BBC has a political agenda that says it is fine to headline a made-up, inflated figure of the dead in Iran because our leaders have defined Iran as an Official Enemy.

While the BBC has a converse political agenda that says it’s fine to employ endless caveats to minimise a death toll in Gaza that is already certain to be a huge undercount because Israel is an Official Ally.

Stenography for the West
This isn’t journalism. It’s stenography for Western governments that choose enemies and allies not on the basis of whether they adhere to any ethical or legal standards of behaviour but purely on the basis of whether they assist the West in its battle to dominate oil resources in the Middle East.

Notice something else. This news segment — focusing the attention of Western publics once again on the presumed wanton slaughter of protesters in Iran earlier this month — is being used by the BBC to advance the case for a war on Iran out of strictly humanitarian concerns that Trump himself doesn’t appear to share.

Trump has sent his armada of war ships to the Gulf not because he says he wants to protect protesters — in fact, missile strikes will undoubtedly kill many more Iranian civilians — but because he says he wishes to force Iran to the negotiating table over its nuclear programme.

There are already deep layers of deceit from Western politicians regarding Iran — not least, the years-long premise that Iran is seeking a nuclear bomb, for which there is still no evidence, and that Tehran is responsible for the breakdown of a deal to monitor its civilian nuclear power programme.

In fact, it was Trump in his first term as president who tore up that agreement.

Iran responded by enriching uranium above the levels needed for civilian use in a move that was endlessly flagged to Washington by Tehran and was clearly intended to encourage the previous Biden administration to renew the deal Trump had wrecked.

Instead, on his return to power, Trump used that enrichment not as grounds to return to diplomacy but as a pretext, first, to intensify US sanctions that have further crippled Iran’s economy, deepening poverty among ordinary Iranians, and then to launch a strike on Iran last summer that appears to have made little difference to its nuclear programme but served to weaken its air defences, to assassinate some of its leaders and to spread terror among the wider population.

Collective punishment
Notice too — though the BBC won’t point it out — that the US sanctions are a form of collective punishment on the Iranian population that is in breach of international law and that last year’s strikes on Iran were a clear war of aggression, which is defined as “the supreme international crime”.

The US President is now posturing as though he is the one who wants to bring Iran to the negotiating table, by sending an armada of war ships, when it was he who overturned that very negotiating table in May 2018 and ripped up what was known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The BBC, of course, makes no mention whatsoever of this critically important context for judging the credibility of Trump’s claims about his intentions towards Iran.

Instead its North America editor, Sarah Smith, vacuously regurgitates as fact the White House’s evidence-free claim that Iran has a “nuclear weapons programme” that Trump wants it to “get rid of”.

But on top of all that, media like the BBC are adding their own layers of deceit to sell the case for a US war on Iran.

First, they are doing so by trying to find new angles on old news about the violent repression of protests inside Iran. They are doing so by citing extraordinary, utterly unevidenced death toll figures and then tying them to the reasons for Trump going on the war path.

The BBC’s reporting is centring once again — after the catastrophes of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere — bogus humanitarian justifications for war when Trump himself is making no such connection.

And second, the BBC’s reporting by Sarah Smith coolly lays out the US mechanics of attacking Iran — the build-up to war — without ever mentioning that such an attack would be in complete violation of international law. It would again be “the supreme international crime”.

‘Weakened leadership’
Instead she observes: “Donald Trump senses an opportunity to strike at a weakened leadership in Tehran. But how is actually going to do that?

“I mean he talked in his message about the successful military actions that have definitely emboldened him after the actions he took in Venezuela and earlier last year in Iran.”

Imagine if you can — and you can’t — the BBC dispassionately outlining Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plans to move on from his invasion of Ukraine into launching military strikes on Poland.

Its correspondents note calmly the number of missiles Putin has massed closer to Poland’s borders, the demands made by the Russian leader of Poland if it wishes to avoid attack, and the practical obstacles standing in the way of the attack.

One correspondent ends by citing Putin’s earlier, self-proclaimed “successes”, such as the invasion of Ukraine, as a precedent for his new military actions.

It is unthinkable. And yet not a day passes without the BBC broadcasting this kind of blatant warmongering slop dressed up as journalism.

The British public have to pay for this endless stream of disinformation pouring into their living rooms — lies that not only leave them clueless about important international events but drive us ever closer to the brink of global conflagration.

Jonathan Cook is a writer, journalist and self-appointed media critic and author of many books about Palestine. Winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. This article was first published on the author’s Substack and republished with permission.

The internationally recognised Lemkin Institute for the Prevention of Genocide has issued severe criticism of Germany.

In a statement dated 13 January 2026, it “condemns the persistent efforts by several high-profile German civil society organisations to deny the ongoing genocide in Gaza and to disseminate disinformation and denialist narratives among German political decision-makers.”

At the same time, the institute accuses major German media corporations of having become “the Israeli government’s most loyal mouthpiece”.

• READ MORE: Rights advocates welcome Canada’s exclusion from Trump’s Gaza ‘Board of Peace’
• Other Gaza genocide reports

German policymakers are likewise criticised for turning away from the “international legal order” — an order “that was created in large part due to the horrors it produced”.

This refers to Nazi crimes, including the Holocaust against European Jews, the genocide of the Sinti and Roma, and the war of annihilation against the Soviet Union.

Systematic denial of the Gaza genocide
The institute denounces the fact that, in Germany, the reality continues to be denied that Israel has been responsible for a genocide in the Gaza Strip lasting at least two years since 7 October 2023.

This criticism is directed not only at governing parties and senior political figures, but also at Germany’s leading media outlets: “Germany’s largest media outlets have abandoned their journalistic responsibilities, threatening critical voices and effectively becoming the Israeli government’s most loyal mouthpiece.”

According to the report, this systematic denial of genocide is driven primarily by political pressure from above as well as by Israeli lobbying and disinformation efforts.

The latter are attributed in particular to the Middle East Peace Forum (NAFFO), the Europe Israel Press Association (EIPA), the German-Israeli Society (DIG), and the European Leadership Network (ELNET), including its Forum of Strategic Dialogue (FSD).

“In this symbiosis, organisations deliver the pseudo-arguments that German politicians rely on to legitimise an otherwise untenable political stance.

“In return, these organisations are rewarded with public funding or privileged access to Parliament.

“By financing, platforming, and politically endorsing actors that discredit UN bodies, ignore well-established legal standards, and engage in genocide denial, Germany has turned its back on an international legal order that was created in large part due to the horrors it produced.“

Call for political reversal
The report points out that both Israel and Germany are currently before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) — Israel accused of genocide, Germany of possible complicity.

The latter, in particular, continues to be almost entirely ignored in Germany’s public discourse.

Against this backdrop, the Lemkin Institute issues an urgent appeal to German state authorities “to immediately halt all active financing, dissemination, and legitimation of genocide denialist propaganda masked as critical expertise.”

It continues: “We further urge the German government to withdraw public funding and end privileged parliamentary access for organisations and initiatives engaged in genocide denial and the systematic discrediting of international legal institutions.

“We remind Germany and all its political bodies of their obligations under the Genocide Convention, including the duty to prevent and punish genocide and any forms of complicity.

“Above all, we call on the German state to end its complicity in the genocide against Palestinians, including through arms exports to and uncritical diplomatic support for the state committing genocide.“

Connecting global grassroots
The Lemkin Institute is an internationally active NGO based in the United States. It is named after Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish jurist and Holocaust survivor who coined the term “genocide”.

The institute’s mission is “to connect the global grassroots with the tools of genocide prevention.”

As early as April 2024, the institute stated that the current Israeli genocide was not confined to the Gaza Strip alone, but affected all of Palestine, including the West Bank.

Leon Wystrychowski is a journalist, historian, Middle East scholar and Palestine activist from Germany.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some other key papers include:

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

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

Israelis are determined to erase the evidence of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, through the use of paid and instructed propagandists to reshape the historical record.

Zionists have also taken over social media platforms. Those who are critical of Israel are being censored or arrested.

From YouTube to X, Wikipedia, and TikTok, Zionists are capturing all means of communication to erase the evidence of its genocide, reshape the historical record, and censor those critical of it.

• READ MORE: Why Israel’s $150 million ‘public diplomacy’ budget has failed so abysmally
• Other Israeli hasbara reports

Meanwhile, the Israel Lobby exercises its power through intimidation, paying influencers to endorse it, and arresting dissenters whom they frame as terrorists.

Last December, Israel announced it was boosting its Foreign Affairs Ministry “hasbara” (propaganda) budget by an extra US$150 million.

Back in August, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted to reporters that Tel Aviv was losing to “propaganda” war.

“I think that we’ve not been winning [the propaganda war], to put it mildly … There are vast forces arrayed against us,” he stated at the time, blaming the algorithms for this defeat.

Dismantling free speech
Since then, Israel has been working to dismantle free speech and censor everything critical of it, across social media, as part of an all-encompassing crackdown.

This press conference was no accident; instead, it was part of a much larger scheme that began in July with a targeted campaign aimed at brainwashing right-wing conservatives in the West.

The propaganda plan was hatched in three parts: One being Netanyahu going on a number of right-wing podcasts; another being a social media censorship campaign, along with the financing of propaganda trips to Israel for right-wing influencers.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s appearance on the Nelk Boys podcast was his first stop in his attempt to revive right-wing support for him personally, yet it received enormous backlash at the time.

The podcasters were widely condemned for both “normalising” and asking no critical questions of the Prime Minister, who currently has an International Criminal Court (ICC) war crimes warrant out for his arrest.

The Israeli Prime Minister then went on a round of coordinated interviews across the American corporate media, as a range of other right-wing podcasters hosted him. The difference between the corporate media and the podcasters who hosted him was that the podcasters were even less critical and actively worked to bolster his image.

These disingenuous podcast hosts even attempted to frame themselves as defying cancel culture, being edgy and going against the mainstream, despite the fact that they were simply doing a worse job than that of the corporate media, battling nothing more than their own followings.

Erica Mindel – censorship Tsar
Meanwhile, in the background, TikTok hired Erica Mindel, an ex-Israeli soldier and ex-ADL employee who openly bragged of her loyalty to Israel, as its new “Hate Speech” censorship Tsar.

A move that appeared to have gone relatively unnoticed, but began to shape what was deemed acceptable discourse on the platform.

As this was in the works, the Israeli foreign ministry had already funded trips for 16 right-wing influencers to travel to Israel on closely coordinated propaganda trips. Their goal was to bring 550 such influencers on fully financed tours by the end of the year, which later included figures like Tommy Robinson and even former rapper Azealia Banks.

Upon visiting the White House in October, Benjamin Netanyahu attended a meeting with right-wing influencers and openly discussed ideas to capture social media platforms.

At this point, the agenda to kill content critical of Israel was already underway, as the TikTok app that the Israel Lobby sought to ban just a year prior fell into the hands of pro-Israel billionaires.

The world’s second-richest man and top donor to the Israeli military, Larry Ellison, is a key figure in this picture, as his company, Oracle, is poised to take over TikTok. The move was recently praised by The Times of Israel as “raising hopes for tougher anti-Semitism rules”.

Meanwhile, Ellison was busy buying up CBS News and installing the completely inexperienced, vehemently pro-Israel journalist, Bari Weiss, as the channel’s top executive.

Inexperienced for role
Weiss, whose claim to fame was being a temporary opinion piece writer at The New York Times before leaving and attempting to carve out a career as a right-wing commentator and, later, news outlet owner, is clearly inexperienced for taking on her current role.

Ellison just so happens to be a major stakeholder in Elon Musk’s Tesla and X.

In early October, YouTube also decided to quietly delete at least 700 videos from the platform that documented Israeli human rights violations, along with the accounts of three prominent Palestinian human rights groups: Al-Haq, Al-Mezan Center, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights.

The Intercept published an article explaining the move as a “capitulation” to President Donald Trump’s recent sanctions, enacted to shield Israel from accountability for its copiously documented war crimes.

Then there is Wikipedia co-founder, Jimmy Wales, who came out against the website’s page covering the Gaza Genocide, asserting that it “needs immediate attention”.

“At present, the lead and overall presentation state, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested,” Wales stated, claiming it violates the platform’s “neutral” point of view.

At present, every major human rights organisation, including Israel’s own B’Tselem, all the top legal organisations relevant to the issue, the United Nations, and the most representative body of genocide scholars, all agree that Israel is committing genocide.

ICJ’s “plausible genocide’
In fact, the International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s ruling on the matter considers it a plausible genocide. The only ones disputing this fact are the Israelis themselves, ideologically committed and/or paid Zionist propagandists, in addition to Israeli allies who are also implicated in the crime of all crimes.

Objective truth is, however, not relevant to any of these bad-faith actors. This is because Israel and its powerful lobbying arms are actively pursuing a total crackdown on criticism of Israeli war crimes.

On X (Twitter), a new censorship warning has been placed over all images and videos from Gaza that show Israeli war crimes, also.

What is currently happening is a widespread attempt to wipe content from the internet, erase the truth, ban, deport, and arrest those critical of Israel. All this as the Israel Lobby brings social media and corporate media under its direct control, using the excuse of “anti-Semitism” and “terrorism” to do so.

Israel’s censorship crackdown, which the Trump administration is working alongside to complete, is by far the worst iteration of cancel culture yet.

The ongoing crackdown on academic freedom, for example, in order to silence criticism of Israel, is by far the most severe in US history.

Meanwhile, the ADL has just set up a “Mamdani monitor” to track the democratically elected incoming New York City mayor.

Pesi Siale Fonua, a veteran Pacific journalist and the publisher-editor of Tonga’s leading news website Matangi Tonga Online, has died at the age of 78.

Fonua’s family announced his passing on Monday.

“It is with profound sadness that we announce the passing of Pesi Siale Fonua (78), well known Pacific Islands journalist, publisher of Matangi Tonga Online, and beloved husband, father and grandfather, who died on 12 October 2025, at Vaiola Hospital in Tonga,” his family stated.

“Arrangements for the funeral and for friends and family to pay their respects will be shared in the coming days.”

Fonua and his wife, Mary, started the Vava’u Press Limited in 1979, initially as a quarterly magazine before transitioning to an online news service.

Matangi Tonga Online is known as an independent news agency that “has no allegiance to government, or to any political body”.

Tributes are pouring in for the “towering figure in Pacific journalism” from friends and colleagues.

Mapa Ha’ano Taumalolo said Fonua “was firm, immovable, and impartial” as a journalist.

“He never feared those in power when it came to asking hard questions. He had a very soft voice, but his questions were hard as a rock. I can’t recall if he was ever sued in court for defamation throughout his media career. Rest in peace, Legend,” Taumalolo wrote in a Facebook post.

Matangi Tonga journalist Linny Folau described her former boss and mentor for over two decades as “humble and gentle giant with an infectious laugh, funny and always up for a cold beer”.

ABC Pacific’s Tongan journalist Marian Kupu said Fonua “shaped generations of Tongan journalism”, describing him as “a steady voice of truth and a teacher”.

“He played a major role in shaping and upholding the foundations of journalism in Tonga, paving the way for many of us who followed,” she said.

New Zealand journalist and editor of The Pacific Newroom Facebook group Michael Field said Fonua was “a towering figure in Pacific journalism and culture: gracious, funny, always well informed, a proud Tongan and inspiring editor”.

RNZ Pacific senior jouralist Iliesa Tora said Fonua was a great journalist “who wrote it like it was . . . straight up and uncensored”.

Tonga Media Association (TMA) also expressed its condolences.

“Pesi spoke at our class at Queen Salote College (QSC), in 1987, on why, how and the challenges of becoming a journalist,” TMA president Taina Kami Enoka said.

‘”I was hooked. I taught at QSC for a year and joined Tonga Chronicle or Kalonikali Tonga in December, 1990. Rest in Peace, Pesi Fonua. You will be dearly missed. ‘Ofa atu, Mary and family.”

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

I am alarmed by reports that Filipino journalists were flown in by the Israeli government to participate in what is essentially a whitewashing campaign for the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

At least two articles, atrocious excuses for journalism, have come out of this trip.One is a piece by Wilson Lee Flores for The Philippine Star, entitled “Israel beyond the headlines: Where ancient stones speak.”

By attempting to divert attention from the massacre of Palestinian civilians to “the Old City’s labyrinthine alleys,” Flores acts as an apologist for war crimes, akin to writing a travel blog about Nazi Germany.

• READ MORE: At Gaza’s border, influencers broadcast Israeli propaganda
• Israel’s starvation denial is an Orwellian farce — The Israeli ‘hasbara’ cannot disprove the obvious, but it can obfuscate and exhaust
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

In a Facebook post, Flores further parrots Israel’s propaganda by highlighting how the brutal IDF employs both men and women to carry out atrocities, a cynical weaponisation of “feminism.”

Even more repulsive is the piece from the Daily Tribune about “Gaza’s Fake Famine” from Vernon Velasco. It is a parody of a story, overly simplifying the famine of Gaza to a matter of food truck logistics, and uncritically quoting an IDF Officer.

Fittingly, the article contains three photos of shipping containers but not a single photo of a human being.

This runs counter to facts laid out by UN officials, including Joyce Msuya, the UN’s Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, who points out how half a million people face “starvation, destitution, and death”.

‘Moral failure’ over Gaza
A study published in the prestigious medical journal Lancet points to the “moral failure” as 1-2 million people live in the most extreme food insecurity level (phase 5 or catastrophe famine) according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC).

This famine unfolds as shameless journalists make food vlogs kilometres away.

The facts are clear. At least 63,000 people have been killed and 150,000 injured, with women and children making up a significant portion of the casualties. The UN has also reported that nearly 90 percent of Gaza’s population (around 1.9 million people) has been displaced.

Widespread destruction has left over 70 percent of Gaza’s infrastructure destroyed, including more than 94 percent of hospitals either damaged or destroyed. No amount of narrative spin or “complexity” can sanitise this genocide.

As we celebrate National Press Freedom Day, I implore friends in the press to not fall for the lies of the murderous Zionist regime.

It would be tragic for journalists to provide cover for a regime that has murdered at least 240 of their peers.

Filipino journalists must shed the unhealthy culture of silence and non-intervention, and not hesitate to criticise errant colleagues.

They must make it clear that these recipients of Zionist gold are a disgrace to Philippine journalism. The Philippine government must look into the activities of the Israeli Embassy and their manipulation of local media narratives to sanitise their genocide.

Filipino journalists must stand in solidarity with their slain colleagues abroad, not with their killers.

Walden Bello is a Filipino academic and analyst of Global South issues who was awarded Amnesty International Philippines’ Most Distinguished Defender of Human Rights Award in 2023. He has also served as a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.

After years of sitting on the fence and looking the other way, the Australian media is today reckoning with the fact that showing basic sympathy towards the starving and war-weary people of Gaza is actually a very mainstream sentiment.

This explosive moment of self-reflection has rocked newsrooms all over the country, from the talk back radio stations to the increasingly gun-shy ABC.

This comes as the tens of thousands of everyday Australians marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in solidarity in protest against the abhorrent war crimes being committed by Israel against the Palestinian people.

• READ MORE: More satire about Israel’s horrendous war on Gaza

This existential media feeling of extreme detachment from the general public is only amplified by the undeniable fact this crowd actually isn’t even that representative of the actual number of people who are horrified by the events taking place on the Gaza Strip — as the extreme weather conditions clearly shrank the overall number of people who would have otherwise attended this record-breaking protest.

The crowd that did make it there is still one of the biggest to ever march the Harbour Bridge, many who braved heavy winds and rain to join the chants “ceasefire now” and “free Palestine”.

With a large number of high-profile household names such as Julian Assange and former NSW Premier Bob Carr making their presence known, it’s now very difficult for the media to now write these protesters off as “terrorist sympathisers”.

It’s also clear that the plight of the Palestinians is something that ripples far beyond the university lawns and instagram timelines that have since been dismissed as the musings of “detached inner-city elites” and “brazen antisemites”.

Sydney’s “Rainy Sunday” march also comes as a blow to both the Federal and State Labor governments, which have worked tirelessly to squash these protests using police powers and anti-free speech laws.

The Betoota Advocate is an Australian satirical news website that takes its name from the deserted regional western Queensland town of Betoota but is actually published in Sydney.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About 2000 New Zealand protesters marched through the heart of Auckland city today chanting “no justice, no peace” and many other calls as they demanded an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the Israeli atrocities in its brutal war on the besieged Palestinian enclave.

For more than 73 days, Israel has blocked all food, water, and medicine from entering Gaza, creating a man-made crisis with the Strip on the brink of a devastating famine.

Israel’s attacks killed more than 150 and wounded 450 in a day in a new barrage of attacks that aid workers described as “Gaza is bleeding before our eyes”.

• READ MORE: Tory MP admits he ‘got it wrong’ on Israel
• Why the wall of silence on the Gaza genocide is finally starting to crack
• 4 dead children pulled from Gaza’s rubble as Israel kills at least 54
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports
• More images and videos of the protest

in Auckland, several Palestinian and other speakers spoke of the anguish and distress of the global Gaza community in the face of Western indifference to the suffering in a rally before the march marking the 77th anniversary of the Nakba — the “Palestinian catastrophe”.

“There are cracks opening up all around the world that haven’t been there for 77 years,” said Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) co-chair John Minto in an inspired speech to the protesters.

“Right through the news media, journalists are up in arms against their editors and bosses all around the world.

“We’ve got politicians in Britain speaking out for the first time. Some conservative politician got standing up the other day saying, ‘I supported Israel right or wrong for 20 years, and I was wrong.’

‘The world is coming right’
“Yet a lot of the world has been wrong for 77 years, but the world is coming right. We are on the right side of history, give us a big round of applause.”

Minto was highly critical of the public broadcasters, Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand, saying they relied too heavily on a narrow range of Western sources whose credibility had been challenged and eroded over the past 19 months.

He also condemned their “proximity” news value, blaming it for news editors’ lapse of judgment on news values because Israelis “spoke English”.

Minto told the crowd that that they should be monitoring Al Jazeera for a more balanced and nuanced coverage of the war on Palestine.

His comments echoed a similar theme of a speech at the Fickling Centre in Three Kings on Thursday night and protesters followed up by picketing the NZ Voyager Media Awards last night with a light show of killed Gazan journalists beamed on the hotel venue.

About 230 Gazan journalists have been killed in the war so far, many of them allegedly targeted by the Israeli forces.

Minto said he could not remember a previous time when a New Zealand government had remained silent in the face of industrial-scale killing of civilians anywhere in the world.

“We have livestreamed genocide happening and we have our government refusing to condemn any of Israel’s war crimes,” he said.

NZ ‘refusing to condemn war crimes’
“Yet we’ve got everybody in the leadership of this government having condemned every act of Palestinian resistance yet refused to condemn the war crimes, refused to condemn the bombing of civilians, and refused to condemn the mass starvation of 2.3 million people.

“What a bunch of depraved bastards run this country. Shame on all of them.”

Palestinian speaker Samer Al Malalha spoke of the 1948 Nakba and the injustices against his people.

“Everything we were told about international law and human rights is bullshit. The only rights you have are the ones you take,” he said.

“So today we won’t stand here to plead, we are here to remind you of what happened to us. We are here to take what is ours. Today, and every day, we fight for a free Palestine.”

Nakba survivor Ghazi Dassouki is now a 90-year-old and he told a harrowing story from his homeland. As a 14-year-old boy, he and his family were driven out of Palestine during the Nakba.

He described “waking up to to the smell of gunpowder” — his home was close to the Deir Yassin massacre on April 9, 1948, when Zionist militias attacked the village killing 107 people, including women and children.

‘Palestine will be free – and so will we’
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said: “What we stand for is truth, justice, peace and love.

“Palestine will be free and, in turn, so will we.”

She said only six more MPs were needed to have the numbers to have the Greens’ Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill passed in Parliament.

Israel has blocked all food, water, and medicine from entering Gaza, creating a man-made crisis, with the integrated food security agency IPC warning that famine could be declared any time between now and September, reports Al Jazeera.

The head of the UN Children’s Fund, Catherine Russell, said the world should be shocked by the killing of 45 children in Israeli air strikes in just two days.

Instead, the slaughter of children in Gaza is “largely met with indifference”.

“More than 1 million children in Gaza are at risk of starvation. They are deprived of food, water and medicine,” Russell wrote in a post on social media.

“Nowhere is safe for children in Gaza,” she said.

“This horror must stop.”

Famine worst level of hunger
Famine is the worst level of hunger, where people face severe food shortages, widespread malnutrition, and high levels of death due to starvation.

According to the UN’s criteria, famine is declared when:

• At least 20 percent (one-fifth) of households face extreme food shortages;
• More than 30 percent of children suffer from acute malnutrition; and
• At least two out of every 10,000 people or four out of every 10,000 children die each day from starvation or hunger-related causes.

Famine is not just about hunger; it is the worst humanitarian emergency, indicating a complete collapse of access to food, water and the systems necessary for survival.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), since Israel’s complete blockade began on March 2, at least 57 children have died from the effects of malnutrition.

A decision by the Broadcasting Standards Authority to uphold a complaint against a 1News broadcast last November is a warning to news media, says the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa.

The authority ruled that a TVNZ news item on violence in Amsterdam in the Netherlands breached BSA rules.

1News described violence in the streets of Amsterdam on November 7 and 8 following a soccer match as “disturbing” and ‘antisemitic’ and stated the graphic video of beatings were Maccabi Tel Aviv fans under attack just for being Jewish.

• READ MORE: Framing violence: How Israel shaped the narrative and its impact on Dutch politics
• Israeli football hooligans bring culture of genocide to Amsterdam
• Inaccurate 1News reporting on football violence breached broadcasting standards, rules BSA

Videographers who took the footage which 1News had used, complained to their news agencies that this description was wrong. The violence had been perpetrated by the Israeli Maccabi Tel Aviv fans against those they suspected of being Arab or supporters of Palestine.

The visiting Israelis were the attackers — not the victims, said the PSNA statement, as widely reported by global media correcting initial reports.

Before the match these same Maccabi fans had gathered in large groups to chant “Death to Arabs” — a racist genocidal chant which if used with the races reversed (“Arabs” replaced by Jews”) “would have been rightly condemned in purple prose by Western news media such as TVNZ”, said PSNA co-chair John Minto in the statement.

“But no such sympathy for Palestinians or Arabs,” he added.

Requested broadcast correction
PSNA said in its statement that it had immediately requested that TVNZ broadcast a correction. TVNZ refused, though admitting they had got the story wrong.

PSNA then referred a complaint to the BSA which upheld the complaint as failing to meet the accuracy standard.

Minto said in the statement that the BSA decision should be seen as a warning to news media to be aware that Israel was using “fabricated charges of antisemitism, to justify and divert attention from its genocide in Gaza and silence its critics”.

“Just because [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu and the then US President Joe Biden made statements turning Amsterdam attackers into victims, doesn’t mean TVNZ news should automatically parrot them,” Minto said.

“That’s effectively what the BSA concluded.”

Framing violence: How Israel shaped the narrative and the impact on Dutch politics   Video: Al Jazeera

Minto also pointed to what he called a recent fabricated hysteria about antisemitism in Sydney, which the New South Wales police found to be completely based on hoaxes by a criminal gang.

“In the US, Trump is using the same charge as an excuse to close down university courses and expel anyone who protests against the Israeli genocide in Gaza,” Minto said.

“Of course, we strongly condemn the real antisemitism of anti-Jewish, Nazi-type Islamophobic groups,” Minto says.

Call for media ‘self education’
“It should be easy for professional reporters and editors to tell the difference between criticism of Israeli apartheid, ethnic cleansing and violence on one hand, and on the other hand Nazis and their fellow travellers who condemn Jews because they are Jews.

“The BSA is, in effect, demanding the news media educate themselves.”

In a half-hour report on 16 November 2024 headlined “Media bias, inaccuracy and the violence in Amsterdam”, Al Jazeera’s global mediawatch programme The Listening Post said “one night of violence revealed … Western media’s failings on Israel and Palestine”.

“In the wake of an ugly eruption of violence on the streets of Amsterdam, the media coverage of the story [was] put under the microscope with editors scrambling to revise headlines, rework narratives, and reframe video content.”

In an investigative documentary, The Full Report, on 22 January 2025, Al Jazeera’s Dutch correspondent Step Vaessen reported how Israel had framed the violence, shaped the narrative, manipulated the global media, and impacted on Dutch politics.

New Zealand’s Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has upheld complaints about two 1News reports relating to violence around a football match in Amsterdam between local team Ajax and Israel’s Maccabi Tel Aviv.

The authority found an item on “antisemitic violence” surrounding the match, and another on heightened security in Paris the following week, breached the accuracy standard.

In a majority decision, the BSA upheld a complaint from John Minto on behalf of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) about reporting on TVNZ’s 6pm 1News bulletin on 9 November 2024.

• READ MORE: Media bias, inaccuracy and the violence in Amsterdam – The Listening Post
• Other Broadcasting Standards reports

This comprised a trailer reporting “antisemitic violence”, an introduction by the presenter with “disturbing” footage of violence against Israeli fans described by Amsterdam’s mayor as “an explosion of antisemitism”, and a pre-recorded BBC item.

TVNZ upheld one aspect of this complaint over mischaracterised footage in the trailer and introduction. This was originally reported as showing Israeli fans being attacked, but later corrected by Reuters and other outlets as showing Israeli fans chasing and attacking a Dutch man.

“The footage contributed to a materially misleading impression created by TVNZ’s framing of the events, with an emphasis on antisemitic violence against Israeli fans without acknowledging the role of the Maccabi fans in the violence – despite that being previously reported elsewhere,” the BSA found.

A majority of the authority found TVNZ did not make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy.

It considered the background to the events was highly sensitive and more care should have been taken to not overstate or adopt, without question, the antisemitic angle.

The minority considered it was reasonable for TVNZ to rely on Reuters, the BBC and Dutch officials’ description of the violence as “antisemitic”, in a story developing overseas in which not all facts were clear at the time of broadcast.

The authority considered TVNZ should have issued a correction when it became aware of the error with the footage. It therefore found the action taken was insufficient, but considered publication of the BSA’s decision to be an adequate remedy in the circumstances.

Western media’s embarrassing failures on Amsterdam violence.    Video: AJ’s The Listening Post

In a separate decision, the authority upheld two complaints about a brief 1News item on 15 November 2024 reporting on heightened security in Paris in the week following the violence.

The item reported: “Thousands of police are on the streets of Paris over fears of antisemitic attacks . . . That’s after 60 people were arrested in Amsterdam last week when supporters of a Tel Aviv football team were pursued and beaten by pro-Palestinian protesters.”

TVNZ upheld both complaints under the accuracy standard on the basis the item “lacked the nuance” of earlier reporting on Amsterdam, by omitting to mention the role of the Maccabi fans in the lead-up to the violence.

The authority agreed with this finding but determined TVNZ took insufficient action to remedy the breach.

“The broadcaster accepted more care should have been taken, but did not appear to have taken any action in response, or made any public acknowledgement of the inaccuracy,” the BSA said.

The authority found the framing and focus careless, noting “the role of both sides in the violence had been extensively reported” by the time of the 15 November broadcast. TVNZ had also aired the mischaracterised footage again, not realising Reuters had issued a correction several days earlier.

As TVNZ was not monitoring the Reuters fact-check site, the correction only came to light when the complaints were being investigated.

Other standards raised in the three complaints were not breached or did not apply, the authority found.

The BSA did not consider an order was warranted over the item on November 15 – deciding publication of the decision was sufficient to publicly acknowledge and correct the breach, censure the broadcaster and give guidance to TVNZ and other broadcasters.

• The full adjudication

New Zealand-based Canadian billionaire James Grenon owes the people of this country an immediate explanation of his intentions regarding media conglomerate NZME. This cannot wait until a shareholders’ meeting at the end of April.

Is his investment in the owner of The New Zealand Herald and NewstalkZB nothing more than a money-making venture to realise the value of its real estate marketing subsidiary? Has he no more interest than putting his share of the proceeds from spinning off OneRoof into a concealed safe in his $15 million Takapuna mansion?

Or does he intent to leverage his 9.6 percent holding and the support of other investors to take over the board (if not the company) in order to dictate the editorial direction of the country’s largest newspaper and its number one commercial radio station?

• READ MORE: Union wary of Canadian billionaire Jim Grenon’s NZ media influence
• Other media freedom reports

Grenon has said little beyond the barest of announcements that have been released by the New Zealand Stock Exchange. While he must exercise care to avoid triggering statutory takeover obligations, he cannot simply treat NZME as another of the private equity projects that have made him very wealthy. He is dealing with an entity whose influence and obligations extend far beyond the crude world of finance.

While I do not presume for one moment that he reads this column each week, let me suspend disbelief for a moment and speak directly to him.

Come clean and tell the people of New Zealand what you are doing and, more importantly, why.

Over the past week there has been considerable speculation over the answers to those questions. Much of it has drawn on what little we know of James Grenon. And it is precious little beyond two facts.

Backed right-wing Centrist
The first is that he put money behind the launch of a right-wing New Zealand news aggregation website, The Centrist, although he apparently no longer has a financial interest in it.

The second fact is that he provided financial support for conservative activists taking legal action against New Zealand media.

When I contacted a well-connected friend in Canada to ask about Grenon the response was short: “Never heard of him . . . and there aren’t that many Canadian billionaires.”

In short, the man who potentially may hold sway over the board of one of our biggest media companies has a very low profile indeed. That is a luxury to which he can no longer lay claim.

It may be that his interest is, after all, a financial one based on his undoubted investment skills. He may see a lucrative opportunity in OneRoof. After all, Fairfax’s public listing and subsequent sale of its Australian equivalent, Domain, provided not only a useful cash boost for shareholders but the creation of a stand-alone entity that now has a market cap of about $A2.8 billion.

Perhaps he wants a board cleanout to guarantee a OneRoof float.

If so, say so.

Similar transactions
Although spinning off OneRoof could have dire consequences for the viability of what would be left of NZME, that is a decision no different to similar transactions made by many companies in the financial interests of shareholders.

There is a world of difference, however, between seizing an investment opportunity and seeking to secure influence by dictating the editorial direction of a significant portion of our news media.

If the speculation is correct — and the billionaire is seeking to steer NZME on an editorial course to the right — New Zealand has a problem.

Communications minister Paul Goldsmith gave a lamely neoliberal response reported by Stuff last week: He was “happy to take some advice” on the development, but NZME was a “private company” and ultimately it was up to its shareholders to determine how it operated.

Let me repeat my earlier point: NZME is an entity whose influence and obligations extend far beyond the crude world of finance (and the outworn concept that the market can rule). Its stewardship of the vehicles at the forefront of news dissemination and opinion formation means it must meet higher obligation than what we expect of an ordinary “private company”.

The most fundamental of those obligations is the independence of editorial decision-making and direction.

I became editor of The New Zealand Herald shortly after Wilson & Horton was sold to Irish businessman Tony O’Reilly. On my appointment the then chief executive of O’Reilly’s Independent News & Media, Liam Healy, said the board had only one editorial requirement of me: That I would not advocate the use of violence as a legitimate means to a political end.

Only direction echoed Mandela
Coming from a man who had witnessed the effects of such violence in Northern Ireland, I had no difficulty in acceding to his request. And throughout my entire editorship, the only “request” made of me by O’Reilly himself was that I would support the distribution of generic Aids drugs in Africa. It followed a meeting he had had with Nelson Mandela. I had no other direction from the board.

Yes, I had to bat away requests by management personnel (who should have known better) to “do this” or “not do that” but, without exception, the attempts were commercially driven — they did not want to upset advertisers. There was never a political or ideological motive behind them. Nor were such requests limited to me.

I doubt there is an editor in the country who has not had a manager asking for something to please an advertiser. Disappointment hasn’t deterred their trying.

In this column last week, I wrote of the dangers of a rich owner (in that case Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos) dictating editorial policy. The dangers if James Grenon has similar intentions would be even greater, given NZME’s share of the news market.

The journalists’ union, E tu, has already concluded that the Canadian’s intention is to gain right-wing influence. Its director, Michael Wood, issued a statement in which he said: “The idea that a shadowy cabal, backed by extreme wealth, is planning to take over such an important institution in our democratic fabric should be of concern to all New Zealanders.”

He called on the current NZME board to re-affirm a commitment to editorial independence.

Michael Wood reflects the fears that are rightly held by NZME’s journalists. They, too, will doubtless be looking for assurances of editorial independence.

‘Cast-iron’ guarantees?
Such assurances are vital, but those journalists should look back to some “cast-iron” guarantees given by other rich new owners if they are to avoid history repeating itself.

I investigated such guarantees in a book I wrote titled Trust Ownership and the Future of News: Media Moguls and White Knights. In it I noted that 20 years before Rupert Murdoch purchased The Times of London, there was a warning that the newspaper’s editor “far from having his independence guaranteed, is on paper entirely in the hands of the Chief Proprietors who are specifically empowered by the Articles of Association to control editorial policy”, although there was provision for a “committee of notables” to veto the transfer of shares into undesirable hands.

To satisfy the British government, Murdoch gave guarantees of editorial independence and a “court of appeal” role for independent directors. Neither proved worth the paper they were written on.

In contrast, the constitution of the company that owns The Economist does not permit any individual or organisation to gain a majority shareholding. The editor exercises independent editorial control and is appointed by trustees, who are independent of commercial, political and proprietorial influences.

There are no such protections in the constitution, board charter, or code of conduct and ethics governing NZME. And it is doubtful that any cast-iron guarantees could be inserted in advance of the company’s annual general meeting.

If James Grenon does, in fact, have designs on the editorial direction of NZME, it is difficult to see how he might be prevented from achieving his aim.

Statutory guarantees would be unprecedented and, in any case, sit well outside the mindset of a coalition government that has shown no inclination to intervene in a deteriorating media market. Nonetheless, Minister Goldsmith would be well advised to address the issue with a good deal more urgency.

He might, at the very least, press the Canadian billionaire on his intentions.

And if the coalition thinks a swing to the right in our news media would be no bad thing, it should be very careful what it wishes for.

If the Canadian’s intentions are as Michael Wood suspects, perhaps the only hope will lie with those shareholders who see that it will be in their own financial interests to ensure that, in aggregate, NZME’s news assets continue to steer a (relatively) middle course. For proof, they need look only at the declining subscriber base of The Washington Post.

Postscipt
On Wednesday, The New Zealand Herald stated James Grenon had provided further detail, of his intentions. It is clear that he does, in fact, intend to play a role in the editorial side of NZME.

Just how hands-on he would be remains to be seen. However, he told the Herald that, if successful in making it on to the NZME board, he expected an editorial board would be established “with representation from both sides of the spectrum”.

On the surface that looks reassuring but editorial boards elsewhere have also been used to serve the ends of a proprietor while giving the appearance of independence.

And just what role would an editorial board play? Would it determine the editorial direction that an editor would have to slavishly follow? Or would it be a shield protecting the editor’s independence?

Only time will tell.

Devil in the detail
Media Insider columnist Shayne Currie, writing in the Weekend Herald, stated that “the Herald’s dominance has come through once again in quarterly Nielsen readership results . . . ” That is perfectly true: The newspaper’s average issue readership is more than four times that of its closest competitor.

What the Insider did not say was that the Herald’s readership had declined by 32,000 over the past year — from 531,000 to 499,000 — and by 14,000 since the last quarterly survey.

The Waikato Times, The Post and the Otago Daily Times were relatively stable while The Press was down 11,000 year-on-year but only 1000 since the last survey.

In the weekend market, the Sunday Star Times was down 1000 readers year-on-year to stand at 180,000 and up slightly on the last survey. The Herald on Sunday was down 6000 year-on-year to sit at 302,000.

There was a little good news in the weekly magazine market. The New Zealand Listener has gained 5000 readers year-on-year and now has a readership of 207,000. In the monthly market, Mindfood increased its readership by 15,000 over the same period and now sits at 222,000.

The New Zealand Woman’s Weekly continues to dominate the women’s magazine market. It was slightly up on the last survey but well down year-on-year, dropping from 458,000 to 408,000. Woman’s Day had an even greater annual decline, falling from 380,000 to 317,000.

With international media’s attention on the Israeli and Palestinian captives exchange,  Israel’s military and settlers have been forcibly displacing tens of thousands of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, says Al Jazeera’s Listening Post media programme.

The European Union has condemned Israel’s military operation in West Bank, attacking and killing refugees, and destroying refugee camps while the Western media has been barely reporting this.

It has also criticised the violence by settlers in illegal West Bank villages.

• READ MORE: Israel touts US plan to extend truce for half of remaining captives in Gaza
• Other AJ Listening Post reports

Israel’s military operation in the occupied territory has been ongoing for more than 40 days and has resulted in dozens of casualties, the displacement of about 40,000 Palestinians from their homes, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure.

The EU has expressed its “grave concern” about Israel’s continuing military operation in the occupied West Bank in a statement.

“The EU calls on Israel, in addressing its security concerns in the occupied West Bank, to comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law by ensuring the protection of all civilians in military operations and allow the safe return of displaced persons to their homes,” the statement read.

“At the same time, extremist settler violence continues throughout the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Israel ‘has duty to protect’
“The EU recalls that Israel, as the occupying power, has the duty to protect civilians and to hold perpetrators accountable.”

The bloc also condemned Israel’s policy of expanding settlements in the West Bank, and urged that demolitions “including of EU and EU member states-funded structures, must stop”.

“As we enter the holy month of Ramadan, we call on all parties to exercise restraint to allow for peaceful celebrations,” the EU said.

Meanwhile, Israeli journalists are parroting military talking points of security operations.

Israel invades the West Bank.  Video: AJ: The Listening Post

Contributors:
Abdaljawad Omar – Assistant professor, Birzeit University
Jehad Abusalim – Co-editor, Light in Gaza: Writings Born of Fire
Ori Goldberg – Academic and political commentator
Samira Mohyeddin – Founder, On the Line Media

On the Listening Post radar:
This week, the return of the Bibas family bodies dominated Israeli media coverage.

Tariq Nafi reports on how their deaths have been used for “hasbara” — propaganda — after the family accused Netanyahu’s government of exploiting their grief for political purposes.

The Kenyan ‘manosphere’
Populated by loudmouths, shock artists and unapologetic chauvinists, the Kenyan “manosphere” is promoting an influential — and at times dangerous — take on modern masculinity.

Featuring:
Audrey Mugeni – Co-founder, Femicide Count Kenya
Awino Okech – Professor of feminist and security studies, SOAS
Onyango Otieno – Mental health coach and writer

COMMENTARY: By Victoria Fielding

I once heard someone say that when the Left and the Right became polarised — when they divorced from each other — the Left got all the institutions of truth including science, education, justice and democratic government.

The Right got the institution of manipulation: the media. This statement hit me for six at the time because it seemed so clearly true.

What was also immediately clear is that there was an obvious reason why the Left sided with the institutions of truth and the Right resorted to manipulation. It is because truth does not suit right-wing arguments.

• READ MORE: Other truth-telling reports

The existence of climate change does not suit fossil fuel billionaires. Evidence that wealth does not trickle down does not suit the capitalist class. The idea that diversity, equity and inclusion (yes, I put those words in that order on purpose) is better for everyone, rather than a discriminatory, hateful, destructive, divided unequal world is dangerous for the Right to admit.

The Right’s embrace of the media institution also makes sense when you consider that the institutions of truth are difficult to buy, whereas billionaires can easily own manipulative media.

Just ask Elon Musk, who bought Twitter and turned it into a political manipulation machine. Just ask Rupert Murdoch, who is currently engaged in a bitter family war to stop three of his children opposing him and his son Lachlan from using their “news” organisations as a form of political manipulation for right-wing interests.

Right-wingers also know that truthful institutions only have one way of communicating their truths to the public: via the media. Once the media environment is manipulated, we enter a post-truth world.

Experts derided as untrustworthy ‘elitists’
This is the world where billionaire fossil fuel interests undermine climate action. It is where scientists create vaccines to save lives but the manipulated public refuses to take them. Where experts are derided as untrustworthy “elitists”.

And it is where the whole idea of democratic government in the US has been overthrown to install an autocratic billionaire-enriching oligarchy led by an incompetent fool who calls himself the King.

Once you recognise this manipulated media environment, you also understand that there is not — and never has been — such as thing as a rational public debate. Those engaged in the institutions of the Left — in science, education, justice and democratic government — seem mostly unwilling to accept this fact.

Instead, they continue to believe if they just keep telling people the truth and communicating what they see as entirely rational arguments, the public will accept what they have to say.

I think part of the reason that the Left refuses to accept that public debate is not rational and rather, is a manipulated bin fire of misleading information, including mis/disinformation and propaganda, is because they are not equipped to compete in this reality. What do those on the Left do with “post-truth”?

They seem to just want to ignore it and hope it goes away.

A perfect example of this misunderstanding of the post-truth world and the manipulated media environment’s impact on the public is this paper, by political science professors at the Australian National University Ian McAllister and Nicholas Biddle.

Stunningly absolutist claim
Their research sought to understand why polling at the start of the 2023 Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum showed widespread public support for the Voice but over the course of the campaign, this support dropped to the point where the Voice was defeated with 60 per cent voting “No” and 40 per cent, “Yes”.

In presenting their study’s findings, the authors make the stunningly absolutist claim that:

‘…the public’s exposure to all forms of mass media – as we have measured it here – had no impact on the result’.

A note is then attached to this finding with the caveat:

‘As noted earlier, given the data at hand we are unable to test the possibility that the content of the media being consumed resulted in a reinforcement of existing beliefs and partisanship rather than a conversion.’

This caveat leaves a gaping hole in the finding by failing to account for how media reinforcing existing beliefs is an important media effect – as argued by Neil Gavin here. Since it was not measured, how can they possibly say there was no effect?

Furthermore, the very premise of the author’s sweeping statement that media exposure had no impact on the result of the Referendum is based on two naive assumptions:

• that voters were rational in their deliberations over the Referendum question; and
• that the information environment voters were presented with was rational.

Dual assumption of rationality
This dual assumption of rationality – one that the authors interestingly admit is an assumption – is evidenced in their hypothesis which states:

‘Voters who did not follow the campaign in the mass media were more likely to move from a yes to a no vote compared to voters who did follow the campaign in the mass media.’

This hypothesis, the authors explain, is premised on the assumption ‘that those with less information are more likely to opt for the status quo and cast a no vote’, and therefore that less exposure to media would change a vote from “Yes” to “No”.What this hypothesis assumes is that if a voter received more rational information in the media about the Referendum, that information would rationally drive their vote in the “Yes” direction. When their data disproved this hypothesis, the authors used this finding to claim that the media had no effect.

To understand the reality of what happened in the Referendum debate, the word “rational” needs to be taken out of the equation and the word “manipulated” put in.

We know, of course, that the Referendum was awash with manipulative information, which all supported the “No” campaign. For example, my study of News Corp’s Voice coverage — Australia’s largest and most influential news organisation — found that News Corp actively campaigned for the “No” proposition in concert with the “No” campaign, presenting content more like a political campaign than traditional journalism and commentary.

A study by Queensland University of Technology’s Tim Graham analysed how the Voice Referendum was discussed on social media platform, X. Far from a rational debate, Graham identified that the “No” campaign and its supporters engaged in a participatory disinformation propaganda campaign, which became a “truth market” about the Voice.

The ‘truth market’
This “truth market” was described as drawing “Yes” campaigners into a debate about the truth of the Voice, sidetracking them from promoting their own cause.

What such studies showed was that, far from McAllister and Biddle’s assumed rational information environment, the Voice Referendum public debate was awash with manipulation, propaganda, disinformation and fear-mongering.

The “No” campaign that delivered this manipulation perfectly demonstrates how the Right uses media to undermine institutions of truth, to undermine facts and to undermine the rationality of democratic debates.

The completely unfounded assumption that the more information a voter received about the Voice, the more likely they would vote “Yes”, reveals a misunderstanding of the reality of a manipulated public debate environment present across all types of media, from mainstream news to social media.

It also wrongly treats voters like rational deliberative computers by assuming that the more information that goes in, the more they accept that information. This is far from the reality of how mediated communication affects the public.

The reason the influence of media on individuals and collectives is, in reality, so difficult to measure and should never be bluntly described as having total effect or no effect, is that people are not rational when they consume media, and every individual processes information in their own unique and unconscious ways.

One person can watch a manipulated piece of communication and accept it wholeheartedly, others can accept part of it and others reject it outright.

Manipulation unknown
No one piece of information determines how people vote and not every piece of information people consume does either. That’s the point of a manipulated media environment. People who are being manipulated do not know they are being manipulated.

Importantly, when you ask individuals how their media consumption impacted on them, they of course do not know. The decisions people make based on the information they have ephemerally consumed — whether from the media, conversations, or a wide range of other information sources, are incredibly complex and irrational.

Surely the re-election of Donald Trump for a second time, despite all the rational arguments against him, is proof that the manipulated media environment is an incredibly powerful weapon — a weapon the Right, globally, is clearly proficient at wielding.

It is time those on the Left caught up and at least understood the reality they are working in.

Dr Victoria Fielding is an Independent Australia columnist. This article was first published by the Independent Australia and is republished with the author’s permission.

COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

The country’s leading daily newspaper, The New Zealand Herald, screamed out this online headline by a columnist on February 10: “Should New Zealand invade the Cook Islands?”

The New Zealand government and the mainstream media have gone ballistic (thankfully not literally just yet) over the move by the small Pacific nation to sign a strategic partnership with China in Beijing this week.

It is the latest in a string of island nations that have signalled a closer relationship with China, something that rattles nerves and sabres in Wellington and Canberra.

• READ MORE: Should New Zealand invade the Cook Islands?
• Cook Islands opposition files no-confidence motion against PM
• China: Cook Islands’ relationship with Beijing ‘should not be restrained’
• Cook Islands crisis: Haka with the taniwha or dance with the dragon?
• Explainer: The diplomatic row between New Zealand and the Cook Islands
• Cook Islands’ diplomatic snub to NZ will be noticed – commentator
• Mark Brown on China deal: ‘No need for NZ to sit in the room with us’
• No debt in China deal – Mark Brown
• Mediawatch: NZ media in the middle of Asia-Pacific diplomatic drama
• Other China in Pacific reports

The Chinese have politely told the Kiwis to back off.  Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun told reporters that China and the Cook Islands have had diplomatic relations since 1997 which “should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party”.

“New Zealand is rightly furious about it,” a TVNZ Pacific affairs writer editorialised to the nation. The deal and the lack of prior consultation was described by various journalists as “damaging”, “of significant concern”, “trouble in paradise”, an act by a “renegade government”.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters, not without cause, railed at what he saw as the Cook Islands government going against long-standing agreements to consult over defence and security issues.

‘Clearly about secession’
Matthew Hooton, who penned the article in The Herald, is a major commentator on various platforms.

“Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown’s dealings with China are clearly about secession from the realm of New Zealand,” Hooton said without substantiation but with considerable colonial hauteur.

“His illegal moves cannot stand. It would be a relatively straightforward military operation for our SAS to secure all key government buildings in the Cook Islands’ capital, Avarua.”

This could be written off as the hyperventilating screeching of someone trying to drum up readers but he was given a major platform to do so and New Zealanders live in an oxygen-starved media environment where alternative analysis is hard to find.

There has rightly been much debate and analysis over New Zealand’s decision to review the aid it gives to Kiribati.

It’s a big deal. So much is at stake, especially for the I-Kiribati people who live with many challenges and depend on the $100 million aid projects New Zealand delivers.

It would be clearly unwise for New Zealand to threaten or cut aid to Kiribati — but it has every right to expect better engagement than it has been getting over the past year.

• READ MORE: NZ-Kiribati fallout: A ‘Pacific way’ perspective on the Peters spat
• NZ’s relationship with Kiribati strained — aid fund under review — Barbara Dreaver
• NZ-Kiribati fallout: Maamau govt minister says ‘impacts to be felt by the people’
• NZ-born Kiribati MP defends Taneti Maamau over snub of Winston Peters
• Other Peters v Kiribati spat reports

What has been disturbing is the airtime and validation given to a Kiribati politician, newly appointed Minister of Women, Youth, Sport and Social Affairs Ruth Cross Kwansing.

It’s helpful to analyse where this is coming from so let’s make this very clear.

She supports and is currently a minister of a government that in 2022 suspended Chief Justice William Hastings and Justice David Lambourne of the High Court, and justices Peter Blanchard, Rodney Hansen and Paul Heath of the Court of Appeal.

She supports and is part a government that deported Lambourne, who is married to Opposition Leader Tessie Lambourne — and they have I-Kiribati children. (He is Australian but has been in the Kiribati courts since 1995).

She supports and is part of a government that requires all journalists — should they get a visa to go there — to hand over copies of all footage/information collected.

She also benefits from a 220 percent pay rise that her government passed for MPs in 2021.That same year, ministers were gifted cars with China Aid embossed on the side, as well as a laptop from Beijing.

1News broke story
This week, 1News broke the story of New Zealand putting aid sent to Kiribati on hold — pending a review — after a year of trying to get a bilateral meeting with the Kiribati President Taneti Maamau, who is also the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

NZ-Kiribati fallout: A ‘Pacific way’ perspective on the Peters spat

Amidst a gushing post about a president who recently gave this rookie MP a ministerial post, Cross Kwansing wrote of the “media manufactured drama” and “the New Zealand media, in its typical fashion, seized the opportunity to patronise Kiribati, and the familiar whispers about Chinese influence began to circulate”.

These comments shouldn’t come as any surprise as blaming the media is a common tactic of politicians and Cross Kwansing is no different.

Just because the new minister doesn’t like what New Zealand has decided to do doesn’t mean it must be “media manufactured”.

Her comment that “the New Zealand media, in its typical fashion, seized the opportunity to patronise Kiribati” is also ridiculous.

The journalist that broke the story — myself — is half I-Kiribati and incredibly proud of her heritage and the gutsy country that she was born in and grew up in, with family who still live there.

Cross Kwansing has been a member of parliament for less than six months. To not discuss the geopolitical implications with China, given the way the world is evolving and Kiribati’s close ties, would be naive and ignorant.

Pacific leaders frustrated
It is not just New Zealand that Maamau has refused to meet. Over the last two years, Pacific Island leaders have spoken of frustration in trying to engage with the president.

Maamau is known to be a pleasant man and enjoyable to converse with. But, for whatever reason, he has chosen not to engage with many leaders or foreign ministers.

Cross Kwansing has helpfully shared that the president announced to his cabinet ministers that he would delegate international engagements to his vice president so he could concentrate “intently on domestic matters”.

Fair enough. Except that Maamau has chosen to hang on to the foreign minister portfolio.

It is quite right that New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters would expect to engage with his Kiribati counterpart — especially given the level of investment and numerous attempts being made, and then a date finally agreed on by Maamau himself.

Six days before Peters was meant to arrive in Kiribati, the island nation’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs told the NZ High Commission there that the president was now “unavailable”. In the diplomatic world, especially given the attempts that had preceded it, that is hugely disrespectful.

There are different strategies the New Zealand government could have chosen to take to deal with this. Peters has had enough and chosen a hardline course that is likely to have negative impacts on New Zealand in the long term, but it’s a risk he obviously thinks is worth taking.

Cross Kwansing has spoken about prioritising cooperation and mutual respect over ego and political posturing. Absolutely right — except that this piece of helpful advice should also be taken by her own government. It works both ways for the sake of the people.

Barbara Dreaver is of Kiribati and Cook Islands descent. She was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2024 for services to investigative journalism and Pacific communities. This TVNZ News column has been republished with permission.

Papua New Guinea’s cabinet has officially given the green light to the PNG media policy, which will soon be presented to Parliament for formal enactment.

Minister for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Timothy Masiu believes this policy will address ongoing concerns about sensationalism, ethical standards, and the portrayal of violence in the media.

In an interview with NBC News in Port Moresby, Masiu outlined the urgent need for a shift in the nation’s media practices.

• READ MORE: Papua New Guinea: media under threat
• Other PNG draft media law reports

“We must be more responsible in how we report and portray the issues that matter most to our country. It’s time for Papua New Guinea’s media to evolve and reflect the values that truly define us,” he said.

“Sensational headlines, graphic images of violence, and depictions of suffering do nothing to build our national identity. They only hurt our reputation globally.”

Minister Masiu said the policy aimed to regulate sensitive contents and shift towards “more constructive and informative” coverage.

According to Masiu, the policy’s long-term goal was to protect the public from harmful content while empowering journalists to play a positive role in nation-building.

“This policy isn’t about stifling press freedom. It’s about ensuring that media in Papua New Guinea serves the public good by upholding the highest standards of integrity and professionalism,” Masiu said.

Meanwhile, the policy also acknowledged the media’s significant influence on public opinion and its role in national development.

Masiu added that once the policy was passed into law, it would become a guiding framework for media institutions across the nation, laying the foundation for a new era of journalism in Papua New Guinea.

Republished from NBC News.

Persistent criticism
Pacific Media Watch reports that the draft media policy law and consultation process have been controversial and faced persistent criticisms from journalists, the PNG Media Council (MCPNG) and Transparency international PNG.

Version 5 of the policy is here, but it is not clear whether that is the version Masiu says is ready.

PNG dropped 32 places to 91st out of 180 countries in the 2024 RSF World Press Freedom Index and the Paris-based world press freedom watchdog RSF called on the Marape government to withdraw the draft law in February 2023.

Civicus references an incident last August when a PNG journalist was barred from a press briefing by the visiting Indonesian president-elect Prabowo Subianto and said this came “amid growing concern about the government’s plan to regulate the press under its so-called media development policy”.

SPECIAL REPORT: By Michael West

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament. In a submission to the Senate, the company claimed, “Foxtel also pays millions of dollars in income tax, GST and payroll tax, unlike many of our large international digital competitors”.

However, an MWM investigation into the financial affairs of Foxtel has shown Foxtel was paying zero income tax when it told the Senate it was paying “millions”. The penalty for lying to the Senate is potential imprisonment, although “contempt of Parliament” laws are never enforced.

The investigation found that NXE, the entity that controls Foxtel, paid no income tax in any of the five years from 2019 to 2023. During this time it generated $14 billion of total income.

• READ MORE: Other digital tech corporation reports

The total tax payable across this period is $0. The average total income is $2.8 billion per year.

Why did News Corporation mislead the Parliament? The plausible answers are in its Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment.

In May 2021 — which is also where the transgression occurred — the media executives for the American tycoon were lobbying a Parliamentary committee to change the laws in their favour.

By this time, Netflix had leap-frogged Foxtel Pay TV subscriptions in Australia and Foxtel was complaining it had to spend too much money on producing local Australian content under the laws of the time. Also that Netflix paid almost no tax.

Big-league tax dodger
They were correct in this. Netflix, which is a big-league tax dodger itself, was by then making bucketloads of money in Australia but with zero local content requirements.

Making television drama and so forth is expensive. It is far cheaper to pipe foreign content through your channels online. As Netflix does.

The misleading of Parliament by corporations is rife, and contempt laws need to be enforced, as demonstrated routinely by the PwC inquiry last year. Corporations and their representatives routinely lie in their pursuit of corporate objectives.

If democracy is to function better, the information provided to Parliament needs to be clarified, beyond doubt, as reliable. Former senator Rex Patrick has made the point in these pages.

Even in this short statement to the committee of inquiry (published above), there are other misleading statements. Like many companies defending their failure to pay adequate income tax, Foxtel claims that it “paid millions” in GST and payroll tax.

Companies don’t “pay” GST or payroll tax. They collect these taxes on behalf of governments.

Little regard for laws
Further to the contempt of Parliament, so little regard for the laws of Australia is shown by corporations that the local American boss of a small gas fracking company, Tamboran Resources, controlled by a US oil billionaire, didn’t even bother turning up to give evidence when asked.

This despite being rewarded with millions in public grant money.

Politicians need to muscle up, as Greens Senator Nick McKim did when grilling former Woolies boss Brad Banducci for prevaricating over providing evidence to the supermarket inquiry.

This week, Minister of Racing Winston Peters announced the end of greyhound racing in the interests of animal welfare.

Soon after, a law to criminalise killing of redundant racing dogs was passed under urgency in Parliament.

The next day, the minister introduced the Racing Industry Amendment Bill to preserve the TAB’s lucrative monopoly on sports betting which provides 90 percent of the racing industry’s revenue.

• READ MORE: Other digital platform pressure reports

“Offshore operators are consolidating a significant market share of New Zealand betting — and the revenue which New Zealand’s racing industry relies on is certainly not guaranteed,” Peters told Parliament in support of the Bill.

But offshore tech companies have also been pulling the revenue rug out from under local news media companies for years, and there has been no such speedy response to that.

Digital platforms offer cheap and easy access to unlimited overseas content — and tech companies’ dominance of the digital advertising systems and the resulting revenue is intensifying.

Profits from online ads shown to New Zealanders go offshore — and very little tax is paid on the money made here by the likes of Google and Facebook.

On Tuesday, Media Minister Paul Goldsmith did introduce legislation to repeal advertising restrictions for broadcasters on Sundays and public holidays.

“As the government we must ensure regulatory settings are enabling the best chance of success,” he said in a statement.

The media have been crying out for this low-hanging fruit for years — but the estimated $6 million boost is a drop in the bucket for broadcasters, and little help for other media.

The big bucks are in tech platforms paying for the local news they carry.

Squeezing the tech titans
In Australia, the government did it three years ago with a bargaining code that is funnelling significant sums to news media there. It also signalled the willingness of successive governments to confront the market dominance of ‘big tech’.

When Goldsmith took over here in May he said the media industry’s problems were both urgent and acute – likewise the need to “level the playing field”.

The government then picked up the former government’s Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, modelled on Australia’s move.

But it languishes low down on Parliament’s order paper, following threats from Google to cut news out of its platforms in New Zealand – or even cut and run from New Zealand altogether.

Six years after his Labour predecessor Kris Faafoi first pledged to follow in Australia’s footsteps in support of local media, Goldsmith said this week he now wants to wait and see how Australia’s latest tough measures pan out.

(The News Bargaining Incentive announced on Thursday could allow the Australian government to tax big digital platforms if they do not pay local news publishers there)

Meanwhile, news media cuts and closures here roll on.

The lid keeps sinking in 2024

“I’ve worked in the industry for 30 years and never seen a year like it,” RNZ’s Guyon Espiner wrote in The Listener this week, admitting to “a sense of survivor’s guilt”.

Just this month, 14 NZME local papers will close and more TVNZ news employees will be told they will lose jobs in what Espiner described as “destroy the village to save the village” strategy.

Whakaata Māori announced 27 job losses earlier this month and the end of Te Ao Māori News every weekday on TV. Its te reo channel will go online-only.

Digital start-ups with lower overheads than established news publishers and broadcasters are now struggling too.

“The Spinoff had just celebrated its 10th birthday when a fiscal hole opened up. Staff numbers are being culled, projects put on ice and a mayday was sent out calling for donations to keep the site afloat,” Espiner also wrote in his bleak survey for The Listener.

Spinoff founder Duncan Grieve has charted the economic erosion of the media all year at The Spinoff and on its weekly podcast The Fold.

In a recent edition, he said he could not carry on “pretending things would be fine” and did not want The Spinoff to go down without giving people the chance to save it.

“We get some (revenue) direct from our audience through members, some commercial revenue and we get funding for various New Zealand on Air projects typically,” Greive told RNZ Mediawatch this week.

“The members’ bucket is pretty solid. The commercial bucket was going quite well, and then we just ran into a brick wall. There has been a real system-wide shock to commercial revenues.

“But the thing that we didn’t predict which caused us to have to publish that open letter was New Zealand on Air. We’ve been able to rely on getting one or two projects up, but we’ve missed out two rounds in a row. Maybe our projects . . .  weren’t good enough, but it certainly had this immediate, near-existential challenge for us.”

Critics complained The Spinoff has had millions of dollars in public money in its first decade.

“While the state is under no obligation to fund our work, it’s hard to watch as other platforms continue to be heavily backed while your own funding stops dead,” Greive said in the open letter.

The open letter said Creative NZ funding had been halved this year, and the Public Interest Journalism Fund support for two of The Spinoff’s team of 31 was due to run out next year.

“I absolutely take on the chin the idea that we shouldn’t be reliant on that funding. Once you experience something year after year, you do build your business around that . . .  for the coming year. When a hard-to-predict event like that comes along, you are in a situation where you have to scramble,” Grieve told Mediawatch.

“We shot a flare up that our audience has responded to. We’re not out of the woods yet, but we’re really pleased with the strength of support and an influx of members.”

Newshub shutdown
A recent addition to The Spinoff’s board — Glen Kyne — has already felt the force of the media’s economic headwinds in 2024.

He was the CEO of Warner Brothers Discovery NZ and oversaw the biggest and most comprehensive news closure of the year — the culling of the entire Newshub operation.

“It was heart-wrenching because we had looked at and tried everything leading into that announcement. I go back to July 2022, when we started to see money coming out of the market and the cost of living crisis starting to appear,” Kyne told Mediawatch this week.

“We started taking steps immediately and were incredibly prudent with cost management. We would get to a point where we felt reasonably confident that we had a path, but the floor beneath our feet — in terms of the commercial market — kept falling. You’re seeing this with TVNZ right now.”

Warner Brothers Discovery is a multinational player in broadcast media. Did they respond to requests for help?

“They were empathetic. But Warner Brothers Discovery had lost 60-70 percent of its share price because of the issues around global media companies as well. They were very determined that we got the company to a position of profitability as quickly as we possibly could. But ultimately the economics were such that we had to make the decision.”

Smaller but sustainable in 2025? Or managed decline?

Kyne did a deal with Stuff to supply a 6pm news bulletin to TV channel Three after the demise of Newshub in July.

He is one of a handful of people who know the sums, but Stuff is certainly producing ThreeNews now with a fraction of the former budget for Newshub.

Can media outlets settle on a shape that will be sustainable, but smaller — and carry on in 2025 and beyond? Or does Kyne fear media are merely managing decline if revenue continues to slump?

“It’s slightly terrifying because the downward pressures are going to continue into next year. Three created a sustainable model for the 6pm bulletin to continue.

“Stuff is an enormous newsgathering organisation, so they were able to make it work and good luck to them. I can see that bulletin continuing to improve as the team get more experience.”

No news is really bad news
If news can’t be sustained at scale in commercial media companies even on reduced budgets, what then?

Some are already pondering a “post-journalism” future in which social media takes over as the memes of sharing news and information.

How would that pan out?

“We might be about to find out,” Greive told Mediawatch.

“Journalism doesn’t have a monopoly on information, and there are all kinds of different institutions that now have channels. A lot of what is created . . .  has a factual basis. Whether it’s a TikTok-er or a YouTuber, they are themselves consumers of news.

“A lot of people are replacing a habit of reading the newspaper and listening to ZB or RNZ with a new habit — consuming social media. Some of it has a news-like quality but it doesn’t have vetting of the information and membership of the Media Council . . .  as a way of restraining behaviour.

“We’ve got a big question facing us as a society. Either news becomes this esoteric, elite habit that is either pay-walled or alternatively there’s public media. If we [lose] freely-accessible, mass-audience channels, then we’ll find out what democracy, the business sector, the cultural sector looks like without that.

“In communities where there isn’t a single journalist, a story can break or someone can put something out . . .  and if there’s no restraint on that and no check on it, things are going to happen.

“In other countries, most notably Australia, they’ve recognised this looming problem, and there’s a quite muscular and joined-up regulator and legislator to wrestle with the challenges that represents. And we’re just not seeing that here.”

They are in Australia.

In addition to the News Bargaining Code and the just-signalled News Bargaining Incentive, the Albanese government is banning social media for under-16s. Meta has responded to pressure to combat financial scam advertising on Facebook.

Here, the media policy paralysis makes the government’s ferries plan look decisive. What should it do in 2025?

To-do in 2025
“There are fairly obvious things that could be done that are being done in other jurisdictions, even if it’s as simple as having a system of fines and giving the Commerce Commission the power to sort of scrutinise large technology platforms,” Greive told Mediawatch.

“You’ve got this general sense of malaise over the country and a government that’s looking for a narrative. It’s shocking when you see Australia, where it’s arguably the biggest political story — but here we’re just doing nothing.”

Not quite. There was the holiday ad reform legislation this week.

“Allowing broadcasting Christmas Day and Easter is a drop in the ocean that’s not going to materially change the outcome for any company here,” Kyne told Mediawatch.

“The Fair Digital News Bargaining bill was conceived three years ago and the world has changed immeasurably.

“You’ve seen Australia also put some really thoughtful white papers together on media regulation that really does bring a level of equality between the global platforms and the local media and to have them regulated under common legislation — a bit like an Ofcom operates in the UK, where both publishers and platforms, together are overseen and managed accordingly.

“That’s the type of thing we’re desperate for in New Zealand. If we don’t get reform over the next couple of years you are going to see more community newspapers or radio stations or other things no longer able to operate.”

Grieve was one of the media execs who pushed for Commerce Commission approval for media to bargain collectively with Google and Meta for news payments.

Backing the Bill – or starting again?
Local media executives, including Grieve, recently met behind closed doors to re-assess their strategy.

“Some major industry participants are still quite gung-ho with the legislation and think that Google is bluffing when it says that it will turn news off and break its agreements. And then you’ve got another group that think that they’re not bluffing, and that events have since overtaken [the legislation],” he said.

“The technology platforms have products that are always in motion. What they’re essentially saying — particularly to smaller countries like New Zealand — is: ‘You don’t really get to make laws. We decide what can and can’t be done’.

“And that’s quite a confronting thing for legislators. It takes quite a backbone and quite a lot of confidence to sort of stand up to that kind of pressure.”

The government just appointed a minister of rail to take charge of the current Cook Strait ferry crisis. Do we need a minister of social media or tech to take charge of policy on this part of the country’s infrastructure?

“We’ve had successive governments that want to be open to technology, and high growth businesses starting here.

“But so much of the internet is controlled by a small handful of platforms that can have an anti-competitive relationship with innovation in any kind of business that seeks to build on land that they consider theirs,” Greive said.

“A lot of what’s happened in Australia has come because the ACCC, their version of the Commerce Commission, has got a a unit which scrutinises digital platforms in much the same way that we do with telecommunications, the energy market and so on.

“Here there is just no one really paying attention. And as a result, we’re getting radically different products than they do in Australia.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Flashpoint” in a foreign news story usually brings to mind the Middle East or the border between North and South Korea. It is not a term usually associated with New Zealand but last week it was there in headline type.

News outlets around the world carried reports of the Hīkoi and protests against Act’s Treaty Principles Bill, with the overwhelming majority characterising the events as a serious deterioration in this country’s race relations.

The Associated Press report carried the headline “New Zealand’s founding treaty is at a flashpoint: Why are thousands protesting for Māori rights?”. That headline was replicated by press and broadcasting outlets across America, by Yahoo, by MSN, by X, by Voice of America, and by news organisations in Asia and Europe.

• READ MORE: Protest photographer John Miller records Hīkoi mō te Tiriti with his historic lens
• Other Hīkoi reports

Reuters’ story on the hikoi carried the headline: “Tens of thousands rally at New Zealand parliament against bill to alter indigenous rights”. That report also went around the world.

So, too, did the BBC, which reaches 300 million households worldwide: “Thousands flock to NZ capital in huge Māori protest”.

The Daily Mail’s website is given to headlines as long as one of Tolstoy’s novels and told the story in large type: “Tens of thousands of Māori protesters march in one of New Zealand’s biggest ever demonstrations over proposed bill that will strip them of ‘special rights’”. The Economist put it more succinctly: “Racial tensions boil over in New Zealand”.

In the majority of cases, the story itself made clear the Bill would not proceed into law but how many will recall more than the headline?

An even bleaker view
Readers of The New York Times were given an even bleaker view of this country by their Seoul-based reporter Yan Zhuang. He characterised New Zealand as a country that “veers sharply right”, electing a government that has undone the “compassionate, progressive politics” of Jacinda Ardern, who had been “a global symbol of anti-Trump liberalism”.

Critiquing the current government, The Times story stated: “In a country that has been celebrated for elevating the status of Māori, its indigenous people, it has challenged their rights and prominence of their culture and language in public life, driving a wedge into New Zealand society and setting off waves of protests.”

Christopher Luxon may have judged “limited” support for David Seymour’s highly divisive proposed legislation as a worthwhile price to pay for the numbers to give him a grip on power. For his part, Seymour may have seen the Bill as a way to play to his supporters and hopefully add to their number.

Did either man, however, consider the effect that one of the most cynical political ploys of recent times — giving oxygen to a proposal that has not a hope in hell of passing into law — would have on this country’s international reputation?

Last week’s international coverage did not do the damage. Those outlets were simply reporting what they observed happening here. If some of the language — “flashpoint” and “boiling over” — look emotive, how else should 42,000 people converging on the seat of government be interpreted?

The damage was done by the architect of the Bill and by the Prime Minister giving him far more freedom than he or his proposal deserve.

Nor will the reputational damage melt away, dispersing in as orderly manner like the superbly organised Hīkoi did last Tuesday. It will endure even beyond the six months pointlessly given to select committee hearings on the Bill.

Alerted to the story
International media have been alerted to the story and they will continue to follow it. Many have staff correspondents and stringers in this country or across the Tasman who will be closely monitoring events.

Australia’s ABC last week signalled ongoing protest and its story on the Treaty Principles Bill would have left Australians bewildered that a bill “with no path forward” could be allowed to cause so much discord.

“The Treaty Principles Bill may be doomed,” said the ABC’s Emily Clark, “but the path forward for race relations in New Zealand is now much less clear.”

So, too, is New Zealand’s international reputation as a country where the rights of its tangata whenua were indelibly recognised by those that followed them. Even though imperfectly applied, the relationship is far more constructive than that which many colonised countries have with their indigenous peoples.

We are held by many to be an example to others and that is part of the reason New Zealand has a position in the world that is out of proportion to its size and location.

Damage to that standing is a very high price to pay for giving a minor party a strong voice . . . one that will be heard a very long way away.

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 Knightly Views where this commentary was first published.

International media coverage of Aotearoa New Zealand’s national Hīkoi to Parliament has largely focused on the historic size of the turnout in Wellington yesterday and the wider contention between Māori and the Crown.

Some, including The New York Times, have also pointed out the recent swing right with the election of the coalition government as part of the reason for the unrest.

The Times article said New Zealand had veered “sharply right”, likening it to Donald Trump’s re-election.

• READ MORE: ‘What’s good for Māori is good for everyone’ – Hīkoi ends with peaceful protest
• Hīkoi day 9: Massive crowd joins as Treaty Principles Bill protest reaches Parliament
• Other Hīkoi reports

“New Zealand bears little resemblance to the country recently led by Jacinda Ardern, whose brand of compassionate, progressive politics made her a global symbol of anti-Trump liberalism.”

The challenging of the rights of Māori was “driving a wedge into New Zealand society”, the article said.

Coverage in The Guardian explained that the Treaty Principles Bill was unlikely to pass.

“However, it has prompted widespread anger among the public, academics, lawyers and Māori rights groups who believe it is creating division, undermining the treaty, and damaging the relationship between Māori and ruling authorities,” it said.

‘Critical moment’
Turkey’s public broadcaster TRT World said New Zealand “faces a critical moment in its journey toward reconciling with its Indigenous population”.

New Zealand MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke performed a haka in a powerful speech during her first appearance in parliament.

Maipi-Clarke is Aotearoa’s youngest MP since 1853 and is seen as representing the ‘kohanga reo’ generation of young Māori. pic.twitter.com/sWwbS1FsBI

— NoComment (@nocomment) January 5, 2024

While Al Jazeera agreed it was “a contentious bill redefining the country’s founding agreement between the British and the Indigenous Māori people”.

The Washington Post pointed out that the “bill is deeply unpopular, even among members of the ruling conservative coalition”.

“While the bill would not rewrite the treaty itself, it would essentially extend it equally to all New Zealanders, which critics say would effectively render the treaty worthless,” the article said.

The Hīkoi, and particularly the culmination of more than 42,000 people at Parliament, was covered in most of the mainstream international media outlets including Britain’s BBC and CNN in the United States, as well as wire agencies, including AFP, AP and Reuters.

Across the Ditch, the ABC headline called it a “flashpoint” on race relations. While the article went on to say it was “a critical moment in the fraught 180-year-old conversation about how New Zealand should honour the promises made to First Nations people when the country was colonised”.

Most of the articles also linked back to Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s haka in Parliament which also garnered significant international attention.

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

Fijian newsrooms are under pressure to adapt as audiences shift away from traditional media such as newspapers, radio, and television, in favour of Facebook and other social media platforms.

Asia Foundation research showed that Fijians ranked Facebook as their third most significant source of information about covid-19 during the pandemic, surpassing newspapers and “word of mouth”, despite recognising social media as their least trusted choice.

Radio and television still exceeded Facebook, but surveys during the pandemic reveal the increasing significance of Facebook and other social media, such as Twitter, YouTube and TikTok as widely used sources of news, particularly for Fijians younger than 45.

• READ MORE: Other QUT Project journalism reports

A survey revealed that of Fiji’s 924,610 population, 551,000 were social media users in January 2023. Facebook, the country’s most popular platform, limits access to people aged 13 and older. Of those eligible in Fiji to create an account in 2023, 71 percent used Facebook.

Australian National University researcher Jope Tarai attributes the rise in social media usage in the 2010s to the 2006 coup and subsequent change in Fijian leadership, suggesting it “cultivated a culture of self-censorship”.

“The constrained political context saw the emergence of blogging as a means of disseminating restricted information that would have conventionally informed news reporting,” Tarai says.

Tarai says concerns about credibility of blogs meant this avenue was replaced by Facebook, “which was more interactive, accessible via handheld devices and instantaneous”.

Increased media freedom
With the increased media freedoms that have arisen following Fiji’s change in government at the end of 2022, newspapers and other traditional newsrooms should be poised to reassert themselves, but they face significant challenges due to the global shift in how people consume information.

As audiences migrate to newer digital platforms, newsrooms that have traditionally depended on physical newspaper sales and advertising revenue are now under increasing pressure to adapt.

Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley says news outlets are struggling to capture the attention of younger audiences through conventional formats, prompting a shift towards social media platforms to enhance audience engagement and boost traffic.

“Young people are not going to news websites or reading physical papers,” he says. “Young people are getting their news from social media.”

The University of the South Pacific’s technical editor and digital communication officer, Eliki Drugunalevu, says he has observed a growing preference among the general Fijian population for receiving news through social media as opposed to traditional outlets.

“When people refer to a certain news item that came out that day or even the previous day, they just go to their social media pages and search for that news item or even go to the social media page of that particular news outlet to read/access that story,” he says.

Drugunalevu identifies two contributors to this shift.

‘At your fingertips’
“Everything is just at your fingertips, easily accessible,” he says. “Internet charges in Fiji are affordable now so that you can pretty much be online 24/7.”

Newsrooms across Fiji are not oblivious to this shift. Editors and journalists are recalibrating their strategies to meet the demands of a digital audience.

Islands Business managing editor Samantha Magick says the abundance of readily available online content has resulted in young people refraining from paying for it.

“I think there’s a generational shift. My daughter would never pay for any news, would never buy a newspaper to start with. She would probably never think about paying for media, unless its Netflix,” she says.

However, Magick believes social media can be leveraged to fulfil evolving audience demands while offering fresh advantages to her organisation.

“Social media for us is a funnel to get people to our website or to subscribe,” she says. “Facebook is still huge in the region, not just in Fiji [and] that’s where a lot of community discussions are happening, so it’s a source as well as a platform for us.”

Magick says incorporating social media in her organisation requires her to stay more vigilant on analytics, as it significantly influences her decision-making processes.

‘Understanding content’s landing’
“There’s all that sort of analytic stuff that I feel now I have to be much more across whereas before it was just generating the content. Now it’s understanding how that content’s landing, who’s seeing it, making decisions based on that,” she says.

Fiji TV digital media specialist Edna Low says social media data analytics like engagement and click-through rates provide valuable insight into audience preferences, behaviours and demographics.

“Social media platforms often dictate what topics are trending and what content resonates with audiences, which can shape editorial decisions and coverage priorities,” she says.

Fiji TV’s director of news, current affairs and sports, Felix Chaudhary, echoes this.

“We realise the critical importance of engaging with our viewers and potential viewers via online platforms,” he says. “All our new recruits/interns have to be internet and social media savvy.”

Transitioning his organisation to a fully online model is the path forward in the digital era, Chaudhary says.

“Like the world’s biggest news services, we are looking in the next five to ten years to transitioning from traditional TV broadcast to streaming all our news and shows,” he says. “The world is already moving towards that, and we just have to follow suit or get left behind.”

As TikTok gains increasing popularity among younger Fijians and social platforms introduce initiatives to combat misinformation, it seems possible that social media could snatch the top spot for Fijian’s primary news source.

It is clear that newsrooms and journalists must either navigate the evolving digital trends and preferences of audiences or risk becoming old news.

Catrin Gardiner contributed research to this story. Georgia Brown and Catrin Gardiner were student journalists from the Queensland University of Technology who travelled to Fiji with the support of the Australian Government’s New Colombo Plan Mobility Programme. This article is published in a partnership of QUT with Asia Pacific Report, Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) and The University of the South Pacific.

A media studies professor at Qatar’s Doha Institute for Graduate Studies has completed empirical studies examining Western media coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza — and his findings have been highly critical.

Professor Mohamad Elmasry found that Western media have failed to do much more than “parrot Israeli propaganda regarding al-Shifa Hospital [in Gaza City] and the war more generally”.

Western news outlets, such as BBC, CNN, Sky News, MSNBC, Fox News — and others that are frequent sources of news in New Zealand — “tended to rely overwhelmingly on Israeli and pro-Israeli sources,” he told Al Jazeera.

• READ MORE: Israel kills the journalists. Western media kills the truth of genocide in Gaza
• Failing Gaza: Behind the lens of Western media – Listening Post
• Other Israel’s war on Gaza reports

“Palestinian sources were mostly neglected as were pro-Palestinian sources.

“It’s not a conspiracy; it’s not as though journalists are showing up to work and saying, ‘we’re really going to make the Israelis look good today’.

“But there is a structural problem [in the media] today,” Dr Elmasry added.

“Western news organisations simply do not get Israel-Palestine right.”

US ‘scoffs’ at international law
In a separate interview yesterday, Dr Elmasry blamed the United States for ignoring international law to lead the world to “where we are” over the ongoing Gaza genocide with no end in sight.

“About 95 percent of Israel’s weapons come from the United States and Germany, so as long as those countries scoff at the idea of international law, we won’t get anywhere with the calls for an arms embargo against Israel,” Dr Elmasry said.

Professor Mohamad Elmasry on why there is a stalemate over Gaza genocide. Video: Al Jazeera

“There has been a suggestion that there might be a draft resolution put forward at the United Nations Security Council,” he added.

“There is no question in my mind that nearly all of the countries on the Security Council would support that resolution”.

All countries except for the US, Dr Elmasry added.

“There is also no question in my mind that the United States would veto it, so one of the reasons why we are where we are is because of the United States.”

Press freedom is a pillar of American democracy. But political attacks on US-based journalists and news organisations pose an unprecedented threat to their safety and the integrity of information.

Less than 48 hours before election day, Donald Trump, now President-elect for a second term, told a rally of his supporters that he wouldn’t mind if someone shot the journalists in front of him.

“I have this piece of glass here, but all we have really over here is the fake news. And to get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. And I don’t mind that so much,” he said.

• READ MORE: Disarming disinformation, empowering truth

A new survey from the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) highlights a disturbing tolerance for political bullying of the press in the land of the First Amendment. The findings show that this is especially true among white, male, Republican voters.

We commissioned this nationally representative survey of 1020 US adults, which was fielded between June 24 and July 5 2024, to assess Americans’ attitudes to the press ahead of the election. We are publishing the results here for the first time.

More than one-quarter (27 percent) of the Americans we polled said they had often seen or heard a journalist being threatened, harassed or abused online. And more than one-third (34 percent) said they thought it was appropriate for senior politicians and government officials to criticise journalists and news organisations.

Tolerance for political targeting of the press appears as polarised as American society. Nearly half (47 percent) of the Republicans surveyed approved of senior politicians critiquing the press, compared to less than one-quarter (22 percent) of Democrats.

Our analysis also revealed divisions according to gender and ethnicity. While 37 percent of white-identifying respondents thought it was appropriate for political leaders to target journalists and news organisations, only 27 percent of people of colour did. There was also a nine-point difference along gender lines, with 39 percent of men approving of this conduct, compared to 30 percent of women.

It appears intolerance towards the press has a face — a predominantly white, male and Republican-voting face.

Press freedom fears
This election campaign, Trump has repeated his blatantly false claim that journalists are “enemies of the people”. He has suggested that reporters who cross him should be jailed, and signalled that he would like to revoke broadcast licences of networks.

Relevant, too, is the enabling environment for viral attacks on journalists created by unregulated social media companies which represent a clear threat to press freedom and the safety of journalists. Previous research produced by ICFJ for Unesco concluded that there was a causal relationship between online violence towards women journalists and physical attacks.

While political actors may be the perpetrators of abuse targeting journalists, social media companies have facilitated their viral spread, heightening the risk to journalists.

We’ve seen a potent example of this in the current campaign, when Haitian Times editor Macollvie J. Neel was “swatted” — meaning police were dispatched to her home after a fraudulent report of a murder at the address — during an episode of severely racist online violence.

The trigger? Her reporting on Trump and JD Vance amplifying false claims that Haitian immigrants were eating their neighbours’ pets.

Trajectory of Trump attacks
Since the 2016 election, Trump has repeatedly discredited independent reporting on his campaign. He has weaponised the term “fake news” and accused the media of “rigging” elections.

“The election is being rigged by corrupt media pushing completely false allegations and outright lies in an effort to elect [Hillary Clinton] president,” he said in 2016. With hindsight, such accusations foreshadowed his false claims of election fraud in 2020, and similar preemptive claims in 2024.

His increasingly virulent attacks on journalists and news organisations are amplified by his supporters online and far-right media. Trump has effectively licensed attacks on American journalists through anti-press rhetoric and undermined respect for press freedom.

In 2019, the Committee to Protect Journalists found that more than 11 percent of 5400 tweets posted by Trump between the date of his 2016 candidacy and January 2019 “. . . insulted or criticised journalists and outlets, or condemned and denigrated the news media as a whole”.

After being temporarily deplatformed from Twitter for breaching community standards, Trump launched Truth Social, where he continues to abuse his critics uninterrupted. But he recently rejoined the platform (now X), and held a series of campaign events with X owner and Trump backer Elon Musk.

The failed insurrection on January 6, 2021, rammed home the scale of the escalating threats facing American journalists. During the riots at the Capitol, at least 18 journalists were assaulted and reporting equipment valued at tens of thousands of dollars was destroyed.

This election cycle, Reporters Without Borders logged 108 instances of Trump insulting, attacking or threatening the news media in public speeches or offline remarks over an eight-week period ending on October 24.

Meanwhile, the Freedom of the Press Foundation has recorded 75 assaults on journalists since January 1 this year. That’s a 70 percent increase on the number of assaults captured by their press freedom tracker in 2023.

A recent survey of hundreds of journalists undertaking safety training provided by the International Women’s Media Foundation found that 36 percent of respondents reported being threatened with or experiencing physical violence. One-third reported exposure to digital violence, and 28 percent reported legal threats or action against them.

US journalists involved in ongoing ICFJ research have told us that they have felt particularly at risk covering Trump rallies and reporting on the election from communities hostile towards the press. Some are wearing protective flak jackets to cover domestic politics. Others have removed labels identifying their outlets from their reporting equipment to reduce the risk of being physically attacked.

And yet, our survey reveals a distinct lack of public concern about the First Amendment implications of political leaders threatening, harassing, or abusing journalists. Nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of Americans surveyed did not regard political attacks on journalists or news organisations as a threat to press freedom. Among them, 38 percent identified as Republicans compared to just 9 percent* as Democrats.

The anti-press playbook
Trump’s anti-press playbook appeals to a global audience of authoritarians. Other political strongmen, from Brazil to Hungary and the Philippines, have adopted similar tactics of deploying disinformation to smear and threaten journalists and news outlets.

Such an approach imperils journalists while undercutting trust in facts and critical independent journalism.

History shows that fascism thrives when journalists cannot safely and freely do the work of holding governments and political leaders to account. As our research findings show, the consequences are a society accepting lies and fiction as facts while turning a blind eye to attacks on the press.

*The people identifying as Democrats in this sub-group are too few to make this a reliable representative estimate.

Note: Nabeelah Shabbir (ICFJ deputy director of research) and Kaylee Williams (ICFJ research associate) also contributed to this article and the research underpinning it. The survey was conducted by Langer Research Associates in English and Spanish. ICFJ researchers co-developed the survey and conducted the analysis.

Dr Julie Posetti, Global Director of Research, International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) and Professor of Journalism, City St George’s, University of London and Waqas Ejaz, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Oxford Climate Journalism Network, University of Oxford. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Published in the Christchurch Star newspaper yesterday — this was the advert rejected last week by Stuff, New Zealand’s major news website, by an editorial management which apparently thinks pro-Israel sympathies are more important than the industrial-scale slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza and Lebanon.

Stuff told the Palestinian Solidarity Movement Aotearoa (PSNA) on Thursday last week it would not print this full-page “genocide in their own words” advertisement which had been booked and paid to go in all Stuff newspapers this week.

Stuff gave no “official” reason for banning the advert about Israel’s war in Gaza aside from saying they would not do so “while the ongoing conflict is developing”.

• READ MORE: UN inquiry accuses Israel of crime of ‘extermination’ in Gaza
• Stop telling us porkies – appeal to NZ media to stop reporting debunked Israeli war propaganda as though it was true – John Minto
• One year of Israel’s war on Gaza: Key moments since October 7

It seems that for Stuff, pro-Israel sympathies are more important that Palestinian realities.

It’s worth pointing out that Stuff has, over many years, printed full page advertisements from a Christian Zionist, Pastor Nigel Woodley, from Hastings.

Woodley’s advertisements have been full of the most egregious, fanciful, misinformation and anti-Palestinian racism.

Our advertisement on the other hand is 100 percent factual and speaks truth to power – demanding the New Zealand government hold Israel to account for its war crimes and 76-years of brutal military occupation of Palestine.

• We would like the public to judge our advertisement – it is online here in the Christchurch Star on Page 9.

Two open letters on the genocidal Israeli war against Palestine sent to The Press for publication have been ignored in the continued Aotearoa New Zealand media silence over 11 months of atrocities.

Both letters have been sent to the Christchurch morning daily newspaper by the co-presenter of the Plains FM community radio programme Earthwise, Lois Griffiths.

The first letter had been “sent . . .  in time for it to be published on 29 August 2024. the anniversary of the Palestinian political cartoonist Naji al-Ali‘s murder”, Griffiths said.

• READ MORE: How Naji al-Ali’s cartoon ‘Handala’ became an emblem of Palestinian resistance
• Handala, a pivotal ship in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla
• The Earthwise programme on Plains FM

A protest boat aimed at breaking the illegal Israeli siege of Gaza, Handala, is named after a cartoon boy created by the cartoonist.

On board the Handala, currently in the Mediterranean ready to break the siege with humanitarian aid for the Palestinians, are two New Zealand-Palestinian crew, Rana Hamida and Youssef Sammour.

Yet even this fact doesn’t make the letter newsworthy enough for publication.

Griffiths sent Naji al-Ali’s cartoon figure Handala with the letter to The Press. The open letter:

Dear Editor,

The situation in Gaza is so very very disturbing . . .  those poor people . . . those poor men, women and CHILDREN.

How many readers are aware that 2 New Zealanders are on a boat that hopes to take aid to Gaza. Maybe the brave actions of those 2 Kiwis, joined by other international volunteers, of trying to break the siege of Gaza, will rally the rest of the world to finally stop looking away.

They are on a very special boat, a boat with a name chosen to fit the occasion, the Handala.

Handala is the name chosen by the Palestinian political cartoonist Naji al-Ali, for a cartoon refugee boy who stands with his back to the reader, in the corner of his political cartoons.

Handala witnesses the suffering inflicted on his people.

We have a book of al-Ali’s drawings, A Child in Palestine.

Naji al-Ali was well-loved by the Palestinians for using his skills to share, with the world, stories of what the people had to endure.

On 29 August 1987, the cartoonist died after being shot in London by an unknown assailant.

Yet the memory of Naji al-Ali survives.

The memory of Handala survives. He represents the Palestinian children. And the boat named Handala is sailing for the children of Gaza.

Yours
Lois Griffiths

When Governments Fail, We Sail.         Video: Push Pull/Gaza Freedom Flotilla

South Africa then, why not Israel now?
In the other letter sent to The Press a week ago, Lois Griffiths, in time for the opening of the UN General Assembly on September 8, she urged the New Zealand government to call for the suspension of Israel.

Not published, yet another example of New Zealand mainstream newspapers’ blind responses and hypocrisy over community views on the Gaza genocide?

Dear Editor,

Tuesday of this week, 08 September, is the date for the opening of UNGA, the UN General Assembly.

In 1974, South Africa was suspended from the UN General Assembly after being successfully charged by the ICJ, International Court of Justice, of apartheid. This move isolated South Africa and was very effective in leading to the collapse of the apartheid regime.

Now, the democratic regime of South Africa has taken a case to the ICJ [International Criminal Court] charging Israel with genocide. In an interim judgment, the ICJ has broadly supported South Africa’s case.

The situation in Gaza is so vile now: the bombing, the targeting of residences, schools and hospitals, the lack of protection from disease, the huge numbers of bodies lying under rubble. And now, violence against the Palestinians in the West Bank is on the increase.

Where is humanity? What does it mean to be human?

A step that would certainly help to slow down the genocide, would be for Israel to be suspended from the UN General Assembly.

Please New Zealand. Call for the suspension of Israel from the UNGA.

NOW!!

Yours,
Lois Griffiths

In July 2014, shortly after the kickoff of Israel’s “Operation Protective Edge” in the Gaza Strip — a 51-day affair that ultimately killed 2251 Palestinians, including 551 children — Danish journalist Nikolaj Krak penned a dispatch from Israel for the Copenhagen-based Kristeligt Dagblad newspaper.

Describing the scene on a hill on the outskirts of the Israeli city of Sderot near the Gaza border, Krak noted that the area had been “transformed into something that most closely resembles the front row of a reality war theatre”.

Israelis had “dragged camping chairs and sofas” to the hilltop, where some spectators sat “with crackling bags of popcorn”, while others partook of hookahs and cheerful banter.

• READ MORE: ‘Poisoned negotiations’: Hamas rejects media reports it set new conditions

Fiery, earth-shaking air strikes on Gaza across the way were met with cheers and “solid applause”.

To be sure, Israelis have always enjoyed a good murderous spectacle — which is hardly surprising for a nation whose very existence is predicated on mass slaughter. But as it turns out, the applause is not quite so solid when Israeli lives are caught up in the explosive apocalyptic display.

For the past 11 months, Israel’s “reality war theatre” has offered a view of all-out genocide in the Gaza Strip, where the official death toll has reached nearly 41,000.

A July Lancet study found that the true number of deaths may well top 186,000 — and that is only if the killing ends soon.

Protests for hostage deal
Now, massive protests have broken out across Israel demanding that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enact a ceasefire and hostage deal to free the remaining 100 or so Israeli captives held in Gaza.

Last week, when the Israeli military recovered the bodies of six captives, CNN reported that some 700,000 protesters had taken to the streets across the country. And on Monday, a general strike spearheaded by Israel’s primary labour union succeeded in shutting much of the economy down for several hours.

Although certain wannabe peaceniks among the international commentariat have blindly attributed the protests to a desire to end the bloodshed, the fact of the matter is that Palestinian blood is not high on the list of concerns.

Rather, the only lives that matter in the besieged, pulverised, and genocide-stricken Gaza Strip are the lives of the captives — whose captivity, it bears underscoring, is entirely a result of Israeli policy and Israel’s unceasing sadistic treatment of Palestinians.

As Israeli analyst Nimrod Flaschenberg recently commented to Al Jazeera regarding the aims of the current protests, “the issue of returning the hostages is centre stage”.

Acknowledging that “an understanding that a deal would also mean an end to the conflict is there, but rarely stated”, Flaschenberg emphasised that “as far as the protests’ leadership goes, no, it’s all about the hostages”.

The captives, then, have assumed centre stage in Israel’s latest bout of blood-soaked war theatrics, while for some Israelis the present genocide is evidently not nearly genocidal enough.

Press a button for ‘wipe out’
During a recent episode of the popular English-language Israeli podcast “Two Nice Jewish Boys”, the podcasting duo in question suggested that it would be cool to just press a button and wipe out “every single living being in Gaza” as well as in the West Bank.

Time to break out the popcorn and hookahs.

At the end of the day, the disproportionate value assigned to the lives of the Israeli captives in Gaza vis-à-vis the lives of the Palestinians who are being annihilated is of a piece with Israel’s trademark chauvinism.

This outlook casts Israelis as the perennial victims of Palestinian “terrorism” even as Palestinians are consistently massacred at astronomically higher rates by the Israeli military.

During Operation Protective Edge in 2014, for example, no more than six Israeli civilians were killed. And yet Israel maintained its monopoly on victimisation.

In June of this year, the Israeli army undertook a rescue operation in Gaza that freed four captives but reportedly killed 210 Palestinians in the process — no doubt par for the disproportionate course.

Meanwhile, following the recovery of the bodies of the six captives last week, Netanyahu blamed Hamas for their demise, declaring: “Whoever murders hostages doesn’t want a deal.”

General consensus over Israeli life
But what about “whoever” continues to preside over a genocide while assassinating the top ceasefire negotiator for Hamas and sabotaging prospects for a deal at every turn?

As the protests now demonstrate, many Israelis are on to Netanyahu. But the issue with the protests is that genocide is not the issue.

Even among Netanyahu’s detractors, there persists a general consensus as to the unilateral sacrosanctity of Israeli life, which translates into the assumption of an inalienable right to slaughter Palestinians.

And as the latest episode of Israel’s “reality war theatre” drags on — with related Israeli killing sprees available for viewing in the West Bank and Lebanon, too — this show is really getting old.

One would hope Israeli audiences will eventually tire of it all and walk out, but for the time being bloodbaths are a guaranteed blockbuster.

Belén Fernández is the author of Inside Siglo XXI: Locked Up in Mexico’s Largest Immigration Detention Center (OR Books, 2022), Checkpoint Zipolite: Quarantine in a Small Place (OR Books, 2021), and Martyrs Never Die: Travels through South Lebanon (Warscapes, 2016). She writes for numerous publications and this article was first published by Al Jazeera.

INTERVIEW: John Menadue talks with Michael Lester

Michael Lester: Hello again listeners to Community Radio Northern Beaches Community Voices and also the Pearls and Irritations podcast. I’m Michael Lester.

Our guest today is the publisher and founder of the Pearls and Irritations Public Policy online journal, the celebrated John Menadue, with whom we’ll be so pleased to have a discussion today. John has a long and high profile experience in both the public service, for which he’s been awarded the Order of Australia and also in business.

As a public servant, he was secretary of a number of departments over the years, prime minister and cabinet under a couple of different prime ministers, immigration and ethnic affairs, special minister of state and the Department of Trade and also Ambassador to Japan.

• READ MORE: Other Pearls and Irritations articles

And in his private sector career, he was a general manager at News Corp and the chief executive of Qantas. These are just among many of his considerable activities.

These days, as I say, he’s a publisher, public commentator, writer, and we’re absolutely delighted to welcome you here to Radio Northern Beaches and the P&I podcast, John.

John Menadue: Thank you, Michael. Thanks for the welcome and for what you’ve had to say about Pearls and Irritations. My wife says that she’s the Pearl and I’m the Irritation.

ML: You launched, I think, P&I, what, 2013 or 2011; anyway, you’ve been going a long while. And I noticed the other day you observed that you’d published some 20,000 items on Pearls and Irritations to do with public policy. That’s an amazing achievement itself as an independent media outlet in Australia, isn’t it?

JM: I’m quite pleased with it and so is Susie, my wife. We started 13 years ago and we did everything. I used to write all the stories and Susie handled the technical, admin, financial matters, but it’s grown dramatically since then. We now contract some of the work to people that can help us in editorial, in production and IT. It’s achieving quite a lot of influence among ministers, politicians, journalists and other opinion leaders in the community.

We’re looking now at what the future holds. I’m 89 and Susie, my wife, is not in good health. So we’re looking at new governance arrangements, a public company with outside directors so that we can continue Pearls and Irritations well into the future.

This is one of your themes and motivations with Pearls and Irritations as a public policy journal, isn’t it? That our mainstream media perhaps don’t do the job they might do in covering significant issues of public policy?

JM: That’s our hope and intention, but I’m afraid some of them are just incorrigible. They in fact act as stenographers to powerful interests.

It’s quite a shame what mainstream media is serving up today, propaganda for the United States, so focused on America.Occasionally we get nonsense about the British royal family or some irrelevant feature like that.

But we’re very badly served. Our media shows very little interest in our own region. It is ignorant and prejudiced against China. It is not concerned about our relations with Indonesia, with the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam.

It’s all focused on the United States.We’re seeing it on an enormous scale now with the US elections. Even the ABC has a Planet America programme.

It’s so much focused on America as if we’re an island parked off New York. We are being Americanised in so many areas and particularly in our media.

ML: What has led to this state of affairs in the way that mainstream media treats major public policy issues these days? It hasn’t always been like that or has it?

JM: We’ve been a country that’s been frightened of our region, the countries where we have to make our future. And we’ve turned first to the United Kingdom as a protector. That ended in tears in Singapore.

And now we turn to the United States to look after us in this dangerous world, rather than making our own way as an independent country in our own region. That fear of our region, racism, white Australia, yellow peril all feature in Australia and in our media.

But when we had good, strong leaders, for example, Malcolm Fraser on refugees, he gave leadership and our role in the region.

Gough Whitlam did it also. If we have strong leadership, we can break from our focus on the United States at the expense of our own region. In the end, we’ve got to decide that as we live in this region, we’ve got to prosper in this region.

Security in our region, not from our region. We can do it, but I’m afraid that we’ve been retreating from Asia dreadfully over the last two or three decades. I thought when we had a Labor government, things would be different, but they’re not.

We are still frightened of our own region and embracing at every opportunity, the United States.

ML: Another theme of the many years of publishing Pearls and Irritations is that you are concerned to rebuild some degree of public confidence and trust that has been lost in the political system and that you seek to provide a platform for good policy discussion with the emphasis being on public policy. How has the public policy process been undermined or become so narrow minded if that’s one way of describing it?

JM: Contracting out work to private contractors, the big four accounting firms, getting advice, and not trusting the public service has meant that the quality of our public service has declined considerably. That has to be rebuilt so we get better policy development.

Ministers have been responsible, particularly Scott Morrison, for downgrading the public service and believing somehow or other that better advice can be obtained in the private sector.

Another factor has been the enormous growth in the power of lobbyists for corporate Australia and for foreign companies as well. Ministers have become beholden to pressure from powerful lobby groups.

One particular example, with which I’m quite familiar is in the health field. We are never likely to have real improvements in Medicare, for example, unless the government is prepared to take on the power of lobbyists — the providers, the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies in Australia.

But it’s not just in health where lobbyists are causing so much damage. The power of lobbyists has discredited the role of governments that are seduced by powerful interests rather than serving the community.

The media have just entrenched this problem. Governments are criticised at every opportunity. Australia can be served by the media taking a more positive view about the importance of good policy development and not getting sidetracked all the time about some trivial personal political issue.

The media publish the handouts of the lobbyists, whether it’s the health industry or whether it’s in the fossil fuel industries. These are the main factors that have contributed to the lack of confidence and the lack of trust in good government in Australia.

ML: A particular editorial focus that’s evident in Pearls and Irritations is promoting, I think in your words, a peaceful dialogue and engagement with China. Why is this required and why do you put it forward as a particularly important part of what you see as the mission of your Pearls and Irritations public policy journal?

JM; China, is our largest market and will continue to be so. There is a very jaundiced view, particularly from the United States, which we then copy, that China is a great threat. It’s not a threat to Australia and it’s not a threat to the United States homeland.

But it is to a degree a threat, a competitive threat to the United States in economy and trade. America didn’t worry about China when it was poor, but now that it’s strong militarily, economically and in technology, America is very concerned and feels that its future, its own leadership, its hegemony in the world is being contested.

Unfortunately, Australia has allowed itself to be drawn into the American contest with China.  It’s one provocation after another. If it’s not within China itself, it’s on Taiwan, human rights in Hong Kong. Every opportunity is found by the United States to provoke China, if possible, and lead it into war.

I think, frankly, China will be more careful than that.

China’s problem is that it’s successful. And that’s what America cannot accept. By comparison, China does not make the military threat to other countries that the United States presents.

America is the most violent, aggressive country in the world. The greatest threat to peace in the world is the United States and we’re seeing that particularly now expressed in Israel and in Gaza.

But there’s a history. America’s almost always at war and has been since its independence in 1776. By contrast, China doesn’t have that sort of record and history. It is certainly concerned about security on its borders, and it has borders with 14 countries.

But it doesn’t project its power like the US. It doesn’t bomb other countries like the United States. It doesn’t have military bases surrounding the United States.

The United States has about 800 bases around the world. It’s not surprising that China feels threatened by what the United States is doing. And until the United States comes to a sensible, realistic view about China and deals with it politically, I think they’re going to make continual problems for us.

We have this dichotomy that China is our major trading partner but it’s seen by many as a strategic threat. I think that is a mistake.

ML: But what about your views about the public policy process underlying Australia’s policy in reaching the positions that we’re taking vis-a-vis China?

JM: There are several reasons for it, but I think the major one is that Australian governments, the previous government and now this one, takes the advice of intelligence agencies rather than the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Our intelligence agencies are part of Five Eyes. Of the international intelligence which comes to Australian agencies, 90 percent comes from the CIA and related US intelligence agencies. So in effect we’ve had the colonisation of our intelligence agencies and they’re the ones that the Australian government listens to.

Very senior people in those agencies have direct access to the Prime Minister. He listens to them rather than to Penny Wong or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. On most public issues involving China, the Department of Foreign Affairs has become a wallflower.

It’s a great tragedy because so much of our future in the region depends on good diplomacy with China, with the ASEAN, with the countries of our region.

Those intelligence agencies in Australia, together with American funded, military funded organisations such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute have the ear of governments. They’ve also got the ear of the media.

Stories are leaked to the media all the time from those agencies in order to heighten our fear of the region. The Americanisation of Australia is widespread. But our intelligence agencies have been Americanised as well, and they’re leading us down a very dangerous path.

ML: I’m speaking with our guest today on Reno Northern Beaches Community Voices and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast with the publisher of Pearls and Irritations Public Policy Journal, John Menadue, distinguished Australian public servant and businessman.

John, again, it’s one thing to talk about that, but governments, when they change, and we’ve had a change of government recently, very often, as I’m sure you know from personal experience, have the opportunity and do indeed change their advisors and adopt different policies, and one might have expected this to happen.

Why didn’t we see a change of the guard like we saw a change of government?

JM: I think this government is timid on almost everything. It was timid from day one on administrative arrangements, departmental arrangements, heads of departments.

For example, there was no change made to dismantle the Department of Home Affairs with Michael Pezzullo. That should have happened on day one, but it didn’t happen.

Concerns we’ve had in migration, the role of foreign affairs and intelligence with all those intelligence agencies gathered together in one department has been very bad for Australia.

Very few changes were made in the leadership of our intelligence agencies, the Office of National Assessments, in ASIO. The same advice has been continued. In almost every area you can look at, the government has been timid, unprepared to take on vested interests, lobbyists, and change departments to make them more attuned to what the government wants to do.

But the government doesn’t want to upset anyone. And as a result, we’re having a continuation of badly informed ministers and departments that have really not been effectively changed to meet the requirements and needs of, what I thought was a reforming government.

ML: In that context, AUKUS and the nuclear submarine deal might be perhaps a case in point of the broader issues and points you’re making. How would you characterise the nature of the public policy process and decision behind AUKUS? How were the decisions made and in what manner?

JM: By political appointees and confidants of Morrison. There’s been no public discussion. There’s been no public statement by Morrison or by Albanese about AUKUS — its history, why we’re doing it.

It’s been left to briefings of journalists and others. I think it’s disgraceful what’s happened in that area. It’s time the Australian government spelled out to us what it all means, but it’s not going to do it. Because I believe the case is so threadbare that it’s not game to put it to the public test.

And so we’re continuing in this ludicrous arrangement, this fiscal calamity, which Morrison inflicted on the Albanese government which it hasn’t been game to contest.

My own view is that frankly, AUKUS will never happen. It is so absurd — the delay, the cost, the failure of submarine construction or the delays in the United States, the problems of the submarine construction and maintenance in the United Kingdom.

For all those sorts of reasons, I don’t think it’ll really happen. Unfortunately, we’re going to waste a lot of money and a lot of time. I don’t think the Department of Defence could run any major project, certainly not a project like this.

Defence has been unsuccessful in the frigate and numerous other programmes. Our Department of Defence really is not up to the job and that among other reasons gives me reason to believe, and hope frankly, that AUKUS will collapse under its own stupidity.

But what I think is of more concern is the real estate, which we are freely leasing to the Americans. We had it first with the Marines in Darwin. We have it also coming now with US B-52 aircraft based out of Tindal in the Northern Territory and the submarine base in Perth, Western Australia.

These bases are being made available to the United States with very little control by Australia. The government carries on with nonsense about how our sovereignty will be protected.

In fact, it won’t be protected. If there’s any difficulties, for example, over a war with China over Taiwan, and the Americans are involved, there is no way Americans will consult with us about whether they can use nuclear armed vessels out of Tindal, for example.

The Americans will insist that Pine Gap continues to operate. So we are locked in through ceding so much of our real estate and the sovereignty that goes with it.

Penny Wong has been asked about American aircraft out of Tindal, carrying nuclear weapons and she says to us, sorry but the Americans won’t confirm or deny what they do.

Good heavens, this is our territory. This is our sovereignty. And we won’t even ask the Americans operating out of Tindal, whether they’re carrying nuclear weapons.

Back in the days of Malcolm Fraser, he made a statement to the Parliament insisting that no vessels or aircraft carrying nuclear weapons or ships carrying nuclear weapons could access Australian ports or operate over Australia without the permission of the Australian government.

And now Penny Wong says, we won’t ask. You can do what you like. We know the US won’t confirm or deny.

When it came to the Solomon Islands, a treaty that the Solomons negotiated with China on strategic and defence matters, Penny Wong was very upset about this secret agreement. There should be transparency, she warned.

But that’s small fry, compared with the fact that the Australian government will allow United States aircraft to operate out of Tindal without the Australian government knowing whether they are carrying nuclear weapons. I think that’s outrageous.

ML: Notwithstanding many of the very technical and economic and other discussions around the nuclear submarine’s acquisition, it does seem that politically, at least, and not least from the media presentation of our policy position that we’re very clearly signing up with our US allies against contingency attacks on Taiwan that we would be committed to take a part in and we’re also moving very closely, to well the phrase is interoperability, with the US forces and equipment but also personnel too.

You mentioned earlier, intelligence personnel and I believe there’s a lot of US personnel in the Department of Defence too?

JM: That’s right. It’s just another example of Americanisation which is reflected in our intelligence agencies, Department of Defence, interchangeability of our military forces, the fusion of our military or particularly our Navy with the United States. It’s all becoming one fused enterprise with the United States.

And in any difficulties, we would not be able, as far as I can see, to disengage from what the United States is doing. And we would be particularly vulnerable because of the AUKUS submarines. That’s if they ever come to anything. Because the AUKUS submarines, we are told, would operate off the Chinese coast to attack Chinese submarines or somehow provide intelligence for the Americans and for us.

These submarines will not be nuclear armed, which means that in the event of a conflict, we would have no bargaining or no counter to China. We’d be the weak link in the alliance with the United States.

China will not be prepared to strike the mainland United States for fear of massive retaliation. We are the weak link with Pine Gap and other real estate that I mentioned. We would be making ourselves much more vulnerable by this association with the United States.

Those AUKUS submarines will provide no deterrence for us, but make us more vulnerable if a conflict arises in which we are effectively part of the US military operation.

ML: How would you characterise the mainstream media’s presentation and treatment of these issues?

JM: The mainstream media is very largely a mouthpiece for Washington propaganda. And that American propaganda is pushed out through the legacy media, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the news agencies, Fox News which in turn are influenced by the military/ business complex which Eisenhower warned us about years ago.

The power of those groups with the CIA and the influence that they have, means that they overwhelm our media. That’s reflected particularly in The Australian and News Corporation publications.

I don’t know how some of those journalists can hold their heads. They’ve been on the drip feed of America for so long. They cannot see a world that is not dominated and led by the United States.

I’m hoping that over time, Pearls and Irritations and other independent media will grow and provide a more balanced view about Australia’s role in our region and in our own development.

We need to keep good relations with the United States. They’re an important player, but I think that we are unnecessarily risking our future by throwing our lot almost entirely in with the United States.

Minister for Defence, Richard Marles is leading the Americanisation of our military. I think Penny Wong is to some extent trying to pull him back. But unfortunately so much of the leadership of Australia in defence, in the media, is part and parcel of the mistaken United States view of the world.

ML: What sort of voices are we not hearing in the media or in Australia on this question?

JM: It’s not going to change, Michael. I can’t see it changing with Lachlan Murdoch in charge. I think it’s getting worse, if possible, within News Corporation. It’s a very, very difficult and desperate situation where we’re being served so poorly.

ML: Is there a strong independent media and potential for voices through independent media in Australia?

JM: No, we haven’t got one. The best hope at the side, of course, is the ABC and SBS public broadcasters, but they’ve been seduced as well by all things American.

We’ve seen that particularly in recent months over the conflict in Gaza. The ABC and SBS heavily favour Israel. It is shameful.

They’re still the best hope of the side, but they need more money. They’re getting a little bit more from the government, but I think they are sadly lacking in leadership and proper understanding of what the role of a public broadcaster should be.

I don’t think there’s a quick answer to any of this. And I hope that we can extricate ourselves without too much damage in the future. Our media has a great responsibility and must be held responsible for the damage that it is causing in Australia.

ML: Well, look, thank you very much, John Menadue, for joining us on Radio Northern Beaches and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast. John Menadue, publisher, founder, editor-in-chief of, for the last 13 years, the public policy journal Pearls and Irritations. We’ve been discussing the role of the mainstream media, independent media, in the public policy processes too in Australia, and particularly in the context of international relations and in this case our relationships with the US and China.

Thank you so much John for taking the time and for sharing your thoughts with us here today. Thanks for joining us John.

JM: Thank you. Let’s hope for better days.

John Menadue, founder and publisher of  Pearls and Irritations public policy journal has had a senior professional career in the media, public service and airlines. In 1985, he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for public service. In 2009, he received the Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Adelaide in recognition of his significant and lifelong contribution to Australian society. This transcript of the Pearls and Irritations podcast on 10 August 2024 is republished with permission. 

ABC chair Kim Williams has attracted considerable attention with his criticism of the broadcaster’s online news choices. Williams has taken issue with what he sees as the ABC prioritising lifestyle stories over hard news.

In the process, he has raised an important issue of principle.

Is it right for the chair to insert himself into editorial decision-making, even at the level of broad direction, as here?

• READ MORE: Other public broadcasting reports

Generally speaking, the answer would be no.

To see why, it is necessary only to look back to the chaotic period in 2018 when a former chair, Justin Milne, inserted himself into editorial decision-making because of concerns that the reporting of some ABC journalists was upsetting the government and thereby imperilling the ABC’s funding.

That debacle ended with the resignation not just of Milne but of the then managing director, Michelle Guthrie, leaving a sudden vacuum of leadership and a nervous newsroom.

It is therefore risky for Williams to take a step down this path.

However, the weakness of ABC news leadership requires that something be done.

This weakness has a moral as well as a professional-practice dimension.

A risky path to follow. Video: ABC News

The moral dimension is demonstrated by the treatment of high-profile staff such as Stan Grant and Laura Tingle, and of less well-known but still valued journalists such as ABC Radio Victoria’s Nicole Chvastek, and Sydney radio’s Antoinette Lattouf. All of these journalists, in various ways, have fallen victim to the ABC’s propensity to buckle under external pressure.

The professional-practice dimension is demonstrated not just by the online performance criticised by Williams but by the prioritising of police-rounds stories over far bigger issues on the evening television bulletin, and by occasional spectacular failures such as the attempt to link the late NSW Premier Neville Wran with Sydney’s Luna Park ghost train fire.

The standing of the ABC’s best journalism — programmes such as Four Corners and Radio National’s Background Briefing — is undermined by these systemic failures.

However, indicating his preference for hard news over lifestyle stories will get Williams only so far. It lies within his power and that of the board to do what ought to have been done long ago if the ABC is serious about strengthening its news service: separate the roles of managing director and editor-in-chief.

Having them in the one person creates an inherent conflict that has nothing to do with the integrity of the individual occupying the position, but everything to do with the core responsibilities of the two jobs.

The managing director, as a board member, is responsible for the overall fortunes of the ABC. This includes its financial fortunes and its relationship with its most important stakeholder, the federal government.

An editor-in-chief’s first responsibility is not to these considerations at all, but to the public interest. That requires above all the creation of a safe space in which ABC journalists can do good journalism without looking over their shoulders to see if they are going to be the next target of an attack from a politician (Chvastek), a lobby group (Antoinette Lattouf), or News Corporation (Grant and Tingle).

The Stan Grant controversy.      Video: The Guardian

It also requires the imposition of rigorous editing processes to see that stories are properly verified, accurate and fair, regardless of the standing or wilfulness of the staff involved, and that the stories deal with issues of substance.

And in the case of Lattouf, the focus shifts to the public interest in the impact on money and morale of the prolonged legal proceedings over her sacking.

She was removed from a temporary role on ABC Sydney radio for posting on Instagram a report by Human Rights Watch, in which it was alleged that Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza.

The ABC argued unsuccessfully in the Fair Work Commission that she had not been sacked. Subsequently Lattouf made an offer to settle for $85,000 in damages and her old role back. However, the ABC has not accepted this and instead is now involved in a further legal dispute, this time in the Federal Court, over whether due process was followed in sacking her.

Fair Work Commission finds Antoinette Lattouf was sacked by ABC.  Video: ABC News

This is causing consternation in Canberra, where the Senate standing committee on environment and communications has asked the ABC how much this action is costing.

The ABC has supplied the committee with the amount but it has not been made public.

It is a textbook case of how a strong editor-in-chief who was not the managing director would act in this situation. A reporter would be assigned to find out the amount, since it is clearly a matter of public interest, and a well-connected press gallery journalist would get it without too much trouble.

ABC management would then be asked to comment, and a story containing the amount and any ABC comment would be broadcast on the ABC.

A managing director has a conflicting responsibility: to do all he or she can to protect the corporate interests of the ABC, so the amount remains secret.

Meanwhile, the ABC gives rival news organisations the chance to scoop the ABC on its own story, leaving its news service looking even weaker.

Dr Denis Muller, senior research fellow of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

RNZ Pacific

Australia has announced more than A$68 million over the next five years to strengthen and expand Australian broadcasting and media sector engagement across the Indo-Pacific.

As part of the Indo-Pacific broadcasting strategy, the ABC will receive just over $40m to increase its content for and about the Pacific, expand Radio Australia’s FM transmission footprint across the region and enhance its media and training activities.

And the PacificAus TV programme will receive over $28 million to provide commercial Australian content free of charge to broadcasters in the Pacific.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific media aid reports

The strategy provides a framework to help foster a vibrant and independent media sector, counter misinformation, present modern multicultural Australia, and support deeper people-to-people engagement.

It focuses on three key areas, including:

• supporting the creation and distribution of compelling Australian content that engages audiences and demonstrates Australia’s commitment to the region;
• enhancing access in the region to trusted sources of media, including news and current affairs, strengthening regional media capacity and capability; and
• boosting connections between Australian-based and Indo-Pacific media and content creators.

Crucial role
Foreign Minister Penny Wong said media plays a crucial role in elevating the voices and perspectives of the region and strengthening democracy.

Wong said the Australia government was committed to supporting viable, resilient and independent media in the region.

Minister for International Development and the Pacific Pat Conroy said Australia and the Pacific shared close cultural and people-to-people links, and an enduring love of sport.

“These connections will be further enriched by the boost in Australian content, allowing us to watch, read, and listen to shared stories across the region — from rugby to news and music.

Conroy said Australia would continue and expand support for media development, including through the new phase of the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme (PACMAS) and future opportunities through the Australia-Pacific Media and Broadcasting Partnership.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said a healthy Fourth Estate was imperative in the era of digital transformation and misinformation.

“This strategy continues Australia’s longstanding commitment to supporting a robust media sector in our region,” she said.

“By leveraging Australia’s strengths, we can partner with the region to boost media connections, and foster a diverse and sustainable media landscape.”

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

A pivotal book, Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, has been released at the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference hosted by the University of the South Pacific earlier this month in Suva, Fiji.

This conference, the first of its kind in 20 years, served as a crucial platform to address the pressing challenges and core issues faced by Pacific media.

Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, the convenor of the conference and co-editor of the new book, emphasised the conference’s primary goals — to stimulate research, discussion, and debate on Pacific media, and to foster a deeper understanding of its challenges.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Media Conference reports

“Our region hasn’t escaped the calamitous impacts of the two biggest events that have shaken the media sector — digital disruption and the covid-19 pandemic,” he said.

“Both events have posed significant challenges for news media organisations and journalists, to the point of being an existential threat to the industry as we know it. This isn’t very well known or understood outside the news media industry.”

Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, authored by Dr Singh, Fiji Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad, and Dr Amit Sarwal, offers a comprehensive collection of interdisciplinary research, insights, and analyses at the intersection of media, conflict, peacebuilding, and development in the Pacific – a region experiencing rapid and profound change.

The book builds on Dr Singh’s earlier work with Professor Prasad, Media and Development: Issues and Challenges in the Pacific Islands, published 16 years ago.

Dr Singh noted that media issues had grown increasingly complex due to heightened poverty, underdevelopment, corruption, and political instability.

“Media and communication play vital roles in the framing of conflict, security, and development in public and political discourses, ultimately influencing progression or regression in peace and stability. This is particularly true in the era of digital media,” Dr Singh said.

Dr Amit Sarwal said that the primary aim of the new book was to address and revisit critical questions linking media, peacebuilding, and development in the Pacific. He expressed a desire to bridge gaps in training, publishing, and enhance practical applications in these vital areas particularly amongst young journalists in the Pacific.

Professor Biman Prasad is hopeful that this collection will shed light on the intricate relationship between media, peace, and development in the Pacific. He stressed the importance of prioritising planning, strategising, and funding in this sector.

“By harnessing the potential of media for peacebuilding, stakeholders in the Pacific can work towards a more peaceful and prosperous future for all,” Professor Prasad added.

Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific has been published under a joint collaboration of Australia’s Kula Press and India’s Shhalaj Publishing House.

The book features nine chapters authored by passionate researchers and academics, including David Robie, John Rabuogi Ahere, Sanjay Ramesh, Kalinga Seneviratne, Kylie Navuku, Narayan Gopalkrishnan, Hurriyet Babacan, Usha Sundar Harris, and Asha Chand.

Dr Robie is founding editor of Pacific Journalism Review, which also celebrated 30 years of publishing at the book launch.

The 2024 Pacific International Media Conference was organised in partnership with the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN).

• Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, edited by Shailendra Singh, Biman Prasad and Amit Sarwal. Suva, Fiji: Kula Press; Shhalaj.
  

Media professionals have been urged to undergo gender sensitisation training to produce more inclusive, accurate and ethical representation of women in the news.

Fiji Women’s Rights Movement executive director Nalini Singh emphasised that such training would help avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes and promote diverse perspectives, ensuring media coverage reflects the realities of all genders.

She made these comments during her keynote address at a panel discussion on “Gender and Media in Fiji and the Pacific” at the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference at the Suva Holiday Inn in Fiji on July 4-6.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Media Conference reports

In her presentation, Singh highlighted the highest rates of gender violence and other forms of discrimination against women in the region.

She said the Pacific region had, among the highest rates of gender-based violence in the world, with ongoing efforts to provide protection mechanisms and work towards prevention.

She highlighted that women in Fiji and the Pacific carried a disproportionate burden of unpaid care work, spending approximately three times as much time on domestic chores and caregiving as men.

This limits their opportunities for income-generating activities and personal development.

Labour participation low
According to Singh, women’s labour force participation remains low — 34 percent in Samoa and 84 percent in the Solomon Islands. The underemployment of women restricts economic growth and perpetuates income inequality, leaving families with single earners, often males with less financial stability.

She highlighted that women were significantly underrepresented in leadership positions as well. In Fiji, women held only 21 percent of board seats, 11 percent of board chairperson roles, and 30 percent of chief executive officer positions.

Despite numerous commitments from the United Nations and other bodies over past decades, including the Beijing Platform for Action and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Singh pointed out that gender equality remained a distant goal.

The World Economic Forum estimates that closing the overall gender gap will take 131 years, with economic parity taking 169 years and political parity taking 162 years at the current rate of progress.

Singh shared that women were more negatively impacted on by climate change due to limited access to resources and information, adding that media often depicted women as caregivers and community leaders during climate-related disasters, highlighting their increased burdens and risks.

The efforts made by FWRM in addressing sexual harassment in the workplace was also highlighted at the conference, with a major reference to the research and advocacy by the organisation that has contributed to policy changes that include sexual harassment as a cause for disciplinary action under employment regulations.

Singh challenged the conference attendees to prioritise creating safer workplaces for women in media. She urged academics, media organisations, students, and funders to take concrete actions to stop sexual harassment and gender-based violence.

“We must commit to fostering workplaces and online platforms where everyone feels safe and respected.

‘Free from fear’
“Together, we can create environments free from fear and discrimination. Enough is enough,” Singh urged, emphasising the need for collective commitment and action from all stakeholders.

The conference, the first of its kind in 20 years, was organised by The University of the South Pacific’s Journalism Programme in collaboration with the Pacific Islands News Association and the Asia Pacific Media Network.

It was officially opened by chief guest Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji and the Minister for Trade, Co-operatives, Small and Medium Enterprises and Communications Manoa Kamikamica.

Kamikamica said the Fijian government stood firm in its commitment to safeguarding media freedom, as evidenced by recent strides such as the repeal of restrictive media laws and the revitalisation of the Fiji Media Council.

Papua New Guinea Minister for Communication and Information Technology Timothy Masiu was also present at the official dinner of the conference on July 4.

 

He said the conference theme “Navigating Challenges and Shaping Futures in Pacific Media Research and Practice” was appropriate and timely.

“If anything, it reminds us all of the critical role that the media continues to play in shaping public discourse and catalysing action on issues affecting our Pacific.”

Launch of PJR
The official dinner included the launch of the 30th anniversary edition of the Pacific Journalism Review (PJR) and launch of the book Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, which is edited by the Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad and Dr Amit Sarwal, a former senior lecturer and deputy head of school (research) at USP.

The PJR is the only academic journal in the region that publishes research specifically focused on Pacific media.

The conference was sponsored the US Embassy in Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga and Tuvalu, the International Fund for Public Interest Media, the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme, Fiji Women’s Rights Movement, New Zealand Science Media Centre and the Pacific Women Lead – Pacific Community.

With more than 100 attendees from 11 countries, including 50 presenters, the conference provided a platform for discussions on issues and the future.

The core issues that were raised included media freedom, media capacity building through training and financial support, the need for more research in Pacific media, especially in media and gender, and some other core areas, and challenges facing the media sector in the region, especially in the wake of the digital disruption and the covid-19 pandemic.

Ivy Mallam is a final-year student journalist at The University of the South Pacific, Laucala Campus. Republished in collaboration with Wansolwara.

If the pen is mightier than the sword, then an army of journalists has assembled in Fiji’s capital to discuss the state and future of the industry in the region.

The three-day Pacific Media Conference 2024 on July 4-6 is organised and hosted by the University of the South Pacific, in collaboration with the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), with more than 50 speakers from 11 countries.

A keynote speaker and veteran journalist Dr David Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report, says the conference is crucial.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Media Conference reports
• Full Radio 531pi interview with Dr David Robie on Pacific Mornings

“It’s quite a trailblazer in many respects, because this is probably the first conference of its kind where it’s blended industry journalists all around the region, plus media academics that have been analysing and critiquing the media and so on.

“So to have this joining forces like this . . .  it’s really quite a momentous conference.”

Dr Robie is a distinguished author, journalist and media educator and was recognised last month as a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit (MNZM) for his contribution to journalism and education in New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific region for more than 50 years.

Speaking to William Terite on Radio 531pi’s Pacific Mornings, Dr Robie said the conference was a way to bolster solidarity to others in the industry and address common challenges.

“In many Pacific countries a lot of their fledgling institutions, and essentially, politicians, have no understanding of media generally, and have a tendency to crack down on media when they have half a chance.

“So it’s partly to get a much better image of journalism and how important journalism is in democracy and development in many countries in the Pacific.”

Turning the page for media
The conference theme is “Navigating challenges and shaping futures in Pacific media research and practice”.

In April last year, Fiji revoked media laws that restricted media content. PMN chief-of-news Justin Latif is attending the conference, and said Fijian media were in celebration-mode, saying “democracy has returned to Fiji”.

“They talked about how such a conference had happened under previous regimes, basically the police and army would have had a presence there and would have been just noting names and checking up that nothing was said that was anti-government.”

Latif said regional journalists showed a deep sense of purpose and drive.

“People do see their roles as a calling, and so often are willing to take less pay and harder conditions,” he said.

“They see their job as building their nation and being part of helping strengthen the country, and so it’s probably quite different if you were to get a group of journalists together in New Zealand, they probably wouldn’t have quite the same sense of that kind of fervour for the role in terms of what it can mean for the country.”

The Pacific Journalism Review, a journal examining media issues and communication in the region, celebrated its 30-year anniversary. It has published hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and is regularly cited by scholars.

Global tussle for Pacific attention
The United States is one of the main funders of the conference, and there are representatives from some Asia-Pacific countries such as Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia and Taiwan.

Latif said China’s involvement in Pacific media was openly questioned by the US deputy chief of mission, John Gregory.

“He gave a very detailed breakdown of all the ways that China are influencing elections: using Facebook to spread misinformation to try and basically encourage the three Pacific nations who still support or maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, how they’re trying to influence those nations to have a regime change, and it was quite shocking information about the lengths that China is going to, or that the State Department believed China is going to.”

The United States in putting investment into journalism in the Pacific, said Latif, sending 13 journalists from Fiji to the US for exchanges.

“There is a clear US agenda here about wanting the media to be strengthened and to be supported so that they can have a strong foothold in the Pacific, because the influence of China is definitely being felt.”

A bold, future vision for Pacific media
Dr Robie has described the current state of news media in the Pacific as “precarious”, and warned some nations can be susceptible to “geopolitics and the influences of other countries”.

“We’ve got China trying to encourage media organisations to be very much under an authoritarian wing, taking journalists across to China . . .  but now we’re getting a lot more competition from Australia and the US and so on, upping the game, putting more money into training, influencing, whereas for many years they didn’t care too much about the media in the region.

“Journalists very often feel like they’re the meat in the sandwich in the competition between many countries, and it’s not good for the region generally.”

Dr Robie has worked across the Pacific, including five years as head of journalism at the University of Papua New Guinea, and then as the coordinator of the journalism programme at USP.

He encouraged Pacific media to continue upholding democratic values while holding leaders to account.

“Most media organisations in the Pacific are quite small and vulnerable in the sense that they’ve got small teams, limited resources, and it’s always a struggle, to be honest, and things are probably the toughest they’ve been for a while.

“Pacific countries and media need to stand up tall and strong themselves, be very clear about what they want and to stand up for it, and not be overshadowed by the influence of major countries.”

The conference ends on Saturday.

Republished from PMN News with permission.

Anna Solomon, a Papua New Guinean journalist and editor with 40 years experience, is now providing training for journalists at the Wantok Niuspepa.

Wantok is a weekly newspaper and the only Tok Pisin language newspaper in PNG.

Solomon, who spoke during last month’s public inquiry on Media in Papua New Guinea, asked if the Parliamentary Committee could work with the media industry to set up a Complaints Tribunal that could address issues affecting media in PNG.

Anna Solomon talks about the media role to “educate people” at the public media inquiry.  Video: Inside PNG

She also called for better Tok Pisin writers as it was one of two main languages that leaders, especially Parliamentarians, used in PNG to communicate with their voters.

At the start of the 3-day public inquiry (21-24 May 2024), media houses also called for parliamentarians and the public to understand how the industry functions.

The public inquiry focused on the “Role and Impact of Media in Papua New Guinea” and was led by the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Communication with an aim to improve the standard of journalism within the country.

Republished from Inside PNG with permission.

Cook Islands News, the national newspaper for the Cook Islands, is one of many Pacific news media agencies expecting change in the face of New Zealand’s Newshub closure next month.

The organisation has content-sharing agreements with traditional NZ media organisations including Stuff, New Zealand Herald, RNZ and TVNZ, and is dependent on them for some news relevant to their readers.

Cook Islands News editor Rashneel Kumar said that Newshub, New Zealand’s second major television news and website which CIN did not have an agreement with, was still an excellent source of extra context or additional angles for the paper’s international pages, and its absence would be felt.

• READ MORE: Other Newshub reports

“You can understand the decisions that were taken by the owners but at the same time it is really sad for journalism in general,” Kumar said.

“What it does is provide fewer options for quality journalism.

“Media like Newshub has been a really good alternative in terms of robust and independent journalism.”

Cook Islands News is in the process of signing a new share agreement with Pacific Media News (PMN), which is hiring a former Newshub reporter of Cook Islands descent.

“This will boost our coverage because the experience he brings from Newshub will be translated into a platform that we have access to stories with,” Kumar said.

‘One positive effect’
“So that is one positive effect of the closures.

“We see the changing landscape, and we must adapt to the changes we are seeing.”

Pacific Island countries consist of small and micro media systems due to the relatively small size of their populations and economies, resulting in limited advertising revenue and marginal returns on investment.

Associate professor in Pacific journalism and head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific Dr Shailendra Singh said what was happening in New Zealand could also happen in the Pacific.

“This advertising-based model is outdated in the digital media environment, and Pacific media companies, like their counterparts worldwide, need to change and innovate to survive,” he said.

CEO of Cook Islands Television Jeanne Matenga said that the only formal relationship they had with overseas agencies was with Pasifika TV, but that Newshub’s closure meant they would no longer get any of their programmes.

“As long as we can get one of the news programmes, then that should suffice for us in terms of New Zealand and international news,” she said.

All major Pacific Island media organisations are already active on social media platforms, and are still determining how to harness, leverage, and monetise their social media followings.

Newshub is due to close on July 5.

Republished from the Te Waha Nui student journalist website at Auckland University of Technology. TWN used to be a contributing publication to Asia Pacific Report.

Television New Zealand has breached its collective agreement with the E tū union when deciding on discontinuing programmes, the Employment Relations Authority has ruled.

It was announced in March that 68 staff members who work for news programmes Midday and Tonight, consumer justice programme Fair Go, current affairs programme Sunday, and the youth programme Re: and in-house video content production were affected by redundancy.

Last month, the company confirmed the axing of Fair Go and Sunday, along with its midday and late night news bulletins.

• READ MORE: Other TVNZ programme, staff cuts reports

Yesterday, the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ordered the broadcaster to go into mediation with E tū union.

“The Authority finds that TVNZ has breached cl 10.1.1 of the collective agreement,” the ruling stated.

It said that if after mediation, matters were not resolved, an order would be made against TVNZ to comply with its collective agreement.

Executives, staff gave evidence
TVNZ executives and staff were among those giving evidence in an investigation meeting at the ERA in Auckland on Monday relating to the state broadcaster’s alleged breaches in its redundancy process.

E tū union took the case against TVNZ, arguing the company did not follow the consultation requirements under its collective agreement with its members.

E tū wants more of a role in the initial decision-making, which it said TVNZ was obliged to do under the collective agreement.

But TVNZ opposed the application, claiming there had been no breach and that the company had clearly communicated to staff and unions that redundancies would take place.

In a statement, TVNZ said: “We are disappointed by the decision today from the Employment Relations Authority. We will now take the time to consider the decision and our next steps”.

Staff still employed
E tū negotiator Michael Wood told RNZ Checkpoint yesterday that the determination was a very clear one and any redundancy notices that had been issued were therefore not valid.

Staff still continue to be employed during this mediation because “there has not been a legitimate process to result in their redundancies”, Wood said.

It had been a “botched process”, he said.

“If you have an agreement with someone that says you’re going to work through something in a particular way, you need to follow it and TVNZ did not follow it in this case and the ERA has affirmed that.”

It had been an incredibly disruptive time for stuff and they were “really happy about this outcome”, Wood said.

The ERA said the clause that TVNZ had breached was an uncommon provision, but Wood said the company signed off on it.

“We would like to meet as soon as we reasonably can.”

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

Palestine solidarity protesters today demonstrated at the Auckland headquarters of Television New Zealand, accusing the country’s major TV network of broadcasting “propaganda” backing Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

About 50 protesters targeted the main entrance to the TVNZ building near Sky Tower and also picketed a side gate entrance for media workers for about an hour.

The protest climaxed a week of critical responses from commentators and critics of TVNZ’s Q&A senior reporter/presenter Jack Tame’s 45-minute interview with Israel ambassador Ran Yaakoby last Sunday which Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) secretary Neil Scott described as “a platform for propaganda to excuse the genocide happening in Gaza over the last six months”.

• READ MORE: October 7: Forensic analysis shows Hamas abuses, many false Israeli claims
• Israel social security data reveals true picture of October 7 deaths
• Israel’s war on Gaza updates: Evidence of torture, executions in mass grave

Waving Palestine flags and placards declaring “Bias”, “silence is complicity — free Palestine,” and “Balanced journalism — my ass,” the protesters chanted “Jack Tame, you cannot hide – you’re complicit with genocide.”

Chalked on the pavement and on the walls were slogans such as “Jack ‘Shame’ helped kill MSM”, “TVNZ stop platforming genocide and Zionism”, “TVNZ genocide apologists” and “137 journalists killed” in reference to the mainly Palestinian journalists targeted by Israeli military forces.

Across the street, a wall slogan said: “TVNZ (Q&A) broadcast Israeli lies about Gaza”. Other slogans condemned the lack of Palestinian voices in TVNZ coverage – there are about 288 Palestinian people in New Zealand, according to the 2018 Census.

Palestinian advocate Billy Hania of the Palestinians in Aotearoa Coordinating Committee (PACC) said: “We demand TVNZ refrain from parroting the Israeli propaganda narrative and return to practise its duty of professional journalism.”

Ironically, TVNZ tonight screened a rare Palestinian story — a heart-rending report about the tragic death in Gaza of a baby girl, Sabreen Joudeh, “Patience” in Arabic, who had been saved from her dying mother’s womb after an Israeli air strike on their family home.

The TVNZ report interviewed the related Gouda family in Auckland hours before Abdallah Gouda, a doctor, flew out to Turkiye to join a humanitarian aid flotilla leaving for Gaza.

PSNA’s Neil Scott criticises TVNZ coverage of Gaza.   Video: Café Pacific

Criticism of ‘complicity’?
“Jack Tame, you’re a professional,” yelled PSNA secretary Scott through a loud hailer addressing TVNZ. “You know what would be set up, you have to know.

“But you allowed it to happen!”

“I don’t get you Jack, stupid or complicit? Complicit or stupid? One of the two.”

Critics are understood to be filing complaints about the alleged “one-sidedness” of the programme citing many specific criticisms.

“We’re here today because of Jack Tame’s Q&A report for TVNZ,” said Scott.

A Palestine protester calls out TVNZ journalist Jack Tame for alleged bias over Gaza. Video: Café Pacific

With the war having passed 200 days this week with more than 34,000 Palestinians having been killed — mostly children and women — and 392 bodies having been recovered from three separate mass graves discovered at two hospitals after they were destroyed by the Israeli military, some of his complaints were that presenter Tame:

• Interviewed Ambassador Yaakoby at the Israeli Embassy in Wellington instead of at a TVNZ studio with the New Zealand flag being showed alongside the Israeli flag. “Tying the two countries together – a professional would have had the New Zealand flag removed”;
• Did not provide context around the October 7 Hamas attack on southern Israel at the start of the interview – “more than 75 years of repression since 750,000 Palestinians were expelled as refugees from their homeland in the 1948 Nakba”;
• Asking a series of questions that the Israeli ambassador “avoided, changed, or outright lied” in his response;
• Did not follow up with the questions as needed; and
• Avoided the questions that “would have placed the issue of the Israeli attack on Gaza” in context.

Platform for propaganda
“Essentially, Tame gave Israel a platform for propaganda to excuse the genocide happening in Gaza over the last six months,” said Scott.

Among the contextual questions that Scott claimed Tame should have questioned Ambassador Yaakoby on were the envoy’s unchallenged claim that “1400 people had been butchered” by Hamas fighters.

In fact, the documented figure is 1139 — 695 civilians, including 36 children, and 373 security force members, according to a France 24 report citing official sources.

“The ambassador didn’t mention that more than 350 Israeli soldiers were among those killed — at their military posts,” Scott said.

“Many of the others were aged between 18 and 40 and in the military reserves.”

Also, no mention was made of the controversial Hannibal Directive which reportedly led to the Israeli military killing many of its own countrymen and women captives as the resistance fighters retreated back to Gaza.

The controversial Q&A interview with Israeli Ambassador Ran Yaakoby. Video: TVNZ

Among other responses to TVNZ’s Q&A this week, Palestine solidarity advocate and PSNA chair John Minto declared in an open letter to TVNZ published by The Daily Blog that the programme “breached all the standards of decent journalism. In other words it was offensive, discriminatory, inaccurate and grossly unfair.”

‘Unchallenged lies’
“It wasn’t journalism – it was 45-minutes of uninterrupted and unchallenged Israeli lies, misinformation and previously-debunked propaganda. It was outrageous. It was despicable,” Minto wrote.

“The country which for six months has conducted genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza was given free rein to pour streams of the most vile fabrications and misinformation against Palestinians directly into the homes of New Zealanders. And without a murmur of protest from Jack Tame.

“Even the most egregious lies such as the ‘beheaded babies’ myth were allowed to be broadcast without challenge despite this Israeli propaganda having been discredited months ago.

“The interview showed utter contempt for Palestine and Palestinians as well as New Zealanders who were assailed with this stream of racist deceits and falsehoods with Q&A as the conduit.”

Among a stream of social media comments, one person remarked “On John Tame’s YouTube channel it gained a lot of comments fairly quickly . . .

“These comments were encouraging as at least 95 percent were denouncing the interview . . . with a lot of them debunking the endless stream of blatant lies and atrocity propaganda that poured out of the Israeli ambassador’s mouth.

“Most of the posters were obviously from our country and it was a great example of how Israel’s actions have shattered its reputation with their propaganda fooling hardly anyone anymore.

“It’s a bit like a little child with chocolate all over their face denying they ate the chocolate . . . except in Israel’s case it’s civilian blood all over their face . . .

“Anyway, when I revisited the thread the comments had been purged and deleted.”

On the Q&A YouTube channel, @ZaraLomas commented: “The fact that Q&A are deleting critical comments speaks volumes about their integrity (or lack thereof), and their faith in this shocking piece of ‘journalism’.”

PACC call for ‘truth and accuracy’
In a statement calling for “truth and accuracy in the face of state propaganda”, the Palestinians in Aotearoa Coordinating Committee (PACC) said that Palestinian New Zealanders were in a community that needed “accurate journalism, as we witness the deadliest period of modern history unfold for our people”.

A “hasty two-minute Palestinian response” in a news bulletin to follow the ambassador’s 45-minute interview as arranged by TVNZ was inadequate and rejected.

“Our stake in this is irrefutable. Palestinian perspectives need to be heard on their own terms, not just in brief response to Israeli propaganda,” said the PACC.

The committee called for a comprehensive 45-minute Q&A session with a Palestinian advocate to “ensure a balanced perspective”.

Melissa Lee has been ousted from New Zealand’s coalition cabinet and stripped of the Media portfolio, and Penny Simmonds has lost the Disability Issues portfolio in a reshuffle.

Climate Change and Revenue Minister Simon Watts will take Lee’s spot in cabinet.

Simmonds was a minister outside of cabinet.

• READ MORE: Other Newshub crisis reports

The changes came today five months to the day after Luxon first announced the ministerial roles and responsibilities.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced the changes in a statement this afternoon.

He said Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith — currently overseas — would take over the Media and Broadcasting role, while Social Development Minister Louise Upston would pick up Disability Issues.

Lee was under pressure after Warner Bros Discovery announced it would stop producing local news through Newshub, and shut the majority of its operations in New Zealand.

Repeated questions
She faced repeated questions about what the government would do about the closure of Newshub, with Labour saying she had “more than enough time” to find solutions.

Media Minister Melissa Lee demoted.       Video: RNZ

Simmonds had also been in headlines over the handling of changes to disability-related funding.

She admitted the handling of the disability funding changes — which included restricting the way equipment and support services were funded — was bungled, and later apologised for it.

She signed off on the decision a few days before it was announced on the ministry’s social media accounts, taking disabled people and carers by surprise.

Labour said the changes were callous and a broken promise, and leader Chris Hipkins called for her to be sacked over it.

After the changes, Finance Minister Nicola Willis said future decisions on the funding would have to be taken to cabinet.

‘Changing circumstances’
Speaking to reporters, Luxon said the changes were about making sure the government had “the right people on the right assignment at the right time”.

“In both these cases of both these portfolios there have been significant changes and complexities added to them over the course since the ministers were allocated these responsibilities . . .  there’s a lot more complexity added to these portfolios.”

He avoided saying whether either of the ministers had done anything wrong, despite multiple questions about why they deserved the demotions — particularly Lee, who had been an MP for 16 years and held the media portfolio for the National Party since 2017.

Lee’s removal from cabinet was a “recognition that there is a lower workload” and did not mean she would not return to cabinet at a later date, he said, but changes in the media industry had “moved quicker, faster, sooner and as a result I want to make sure that there is a good senior cabinet minister responsibility around the issues”.

On disability issues, he said there had been “a habit now” of cost overruns and poor financial management, but there was “innately more complexity” in both portfolios.

He was questioned over whether the ministers had requested the portfolios’ removal, and said “ultimately this was my decision”.

When asked if it was a warning shot to his caucus, he said he was just a person who “will adapt very quickly and dynamically to changing circumstances and situations”.

‘How I roll, lead’
“This is how I roll, this is how I lead . . .  I appreciate this may not be the way things have been done in the past here, but expect this to happen going forward as well.”

He had spoken to the relevant ministers about the decision earlier in the morning, and it had been a “tough day” for them, he said.

“It’s understandable . . .  it is disappointing if you’re the individual, but the reality is they know that they are really valued by our team, we have full confidence in them, they’re doing a good job on their other portfolios and they have important contributions to make.”

Luxon said he had informed both his coalition partners. Asked if he would have the authority to use the same approach with them, he said “I’m the prime minister and I determine ultimately the performance of my cabinet ministers”.

He said they had a “very strong cadre” of women at the heart of the government doing good jobs.

In his earlier statement, Luxon said it had “become clear in recent months that there are significant challenges in the media sector. Similarly, we have discovered major financial issues with programmes run by the Ministry of Disabled People”.

“I have come to the view it is important to have senior cabinet ministers considering these issues.”

‘Significant synergies’
He said there were “significant synergies” between Goldsmith’s Arts, Culture and Heritage portfolio and the Media role he would be taking up.

He said he had asked Upston to pick up the disability role because Whaikaha, the Ministry of Disabled People, was a departmental agency within the Ministry of Social Development.

“This will free Penny Simmonds up to focus on the Environment portfolio and the major changes she is progressing to improve tertiary education,” he said.

Lee retains her Economic Development, Ethnic Communities and Associate ACC roles as a minister outside cabinet.

Simmonds, who remains outside cabinet, retains Environment, Tertiary Education and Skills, and Associate Social Development and Employment.

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

Warner Bros Discovery has done a deal with Stuff to provide news to replace Newshub. It will keep news on TV channel Three from July 6 and help Three retain some viewers.

It also means important income for Stuff, but it will also stretch the company’s staff, finances and technology.

Stuff will provide a one-hour bulletin each weekday and a half-hour on weekends.

• READ MORE: Other Newshub reports
• Silent majority must speak out to save vital journalism — Gavin Ellis

Stuff will also retain a live Newshub website.

Warner Bros Discovery chief executive and Stuff publisher Sinead Boucher confirmed the arrangement at a joint news conference today.

Boucher had told her staff the company will “definitely be bringing some Newshub staff” to produce the 6pm bulletins.

She then told reporters she was unsure how many staff would be required, but it would be fewer than “40 to 50” specified in a “stripped back” proposal from Newshub’s own staff.

‘We are digital first’
“We’re not getting into the TV business. We are a digital first multimedia company building a new 6pm product for Warner Brothers,” she said.

Mediawatch understands many media companies approached WBD with proposals to provide news after the company first proposed the cost-saving closure in late February.

However, by the time of the confirmation earlier this month most of those had been rejected by WBD.

Sky TV was also reported to be in the running. It currently runs a Newshub-produced bulletin at 5:30pm each weekday on the free-to-air channel Sky Open and would require a replacement. It also had plenty of TV production facilities.

Sinead Boucher said a Sky bulletin was not included in the deal, but she hoped there would be discussions about that.

Negotiations were carried out in secret both before and after Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) confirmed the complete closure of Newshub on July 5, leaving the company with no news presence.

Stuff refused to comment during the process and Stuff journalists told RNZ Mediawatch on Monday night they were unaware of an impending announcement.

“We didn’t want to raise expectations for Newshub staff when we weren’t sure what would be required,” Boucher told reporters today, explaining that the deal had been done in haste.

Why do the deal – and what’s it worth?
The money WBD is putting into the deal is confidential but it is certain to be just a fraction of the current cost of running Newshub, which would run to tens of millions of dollars a year.

WBD was clearly determined to carve that cost off the bottom line of its loss-making local operation. The financial benefit for Stuff may not be great taking the set-up and running costs into account.

WBD’s Glen Kyne said neither company would comment on specific commercial details, but when asked about the possible profit margin for Stuff, Boucher said: “Both parties are satisfied with where we have ended up.”

But while the audience for TV news bulletins is declining — and the ad revenue has fallen accordingly — it is still substantial for TVNZ 1 and Three. The “appointment viewing” time of 6pm creates a viewing peak which the TV broadcasters use to hold viewers for the entertainment or factual programmes that follow.

Former Newshub chief Hal Crawford told Mediawatch the overall audience for Three could collapse without news in the evening.

“There’s still a reason that the 1 and the 3 on remotes around the country are worn down. News is the one programme that runs 365 days a year . . .  which the schedule is going to rely on to lead into prime time. So the rest of your schedule is going to dwindle. Ratings are gonna fall off and everything is going to go to pieces,” Crawford told Mediawatch.

“The loss of the newsroom represents the loss of the ability to respond to any event in real time. That is the heart and soul of a traditional TV broadcaster.”

Why Stuff?
Stuff has journalists in more places around the country than any other news publisher.

Stuff’s publisher Sinead Boucher recently told a parliamentary committee it had journalists in 19 locations, even after years of cuts and successive retrenchments.

“We have replatformed our business and have new ways of working. We look at this as starting this bulletin afresh rather than using the broadcast-heavy technology of today,” she told reporters at today’s news conference.

It also has audio and video production facilities at some sites and some senior journalists with TV reporting and presenting experience, such as former Newshub political editor Tova O’Brien, former TV3 current affairs reporter Paula Penfold and senior journalist Andrea Vance.

But Stuff video ventures have not endured. It launched its own free online video platform Play Stuff in mid-2019. It also hired key former TV3 current affairs staff for its own longform video productions but disbanded the Stuff Circuit team earlier this year.

When the Stuff app and website were refreshed recently, short vertical videos were added as a feature, called Stuff Shorts.

Stuff’s weakness has in the past been a dependence on newspaper advertising. It was only last year that Stuff launched its first paywalls for online news for three of its mastheads.

Stuff’s main rival NZME has half the country’s radio networks in addition to newsrooms supplying its newspapers and websites. NZME’s New Zealand Herald has been getting revenue from “premium content” digital subscriptions for four years.

After Boucher acquired Stuff in 2020, Stuff embarked on a digital transition creating more digital audio and video content. It has hired executives from multimedia companies such as Nadia Tolich (ex-NZME now Stuff Digital managing director) and former NZME digital leader Laura Maxwell, now Stuff’s chief executive.

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

Many observers said this had been coming but few seemed to have a plan for it, including the government. 

Mediawatch looks at what viewers will lose, efforts to resist the cuts and talks to the news chief at Newshub which is set to close completely.

By Colin Peacock, RNZ Mediawatch presenter

On the AM show last Wednesday, newsreader Nicky Styris suffered a frog in the throat at the wrong time.

Host Melissa Chan Green took over her bulletin while Styris quickly recovered. Minutes later Styris had to take the place of no-show panel guest Paula Bennett.

Just before that, viewers saw co-host Lloyd Burr on his knees fixing the studio flat-pack furniture with a drill.

Three hours later they were at an all-staff meeting at which executives from offshore owner Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) confirmed the complete closure of Newshub by midyear.

On TVNZ’s Midday news soon after, reporter Kim Baker-Wilson was live from the scene of the announcement of Newshub’s demise.

The previous day the roles were reversed, with Newshub’s Simon Shepherd outside TVNZ’s building reporting TVNZ’s Midday had been scrapped, along with the late news Tonight and Fair Go. 

On Wednesday TVNZ also confirmed flagship current affairs show Sunday will cease next month.

So as things stand, it’s the end of the line for all news bulletins on TVNZ other than 1 News at 6, though the news-like shows Breakfast and Seven Sharp survive because they accommodate lucrative sponsored content (“activations” in the ad business) as well as ads.

And TV channel Three will be entirely news-free for the first time in its 35-year history.

Senior journalists led by investigations editor Michael Morrah presented a proposal for a stripped-back and shortened news bulletin to keep the Newshub name alive (and some jobs) but while WBD took it seriously, it eventually turned the idea down.

Another media player to fill the Newshub void?
There have been rumours and reports that other media companies were talking to WBD about filling the Newshub at 6 news void.

Initially light-on-detail reports of lifelines suggested a possible sale of Newshub to another media company. Then there were reports of other media companies pitching to make news for WBD on a much-reduced budget.

Among the names mentioned in media despatches was NZME, which has radio and video studios and journalists around the country, though most of them are north of Taupo.

NZME told Stuff “it was not currently part of the process”.

The Herald’s Media Insider column reported on Tuesday that Newshub was “set to receive a lifeline” and understood Stuff was “among the leading contenders.”

However when Stuff itself reported on Wednesday that Stuff was “understood to be a likely contender,” a spokesperson for Stuff declined to comment to Stuff’s reporter on whether Stuff had been in talks with WBD — or not.

RNZ said it wasn’t in the frame for this. (It recently killed off the video version of its only daily news show with pictures, Checkpoint).

Sky TV has production facilities galore and its free-to-air TV channel Sky Open currently runs a Newshub-made news bulletin at 5:30 each weekday. Sky has only said it was an “interesting idea” — or words to that effect.

“At this point there is no deal,” WBD local boss Glen Kyne told reporters after confirming the closure of Newshub on Wednesday.

Kyne also said the company’s “door has been open to all internal and external feedback and ideas, and we will continue to be”.

But anyone opening that door clearly isn’t willing to do it in daylight — or  tell the rest of the media about it.

Lifelines likely?

If there is to be any kind of “Newshub-lite” lifeline, a key question is: what is WBD prepared to pay for the programme?

Presumably not much, given that they said they had no choice but to carve the cost of Newshub — amounting to tens of millions a year — from its bottom line in line with its reducing revenue.

So is it worth any major media company’s while to commit to making news in video for another outlet? And it would have to be done in a hurry because the last Newshub bulletins screen on July 5.

When Newshub’s owners first announced they wanted to get rid of it in late February, its former chief editor Hal Crawford told Mediawatch the problem with finding a buyer was that minimum viable cost for a credible TV news operation was greater than anyone here was prepared to spend.

Longtime TV3 news boss Mark Jennings (now co-editor of Newsroom) said any substitute service on the fraction of the current budget would have another problem — TVNZ’s 1 News.

“You’re up against a sophisticated TVNZ product so viewers will have an immediate comparison. Probably that won’t be favorable for Warner Brothers,” he told RNZ.

TVNZ has its own news production problems after the cuts they confirmed this week.

“We’re proposing to establish a new long-form team within our news operation, which would continue to bring important current affairs and consumer affairs stories to Aotearoa in a different way on our digital platforms.”

TVNZ declined Mediawatch‘s request to speak to TVNZ’s news chief Phil O’Sullivan about that at this time.

Newshub’s news boss responds

One who did though is Newshub news boss Richard Sutherland — appointed as interim senior director of news at Newshub in January.

It was his second spell at Newshub, during a career in broadcast news spanning four decades at almost every significant national news outlet in the country, including RNZ, where he stepped down as head of news a year ago.

In that time he’s experienced many a financial crisis in the business — but did he see this one coming?

“The last couple of weeks has been coming for quite some time. I think that the so-called legacy news operations have almost done too good a job of keeping the lights on and papering over the cracks. And we just got to a point [the industry] couldn’t paper over the cracks any longer.

“But when you look at audience behaviour and the fall off and revenue, particularly in the advertising market, then that doesn’t surprise me that we’ve got to where we’ve got to.”

But if the audience was big, the ad revenue would be too?

“It’s certainly by no means as big as it once was simply because people have other options available to them. The cliche is that you’re not in a war with the other media, but in a war for people’s attention.”

“It’s not so much the audience has changed so much as the dynamics of the advertising market that has really changed over the last sort of 10 to 15 years. The digital advertising — and the big two main players in that space, Facebook and Google — are eating everybody’s lunch.”

TV ad income on the slide
Annual advertising stats that came out this very week show media in 2023 attracted $3.36 billion across the whole of the media industry — about the same as in 2022.

But TV advertising revenue of $517 million in 2022 slumped to $443 million last year.

“That’s why what the TV industry has found is that can’t cut its costs fast enough to meet the falloff in the advertising income,” Sutherland told Mediawatch. 

Digital-only ad revenue rose by $88 million in 2023 — but it’s Google and Facebook which secures the vast bulk of that.

But if this has been coming for a number of years, as Sutherland says, has there been enough planning for it?

After the closure of Newshub was mooted by its owner last month, seven of Sutherland’s colleagues led by investigations editor Michael Morrah put together a transition plan to keep Newshub on air in a few days.

Shouldn’t this sort of transition planning have been done at high levels over recent years right across the television business?

“Every media company that I’ve worked for or have observed over the last few years has been trying to innovate and get to a more sustainable level. The revenue was just collapsing far faster than anyone ever anticipated.”

“It annoys me when I hear people say older media haven’t innovated enough. We’ve done a lot of innovation. That’s pretty lazy politics to just say: ‘You need to innovate.’

“It’s also lazy politics to say, the government should just come in and bail everyone out. New Zealand Incorporated needs to have a big conversation about what it wants to do with the media and how it wants to fund it.

“For the past few years the industry has been like so many rats in a sack, fighting with each chasing a smaller and smaller amount of ad dollars. We need to get together and work out how we get ourselves collectively out of the sack,” Sutherland told Mediawatch.

Shortly before TVNZ and Newshub announced their cuts, there was a meeting of chief executives including Newshub’s owners Warner Bros Discovery to discuss a shared new service. TVNZ rejected the idea.

“But a lot has changed in the last couple of months. And I would like to think that eventually we’ll get to a point where we can actually have honest and productive conversations about what we can do to help each other as well as maintaining a degree of competition, but also realising that if we just keep fighting with each other, we’re not going to have a sustainable industry,” Sutherland said.

Would Sutherland want to work for a low-budget alternative to Newshub stave off the complete closure? And would Kiwis want such a service?

“There is a segment of the audience that appreciates a very highly produced, well-curated news bulletin every night. And there’s large numbers of people who no longer see that as part of their media diet.

“The trick is to provide options so that people can get what they want when they want it.

“It’s not really for me to say what a possible replacement for Newshub might look like. I’m well away from those negotiations.

“If we reach a stage where the media scene here withers away to nothing, there’ll be no-one to tell the stories. The media uncovers a lot of shady stuff in this country.

“And the fear of media coverage prevents people in positions of power and authority at all levels doing a lot of shady stuff. So it is important to document the ructions of the New Zealand media scene just like we do in other parts of the country.”

Minister in a corner

The day the axe fell at Newshub and at TVNZ, New Zealand’s screen producers’ guild Spada said “while the newsroom cuts have dominated media coverage to date, it is actually the whole production sector being impacted”.

“While TVNZ and Three aren’t giving definitive numbers at this time, Spada has calculated that we are looking at around $50 million coming out of our sector,” said president Irene Gardiner.

Spada is also asking the government to exempt screen funding agencies from the percent public spending cuts and to force the international streaming platform to support local production.

Spada called for” swift and decisive action” from the government on this.

Should they be holding their breath?

When confronted by reporters for a response to the current TV news crisis, Broadcasting Minister Melissa Lee said: “If only I was a magician, if I could actually just snap up a solution, that would be fantastic.

“But I’m not a magician, and I’m trying to find a solution to modernise the industry . . .  there is a process happening.”

But the media are not expecting magic — just a plan rather than assertions of a process with no timeline.

She has repeatedly said she’s preparing policy in a paper to take to cabinet, but refused to give any details.

On RNZ’s Checkpoint, persistent and pointed questions from Lisa Owen yielded few further clues.

Newstalk ZB Drive host Heather du Plessis-Allan told Melissa Lee she was being “weird and shady” and the next morning ZB’s Mike Hosking told her she was using “buzzwords that don’t mean anything” and was doomed to fail.

Stuff’s Tova O’Brien reported that the need to consult coalition allies on policy means it can’t be progressed until after Winston Peters returns from overseas at the end of the month.

The under-wraps media policy is also not in the government’s recently-released quarterly action plan.

Meanwhile this week, our two biggest TV news broadcasters ran out of time.

Ex-minister leading resistance to cuts

After his unenlightening on-air interview with minister Melissa Lee on Thursday morning, Mike Hosking’s ZB listeners told him she reminded them of ministers in the last government.

Coincidentally, one of them was also one of few people who did speak out about the crisis while it was unfolding.

Michael Wood represented TVNZ journalists from the E tū union as its negotiations specialist.

E tū  is now taking legal action against TVNZ, claiming it failed to abide by the conditions of their employment agreement.

Could that reverse or wind back any of the cuts TVNZ has announced?

“That does remain to be seen. The collective agreement has very clear processes around what should happen if TVNZ wants to move forward and make changes. It requires [staff members] to be involved throughout the process, and for the company to try and reach agreement with them. Our very strong view is that that hasn’t happened.”

“Staff have said: ‘Look, five years ago, we came to you and said we want to do these things with our shows to make sure they have a sustainable future to make sure that they have a strong online platform.’ And [TVNZ] frankly has not demonstrated strategy and leadership around those things.”

“These are still shows that are very, very popular. Canceling them will reduce costs, but based on TVNZ’s own information that they’ve provided, it will reduce revenue by more.”

It’s been difficult to get any media company executives or even journalists at the two companies affected by these cuts to talk about them, even off-the-record.

Wood is one of the few people who has spoken frankly to broadcasters’ executives, albeit confidentially behind closed doors.

“There is a bit of a delicate dance which has to happen when media companies themselves are making these decisions. And media need to report on that.

“So I have some sympathy, but these aren’t just individual employment issues. This is a public policy issue . . .  about whether we have a functioning and vibrant Fourth Estate.”

Wood was until last year a minister in the Labour government which could have averted the TVNZ cuts.

It spent more than $16 million planning a new public media entity to replace TVNZ and RNZ with a not-for-profit public media entity — but then scrapped it weeks before it was due to begin.

“You’ve just identified one of the core things that we’ve got to deal with. TVNZ, in terms of its statutory form, is neither one thing nor the other. It has a commercial imperative and it also has some other obligations in terms of public good.

“News and current affairs should be at the heart of that — and that is something that we should be much clearer about.”

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

The day the news axe fell: Presenters, insiders fear ‘huge blow for democracy’

The future of New Zealand’s media landscape is becoming clearer by the day, with confirmation that it will no longer feature one of the country’s big two TV news networks.

Warner Bros. Discovery has revealed that all of Newshub’s operations will be shut down, effective July 5. That includes the flagship 6pm bulletin, The AM Show, and the Newshub website.

294 staff are set to lose their jobs.

It’s also been confirmed that TVNZ’s programme Sunday will be cancelled, following yesterday’s announcement that Fair Go, as well as both 1News at Midday and 1News Tonight, are being canned in their current format.

New Zealand’s media industry has been rocked by the bleeding obvious which is that their failed ratings system for legacy media was always more art than science.

The NZ radio ratings system is a diary that you fill in every 15 minutes — which no one ever fills in properly.

The NZ newspaper ratings are opinion polls and the NZ TV ratings system is a magical 180 boxes that limits choice to whoever had the TV remote.

When the sales rep told the advertiser that 300,000 people would read, see, hear their advert, it was based on ratings systems that were flattering but not real.

With the ruthlessness of online audience measurement, advertisers could see exactly how many people were actually seeing their adverts, and the legacy media never adapted to this new reality.

What we see now is hollowed out journalism competing against social media hate algorithms designed to generate emotional responses rather than Fourth Estate accountability.

New Zealand has NEVER had the audience size to make advertising based broadcasting feasible, that’s why it’s always required a state broadcaster — with no Fourth Estate who will hold this hard right racist climate denying beneficiary bashing government to account?

Minister missing in action
Broadcasting Minister Melissa Lee has refused to support the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill that Labour’s former minister Willie Jackson put forward that would at least force Google and Facebook to pay for the journalism they take for free.

Lee has been utterly hopeless and missing in action here — if “Democracy dies in darkness”, National are pulling the plug.

This government doesn’t want accountability, does it?

Instagram this year switched on a new filter to smother political debate and we know actual journalism has been smothered by the social media algorithms.

I don’t think that most people who get their information from their social media feeds understand they aren’t seeing the most important journalism but are in fact seeing the most inflammatory rhetoric to keep people outraged and addicted to doom scrolling.

When Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters does his big lie that the entire mainstream media were bribed because of a funding note by NZ on Air in regards to coverage of Māori issues for the Public Interest Journalism fund — which by the way was quickly clarified by NZ on Air as not an editorial demand — he conflates and maliciously spins and NZ’s democracy suffers.

Muddled TVNZ
Television New Zealand has always come across like a muddle. It aspires to be BBC public broadcasting yet has the commercial imperatives of any Crown Owned Enterprise. If Labour had merged TVNZ and RNZ and made TVNZ 1 commercial free so that the advertising revenue could cross over to Newshub, it would have rebuilt the importance of public broadcasting while actually regulating the broken free market.

When will we get a Labour Party that actually gives a damn about public broadcasting rather than pay lip service to it?

Ultimately Newshub’s demise is a story of ruthless transnational interests and geopolitical cultural hegemony.

Corporate Hollywood soft power wants to continue its cultural dominance as the South Pacific friction continues between the United States and China.

New Zealand is an important plank for American hegemony in the South Pacific and as China and American competition heats up, Warners Bros Discovery suddenly buying a large stake in our media was always a geopolitical calculation over a commercial one.

Cultural dominance doesn’t require nor want an active journalism, so they will keep the channel open purely as a means of dominating domestic culture without any of the Fourth Estate obligations.

That bitter angry feeling you have watching Warner Bros Discovery destroy our Fourth Estate is righteous.

Social licence trashed
They bought a media outlet that has had a 35-year history of being a structural part of our media environment and dumping it trashes their social licence in this country.

That feeling of rage you have watching a multibillion transnational vandalise our environment is going to be repeated the millisecond you see the American mining interests lining up to mine conservation land with all their promises to repair anything they break.

Remember — the transnational ain’t your friend regardless of its pronouns.

That person they rolled in with the soft-glazed CEO face to do the sad, sad crying is disingenuous and condescending.

Now Warner Bros has killed Newshub off, we have no option as Kiwis but to boycott whatever is left of TV3 and water down Warner Bros remaining interests altogether.

They’ve burnt their bridges with us in New Zealand by walking away from their social contract, we should have no troubles returning the favour!

The only winners here are rightwing politicians who don’t want their counterproductive and corrupt decisions to be scrutinised.

We are a poorer and weaker democracy after these news cuts.

Why bother having a Minister of Broadcasting if all they do is fiddle while the industry burns?

Welcome to your new media future in Aotearoa New Zealand . . .

Republished with permission from The Daily Blog.

Warner Bros Discovery will struggle to retain viewers in New Zealand if it has no news operation, Newshub journalist Paddy Gower predicts, as he continues his crusade for someone to save at least part of its newsroom.

A grim 48 hours for news media has resulted in many jobs being lost in the sector — as TV3 confirmed the closure of Newshub, and TVNZ announced it was going ahead with axing its current affairs flagship Sunday, consumer affairs Fair Go and two news bulletins.

About 250 jobs are being lost in the shutdown of Three’s national news service, which will close in July.

Gower told RNZ Morning Report Warner Bros Discovery needed to get on and do a deal for another party to take over the news bulletin.

He was among seven senior Newshub journalists who pushed back against the company’s proposal and put forward their own plan.

The proposal, led by his colleague Michael Morrah, was “radical”, “aggressive” and would have pared the news operation back to the bone, he said.

It centred on the 6pm bulletin which brought in a lot of advertising revenue, retain the website and would later build up the digital operation.

“Basically it was a cutdown radical proposal to hang on to the 6pm bulletin and find digital solutions out into the future.”

While management gave them access to figures and helped them in other ways they ultimately decided not to go ahead.

He said when the closure was confirmed, there was a feeling of “the weight of history” at the loss of a taonga which Kiwis would miss when it disappeared.

“It’s gonna be a dark time for news in this country,” he said.

Gower said Warner Bros Discovery would have “a helluva time” keeping viewers without Newshub providing news and current affairs.

“We tried. That’s the Kiwi way. That’s the Newshub way.”

He said another media company, such as Stuff or NZME, could now come in and further their own news brand and their reputation by saving part of a significant news operation.

They would oversee the making of a 6pm news bulletin that would be sold to Warner Bros Discovery and in the process be working with one of the world’s leading media companies.

“That has to be a possibility . . . They would be seen to be saving news in New Zealand and that’s a big ups for them . . .

“The company that is able to get that deal done …. is going to get some incredible journalists on board to help them do it,” Gower said.

It would probably save about 40 to 50 jobs, he said.

Warner Brothers Discovery declined to be interviewed by Morning Report.

Broadcasting Minister accused of lack of vision
Former head of news at TV3 Mark Jennings believed Broadcasting Minister Melissa Lee was “all at sea” as the country veered towards a media crisis.

He found her response to the Newshub closure confusing and did not believe the cabinet paper she has been working on would provide anything beneficial.

“I think you’re likely to have three parties, New Zealand First, ACT and National, all with different points of view and I can’t see them agreeing on any forward course of action, particularly not with Melissa Lee who appears to have no vision here at all.”

Jennings said he was notsurprised the Morrah-Gower plan did not succeed, because employers had considered other options and then made up their minds before the consultation period began.

If an offer from an outside organisation did get the go-ahead, it would be a “basic product” and would be “news-light”, he said.

It might be shot on i-Phones and edited by journalists and would not resemble Newshub’s current flagship bulletin.

While both the pandemic and social media had lowered the quality threshold of what viewers might accept, it would still be compared to what TVNZ was screening.

“The challenge will be for them to hold on to their ratings and more importantly, their share. Their share has been decreasing over time and if it gets too much lower, they’ll find themselves back at square one really.”

Minister Lee was unwilling to be interviewed by Morning Report.

On Wednesday, she refused to tell RNZ once again what her plans to reform the sector were, citing cabinet confidentiality.

She said she was focused on ensuring New Zealand’s media industry was sustainable and modernised, and she was looking at reviewing the Broadcasting Act.

Although she has written a cabinet paper, she would not say what was in it.

Lee said she had talked to international companies on how they could support and increase New Zealand screen production, but it would not include a quota.

She said it would not have helped the situation at Newshub.

Not much scope for NZ on Air
New Zealand on Air chief executive Cam Harland said the agency had a limited ability to intervene because its remit was to provide funding for a large number of audiences across a range of genres.

He heads the agency responsible for distributing public funds but its budget isn’t nearly enough to address shortfalls.

Daily television news was expensive to produce, so he considered it unlikely NZ on Air would help much, he told Morning Report.

The loss of jobs and talent was “monumental” and NZ on Air bosses intended to meet with TVNZ and Newshub as well as senior journalists, such as Jennings, to get more information before making any decisions.

“We absolutely want to help . . .  so I guess our view now is: Can we be more innovative with what we’re funding, can we get more bang for the buck?”

The organisation was also faced with reviewing its spending in line with the government’s requirements for the public sector.

Union files claim against TVNZ

The union representing journalists has filed a claim against TVNZ alleging the company breached its own consultation requirements in its job cuts process.

E Tu’s negotiation specialist, Michael Wood, said the broadcaster should have involved its employees before the proposal was presented.

Talks were continuing with the Employment Relations Authority to see if a legal case could be heard as quickly as possible.

“It’s an urgent matter now . . . We’ll be trying to get an outcome there as soon as possible and we want to see an outcome that respects the process.”

He said mediation between the parties might be a part of the process.

While the union and employees had a small victory with a handful of jobs being saved, there was still “a massive loss of capacity” with the axing of several programmes.

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

Warner Bros Discovery has confirmed its plans to shut down Newshub in Aotearoa New Zealand, including its website and all TV news shows by July 5 — 294 staff will lose their jobs.

The company says no deal is in place yet with any third party to supply daily news.

Newshub staff learned of the company’s decision at a meeting fronted by Warner Bros Discovery’s Australia and New Zealand chief Glenn Kyne and its Asia-Pacific president James Gibbons today.

• READ MORE: NZ media: All Newshub operations to be shut down, 250 jobs to go
• TVNZ’s Sunday cancelled, broadcaster confirms
• TVNZ to cut Fair Go, midday and late night news bulletins
• TVNZ job cuts: Public asked to join ‘save our stories’ protest campaign
• RNZ News live blog on the cutbacks
• Other NZ news cutbacks reports

In a statement, Gibbons said there was “nothing anyone in our New Zealand networks business could have done better” to avoid the closure.

“It was a combination of very strong economic headwinds both in New Zealand and the global market,” he said.

“The downturn has been severe, and the bounce-back has not materialised as expected.”

Warner Bros Discovery first revealed its proposal to close Newshub on February 28. Newshub Michael Morrah told RNZ’s Midday Report many staff saw today’s decision as inevitable.

‘Many resigned themselves’
“The confirmation was still very upsetting and disappointing, but nothing like the shock of six weeks ago. Many had resigned themselves to the closure,” he said.

“I have worked here for 18 years. We believe in what we do. And know it is important to the people who watch — 900,000 every week. What happens to those people who relied on us to present key news and current affairs?

“And to the investigations that are being worked on?”

Gibbons said $74 million disappeared from broadcast TV advertising in New Zealand in 2023 alone. That was the single largest year-on-year drop over the last three decades outside of the Global Financial Crisis in 2007-8.

“Every business in its own market has to be financially sustainable, and we simply could not continue in our current form.”

Fresh annual figures released yesterday showed total TV advertising revenue in New Zealand TV fell from $517 million in 2022 to $443 million last year.  Digital advertising revenue is increasing but the vast bulk of that goes to offshore tech companies Google and Facebook.

Kyne said free-to-air and news operations were too expensive to run as they were. He was concerned that the move would leave TVNZ as the only service running free-to-air broadcast news, but said there was no other choice.

Impact on plurality
“We are deeply aware of the effect this is likely to have on the plurality of media voices in New Zealand. Having just one TV news operation in New Zealand — that is state-owned — will be an ongoing issue until it is solved.

“But as we noted on the day, it is simply impossible to continue operating in our current form.”

The final day for staff who have been made redundant will be on July 5, and that will also be the final day for the Newshub bulletin, the statement said.

When Newshub’s closure was first proposed in late February, staff were given six weeks to give feedback on the proposal.

“Myself and six colleagues suggested a stripped back Newshub live at 6 and retention of the Newshub (website) to transition from linear TV to a fully-digital model. We thought we had a profitable way forward.

‘We were told the option would be problematic for WBD and produce a downward trajectory for the business,“ Newshub’s investigations editor Michael Morrah told RNZ’s Midday Report.

Other alternative proposals to replace or continue Newshub were also considered amid heavy secrecy, bolstered by the use of non-disclosure agreements.

Considering proposals
In recent days media reports have indicated WBD has been considering proposals from other media companies to create a news service for the company’s channels.

New Zealand Herald media commentator Shayne Currie yesterday reported that Stuff was a leading contender for taking on the organisation’s 6pm news. Some have speculated that NZME, which owns the Herald and Newstalk ZB, could also have an interest.

WBD said today no arrangement with any third party was in place but Mediawatch understands the company has already rebuffed several and is only pursuing projects with one or two players.

Stuff reported yesterday that Stuff was “understood to be a likely contender”  but a spokesperson for Stuff declined to comment on whether it had been in talks with Warner Bros Discovery.

“The main thing is Newshub needs a lifeline. These people deserve a lifeline. Those people who are looking to do these deals, get on and get them done and save some of these people and save some news for Kiwis,” Newshub presenter Patrick Gower told reporters after today’s announcement.

Kyne said the company’s “door has been open to listening to all internal and external feedback and ideas, and we will continue to do so”.

“However, as of now, no deal regarding news output has been made.”

News archives
Kyne said the company was also looking to work with Nga Taonga to preserve its 30-year news archives.

Mediawatch understands that several staff made submissions calling on the company to preserve those archives, with fears that years of work — and New Zealand history — could be lost if they were deleted.

Newshub’s shutdown is the biggest and most far-reaching news closure in the post-covid era.

“Every time we think we’ve landed on stable footing, something comes along and makes it unstable again, forcing us to look at ways of further reducing costs,” Kyne said in a statement when the closure was first proposed.

“We’ve now reached a stage where any further reduction in costs means . . .  proposing to shut down the newsroom and the Newshub website.”

“Everyone can see that the media sector, here in New Zealand, and around the world is facing some very tough circumstances. While Warner Bros Discovery is a large global media company, each business is managed on its ability to sustain itself within the market it operates in.

“Subsidising losses for ongoing years indefinitely is not sustainable,” said Gibbons.

At the time, Warner Bros Discovery said its proposal was is to make the ThreeNow online app “the core of the model, supported by free-to-air linear channels” such as Three, Bravo, Eden, Rush and HGTV.

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