ABC News correspondent Matt Gutman was pushed and berated by a police officer on live TV while covering a protest against the Trump administration in downtown Los Angeles, California, on June 14, 2025.

The protest was one of more than 2,000 “No Kings” demonstrations held nationwide to counter a military parade attended by President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., marking the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. It also followed days of protests in the city and nearby towns against recent federal raids, part of the Trump administration’s larger immigration crackdown.

Gutman was reporting live June 14 as the Los Angeles Police Department and other law enforcement agencies began aggressively clearing the streets of protesters.

An ABC News Live video posted by multiple social media users showed an LAPD officer — wearing a gas mask and other riot gear standing in a line of other officers — pushing Gutman and yelling at him for allegedly touching another officer.

“Now you’re pushing me on live television,” Gutman said to the officer. “We didn’t touch anybody, you know that’s true.”

“Tensions are extremely high here,” Gutman continued. “Yes, because you touched the officer,” the officer shouted.

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Other Antoinette Lattouf media freedom reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republished from Green Left Magazine with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Despite all the political machinations and hate towards the media coming from the president of the United States, I always thought the majority of Australian politicians supported the role of the press in safeguarding democracy.

And I certainly did not expect Peter Dutton — amid an election campaign, one with citizens heading to the polls on World Press Freedom Day — to come out swinging at the ABC and Guardian Australia, telling his followers to ignore “the hate media”.

I’m not saying Labor is likely to be the great saviour of the free press either.

• READ MORE: On ‘moral panic’ and the courage to speak – the West’s silence on Gaza
• Trump’s war on the media: 10 numbers from US President’s first 100 days
• Other media freedom reports

The ALP has been slow to act on a range of important press freedom issues, including continuing to charge journalism students upwards of $50,000 for the privilege of learning at university how to be a decent watchdog for society.

Labor has increased, slightly, funding for the ABC, and has tried to continue with the Coalition’s plans to force the big tech platforms to pay for news. But that is not enough.

The World Press Freedom Index has been telling us for some time that Australia’s press is in a perilous state. Last year, Australia dropped to 39th out of 190 countries because of what Reporters Without Borders said was a “hyperconcentration of the media combined with growing pressure from the authorities”.

We should know on election day if we’ve fallen even further.

What is happening in America is having a profound impact on journalism (and by extension journalism education) in Australia.

‘Friendly’ influencers
We’ve seen both parties subtly start to sideline the mainstream media by going to “friendly” influencers and podcasters, and avoid the harder questions that come from journalists whose job it is to read and understand the policies being presented.

What Australia really needs — on top of stable and guaranteed funding for independent and reliable public interest journalism, including the ABC and SBS — is a Media Freedom Act.

My colleague Professor Peter Greste has spent years working on the details of such an act, one that would give media in Australia the protection lacking from not having a Bill of Rights safeguarding media and free speech. So far, neither side of government has signed up to publicly support it.

Australia also needs an accompanying Journalism Australia organisation, where ethical and trained journalists committed to the job of watchdog journalism can distinguish themselves from individuals on YouTube and TikTok who may be pushing their own agendas and who aren’t held to the same journalistic code of ethics and standards.

I’m not going to argue that all parts of the Australian news media are working impartially in the best interests of ordinary people. But the good journalists who are need help.

The continuing underfunding of our national broadcasters needs to be resolved. University fees for journalism degrees need to be cut, in recognition of the value of the profession to the fabric of Australian society. We need regulations to force news organisations to disclose when they are using AI to do the job of journalists and broadcasters without human oversight.

And we need more funding for critical news literacy education, not just for school kids but also for adults.

Critical need for public interest journalism
There has never been a more critical need to support public interest journalism. We have all watched in horror as Donald Trump has denied wire services access for minor issues, such as failing to comply with an ungazetted decision to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

And mere days ago, 60 Minutes chief Bill Owens resigned citing encroachments on his journalistic independence due to pressure from the president.

The Committee to Protect Journalists is so concerned about what’s occurring in America that it has issued a travel advisory for journalists travelling to the US, citing risks under Trump administration policies.

Those of us who cover politically sensitive issues that the US administration may view as critical or hostile may be stopped and questioned by border agents. That can extend to cardigan-wearing academics attending conferences.

While we don’t have the latest Australian figures from the annual Reuters survey, a new Pew Research Centre study shows a growing gap between how much Americans say they value press freedom and how free they think the press actually is. Two-thirds of Americans believe press freedom is critical. But only a third believe the media is truly free to do its job.

If the press isn’t free in the US (where it is guaranteed in their constitution), how are we in Australia expected to be able to keep the powerful honest?

Every single day, journalists put their lives on the line for journalism. It’s not always as dramatic as those who are covering the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, but those in the media in Australia still front up and do the job across a range of news organisations in some fairly poor conditions.

If you care about democracy at all this election, then please consider wisely who you vote for, and perhaps ask their views on supporting press freedom — which is your right to know.

Alexandra Wake is an associate professor in journalism at RMIT University. She came to the academy after a long career as a journalist and broadcaster. She has worked in Australia, Ireland, the Middle East and across the Asia Pacific. Her research, teaching and practice sits at the nexus of journalism practice, journalism education, equality, diversity and mental health.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The airstrike on the tent housing journalists in the grounds of Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis killed Hilmi al-Faqaawi, a social media manager for pro-Palestinian Islamic Jihad broadcaster Palestine Today TV, and injured the following journalists:

• Ahmed Mansour, Palestine Today news agency editor
• Ahmed Al-Agha, BBC Arabic contributor
• Mohammed Fayeq, freelance photojournalist and drone operator
• Abdullah Al-Attar, freelance photographer for Anadolu Agency
• Ihab Al-Bardini, camera operator contributing to U.S. channel ABC
• Mahmoud Awad, Al Jazeera camera operator
• Majed Qudaih, Radio Algerie correspondent
• Ali Eslayeh, photographer for West Bank-based site Alam24

The Israel Defense Forces said the strike targeted Hassan Eslayeh, a freelance photographer who was with Hamas on October 7, 2023. The IDF said Eslayeh, who was injured on April 7, 2025, was a “terrorist” who “participated in the bloody massacre.”

In 2023, the pro-Israeli watchdog HonestReporting published a photo of Eslayeh being kissed by then-Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, after which CNN, the Associated Press and Reuters news agencies cut ties with the journalist.

“This is not the first time Israel has targeted a tent sheltering journalists in Gaza. The international community’s failure to act has allowed these attacks on the press to continue with impunity, undermining efforts to hold perpetrators accountable,” said CPJ Middle East and North Africa  Director Sara Qudah. “CPJ calls on authorities to allow the injured, some of whom have sustained severe burns, to be evacuated immediately for treatment and to stop attacking Gaza’s already devastated press corps.”

Footage verified by Reuters news agency showed people trying to douse flames in the tent while other images of someone trying to rescue a journalist in flames were widely shared online.

CPJ’s email to the IDF’s North America Media Desk to request comment did not receive an immediate response.

More than 170 journalists and media workers have been killed in the Israel-Gaza war.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

COMMENTARY: By Bernard Keane

Two moments stand out so far from the Federal Court hearings relating to Antoinette Lattouf’s sacking by the ABC, insofar as they demonstrate how power works in Australia — and especially in Australia’s media.

The first is how the ABC’s senior management abandoned due process in the face of a sustained lobbying effort by a pro-Israel group to have Lattouf taken off air, under the confected basis she was “antisemitic”.

Managing director David Anderson admitted in court that there was a “step missing” in the process that led to her sacking — in particular, a failure to consult with the ABC’s HR area, and a failure to discuss the attacks on Lattouf with Lattouf herself, before kicking her out.

• READ MORE: Legacy media outlets also stand in dock over Gaza: How RNZ, ABC and other Western media failed to challenge Israeli war narratives – Pacific Journalism Review
• Pressure from ‘higher up’ at ABC to sack Antoinette Lattouf from very first day on air, court hears

To this, it might be added, was acting editorial director Simon Melkman’s advice to management that Lattouf had not breached any editorial policies.

Anderson bizarrely singled out Lattouf’s authorship, alongside Cameron Wilson, of a Crikey article questioning the narrative that pro-Palestinian protesters had chanted “gas the Jews”, as basis for his concerns about her, only for one of his executives to point out the article was “balanced and journalistically sound“.

That is, by the ABC’s own admission, there was no basis to sack Lattouf and the sacking was conducted improperly. And yet, here we are, with the ABC tying itself in absurd knots — no such race as Lebanese, indeed — spending millions defending its inappropriate actions in response to a lobbying campaign.

The second moment that stands out is a decision by the court early in the trial to protect the identities of those calling for Lattouf’s sacking.

Abandoned due process
The campaign that the group rolled out prompted the ABC chair and managing director to immediately react — and the ABC to abandon due process and procedural fairness. Yet the court protects their identities.

The reasoning — that the identities behind the complaints should be protected for their safety — may or may not be based on reasonable fears, but it’s the second time that institutions have worked to protect people who planned to undermine the careers of people — specifically, women — who have dared to criticise Israel.

The first was when some members — a minority — of a WhatsApp group supposedly composed of pro-Israel “creatives” discussed how to wreck the careers of, inter alia, Clementine Ford and Lauren Dubois for their criticism of Israel.

The publishing of the identities of this group was held by both the media and the political class to be an outrageous, antisemitic act of “doxxing”, and the federal government rushed through laws to make such publications illegal.

No mention of making the act of trying to destroy people’s careers because they hold different political views — or, cancel culture, as the right likes to call it — illegal.

Whether it’s courts, politicians or the media, it seems that the dice are always loaded in favour of those wanting to crush criticism of Israel, while its victims are left to fend for themselves.

Human rights lawyer and fighter against antisemitism Sarah Schwartz has been repeatedly threatened with (entirely vexatious) lawsuits by Israel supporters for her criticism of Israel, and her discussion of the exploitation of Australian Jews by Peter Dutton.

Opinion | Australian democracy and the rule of law is being damaged by the media’s willingness to abandon due process and attack those who criticise Israel, writes @bernardkeane.

Read it here: https://t.co/gpNuppn31l pic.twitter.com/AyxKdyVMG4

— Crikey (@crikey_news) February 11, 2025

Targeted by another News Corp smear campaign
She’s been targeted by yet another News Corp smear campaign, based on nothing more than a wilfully misinterpreted slide. She has no government or court rushing to protect her.

Meanwhile, Peter Lalor, one of Australia’s finest sports journalists (and I write as someone who can’t abide most sports journalism) lost his job with SEN because he, too, dared to criticise Israel and call out the Palestinian genocide. No-one’s rushing to his aide, either.

No powerful institutions are weighing in to safeguard his privacy, or protect him from the consequences of his opinions.

The individual cases add up to a pattern: Australian institutions, and especially its major media institutions, will punish you for criticising Israel.

Pro-Israel groups will demand you be sacked, they will call for your career to be destroyed. Those groups will be protected.

Media companies will ride roughshod over basic rights and due process to comply with their demands. You will be smeared and publicly vilified on completely spurious bases. Politicians will join in, as Jason Clare did with the campaign against Schwartz and as Chris Minns is doing in NSW, imposing hate speech laws that even Christian groups think are a bad idea.

Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf was sacked from her job at ABC because she shared an Instagram post from @hrw in which the NGS accused Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war. She is now taking the broadcaster to court. pic.twitter.com/jRmQW2AAl3

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 11, 2025

Damaging the fabric of democracy
This is how the campaign to legitimise the Palestinian genocide and destroy critics of the Netanyahu government has damaged the fabric of Australia’s democracy and the rule of law.

The basic rights and protections that Australians should have under a legal system devoted to preventing discrimination can be stripped away in a moment, while those engaged in destroying people’s careers and livelihoods are protected.

Ill-advised laws are rushed in to stifle freedom of speech. Australian Jews are stereotyped as a politically convenient monolith aligned with the Israeli government.

The experience of Palestinians themselves, and of Arab communities in Australia, is minimised and erased. And the media are the worst perpetrators of all.

Bernard Keane is Crikey’s politics editor. Before that he was Crikey’s Canberra press gallery correspondent, covering politics, national security and economics. First published by Crikey.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

We speak with The Nation's Chris Lehmann about President-elect Donald Trump's escalating attacks on the press and how major media figures and institutions are “capitulating preemptively” to the pressure. ABC News recently settled a defamation suit brought by Trump by making a $15 million donation to his future presidential library, despite experts saying the case was easily winnable. Trump is also suing The Des Moines Register for publishing a poll before the election that showed him losing to Vice President Kamala Harris. “What’s happening is a very clear pattern in Trump’s public life,” says Lehmann. “This is a show of power.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Content warning: This article discusses the details of sexual assault.

The interview (This Week, 3/10/24) that cost ABC $15 million.

ABC has agreed to pay $15 million to President-elect Donald Trump’s presidential library and $1 million toward Trump’s legal fees “to settle a defamation lawsuit over anchor George Stephanopoulos’ inaccurate on-air assertion that the president-elect had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll” (AP, 12/14/24).

Fox News (12/15/24) gloated that “Stephanopoulos and ABC News also had to issue statements of ‘regret’ as an editor’s note” on the online version of the offending piece (This Week, 3/10/24). The note reads:

ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC’s This Week on March 10, 2024.

This settlement is a dangerous omen for press freedom, given Trump’s threats to use his power to go after his media critics (NPR, 10/23/24; CNN, 11/7/24; PEN America, 11/15/24; New York Times, 12/15/24; Deadline, 12/16/24).

‘Common modern parlance’

Washington Post (7/19/23): Judge Lewis Kaplan “says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.”

Trump has been found liable for defaming and sexually abusing Carroll in two cases, both of which he is appealing (Politico, 9/6/24). “Donald Trump has been found liable for rape by a jury,” Stephanopoulos said (ABC, 3/10/24). “Donald Trump has been found liable for defaming the victim of that rape by a jury. It’s been affirmed by a judge.”

However, there is a legal difference between “sexual abuse” and “rape” under New York law. The jury found that Trump had violated Carroll with his fingers, not with his penis, and thus the incident was legally classified as sexual abuse, not rape (USA Today, 1/29/24).

However, as the Washington Post (7/19/23) reported:

The filing from Judge Lewis A. Kaplan came as Trump’s attorneys have sought a new trial and have argued that the jury’s $5 million verdict against Trump in the civil suit was excessive. The reason, they argue, is that sexual abuse could be as limited as the “groping” of a victim’s breasts.

Kaplan roundly rejected Trump’s motion Tuesday, calling that argument “entirely unpersuasive.”

The Post continued:

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’” Kaplan wrote.

He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”

In other words, Stephanopoulos’ initial description was not legally accurate, but was instead relying on the popular understanding of the word, according to the judge overseeing the case.

Legally perplexing

Human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid (Newsweek, 12/15/24): “This is the cowardice of legacy media out to make profit, rather than uphold principle.”

For most journalists, such an offense isn’t nothing: Journalists should always be as accurate as possible, and when they do slip up, they should issue corrections. He should have used the most accurate terminology the court used.

But should this mistake cost the network $16 million, most of which will be used to prop up the legacy of the person who made the complaint, a former president on his way back to power?

Newsweek (12/15/24) noted that it was legally perplexing for ABC to settle so early: “Legal experts also criticized the broadcaster for settling the lawsuit before depositions were due to take place,” it explained. The piece quoted former prosecutor Joyce Vance:

I’m old enough to remember—and to have worked on—cases where newspapers vigorously defended themselves against defamation cases instead of folding before the defendant was even deposed.

Because this case never went to trial, we will never know if there was any evidence of actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth in this misreporting, as would be required to secure a defamation reward under New York Times v. Sullivan (Knight First Amendment Institute, 3/18/24). And while correcting the record seems reasonable for ABC, forking over millions in cash that could be otherwise used to employ teams of working journalists seems excessive.

Newsweek (12/15/24) also covered some of the backlash to the deal:

Democratic attorney Marc Elias wrote: “Knee bent. Ring kissed. Another legacy news outlet chooses obedience.”

Reporter Oliver Willis also chimed in, writing on Threads: “This is actually how democracy dies.”

Tech reporter Matt Novak said: “Not good for the rest of us when you do this shit, ABC.”

“But that’s probably half the point from management’s perspective,” he added Saturday.

A warning to other media

“The First Amendment was drafted to protect the press from just such litigation,” attorney Floyd Abrams told CNN (11/1/24). “Mr. Trump may disagree with this or that coverage of him, but the First Amendment permits the press to decide how to cover elections, not the candidates seeking public office.” 

The fact that the network is coughing up money as a result of Trump’s case sends a warning to other media that no media will be safe under a Trump regime. Trump has also sued CBS, “demanding $10 billion in damages over the network’s 60 Minutes interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.” His suit alleges that the Harris interview and “the associated programming were ‘partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference’ intended to ‘mislead the public and attempt to tip the scales’ of the presidential election in her favor” (CNN, 11/1/24).

If continuing the CBS lawsuit sounds petty in light of the fact that Trump won the election, that’s because it is petty. But protracted litigation could inflict real damage on the network. Fox News (12/13/24) bragged that the “CBS suit could potentially impact an enormous media merger.” As we know, Trump hates journalists, and is vowing to go after them when he gets back into power (FAIR.org, 11/14/24).

To be fair, this strategy, which is meant to create a chilling effect on speech, can backfire on Trump, as when he was ordered to “pay nearly $400,000 in legal fees to the New York Times and three investigative reporters after he sued them unsuccessfully over a Pulitzer Prize–winning 2018 story about his family’s wealth and tax practices” (AP, 1/2/24). That’s all the more reason why ABC should be fighting this dubious claim by Trump.

The New York Post editorial board (12/15/24) saw this as a big win for Trump, noting that Stephanopoulos had used the R-word several times in the segment:

The law gives even public figures some rights against such smears; if the case had proceeded, Trump’s legal team would’ve been able to access ABC News’ internal communications in order to prove the network’s reckless attitude toward the truth.

Trump was actually quite magnanimous in not making ABC pay him the settlement, even if the deal makes the company by far the largest donor to the Trump library.

Conservative legal commentator Jonathan Turley (Fox News, 12/16/24) speculated that ABC’s owner, Disney, likely wanted to start off on a better foot with a new Trump administration. “Disney is trying to adopt a more neutral stance after years of opposition to its stances on political issues and accusations of ultra-woke products,” he said. With “networks like MSNBC and CNN in a ratings and revenue free fall after the election, Disney clearly wants to start fresh with the new administration.”

In reality, ABC’s capitulation may have less to do with ratings and more to do with the GOP takeover of all three branches of federal power. Trump’s avowed plan to reward his friends and punish his enemies could force so-called “liberal” media into being more cheerleaders than a check on political power.

Even before the election, FAIR (10/25/24, 10/30/24) noted how the owners of the LA Times and Washington Post stepped in to keep their editorial boards neutral in the presidential race. In the case of the LA Times, owner Patrick Dr. Soon-Shiong has reportedly continued after the election to soften the paper’s editorial voice, a move that has “concerned many staff members who fear he is trying to be deferential to the incoming Trump administration” (New York Times, 12/12/24).

Now that Trump and his legal army see that at least one network will simply pay to have a legal complaint go away, they may feel emboldened to go after others. That could put a damper on critical coverage of the federal government when Americans need it the most.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Ari Paul.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

ABC’s The Pacific has gained rare access into West Papua, a region ruled by Indonesia that has been plagued by military violence and political unrest for decades.

Now, as well as the long-running struggle for independence, some say the Melanesian region’s pristine environment is under threat by the expansion of logging and mining projects, reports The Pacific.

As Indonesia prepares to inaugurate a new President, Prabowo Subianto, a man accused of human rights abuses in the region, West Papua grapples with a humanitarian crisis.

• WATCH: The West Papua episode of The Pacific – Inside Indonesia’s Secret War

The Pacific talks to indigenous Papuans in a refugee settlement about being displaced, teachers who want change to the education system and locals who have hope for a better future.

A spokesman for the Indonesian Foreign Ministry told The Pacific that Indonesia was cooperating with all relevant United Nations agencies and was providing them with up to date information about what is happening in West Papua.

This Inside Indonesia’s Secret War story was produced with the help of ABC Indonesia’s Hellena Souisa.

• The Pacific is hosted by Johnson Raela and Alice Lolohea. #ABCThePacific

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The questions ABC News‘ moderators asked in the September 10 presidential debate they hosted between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump could be faulted for not doing much to illuminate many of the issues important to voters. They did, however, ask some surprisingly pointed questions about perhaps the most important issue in this election—the preservation of democratic elections themselves.

And in sharp contrast to CNN, which hosted the debate between Trump and President Joe Biden in June, ABC‘s David Muir and Linsey Davis made at least some effort to offer real-time factchecking during the debate.

Economy & healthcare

Asked by ABC’s Linsey Davis if he had a healthcare plan, Donald Trump replied, “I have concepts of a plan. I’m not president right now.”

On the economy—which was identified, along with “the cost of living in this country,” as “the issue voters repeatedly say is their number one issue”—ABC‘s Muir asked only a handful of specific questions. He started out by asking Harris a question that he said Trump often asks his supporters, and which was famously asked by Ronald Reagan during a 1980 presidential debate: “When it comes to the economy, do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?”

Aside from that rather open-ended query, the only specific questions ABC asked about the economy concerned tariffs, a favorite topic of Trump’s. Muir asked the former president whether “Americans can afford higher prices because of tariffs,” while he asked Harris to explain why “the Biden administration did keep a number of the Trump tariffs in place.” (The skepticism of both questions reflected corporate media’s traditional commitment to the ideology of “free trade.”)

The healthcare questions both candidates got from Davis were superficially similar—”Do you have a plan and can you tell us what it is?” to Trump, and “What is your plan today?” for Harris. But Trump’s question was set up by noting that “this is now your third time running for president,” and that last month, when asked if he now had a plan, he said, “We’re working on it.”

Davis prefaced her query to Harris by noting that “in 2017, you supported Bernie Sanders’ proposal to do away with private insurance and create a government-run healthcare system”—following the insurance industry-promoted terminology of “government-run” vs. “private,” rather than “public” vs. “corporate” (FAIR.org, 7/1/19).

Another question had the same theme of citing earlier, more progressive positions Harris had taken when running for president in 2019—on fracking, guns and immigration—and seemingly asking for reassurance that she had indeed changed her mind on these issues: “I know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of your policy positions changed?” The line of question reflects corporate media’s preoccupation with making sure that Democrats in general and Harris in particular move to the right (FAIR.org, 7/26/24).

Abortion

Trump tells Kamala Harris that her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, supports “execution after birth.”

Addressing abortion, a motivating issue for many voters, Davis laid out Trump’s changing positions on abortion rights and an abortion ban, then posed the question:

Vice President Harris says that women shouldn’t trust you on the issue of abortion because you’ve changed your position so many times. Therefore, why should they trust you?

While both candidates frequently avoided giving concrete answers, Davis pressed Trump on his position, asking whether he would “veto a national abortion ban,” and again asking, “But if I could just get a yes or no”—helping to make his refusal to answer clear to viewers.

Perhaps in response to Trump’s claim that Harris’s running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, supports “execution after birth,” Davis then asked Harris if she would “support any restrictions on a woman’s right to an abortion.” It’s a bit of a trick question without context, though. Many people say they oppose abortions later in pregnancy; media have long bought into the right-wing notion that “late-term” abortions are beyond the pale (Extra!, 7–8/07). But in practice, abortions later than 15 weeks are exceedingly rare and largely occur because of medical necessity or barriers to care (KFF, 2/21/24)—a nuanced reality that Davis’s question left little space for.

Immigration & race

Harris looks on as Trump claims, “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in. They’re eating the cats…. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

Despite Trump’s repeated invocation of a border crisis and vilification of immigrants, ABC only asked him two immigration questions. One asked how he would achieve his plan to “deport 11 million undocumented immigrants”; the other followed up on Harris’s charge that Trump killed a border bill that, as Muir stated, “would have put thousands of additional agents and officers on the border.” Neither of the questions challenged Trump’s narrative of the “crisis” or the idea that further militarizing the border is necessary. (See FAIR.org, 6/2/23.) (ABC did counter Trump’s outrageous claim that immigrants were eating people’s pets.)

In his sole immigration question to Harris, Muir offered a right-wing framing:

We know that illegal border crossings reached a record high in the Biden administration. This past June, President Biden imposed tough new asylum restrictions. We know the numbers since then have dropped significantly. But my question to you tonight is why did the administration wait until six months before the election to act and would you have done anything differently from President Biden on this?

The media, like Trump, regularly neglect to put immigration numbers in context. Border crossings have increased markedly under Biden, but so have deportations and expulsions, as Biden kept in place most of Trump’s draconian border policies (FAIR.org, 3/29/24).

And the suggestion that Biden “waited…to act” further paints a false picture of the Biden administration as not having “tough restrictions”—immigrant rights advocates called them “inhumane”—prior to 2024.

The one question introduced as being about “race and politics” addressed Trump’s race-baiting of Harris: “Why do you believe it’s appropriate to weigh in on the racial identity of your opponent?”

Democracy

Recalling the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection, ABC‘s David Muir asks Donald Trump, “Is there anything you regret about what you did on that day?”

On the crucial issue of democratic rule, ABC did not pull many punches. To introduce his first question on the theme, Muir addressed Trump:

For three-and-a-half years after you lost the 2020 election, you repeatedly falsely claimed that you won, many times saying you won in a landslide. In the past couple of weeks, leading up to this debate, you have said, quote, you lost by a whisker, that you, quote, didn’t quite make it, that you came up a little bit short. Are you now acknowledging that you lost in 2020?

When Trump claimed he said those things sarcastically, and argued that there was “so much proof” that he had actually won in 2020, Muir challenged his claims directly, first noting, “I didn’t detect the sarcasm,” then continuing:

We should just point out as clarification, and you know this, you and your allies, 60 cases, in front of many judges….and [they] said there was no widespread fraud.

(Trump interrupted this factcheck with another lie, falsely declaring that “no judge looked at it.”)

Muir continued his pushback against Trump in his subsequent question to Harris:

You heard the president there tonight. He said he didn’t say that he lost by a whisker. So he still believes he did not lose the election that was won by President Biden and yourself.

Muir’s question to Harris highlighted Trump’s recent social media post declaring that those who allegedly “cheated” him out of victory would be “prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which will include long-term prison sentences.”

Harris was also asked to respond to Trump’s charge that his numerous prosecutions reflect a “weaponization of the Justice Department.”

International policy

Harris tells Trump that “the American people have a right to rely on a president who understands the significance of America’s role.”

ABC devoted the widest variety of specific questions to the topic of international policy—often with the implicitly hawkish perspective debate moderators tend to take (FAIR.org, 12/14/15, 2/11/20, 12/26/23). Muir set up his questions on Ukraine with a prelude that left little doubt what the right answers would be:

It has been the position of the Biden administration that we must defend Ukraine from Russia, from Vladimir Putin, to defend their sovereignty, their democracy, that it’s in America’s best interest to do so, arguing that if Putin wins he may be emboldened to move even further into other countries.

Muir then asked Trump, “Do you want Ukraine to win this war?”—evoking an aspiration for a military victory in the conflict that has seemed improbable at least since the failure of Kiev’s counteroffensive in the spring of 2023 (FAIR.org, 9/15/23). Failing to get the response he wanted, Muir reframed the issue as a matter of making America great: “Do you believe it’s in the US best interests for Ukraine to win this war? Yes or no?”

For her part, Harris was asked, “As commander in chief, if elected, how would you deal with Vladimir Putin, and would it be any different from what we’re seeing from President Biden?”—and also, in response to a false Trump claim, “Have you ever met Vladimir Putin?”

Muir asked about the end of the US’s 19-year occupation of Afghanistan—presented as a shameful moment, as he invoked “the soldiers who died in the chaotic withdrawal.” His questions to both Harris and Trump implicitly criticized their connection to the war’s end: “Do you believe you bear any responsibility in the way that withdrawal played out?,” Harris was asked, while Trump was asked to respond to Harris’s accusation that “you began the negotiations with the Taliban.”

ABC‘s moderators asked three questions about the Gaza crisis, which was framed as “the Israel/Hamas war and the hostages who are still being held, Americans among them,” though Muir went on to note that “an estimated 40,000 Palestinians are dead.”

Harris was asked how she would “break through the stalemate”—and also to respond to Trump’s charge that “you hate Israel.” Muir asked Trump how he would “negotiate with Netanyahu and also Hamas in order to get the hostages out and prevent the killing of more innocent civilians in Gaza.”

ABC asked one climate crisis question, addressed to both candidates. It took climate change as a fact and asked what the candidates would do to “fight” it. While not a particularly probing question—and disconnected from the debate’s discussions of fracking—it’s a slight improvement over previous presidential debates that have ignored the vital topic altogether (FAIR.org, 10/19/16, 9/22/20).

Factchecking

Muir points out to Trump that “the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country.”

The presidential debate between Trump and then-candidate Biden was hosted in June by CNN, which made the remarkable decision to not attempt any factchecking during the live event (FAIR.org, 6/26/24). Post-debate factchecks turned up countless fabrications by Trump (and several by Biden), but that was entirely overwhelmed in the news coverage by pundits’ focus on Biden’s obvious stumbles.

ABC took a different tack, choosing to counter a few of Trump’s more noteworthy lies. Post-debate analysis counted at least 30 falsehoods from Trump and only a few from Harris; Muir and Davis called out Trump four times and Harris none.

Muir and Davis intervened on some of Trump’s most outlandish fictions. For instance, when Trump claimed that immigrants were “eating the pets of the people that live” in the communities they moved to, Muir noted that “there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”

In addition to Muir’s pushback against Trump’s election fraud lies, Davis countered Trump’s insistence that Democrats support “executing” babies, drily noting that “there is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.”

ABC also challenged a Trump falsehood that many prominent media outlets continued to propagate long after it was no longer even remotely true (FAIR.org, 11/10/22, 7/25/24): that violent crime is “through the roof.” (As Muir pointed out, “The FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country.”)

Of course, the vast majority of Trump’s lies went unchecked, demonstrating the inherent failure of the debate format when one participant exhibits a flagrant disregard for honesty (FAIR.org, 10/9/20).

ABC did not explicitly correct any of Harris’s claims, in part because there was less misinformation in her rhetoric. Some of Harris’s more dubious statements were of the sort that are often found  in corporate media, such as her allusion to the claim that Covid originated from a Chinese lab, when she blamed President Xi Jinping for “not giving us transparency about the origins of Covid.” There is no more evidence for this than there is for immigrants eating pets in Ohio—but as it’s a media-approved conspiracy theory (FAIR.org, 10/6/20, 6/28/21, 7/3/24), one would not expect debate moderators to call her out on it.

Research assistance: Elsie Carson-Holt

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Julie Hollar.

• The presidential campaigns of Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are bickering over debate details, with their first showdown scheduled for Sept. 10 on ABC now in question.
• UN halts aid in Gaza as security deteriorates as polio re-emerges in territory.
• Canada’s government says it is imposing a 100% tariff on imports of Chinese-made electric vehicles, matching U.S. tariffs and following similar plans announced by the European Commission.
• Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle were in Butler County, Pennsylvania, today, assessing the Butler Farm Show grounds where former President Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt last month.
• A federal court hearing began today in Oregon, putting in question a proposed merger between grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons, which would be the largest supermarket merger in U.S. history.

The post Harris, Trump campaigns clash over debate details, September 10 ABC showdown in doubt – August 26, 2024 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

Fiji’s Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, says he will “apologise” to fellow Melanesian leaders later this month after failing to secure agreement from Indonesia to visit its restive West Papua province.

At last year’s Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders meeting in Cook Islands, the Melanesian Spearhead Group appointed Rabuka and PNG Prime Minister James Marape as the region’s “special envoys” on West Papua.

Several Pacific officials and advocacy groups have expressed anguish over alleged human rights abuses committed by Indonesian forces in West Papua, where an indigenous pro-independence struggle has simmered for decades.

• READ MORE: Other West Papua reports

Rabuka and Marape have been trying to organise a visit to West Papua for more than nine months now.

But in an exclusive interview with the ABC’s Pacific Beat, Rabuka said conversations on the trip were still “ongoing” and blamed Indonesia’s presidential elections in February for the delay.

“Unfortunately, we couldn’t go . . .  Indonesia was going through elections. In two months’ time, they will have a new substantive president in place in the palace. Hopefully we can still move forward with that,” he said.

“But in the meantime, James Marape and I will have to apologise to our Melanesian counterparts on the side of the Forum Island leaders meeting in Tonga, and say we have not been able to go on that mission.”

Pacific pressing for independent visit
Pacific nations have been pressing Indonesia to allow representatives from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to conduct an independent visit to Papua.

A UN Human Rights committee report released in May found there were “systematic reports” of both torture and extrajudicial killings of indigenous Papuans in the province.

But Indonesia usually rejects any criticism of its human rights record in West Papua, saying events in the province are a purely internal affair.

West Papua Resistance Leader, Victor Weimo: I must thank the colonialists for continuously teaching us to aspire to true humanity by means of rebellion. pic.twitter.com/h9n4rN9yyN

— Sina Brown-Davis سينا (@uriohau) December 1, 2022

Rabuka said he was “still committed” to the visit and would like to make the trip after incoming Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto takes power in October.

The Fiji prime minister made the comments ahead of a 10-day trip to China, with Rabuka saying he would travel to a number of Chinese provinces to see how the emerging great power had pulled millions of people out of poverty.

He praised Beijing’s development record, but also indicated Fiji would not turn to China for loans or budget support.

“As we take our governments and peoples forward, the people themselves must understand that we cannot borrow to become embroiled in debt servicing later on,” he said.

“People must understand that we can only live within our means, and our means are determined by our own productivity, our own GDP.”

Rabuka is expected to meet Chinese president Xi Jinping in Beijing towards the end of his trip, at the beginning of next week.

Delegation to visit New Caledonia
After his trip to China, the prime minister will take part in a high level Pacific delegation to Kanaky New Caledonia, which was rocked by widespread rioting and violence earlier this year.

While several Pacific nations have been pressing France to make fresh commitments towards decolonisation in the wake of a contentious final vote on independence back in 2021, Rabuka said the Pacific wanted to help different political groups within the territory to find common ground.

“We will just have to convince the leaders, the local group leaders that rebuilding is very difficult after a spate of violent activities and events,” he said.

Rabuka gave strong backing to a plan to overhaul Pacific policing which Australia has been pushing hard ahead of the PIF leaders meeting in Tonga at the end of this month.

Senior Solomon Islands official Collin Beck took to social media last week to publicly criticise the initiative, suggesting that its backers were trying to “steamroll” any opposition at Pacific regional meetings.

Rabuka said the social media post was “unfortunate” and suggested that Solomon Islands or other Pacific nations could simply opt out of the initiative if they didn’t approve of it.

“When it comes to sovereignty, it is a sovereign state that makes the decision,” he said.

Republished with permission from ABC Pacific Beat.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

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.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

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.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

New Zealand needs to get tough with Israel. It’s not as if we haven’t done so before.

When NZ authorities busted a Mossad operation in Auckland 20 years ago, the government didn’t say: “Oh well, Israel has the right to defend itself.”

No, it arrested, prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned and deported the Israeli agents, plus made them pay a big sum of damages. And it refused to restore normal diplomatic relations with Israel until Israel apologised to NZ. Which Israel did.

• READ MORE: Israeli agents jailed in NZ over spy case

Today’s government needs to treat Israel the same way it treats other aggressors, like Russia, with the likes of sanctions.

And the government needs to designate Zionism as an inherently racist, terrorist ideology.

Everyone knows that the Gaza War would stop in five minutes if the US stopped arming Israel to the teeth and allowing it to commit genocide with impunity.

Israel is the mass murderer; the US is the enabler of mass murder.

New Zealand is part of the US Empire. The most useful thing we could do is to sever our ties to that empire, something we bravely started in the 1980s with the nuclear-free policy. Also, do these things:

• Develop a genuinely independent foreign policy;
• Get out of US wars, like the one in the Red Sea and Yemen;
• Get out of the Five Eyes spy alliance;
• Close the Waihopai spy base and the GCSB, the NZ agency which runs it;
• Kick out Rocket Lab, NZ’s newest American military base;
• Stop the process of getting entangled with NATO; and
• Stay out of AUKUS, which is simply building an alliance to fight a war with China.

I never thought I’d find myself on the same side of an issue as Don Brash and Richard Prebble but even they have strongly opposed AUKUS.

Zionism is the enemy of the Palestinian people.

US imperialism is the enemy of the Palestinian people and the New Zealand people.

Murray Horton is secretary/organiser of the Anti-Bases Campaign (ABC) and gave this speech last Saturday to a Palestinian solidarity rally at the Bridge of Remembrance, Christchurch.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) March 21, 2024

The full motion passed by ABC MEAA members on Wednesday:

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

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

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

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

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

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Antoinette Lattouf (@antoinette_news) March 8, 2024

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Television New Zealand will start talks from tomorrow with staff who will lose their jobs in the state broadcaster’s bid to stay “sustainable”.

It is proposed that up to 68 jobs will be cut which equates to 9 percent of its staff.

TVNZ chief executive Jodi O’Donnell told staff today that “tough economic conditions and structural challenges within the media sector” have hit the company’s revenue.

• READ MORE: RNZ’s live blog on the media cuts

She said “difficult choices need to be made” to ensure the broadcaster remained “sustainable”.

Changes like those proposed today were incredibly hard, but TVNZ needed to ensure it was in a stronger position to transform the business to meet the needs of viewers in a digital world.

RNZ understands a hui for all TVNZ news and current affairs staff will be held at 1pm tomorrow. This follows separate morning meetings for Re: News, Fair Go, and Sunday.

A TVNZ staffer told RNZ it was not yet clear what the meetings meant for those programmes — whether they were to be fully cut or face significant redundancies.

RNZ also understands 1News Tonight might also be affected.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said of the job cuts: “It’s incredibly unsettling”.

He said he felt for the staff there and acknowledged some would be at his media standup in Wellington.

Luxon said all media companies here and around the world were wrestling with a changing media environment.

Minister Shane Jones interrupted and said “a vibrant economy will be good for the media, bye bye”.

More than TVNZ 60 roles to go with 6pm news & current affairs threatened. Increasingly hard for free to air public broadcasters to survive commercially. Time to bite bullet & accept that as with BBC & Oz ABC, public broadcasting needs 2 be publicly funded? https://t.co/oL7awc7ag2

— Helen Clark (@HelenClarkNZ) March 6, 2024

Former prime minister Helen Clark said on X it was becoming increasingly hard for free to air public broadcasters to survive commercially.

She asked if it was time to accept that, as with the BBC and ABC, public broadcasting should be publicly funded.

‘Dire implications for our democracy’
Sunday presenter Miriama Kamo said the news of jobs possibly being axed was “awful”.

“It’s devastating not just for our business, it’s devastating for what it means for our wider society.”

She said along with the likely demise of Newshub it had “dire implications for our democracy”.

When cuts were being made in news programmes at the state broadcaster that indicated how dire things had become.

“I’m very very concerned about what the landscape looks like going forward.”

A TVNZ news staffer who spoke to RNZ on the condition of anonymity said the most disappointing part of the process was finding out there would be job cuts via other media, such as RNZ and The New Zealand Herald.

“Our bosses didn’t have the decency to be transparent about what was going on. You know, they say that they’ve been forthcoming over the past month over what’s going to happen in this company and whatnot — they haven’t.

‘What sort of vision?’
“So it’ll be an interesting day tomorrow to see how widely the team’s affected, and to see what sort of vision they have for TVNZ, because in the time that I’ve been working there they keep talking about this digital transformation, and I haven’t seen any transformation yet.”

The mood among current staff this morning was “pretty pissy”, particularly from those affected.

“Obviously, not impressed,” the person said.

Media commentator Duncan Greive said some TVNZ staff were hopeful an argument could be made against the job losses.

Greive, who also founded The Spinoff, told RNZ’s Midday Report TVNZ staff working on Fair Go, Sunday and Re: News were invited to meetings today, and told to bring support people.

He said staff have told him the news was devastating, but said they didn’t yet know how deep and widespread the cuts would be — leaving them hopeful their teams would not be as impacted on as they feared.

Meanwhile, an organisation supporting news media staff said the hundreds of people facing redunancy would struggle to find new work in the industry.

Deeply unsettling
Media chaplaincy general manager Elesha Gordon said it was deeply unsettling for those whose livelihoods were on the line.

She said 368 people (from Newshub and TVNZ) with very specialised skillsets would be stepping out into an industry that would not have jobs for them.

Gordon said the proposed cuts were a “cruel and unfair symptom” of the industry’s financial state.

Last week, TVNZ flagged further cost cutting as it posted a first half-year loss linked to reduced revenue and asset write-offs.

The state-owned broadcaster’s interim financial results showed total revenue had fallen 13.5 percent from last year to $155.9 million.

Its net loss for the six months ended December was $16.8m compared to a profit of $4.8m the year before.

O’Donnell said the broadcaster’s management had tried to cut operating costs over the last year but there was now no option other than to look at job losses.

‘No easy answers’
“There are no easy answers, and media organisations locally and globally are grappling with the same issues. Our priority is to support our people through the change process — we’ll take the next few weeks to collect, consider and respond to feedback from TVNZers before making any final decisions.”

A confirmed structure is expected to be finalised by early April.

The layoffs at TVNZ have come one week after the shock announcement by the US corporation Warner Bros Discovery that it intended closing its Newshub operation in New Zealand by the end of June.

It means up to 300 people will lose their jobs.

Broadcasting Minister Melissa Lee told RNZ Checkpoint yesterday she had spoken to TVNZ bosses last week but it was not up to her to reveal details of the conversation.

She declined to comment on Newshub’s offer to TVNZ to team up in some ways to cut costs, nor suggestions TVNZ could cut its 6pm news to half-an-hour or cancel current affairs programming.

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

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Some described it as a case of looking back to go forward.

This past week in Fiji — a place where politics, race, the army and tradition mix together in an often potent stew — the Great Council of Chiefs, a organisation banished for almost two decades, came together to re-establish its place in modern Fiji.

It came on the same week a regional body of traditional leaders, including a Māori king and princess, Samoan king and Fiji’s chiefs, met on Fiji’s sacred island of Bau to discuss ways of becoming more entrenched in politics and the big decisions affecting the region.

• READ MORE: Other Great Council of Chiefs reports
• Other Lice Movono reports

This new push comes at a time when governments in countries such as New Zealand are pushing back against traditional influence, with Māori language and specific social services being abolished.

For some commentators, it reflects a new Fiji and a more mature Pacific region: something that should be encouraged to meld together aspects of traditional life into modern society.

Yet for others, it brings back memories of a time of fear and division.

“The Great Council of Chiefs has committed a lot of mistakes in the past, including being used by some as a leverage for ethnonationalism and racial hatred,” political sociologist Professor Steven Ratuva told the ABC.

“It needs to rise above that and must function and be seen as a unifying, reconciliatory and peace-building body.”

Fiji’s highest chiefly political body, the Great Council of Chiefs has reconvened for the first time in 16 years.

ABC Pacific’s Lice Movono reports from Bau Island in Tailevu, Fiji. pic.twitter.com/6gfbDNcpMa

— ABC Pacific (@ABCPacific) May 25, 2023

‘Times have changed’
The Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), known as Bose Levu Vakaturaga in Fijian, dates back to colonial times. Established in 1876, the council was used as an advisory body for the British colonial rulers.

After Fiji’s independence in 1970, the GCC became entrenched in the constitution, with chiefs acting as a significant part of Fiji’s Senate. During the next three decades it had periods of waxing and waning influence, with its independence and political interference often under the spotlight.

Most notably, as an organisation to promote and represent indigenous Fijians (the iTaukei), it was accused by some of sidelining Fiji’s substantial Indo-Fijian population — which makes up about 35 per cent of Fiji — and in turn stoking racial tension.

In his 2006 coup, military strongman Voreqe Baninimarama took over the country and eventually abolished the GCC, which he considered a threat to his autocracy, famously telling chiefs to “go drink homebrew under a mango tree”.

But after winning the December 2022 election, and in turn removing Bainimarama’s 16-year grip on power, Fiji’s new prime minster Sitiveni Rabuka, himself a former coup leader, re-established the GCC.

Rabuka last week told the 54 chiefs of the GCC — of which only three are women — that “peace must be its cornerstone”.

“While the body is intrinsically linked to the governance and well-being of the iTaukei [traditional Fijians], it carries a profound obligation to embrace and advocate for every member of our diverse society,” Rabuka said.

Ratu Viliame Seruvakula, a military commander under the former Fijian government who worked with the United Nations for almost two decades, was last week elected as the GCC’s new chairperson.

“Times have changed,” Seruvakula said.

“It’s quite obvious that for the last 15 years, people have become more aware in looking [for] something to help guide them forward.”

And in a move that has drawn parallels to Australia’s failed Indigenous Voice to Parliament, he wants the GCC to be a “statutory body with its own machinery and own mechanism.”

“I think this is heading in the right direction [to] really go forward and move iTaukei forward.” he said.

The ‘politics of prestige’
About 60 percent of Fiji is indigenous, with the  iTaukei population, particularly in regional areas of Fiji, dealing with emended issues of systemic poverty, drugs, crime, unemployment and domestic violence.

Some in Fiji think the re-establishment of the GCC will help address these issues.

Yet, for Professor Steven Ratuva, political sociologist and director of the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies at the University of Canterbury, it is not an easy fix.

“The question of how the GCC will serve the interests of the iTaukei needs serious discussion,” he said.

“Simply using the old style of chiefly protocol, politics of prestige and struggle for power have not worked in addressing the worsening situation — in fact, these contributed to some of the problems youths today are now facing.”

And, he said, the racial issue must be addressed.

“How will it protect other ethnic groups? This has to be made very clear to ensure that the anxiety and worries are addressed amicably and trans-ethnic trust is established.”

The professor in comparative politics at Victoria University of Wellington, Jon Fraenkel, agreed.

“It has played a questionable role [in Fiji] in the past,” he said. “But I think [overall] that the restoration of the GCC is a positive move.”

The GCC will meet later this year to establish its goals and timeline.

GCC leaders will also be part of a Pacific Traditional Leaders Forum to be held in Hawai’i in June, a new body established last week on Bau Island — which met before the GCC meeting — to promote the input of traditional leaders in decision-making.

Professor Fraenkel said that at this early stage it was difficult to know whether it was part of a concerted trend across the region for traditional leaders to have more say.

“Again, to have greater links between government and community leadership is a positive thing,” he said.

“It’s the case in many countries in the Pacific that the village level or the local level, chiefs can still be extremely important.

“But I don’t think that linking traditional leaders up with their people is going to be done in Hawai’i, it’s going to be done back home, in the community.”

Republished with permission from ABC Pacific News.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

By Monika Singh of Wansolwara

The fourth smallest country in the world with a population of just over 11,000 people —  Tuvalu — fears being “wiped off its place on the map”.

A report by ABC Pacific states that the low-lying island nation is widely considered one of the first places to be significantly impacted by rising sea levels, caused by climate change.

According to the locals the spring tides this year in Tuvalu have been the worst so far with more flooding expected with the king tides that usually occur during late February to early March.

• READ MORE: Other Tuvalu climate crisis reports

In 2021, Tuvalu’s Foreign Minister, Simon Kofe, addressed the world in a COP26 speech while standing knee-deep in the sea to show how vulnerable Tuvalu and other low-lying islands in the Pacific are to climate change.

A 27-year-old climate activist from Tuvalu said he loved his home and his culture and did not want to lose them.

Kato Ewekia spoke to Nedia Daily and said seeing the beaches that he used to play rugby on with his friends had disappeared gave him a wake-up call.

“I was worried about my children because I wanted my children to grow up, teach them Tuvaluan music, teach them rugby, teach them fishing. But my island is about to disappear and get wiped off it’s place on the map.”

First youth Tuvaluan delegate
Ewekia was also at COP26 and made history as the first youth Tuvaluan delegate to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference.

Despite only speaking limited English, he took to the global stage to tell the world about his home.

“Since I was the first Tuvaluan activist, people didn’t really know where Tuvalu is, what Tuvalu is,” he said.

“It was culture shocking, overwhelming. But the other youth gave me the confidence to just speak with my heart, and get my message out there.”

Ewekia has been the national leader of the Saving Tuvalu Global Campaign, an environmental organisation that aims to amplify the voices and demands of the people of Tuvalu since 2020.

“Going out there, it’s not easy. We really, really love our home and we want how our elders taught us how to be Tuvaluan, we want our children to experience it — not when it disappears and future generations will be talking about it (Tuvalu) like it’s a story.”

He shared that in the four years that he has been advocating for Tuvalu on the public stage, there have been many moments of frustration that are specifically directed towards world leaders who aren’t paying attention.

“My message to the world is I’ve been sharing this same message over and over again,” he said.

“If Tuvalu was your home and it [was] about to disappear, and you wanted your children to grow up in your home in Tuvalu — what would you have done? If you were in our shoes, what would you have done to save Tuvalu?”

Asia Pacific Report collaborates with The University of the South Pacific’s journalism programme newspaper Wansolwara.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Wansolwara.

The incoming chair of the ABC, Kim Williams, must immediately move to restore the reputation of Australia’s national broadcaster by addressing concerns about the impact of external pressures on editorial decision making, says the media union.

The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, the union representing journalists at the ABC, today called on Williams to work with unions to support staff who were under attack, reaffirm the commitment to cultural diversity in the workplace, and uphold the standards of reporting without fear or favour that the public expected of the ABC.

MEAA welcomed the appointment of Williams, a former chief executive of News Corp Australia, noting that he had decades of media experience including senior management positions at the ABC, commercial broadcast media and arts administration in the past, and that he had been recommended by an independent nomination panel.

• READ MORE: PM announces Kim Williams as new ABC chair
• ABC staff ‘have lost confidence’ in boss in defending public trust in Israel row
• Cancelling the journalist: Furore over ABC’s coverage of Israel war on Gaza
• Back SA over genocide case, ‘don’t yield to pressure’, Hania tells NZ

The acting chief executive of MEAA, Adam Portelli, said the new chair would take office at a critical time for the ABC’s future following a staff vote of no confidence in managing director David Anderson earlier this week over the handling of a crisis over pressure from pro-Israeli lobbyists in the war on Gaza.

“On Monday, union members overwhelmingly said they had lost confidence in David Anderson because of his failure to address very real concerns about the way the ABC deals with external pressure and supports journalists from First Nations and culturally diverse backgrounds when they are under attack,” he said.

“Public trust in the ABC as an organisation that will always pursue frank and fearless journalism has been damaged, and management under Mr Anderson has not demonstrated it is taking these concerns seriously.

Buttrose ‘completely out of touch’
“Following yesterday’s board meeting, the current chair, Ita Buttrose, revealed she is completely out of touch with the concerns felt in newsrooms across Australia,” Portelli said.

“Dozens of staff have told us their first hand experiences of feeling unsupported by management when under external attack and the negative impact this is having on their ability to do their jobs and on the reputation and integrity of the ABC. But Ms Buttrose failed to acknowledge these concerns.

“ABC journalists have put forward five very reasonable suggestions to restore the confidence of staff in the managing director but at this stage, Mr Anderson has not committed to an urgent meeting as they requested.”

Portelli said MEAA was optimistic that Williams would bring a more collaborative approach to dealing with issues of cultural safety and editorial integrity than had been witnessed under Buttrose.

“He must understand that nothing less than the reputation of the ABC is at stake here,” Portelli said.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Antoinette Lattouf (@antoinette_news) January 22, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

BREAKING NEWS:
Censorship Crisis at the ABC.

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

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

— Peter Cronau (@PeterCronau) January 22, 2024

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

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

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

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

Winning staff and public confidence back will require senior management:

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

A further resolution passed unanimously by the meeting read:

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

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Antoinette Lattouf (@antoinette_news) January 22, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

BREAKING NEWS:
Censorship Crisis at the ABC.

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

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

— Peter Cronau (@PeterCronau) January 22, 2024

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

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

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

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

Winning staff and public confidence back will require senior management:

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

A further resolution passed unanimously by the meeting read:

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

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The Age has revealed the dismissal of ABC broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf last December 20 was the nasty fruit of a campaign waged against chair Ita Buttrose and managing director David Anderson.

The official reason for Lattouf’s dismissal was ordinary: she shared a post by Human Rights Watch about Israel “using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza”, calling it “a war crime”.

It also noted the express intention of Israeli officials to pursue this strategy. Actions were also documented: the deliberate blocking of food, water and fuel “while wilfully obstructing the entry of aid”.

• READ MORE: Which Australian journalists and politicians have gone on trips to Israel and Palestine?
• Journalists need to ‘take a stand’ over the Gaza carnage after latest killings – David Robie
• RSF condemns Israel over ‘silencing of media’ – 31 Palestinian journalists in jail, 80 plus killed

Lattouf shared it after management directed staff not to post on “matters of controversy”.

Prior to The Age revelations, much had been made of Lattouf’s fill-in role as a radio presenter — which was intended for five shows.

The Australian, owned by News Corp, had issues with Lattouf’s statements on various online platforms. It found it strange in December that she was appointed “despite her very public anti-Israel stance”.

She was accused of denying that some protesters had called for Jews to be gassed outside the Sydney Opera House on October 7. She also dared to accuse the Israeli Defence Forces of committing rape.

Leaked messages from a WhatsApp group called ‘Lawyers for Israel’ indicate that Australia’s public broadcaster – ABC – might have been lobbied into firing journalist Antoinette Lattouf.@meenakshirv reports. pic.twitter.com/1Nfl2kEDx6

— The Listening Post (@AJListeningPost) January 19, 2024

‘Lot of people really upset’
It was considered odd that she discussed food and water shortages in Gaza and “an advertising campaign showing corpses reminiscent of being wrapped in Muslim burial cloths”. That “left a lot of people really upset’,” The Australian said.

If war is hell, Lattouf was evidently not allowed to go into quite so much detail about it — at least concerning the fate of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli war machine.

What has also come to light is that the ABC’s managers were not targeting Lattouf on their own. Pressure had been exercised from outside the media organisation.

According to The Age, WhatsApp messages by a group called “Lawyers for Israel” had been sent to the ABC as part of a coordinated campaign.

Sydney property lawyer Nicky Stein told members of that group to contact the federal Minister for Communications asking “how Antoinette is hosting the morning ABC Sydney show” the day Lattouf was sacked.

They said employing Lattouff breached Clause 4 of the ABC code of practice on “impartiality”.

Stein went on to insist that: “It’s important ABC hears from not just individuals in the community but specifically from lawyers so they feel there is an actual legal threat.”

No ‘generic’ response
She goes on to say that a “proper” rather than “generic” response was expected “by COB [close of business] today or I would look to engage senior counsel”.

Did such threats have any basis? Even Stein admits: “There is probably no actionable offence against the ABC but I didn’t say I would be taking one — just investigating one. I have said that they should be terminating her employment immediately.”

It was designed to attract attention from ABC chairperson Ita Buttrose, and it did.

Robert Goot, deputy president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and part of the same group, boasted of information he had received that Lattouf would be “gone from morning radio from Friday” because of her “anti-Israeli” stance.

There has been something of a journalistic exodus from the ABC of late.

Nour Haydar, a political reporter in the ABC’s Parliament House bureau and another journalist of Lebanese descent, resigned on January 12 citing concern about the ABC’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza.

There had been, for instance, the creation of a “Gaza advisory panel” at the behest of ABC news director Justin Stevens, ostensibly to improve coverage.

Journalists need to ‘take a stand’ over the Gaza carnage after latest killings

Must not ‘take sides’
“Accuracy and impartiality are core to the service we offer audiences,” Stevens told staff. “We must stay independent and not ‘take sides’.”

This pointless assertion can only ever be a threat because it acts as an injunction on staff and a judgment against sources that do not favour the line, however credible they might be.

What proves acceptable, a condition that seems to have paralysed the ABC, is to never say that Israel massacres, commits war crimes and brings about conditions approximating genocide.

Little wonder then that coverage of South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice does not get top billing on the ABC.

Palestinians and Palestinian militias, however, can always be described as savages, rapists and baby slayers. Throw in fanaticism and Islam and you have the complete package ready for transmission.

Coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the mainstream media of most Western countries, as the late Robert Fisk pointed out, repeatedly asserts these divisions.

After her resignation, Haydar told the Sydney Morning Herald: “Commitment to diversity in the media cannot be skin deep.  Culturally diverse staff should be respected and supported even when they challenge the status quo.”

#NoFearNoFavour https://t.co/JXq9TiI6Zu

— Antoinette Lattouf (@antoinette_news) January 16, 2024

Sharing divisive topics
Haydar’s argument about cultural diversity should not obscure the broader problem facing the ABC: policing the way opinions and material on war, and any other divisive topic, is shared with the public.

The issue goes less to cultural diversity than permitted intellectual breadth.

Lattouf, for her part, is pursuing remedies through the Fair Work Commission and seeking funding through a GoFundMe page, steered by Lauren Dubois.

“We stand with Antoinette and support the rights of workers to be able to share news that expresses an opinion or reinforces a fact, without fear of retribution.”

Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, expressed his displeasure at Lattouf’s treatment, suggesting the ABC had erred.

ABC’s senior management, via a statement from Anderson, preferred the route of craven denial. He rejected “any claim that it has been influenced by any external pressure, whether it be an advocacy group or lobby group, a political party, or commercial entity”.

Dr Binoy Kampmark is a senior lecturer in global studies at RMIT University, Melbourne. This article was first published by Green Left Magazine and is republished here with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The official reason for that dismissal was disturbingly ordinary.  Lattouf had not, for instance, decided to become a flag-swathed bomb thrower for the Palestinian cause.  She had engaged in no hostage taking campaign, nor intimidated any Israeli figure.  The sacking had purportedly been made over sharing a post by Human Rights Watch about Israel that mentioned “using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza”, calling it “a war crime”.  It also noted the express intention by Israeli officials to pursue this strategy.   Actions are also documented: the deliberate blocking of the delivery of food, water and fuel “while wilfully obstructing the entry of aid.”  The sharing by Lattouf took place following a direction not to post on “matters of controversy”.

Human Rights Watch might be accused of many things: the dolled up corporate face of human rights activism; the activist transformed into fundraising agent and boardroom gaming strategist.  But to share material from the organisation on alleged abuses is hardly a daredevil act of dangerous hair-raising radicalism.

Prior to the revelations in The Age, much had been made of Lattouf’s fill-in role as a radio presenter, a stint that was to last for five shows.  The Australian, true to form, had its own issue with Lattouf’s statements made on various online platforms.  In December, the paper found it strange that she was appointed “despite her very public anti-Israel stance.”  She was also accused of denying the lurid interpretations put upon footage from protests outside Sydney Opera House, some of which called for gassing Jews.  And she dared accused the Israeli forces of committing rape.

It was also considered odd that she discuss such matters as food and water shortages in Gaza and “an advertising campaign showing corpses reminiscent of being wrapped in Muslim burial cloths”.  That “left ‘a lot of people really upset’.”  If war is hell, then Lattouf was evidently not allowed to go into quite so much detail about it – at least when concerning the fate of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli war machine.

What also transpires is that the ABC managers were not merely targeting Lattouf on their own, sadistic initiative.  Pressure of some measure had been exercised from outside the organisation.  According to The Age, WhatsApp messages had been sent to the ABC as part of a coordinated campaign by a group called Lawyers for Israel.

The day Lattouf was sacked, Sydney property lawyer Nicky Stein buzzingly began proceedings by telling members of the group to contact the federal minister for communication asking “how Antoinette is hosting the morning ABC Sydney show.”  Employing Lattouff apparently breached Clause 4 of the ABC code of practice on impartiality.

Stein cockily went on to insist that, “It’s important ABC hears from not just individuals in the community but specifically from lawyers so they feel there is an actual legal threat.”  She goes on to read that a “proper” rather than “generic” response was expected “by COB [close of business] today or I would look to engage senior counsel.”

Did such windy threats have any basis?  No, according to Stein.  “I know there is probably no actionable offence against the ABC but I didn’t say I would be taking one – just investigating one.  I have said that they should be terminating her employment immediately.”  Utterly charming, and sufficiently so to attract attention from the ABC chairperson herself, who asked for further venting of concerns.

Indeed, another member of the haranguing clique, Robert Goot, also deputy president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, could boast of information he had received that Lattouf would be “gone from morning radio from Friday” because of her anti-Israeli stance.

There has been something of a journalistic exodus from the ABC of late.  Nour Haydar, an Australian journalist also of Lebanese descent, resigned expressing her concerns about the coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict at the broadcaster.  There had been, for instance, the creation of a “Gaza advisory panel” at the behest of ABC News director Justin Stevens, ostensibly to improve the coverage of the conflict.  “Accuracy and impartiality are core to the service we offer audiences,” Stevens explained to staff.  “We must stay independent and not ‘take sides’.”

This pointless assertion can only ever be a threat because it acts as an injunction on staff and a judgment against sources that do not favour the accepted line, however credible they might be.  What proves acceptable, a condition that seems to have paralysed the ABC, is to never say that Israel massacres, commits war crimes, and brings about conditions approximating to genocide.  Little wonder that coverage on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice does not get top billing on the ABC news headlines.

Palestinians and Palestinian militias, on the other hand, can always be written about as brute savages, rapists and baby slayers.  Throw in fanaticism and Islam, and you have the complete package ready for transmission.  Coverage in the mainstays of most Western liberal democracies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as the late Robert Fisk pointed out with pungency, repeatedly asserts these divisions.

After her signation Haydar told the Sydney Morning Herald that, “Commitment to diversity in the media cannot be skin deep.  Culturally diverse staff should be respected and supported even when they challenge the status quo.”  But Haydar’s argument about cultural diversity should not obscure the broader problem facing the ABC: policing the way opinions and material on war and any other divisive topic is shared.  The issue goes less to cultural diversity than permitted intellectual breadth, which is distinctly narrowing at the national broadcaster.

Lattouf, for her part, is pursuing remedies through the Fair Work Commission, and seeking funding through a GoFundMe page, steered by Lauren Dubois.  “We stand with Antoinette and support the rights of workers to be able to share news that expresses an opinion or reinforces a fact, without fear of retribution.”

Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, expressed his displeasure at the treatment of Lattouf for sharing HRW material, suggesting the ABC had erred.  ABC’s senior management, through a statement from managing director David Anderson, preferred the route of craven denial, rejecting “any claim that it has been influenced by any external pressure, whether it be an advocacy group or lobby group, a political party, or commercial entity.”  They would, wouldn’t they?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

The Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia (JERAA) says it is “deeply concerned” at reports that Western Australian police are demanding the ABC hand over footage about climate protesters filmed as part of a Four Corners investigation.

“As researchers and teachers of journalism, we uphold the ethical obligation of journalists to honour any assurances given to protect sources,” said JERAA president Associate Professor Alexandra Wake in a statement.

“This obligation is imperative in supporting the Western democratic tradition of journalism and to investigative journalism in particular.”

• READ MORE: Media union condemns WA police demand for footage
• Escalation: Climate, protest and the fight for the future

The ABC case relates to an investigation due to be broadcast on Four Corners tonight: “Escalation: Climate, protest and the fight for the future”.

“I’m going to remember this for the rest of my life.” Video: ABC Four Corners

WA police are reported to have demanded footage via “Order to Produce” provisions of the WA Criminal Investigations Act. The law compels organisations to comply.

One of JERAA’s core aims was to promote freedom of expression and communication, said the statement.

“The association is concerned that the WA police action represents a direct threat to media freedom and the practice of ethical investigative journalism,” Dr Wake said.

“We join the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) in urging the ABC to stand firm and not hand over footage which could potentially undermine assurances by the Four Corners team to their sources.”

The union for Australian journalists said it was alarmed at the reports that WA police were demanding the ABC hand over footage featuring climate activists filmed as part of the television investigation before it had even aired.

• “Escalation” reported by Hagar Cohen goes to air tonight, Monday, 9 October 2023, at 8.30pm AEST on ABC TV and ABC iview.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Australia’s support for the Solomon Islands media sector is long-standing and is now providing support for the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) to get ready for the 2023 Pacific Games in November.

ABC International Development (ABCID) has delivered more training to the SIBC earlier this month which focused on the use of mobile journalism (MoJo) kits.

More than half of the SIBC staff received training from Dave McMeekin, a leading content quality advisor from ABC News in Adelaide, on September 12-16.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Games reports

The ABC recently distributed MoJo kits to all its locations in Australia so the SIBC staff are now using the best equipment available as preferred by journalists in Australia.

MoJo kits consist of an android phone, microphone, tripod, and other components that allow a single person to capture high-quality audio and video.

The content can be recorded on the phone for later use or sent back to a studio for immediate broadcast.

These kits are designed to be portable and operated by one person.

Setting up, maintenance
During the training sessions, conducted in small groups of four or five SIBC staff members, the focus was on setting up and maintaining the MoJo kits.

In addition, the training included techniques for visual storytelling, which makes it easier to capture short stories in the field.

Practical exercises were carried out on the streets of Honiara, including in the Central Market and the Art Gallery.

Last Saturday, SIBC journalists used the MoJo kits to report on the Solomon Airlines Peace Marathon — putting into practice the training and equipment they will use during the Pacific Games.

As part of the Australian project, managed by ABCID, SIBC will receive two MoJo kits.

SIBC also plans to purchase two additional kits, with one of them being stationed in Gizo.

These four kits will be used by SIBC reporters to file stories leading up to and during the Pacific Games.

The Pacific Games in the Solomon Islands runs from November 19 until December 2.

Republished with permission from SBM Online.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

On August 23, ABC Color and Última Hora received the official letters for certified copies of several reports published without bylines and the names of the journalists who authored them. 

Three public attorneys—Aldo Cantero, Rodrigo Estigarribia, and Daniela Benítez—signed the letters and gave the outlets a 48-hour deadline to respond. On August 25, the newspapers sent the certified copies but declined to disclose the journalists’ names.

“The Paraguayan attorney general’s office must not be politically manipulated to intimidate the free exercise of journalism, and should immediately rescind letters demanding ABC Color and Última Hora turn over journalists’ information,” said Cristina Zahar, CPJ’s Latin America and the Caribbean program coordinator. “Such actions show a clear disregard for international human rights standards and the Paraguayan Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press.” 

The letter sent to Última Hora asked for a certified copy of a May 13, 2022, report about alleged money laundering involving former President Horacio Cartes. ABC Color was ordered to send certified copies of a June 6, 2022, report and a July 13, 2022, report about Paraguayan senators allegedly discussing money laundering with U.S. elected officials. 

Rocio Cáceres, chief information officer of Última Hora, told CPJ that the outlet regularly sends certified copies of stories when requested to prove the text is authentic and complete.

“But why are they asking for the name of the journalist? We usually don’t sign stories that can put journalists at risk,” Cáceres said. “It is crystal clear this is to intimidate us.”

On Thursday, August 24, the Paraguayan Union of Journalists condemned the letters, calling them an attempt to intimidate the media and silence criticism through judicial harassment.

On Friday, the attorney general’s office issued a statement saying it was within its rights “to request information from any public or private entity.” The statement said that journalists had a right to not reveal their sources, but did not mention the demand for the reporters’ names.

Rodrigo Yódice, ABC Color’s lawyer, told CPJ that the statement, “confirms that it is a criminal and state persecution against freedom of expression and the press.”

A press officer for the attorney general’s office responded to CPJ’s request for comment with a copy of that Friday statement. CPJ’s text message to the deputy attorney general did not immediately receive a reply.

In January 2020, Cartes was accused in Brazil of helping alleged moneylender Dario Messer flee to Paraguay. In January 2022, Cartes was denounced before the Paraguayan Secretariat for the Prevention of Money or Asset Laundering for alleged money laundering, illegal enrichment, and false statements. In January 2023, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctioned Cartes.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Solomon Star promised to ‘promote China’ in return for funding
• Other Pacific media and China reports
• The OCCRP website

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The concerns these kind of deals bring was clear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republished from ABC Pacific Beat with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (5/5/23), Americans are about evenly divided on who they would blame—Republicans in Congress or President Biden—“if the debt limit is not raised and the government goes into default.”

The poll is an egregious example of manufacturing rather than measuring public opinion. As it is structured, the poll cannot accurately represent the views of the US public on the debt ceiling. Instead, it reflects the manipulation of opinion that is built into the questionnaire design.

The questionnaire included just two substantive questions on the issue of the debt ceiling:

Q.1  Congress typically passes legislation on a regular basis to pay its debts. Without this step, the government could default on its debt. Do you think Congress should…?

1. 1.     Allow government to pay debts ONLY if Biden agrees to cut spending (26%)
   2.     Issues of debt payment and federal spending should be handled separately (58%)
   3.     No opinion (16%)

Q. 2 If the debt limit is not raised and the government goes into default, who would you mainly blame for that –

1. 1.     Biden (36%)
   2.     Republicans in Congress (39%)
   3.     Both equally (16%)
   4.     Neither (3%)
   5.     No opinion (5%)

Tainting the sample

Washington Post (5/5/23)

Note that the poll did not attempt to measure how many respondents had even heard of the issue before being asked about it in the poll. The journalists clearly understood that the debt ceiling issue is pretty arcane, that relatively few Americans really understand why it exists, and thus haven’t formed a meaningful opinion about it.

Rather than allow the poll to reflect that public lack of engagement, the journalists instead designed questions that would give the opposite impression—an illusion that the vast majority of Americans understand the issue and have an opinion about it.

The pollsters gave their respondents a very brief and biased statement about the debt ceiling, and then immediately asked them to give their opinion—based on what they had just heard.

A national sample of adults in a poll, typically about 1,000 or so respondents, is designed to represent the larger US adult population of about 260 million people. When pollsters provide information to the sample of adults, that group can no long be seen as representative of the larger US population. Why? Because the larger population has not been given exactly the same information as the adults in the sample. The respondents have information, however brief or distorted it might be, that the rest of Americans have not received. It is simply incorrect to generalize findings based on such a tainted sample to the larger population.

Deflecting responsibility

ABC (5/5/23)

Apart from this fatal flaw, the first question in the polls asks what “Congress” should do, when the issue is not “Congress,” but Republicans in Congress. Think how differently the tone would be if the question were:

Do you think the Republicans in Congress should allow government to pay its debts ONLY if Biden accepts cuts in spending, or should they treat the issues of debt and federal spending separately?

Even with the biased wording, the poll showed two-to-one support for treating the issue separately.

Still, the first question set up the conflict as though it were a simple issue of spending cuts (never specified), which of course is not the case. The issue is much more complicated because of the nature of the debt ceiling itself, which does not affect future spending, but only paying back money that the government has already spent.

With the issue simplified to a meaning that distorts what the issue really is about, the second question is a master of manipulation. It asks in a passive voice: “If the debt limit is not raised, who would you blame?”—rather than: “If Republicans in Congress refuse to raise the debt limit, who would you blame?” It’s not “Congress” more widely, it’s the Republicans in the House who are refusing to raise the debt limit. The question implicitly spreads the responsibility, sidestepping the actual point of confrontation.

Ignoring the crucial conflict

Probably the most important conflict in this issue is the actual spending cuts the House Republicans are demanding. If the pollsters had wanted to give respondents information, they could have described the size of the cuts specified in the House bill, as well as a general description of where the cuts would be made—and then asked respondents if they approved of those cuts as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.

Once specific cuts are mentioned, it is highly likely the number of respondents who disapprove of such cuts would be in the majority. Still, even that approach would inevitably be biased, as not all details could be included.

The only way to get a clean read of public opinion is to be sure that pollsters differentiate among respondents who have a meaningful opinion and those who don’t, and to ask objective questions without giving respondents any information about the issue.

The result would likely show that a large segment of the public, possibly even a majority, is—at this time—unengaged on the issue, and would admit they had no opinion. But that’s not the reality the news media want to acknowledge. Apparently, it’s more interesting to create the illusion of a widely informed and engaged public than to acknowledge how little most people really know about the debt ceiling.

The post ABC/WaPo Poll Creates Illusion of Public Opinion on Debt Ceiling appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by David W. Moore.

Papua New Guinea’s foreign minister has vehemently defended his daughter against a furious backlash to a Tik Tok video she posted as part of PNG’s official delegation to King Charles III’s coronation.

The video posted by Savannah Tkatchenko flaunts extravagant meals in first class airport lounges and “elite” shopping experiences at luxury brands on the taxpayer-funded trip.

“We did some shopping around Singapore airport at Hermes and Louis Vuitton. For those of you that don’t know, Singapore airport shopping is so elite,” she said in the clip.

• READ MORE: Other King Charles III coronation reports

Savannah Tkatchenko attended the coronation in London alongside her father, Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko, and two other officials.

The video has garnered widespread criticism in PNG, with commentators saying money for the trip should have been spent on improving healthcare, education and other services in the impoverished county.

Speaking to ABC’s Pacific Beat, Minister Tkatchenko said critics of the video were “primitive animals” with “nothing better to do”.

He said his daughter did not actually purchase anything at some shops featured in the video.

Speaking to ABC’s Pacific Beat, Mr Tkachenko said critics of the video were “primitive animals” with “nothing better to do” https://t.co/lO1wEpBJkd

— Ben Packham (@bennpackham) May 10, 2023

‘My daughter is devastated’
“My daughter now is totally devastated. She is traumatised by some of the most ridiculous and useless comments that I’ve seen,” he said.

“Jealousy is a curse. And, you know, these people clearly show that they have got nothing to do in their lives.”

About 40 percent of Papua New Guineans live below the basic needs poverty line, according to World Bank data published in 2020.

Tkatchenko said his daughter was selected to attend the coronation in the place of his wife, who could not make the event.

“The best next person in my family was my eldest daughter, who is a qualified lawyer by profession,” he said.

“We went to London, we attended all the meetings and events, and she represented her country without fear or favour to the highest degree and honour.”

PNG social justice advocate and former election candidate Tania Bale said the minister’s response was “tone deaf”.

Fuuurious online backlash in PNG after FM Justin Tkachenko’s daughter posted a TikTok video of her (taxpayer funded) trip to London to attend the King’s Coronation. FM has responded angrily, saying his daughter has copped online abuse from “useless” people and “primitive animals” https://t.co/e6f7GCswOJ

— Stephen Dziedzic (@stephendziedzic) May 10, 2023

‘Completely offensive’
“It’s completely offensive to the people of Papua New Guinea and the suffering that we’re going through. It shows complete contempt for us,” she said.

“There’s just a big disconnect with what I’m seeing in this video of super luxury . . . and you contrast that with how our people actually live.”

According to local media, the coronation cost PNG taxpayers 6 million kina (NZ$2.7 million) — half of which was spent on an in-country celebration attended by Prime Minister James Marape.

Tkatchenko said he could not confirm reports that PNG Governor-General Bob Dadae also took a delegation of between 10 and 30 people to the coronation, saying the trips were “completely separate”.

“We attended the coronation because of our connection with the monarchy, the connection with the Commonwealth. It’s very straightforward. It’s nothing to hide,” he said.

Lae resident Laurence, who did not want to use his last name out of fear of reprisal for speaking out, said the spending did not seem justified.

Facing ‘a lot of issues’
“The country is facing a lot of issues and that sort of money should be spent on other services in a country instead of for just a single event or trip,” he said.

The video has now been removed from Tik Tok and Savannah Tkatchenko appears to have deleted her account.

Minister Tkatchenko said the coronation visit was a success for PNG.

“I hold my head up high. We had a fantastic coronation. Papua New Guinea was represented at the highest order. The King was so impressed,” he said.

The ABC has contacted Savannah Tkatchenko for comment.

Republished from ABC Pacific Beat with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

SPECIAL REPORT: By ABC Backstory editor Natasha Johnson

When Tahlea Aualiitia talks about hosting the ABC’s new Pacific-focused news and current affairs TV programme, The Pacific, her voice breaks and she becomes emotional.

Personally, it’s a career milestone, anchoring her first TV show after a decade working mostly in radio, producing ABC local radio programmes and presenting Pacific Mornings on ABC Radio Australia. But it’s also much more than that.

Aualiitia grew up in Tasmania and is of Samoan (and Italian) heritage. She has strong connections to the country and the Pacific Islander community in Australia.

• SEE MORE: Follow The Pacific

What moves her so profoundly about The Pacific is that the 30-minute, weekly programme is being broadcast across the Pacific on ABC Australia, the ABC’s international TV channel, as well as in Australia (on the ABC News Channel and iview), and is produced by a team with a deep understanding of the region and features stories filed by local journalists based in Pacific nations.

“For me, it’s representation and I think that is really important,” she says.

“I’m probably going to cry because for so long I feel that in Australia and on mainstream TV, Pacific Islanders have been, at best, under-represented and, at worst, misrepresented.

“Given the geopolitical interest, there is more focus on the Pacific but my hope for this show is that it will highlight Pacific voices, really centre those voices as the people telling their stories and change the narrative.

‘The ABC cares’
“It shows the ABC cares, we are not just saying we decide what you watch, we’re involving you in what we’re doing, and I think that that makes a difference.”

Aualiitia’s father was born in Samoa and moved to New Zealand at the age of 12, then later to Australia. Her mother’s brother married a Samoan woman, so Samoan culture was celebrated in her immediate and extended family.

She recalls a childhood shaped by Samoan food, dance and song, and the importance of family, faith and rugby. But from her experience, “the narrative” about the Pacific in Australia has tended towards being negative or patronising.

“I think people tend to see the Pacific as a monolith and there are a lot of stereotypes about what a Pacific Islander is, especially in view of the climate change crisis — there’s this idea everyone’s a victim and they should all just move to Australia,” she says.

“There’s a lot of stuff you carry as a brown journalist. When I hear a story on the news about a Pacific Islander and a crime, I brace myself and think about what that might mean for my day, is it going to make my day at harder when I walk out onto the street, will it make my day at work harder?

“I’ve had people say to me when they learn I have an arts degree, ‘oh, your parents must be so proud of you because you’re the first person in your family who has gone to uni’. And that’s not true, my dad has a PhD in chemistry.

“It’s indicative of ideas that people have of what you’re capable of, what you can do, and that’s the power of the media to shape those narratives and change those narratives.

Facebook ‘reality’ check
“When I started presenting Pacific Mornings, I would interview people from across the Pacific and people would find me on Facebook, message me, saying, ‘I didn’t know any Pacific Islanders were working at the ABC’.

“I was just doing my job, but they said they were proud of me, of the visibility and that it was a good thing that it was happening. So, I hope this programme re-frames things a little bit by showing the rich diversity of the Pacific, its different cultures, resilience, and the joy of being Pacific.”

The Pacific is being produced by the ABC’s Asia Pacific Newsroom (APN), based in Melbourne, with funding from ABC International Broadcast and Digital Services.

While the scope of the ABC’s international services has fluctuated over the years, depending on federal government funding levels, an injection of $32 million over four years to ABC International Services allocated in the 2022 budget has enabled this first-of-its-kind programme to be made, among a suite of other initiatives under the Indo-Pacific Broadcast strategy.

“The APN has been a trusted content partner for the ABC’s International Services team for many years and already has deep Pacific expertise,” says Claire Gorman, head of international services.

“We have been working with the APN to produce our flagship programmes Pacific Beat and Wantok for ABC Radio Australia and have been wanting to produce a TV news programme for Pacific audiences for some time, but until now have not have the funding for it.

“The Pacific is the first of many exciting developments in the pipeline. We believe it is more important than ever before for Australians and Pacific audiences to have access to independent, trusted information about our region.”

Pacific-wide team
Joining Aualiitia on air is long-serving Pacific Beat reporter and executive producer Evan Wasuka and journalist Johnson Raela, who previously worked in New Zealand and the Cook Islands.

Correspondent Lice Movono, based in Suva, Fiji, and Chrisnrita Aumanu-Leong in Honiara, Solomon Islands, are contributing to the programme as part of a developing “Local Journalism Network”, also funded under the Indo-Pacific Broadcast strategy, to use the expertise of independent journalists located in the region.

Behind the scenes are APN supervising producer Sean Mantesso, producers Gabriella Marchant, Dinah Lewis Boucher, Nick Sas and APN managing editor Matt O’Sullivan.

“The ABC has covered the Pacific for decades but largely for the Pacific audience,” says O’Sullivan.

“In recent years, that’s mostly been via Pacific Beat and increasingly through digital and video storytelling. We’ve felt for some time that there’s growing interest in the Pacific within Australia and there’s also a massive Pacific diaspora in Australia with strong links to the region.

“So, we’ve felt a need to share our content more broadly. The Pacific programme will cover the breadth of Pacific life beyond palm trees and tourism, from politics to jobs and the economy, climate change, culture and sport.”

Lice Movono has been working as a journalist in Fiji for 16 years and has previously filed for the ABC. She believes elevating the work of regional journalists across the ABC programs and platforms, through the Local Journalism initiative, will help provide more informed coverage of Pacific affairs.

“I believe it’s critical for journalists from within the Pacific to be at the centre of storytelling about the Pacific,” she says.

“A few years ago, while working in a local media organisation, I had the opportunity to attend a conference in Europe and it shocked and saddened me to find that there are people on the other side of the world who have little or no understanding of what it means to live with the reality of climate change here in the region.

“So, it means everything for me to work with the ABC, which has one of the widest, if not the widest reach in the Pacific region and to have access to a platform that tells stories about the Pacific and Fiji, in particular, to the rest of the world, to tell authentic stories through the lens of a Pacific Islander, and an Indigenous one at that, about the realities of what Pacific people face.”

While the covid pandemic and various lockdowns curbed a lot of international news gathering, it provided an opportunity to showcase the work of locally based reporters on ABC domestic channels.

“We’ve often used stringers in the region, but covid showed us the value journalists in country can offer,” says O’Sullivan.

“Because we couldn’t fly Australian-based crews into the region during the pandemic, we relied more on journalists in the Pacific telling their stories, for example during the 2021 riots in Solomon Islands.

“We are now building on that foundation of local expertise and knowledge by establishing the Local Journalism Network of independent journalists to report for the ABC.

“We’ve had producers doing training with them, teaching them how to shoot good TV pictures and we’ve provided mobile journalism kits that enable them to quickly do a TV cross.

“In filing for the ABC, they can tell stories local media often can’t but the challenge for us is protecting them.”

Support and protection from the ABC has been welcomed by Movono. Renowned for her tough questioning, she has endured personal threats and harassment over the course of her career, but the country is now moving into a new era of openness with the newly-elected Rabuka government repealing the controversial Media Industry Development Act that was introduced under military law in 2010 and has been regarded as a restraint on media freedom.

In an international scoop, Movono landed an interview with the new Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, for the first episode of The Pacific.

“When I knew that there was going to be a segment of The Pacific where we could Talanoa with leaders of the Pacific, it was important for me to position the ABC as the one international organisation that Rabuka would do an interview with,” she says.

“I knew, with the new government only weeks into power, it was going to be a challenge. The government is dealing with a failing economy, a divided country, high inflation, high levels of poverty, the ongoing recovery from covid and trying to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

“But he has made progress as a Pacific leader, as the leader of a country just coming out of a military dictatorship, and he’s done some significant work in the region. So, it was a very significant interview, probably one of the most important assignments of my career.”

In addition to new content and engagement of local journalists, ABC International Services is also expanding the FM footprint for ABC Radio Australia and enhancing media training across the region.

As she prepared for the first episode of The Pacific to go to air, Tahlea Aualiitia was keen to hear the feedback from the audience and — with some trepidation– from family and friends in Samoa.

“I think that’s the part that I’m most nervous about,” she says.

“I know that they will lovingly make fun of my struggling to pronounce Samoan words properly, given I grew up in Australia, but I know they’re already proud of me because of the work I’m doing here.

“Having said that, my brother is a doctor, so I don’t think I’ll ever reach that level of family pride but I’m getting closer!”

The Pacific premiered on ABC Australia last Thursday. This article is republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

With tourism back and booming, Fiji is again a number one destination for travellers seeking an island paradise experience.

And while water lapping on the shoreline might make for an Instagram-worthy picture, for the people of Fiji, it presents a threat to their way of life.

This week on ABC’s Foreign Correspondent, special guest reporter Craig Reucassel travels across the islands of Fiji to see how the nation is combating climate change.

• WATCH MORE: Other ABC Foreign Correspondent reports

With his trademark style, Craig goes off the tourist track and shows what living with climate change actually means for those who don’t have the luxury of arguing about it.

Fiji: The Last Resort          Video: ABC Foreign Correspondent

More than 800 villages are now on a government climate risk list — some communities have already been moved to higher ground but others are resisting.

And many are asking: who caused the problem and who should pay to fix it?

Special guest reporter Craig Reucassel files this video report for ABC Foreign Correspondent.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

An armed group has taken an Australian professor and three colleagues hostage in a remote region of Papua New Guinea, reports ABC Pacific.

The ABC’s Port Moresby correspondent Natalie Whiting reported that the professor and colleagues were in the Highlands region doing field study when they were taken hostage.

As well as the Australian academic, the group included a Papua New Guinean programme coordinator and two University of PNG graduates.

• READ MORE: Further details from ABC News
• NZ pilot held hostage in neighbouring Papua

PNG Prime Minister James Marape told reporters in Port Moresby today there were “running conversations” between PNG authorities and the kidnappers, the ABC report said.

“I just want to inform the families of those taken hostage that we have been at work and contact has been made with people in the bush,” he said, according to the ABC report.

“We’ve got police and military on stand-by to assist. But, in the first instance, we want those criminals to release those who are held in captivity.

“We have been keeping this under close wraps because of the sensitivity and the need for us to get our friends [who were] captured, get them alive and safe.”

The ABC reported that it had chosen not to name the kidnapped Australian at this stage and had asked Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) for comment.

NZ hostage pilot
Earlier this month, in a separate incident across the border a group of West Papuan rebels fighting for independence in the western half of Papua New Guinea island seized a New Zealand pilot as a hostage on February 7.

They also set fire to his Susi Air plane at the remote highlands airstrip of Paro near Nduga.

Indonesian authorities have sent a negotiation team to make contact with the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) group led by Egianus Kogoya group to seek the release of the 37-year-old pilot Philip Mehrtens.

The rebels were demanding negotiations with the Indonesian government for independence for the Melanesian region.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Veteran Fijian journalist Netani Rika and his wife were resting in their living room when suddenly a Molotov cocktail went crashing through their living room window.

It was one of the many acts of violence and intimidation he endured after the 2006 military coup.

For the past decade Fiji’s media have operated under tight restrictions and scrutiny, with strict rules governing how stories can be reported.

• READ MORE: Fiji’s media veterans recount intimidation under FijiFirst government – eye on reforms
• WATCH ON ABC PACIFIC: The stories on this page
• ‘No Fiji TV broadcast tonight due to censorship’ – Rika recalls Fiji media intimidation
• Other Fiji media freedom reports

Now journalists are hoping for changes to Fiji’s controversial Media Act, or its complete removal, to protect the freedom of the press.

Credits:
Lice Movono, Reporter
Hugo Hodge, Producer

Featuring:
Netani Rika, former editor-in-chief of The Fiji Times and manager of Fiji Television News
Sean Dorney, former ABC Pacific correspondent
Professor David Robie, former director of the AUT Pacific Media Centre
Samantha Magick, editor of Islands Business International

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Veteran Fijian journalist Netani Rika and his wife were resting in their living room when suddenly a Molotov cocktail went crashing through their living room window.

It was one of the many acts of violence and intimidation he endured after the 2006 military coup.

For the past decade Fiji’s media have operated under tight restrictions and scrutiny, with strict rules governing how stories can be reported.

• READ MORE: Fiji’s media veterans recount intimidation under FijiFirst government – eye on reforms
• WATCH ON ABC PACIFIC: The stories on this page
• ‘No Fiji TV broadcast tonight due to censorship’ – Rika recalls Fiji media intimidation
• Other Fiji media freedom reports

Now journalists are hoping for changes to Fiji’s controversial Media Act, or its complete removal, to protect the freedom of the press.

Credits:
Lice Movono, Reporter
Hugo Hodge, Producer

Featuring:
Netani Rika, former editor-in-chief of The Fiji Times and manager of Fiji Television News
Sean Dorney, former ABC Pacific correspondent
Professor David Robie, former director of the AUT Pacific Media Centre
Samantha Magick, editor of Islands Business International

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Veteran Fijian journalist Netani Rika and his wife were resting in their living room when suddenly a Molotov cocktail went crashing through their living room window.

It was one of the many acts of violence and intimidation he endured after the 2006 military coup.

For the past decade Fiji’s media have operated under tight restrictions and scrutiny, with strict rules governing how stories can be reported.

• READ MORE: Fiji’s media veterans recount intimidation under FijiFirst government – eye on reforms
• WATCH ON ABC PACIFIC: The stories on this page
• ‘No Fiji TV broadcast tonight due to censorship’ – Rika recalls Fiji media intimidation
• Other Fiji media freedom reports

Now journalists are hoping for changes to Fiji’s controversial Media Act, or its complete removal, to protect the freedom of the press.

Credits:
Lice Movono, Reporter
Hugo Hodge, Producer

Featuring:
Netani Rika, former editor-in-chief of The Fiji Times and manager of Fiji Television News
Sean Dorney, former ABC Pacific correspondent
Professor David Robie, former director of the AUT Pacific Media Centre
Samantha Magick, editor of Islands Business International

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Veteran Fijian journalist Netani Rika and his wife were resting in their living room when suddenly a Molotov cocktail went crashing through their living room window.

It was one of the many acts of violence and intimidation he endured after the 2006 military coup.

For the past decade Fiji’s media have operated under tight restrictions and scrutiny, with strict rules governing how stories can be reported.

• READ MORE: Fiji’s media veterans recount intimidation under FijiFirst government – eye on reforms
• WATCH ON ABC PACIFIC: The stories on this page
• ‘No Fiji TV broadcast tonight due to censorship’ – Rika recalls Fiji media intimidation
• Other Fiji media freedom reports

Now journalists are hoping for changes to Fiji’s controversial Media Act, or its complete removal, to protect the freedom of the press.

Credits:
Lice Movono, Reporter
Hugo Hodge, Producer

Featuring:
Netani Rika, former editor-in-chief of The Fiji Times and manager of Fiji Television News
Sean Dorney, former ABC Pacific correspondent
Professor David Robie, former director of the AUT Pacific Media Centre
Samantha Magick, editor of Islands Business International

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Veteran Fijian journalist Netani Rika and his wife were resting in their living room when suddenly a Molotov cocktail went crashing through their living room window.

It was one of the many acts of violence and intimidation he endured after the 2006 military coup.

For the past decade Fiji’s media have operated under tight restrictions and scrutiny, with strict rules governing how stories can be reported.

• READ MORE: Fiji’s media veterans recount intimidation under FijiFirst government – eye on reforms
• WATCH ON ABC PACIFIC: The stories on this page
• ‘No Fiji TV broadcast tonight due to censorship’ – Rika recalls Fiji media intimidation
• Other Fiji media freedom reports

Now journalists are hoping for changes to Fiji’s controversial Media Act, or its complete removal, to protect the freedom of the press.

Credits:
Lice Movono, Reporter
Hugo Hodge, Producer

Featuring:
Netani Rika, former editor-in-chief of The Fiji Times and manager of Fiji Television News
Sean Dorney, former ABC Pacific correspondent
Professor David Robie, former director of the AUT Pacific Media Centre
Samantha Magick, editor of Islands Business International

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Veteran Fijian journalist Netani Rika and his wife were resting in their living room when suddenly a Molotov cocktail went crashing through their living room window.

It was one of the many acts of violence and intimidation he endured after the 2006 military coup.

For the past decade Fiji’s media have operated under tight restrictions and scrutiny, with strict rules governing how stories can be reported.

• READ MORE: Fiji’s media veterans recount intimidation under FijiFirst government – eye on reforms
• WATCH ON ABC PACIFIC: The stories on this page
• ‘No Fiji TV broadcast tonight due to censorship’ – Rika recalls Fiji media intimidation
• Other Fiji media freedom reports

Now journalists are hoping for changes to Fiji’s controversial Media Act, or its complete removal, to protect the freedom of the press.

Credits:
Lice Movono, Reporter
Hugo Hodge, Producer

Featuring:
Netani Rika, former editor-in-chief of The Fiji Times and manager of Fiji Television News
Sean Dorney, former ABC Pacific correspondent
Professor David Robie, former director of the AUT Pacific Media Centre
Samantha Magick, editor of Islands Business International

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Radio Australia’s Pacific Beat reports today on how Fiji has fared under the draconian Media Industry Development Act that has restricted media freedom over the past decade.

There are hopes that state-endorsed media censorship will stop in Fiji following last month’s change in government to the People’s Alliance-led coalition.

Reported by Fiji correspondent Lice Movono, the podcast outlines former Fiji Times editor-in-chief Netani Rika’s experiences of repression under the former FijiFirst government.

• LISTEN TO ABC PACIFIC BEAT: Media freedom under the new Fiji government
• READ MORE: Former Fiji Times editor has no regrets about resisting censorship

She also reports on Islands Business editor Samantha Magick’s view on media freedom and retired journalism professor Dr David Robie, who founded the Pacific Media Centre, expressing his “scepticism” over whether the hoped for relaxed rules will go far enough for the global RSF Media Freedom Index which ranks Fiji at just 102nd out of 180 countries.

The media item is rounded off with an interview with Attorney-General Siromi Turaga who says the repression of the past should never have happened and he assured listeners that the new government would have a “different approach”.

Interviewed:
Netani Rika, former editor of The Fiji Times
Samantha Magick, editor of Islands Business
Dr David Robie, retired journalism professor and editor of Asia Pacific Report
Siromi Turaga, Attorney-General of Fiji

In other items on today’s Pacific Beat:

• Fiji’s top cop and head of prisons are suspended pending an investigation by a special tribunal.
• A programme is launched in the Australian state of Victoria to get seasonal workers road-ready.
• Pacific women take part in Tennis Australia’s leadership programme, coinciding with the Australian Open.
• And scientists warn some sharks are on the brink of extinction.

Presenter: Prianka Srinivasan

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Radio Australia was conceived at the beginning of the Second World War out of Canberra’s desire to counter Japanese propaganda in the Pacific. More than 70 years later its rebirth is being driven by a similarly urgent need to counter propaganda, this time from China.

Set up within the towering framework of the ABC, Radio Australia was, and remains, an institution with a lively multilingual culture of its own. Sometimes it has thrived and sometimes, especially in recent decades, it has struggled as political priorities and media fashions waxed and waned within the ABC and the wider world.

Phil Kafcaloudes, an accomplished journalist, author and media educator who hosted Radio Australia’s popular breakfast show for nine years, was commissioned by the ABC to write the service’s story for the corporation’s 90th-anniversary celebrations. The result is a nicely illustrated and comprehensively footnoted new book, Australia Calling: The ABC Radio Australia Story, which uses the original name of the service for its title. (With appropriate good manners, Kafcaloudes acknowledges previous accounts of the Radio Australia story, by Peter Lucas in 1964 and Errol Hodge in 1995.)

The overseas service’s nadir came in 2014 after the election of the Abbott government. At the time, Inside Story’s Pacific correspondent Nic Maclellan described in devastating detail the impact in the region of the eighty redundancies brought on by the government’s decision to remove the Australia Network, a kind of TV counterpart to Radio Australia, from the ABC. The network had controversially been merged with key elements of Radio Australia to create ABC International.

Among the casualties was the legendary ABC broadcaster Sean Dorney, known and loved throughout the Pacific. Programmes for Asia were axed, as was much specialist Pacific reporting, with English-language coverage to be sourced from the ABC’s general news department.

The ABC’s full-time team in the Pacific was reduced to a journalist in Port Moresby and another (if it counts) in New Zealand. Australia’s newspapers had already withdrawn their correspondents from the region, and online-only media hadn’t filled the gap. Where once, in 1948, Radio Australia had helped beam a signal to the moon, the countries of our own region now seemed even more remote.

Despite the steady erosion of the service over decades, though, Kafcaloudes’s book has a happy ending of sorts. Its final chapter, titled “Rebirth: Pivoting to the Pacific,” tells how Radio Australia benefited from the Morrison government’s “Pacific Step-Up,” launched in response to China’s campaign to build regional connections. Steps to rebuild Radio Australia’s capacities have since been enhanced by substantial new funding from the Albanese government.

Placing listeners at scene
When current affairs radio is at its most effective, it places listeners at the scene. Kafcaloudes tells of being on air when a listener in Timor-Leste called to tell of an assassination attempt on José Ramos-Horta and Xanana Gusmão.

“Radio Australia instantly changed its scheduling to broadcast live for three hours so locals would know whether their leaders were still alive.”

But, as Kafcaloudes explains, “for all the good work, global connections and breaking news stories, the truth is, for many Australian politicians there was little electoral capacity in a service that a domestic audience did not hear.” Thus the abrupt funding reverses and the constant tinkering.

Former ABC journalist and manager Geoff Heriot describes how, during a challenging phase for the ABC about 25 years ago, managing director Brian Johns’s desire to defend the ABC meant that, “if necessary, you could cut off limbs.” And Radio Australia was the limb that often seemed most remote from the core.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, Kafcaloudes says, the service “was often at or near the top of the polls as the world’s best.” Many listeners, especially in China and elsewhere in East Asia, testified to having learned English from listening to Radio Australia.

Its popularity in Asia and the Pacific was boosted by the fact that it broadcast from a similar time zone, which meant its morning shows, for instance, were heard during listeners’ mornings. In 1968 alone, the station received 250,000 letters from people tuning in around the region.

For decades, broadcasts were via shortwave, the only way of covering vast distances at the time. But the ABC turned off that medium for good in 2017, so Radio Australia now communicates via 24-hour FM stations across the Pacific and via satellite, live stream, on-demand audio, podcasts, the ABC Listen app, and Facebook and Twitter.

New audiences emerging
With new audiences emerging in different places, the geography of Radio Australia’s languages have changed too. As the use of French in the former colonies in Indochina declined, for instance, new French-speaking audiences developed in the Pacific colonies of New Caledonia and French Polynesia.

One of the continuities of Radio Australia is the quality and connectedness of its broadcasters. Most of them come from the countries to which they broadcast, and together they have evolved into a remarkable cadre who could and should be invited by policymakers and diplomats to help Australia steer and deepen its relations with our neighbours.

Kafcaloudes rightly stresses the importance of that first prewar step, when Robert Menzies, “a man who believed he was British to the bootstraps, despite being born and bred in country Victoria,” decided “Australians needed to speak to the world with their own voice.”

How best to do this has frequently been disputed. In a 1962 ministerial briefing, the Department of External Affairs argued that Radio Australia’s broadcasts “should not be noticeably at variance with the broad objectives of Australian foreign policy” — an instruction that John Gorton, the relevant minister, declined to issue publicly.

Tensions have inevitably resulted from the desire of the service’s funder, the federal government, to see its own policies and perceptions prioritised. Resisting such pressure has required greater stamina and skill at Radio Australia than at the ABC’s domestic services, which can count more readily on influential defenders.

Kafcaloudes says it was Mark Scott, who headed the ABC a dozen years ago, who linked Radio Australia with American academic/diplomat Joseph Nye’s idea of “soft power.” Then and now, this was a seductive phrase for politicians. It also became a familiar part of the case for restoring, consolidating or increasing funding, while underlining the familiar, nagging challenge for the station’s “content providers” of choosing between projecting that kind of power on Canberra’s behalf and dealing with stories that might well be perceived as “negative” for the Australian government.

Of course, the conventional public-interest answer to that dilemma is that fearless journalism is itself the ultimate expression of soft power by an open, democratic polity. But not everyone sees it that way.

Public broadcasting ethos
The public broadcasting ethos of the station’s internationally sourced staff has meanwhile stayed impressively intact. Kafcaloudes introduces one of them at the end of each chapter, letting them speak directly of how they came to arrive at Radio Australia and their experiences working there.

Running Radio Australia has been complicated for decades by its being bundled, unbundled and bundled again with television services that have sometimes been run by the ABC and sometimes by commercial stations. Technologies have of course become fluid in recent years, freeing content from former constraints. So too has the badging — the service is now “ABC Radio Australia,” which morphs online into “ABC Pacific.”

Radio Australia continues to broadcast in Mandarin, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Khmer, French, Burmese and Tok Pisin (the Melanesian pidgin language spoken widely in PNG and readily understood in Vanuatu and, slightly less so, in Solomon Islands), as well as in English.

Dedicated, high-quality journalism remains the core constant of an institution whose story, chronicled so well by Kafcaloudes, parallels in many ways Australia’s on-again, off-again, on-again engagement with our region.

• Australia Calling: The ABC Radio Australia Story, By Phil Kafcaloudes, ABC Books, 224 pages. ISBN: 9780646852430. This review was first published by Inside Story and is republished on Asia Pacific Report with permission and in collaboration with Pacific Journalism Review.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

One of Fiji’s leading media analysts says wholesale changes to the Fiji Broadcasting Corporation’s board were inevitable, given the change of government in the country, reports ABC Pacific Beat.

The board’s previous members and chairman resigned last week as Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s government continues to clear the decks in the public service.

The government has begun an investigation into excessive spending patterns in the Department of Information, involving US-based PR company Qorvis, along with local communications company VATIS and FBC itself.

• LISTEN TO ABC PACIFIC BEAT: Future of the FBC board

Featured: Dr Shailendra Singh, associate professor in journalism at the University of the South Pacific

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Many organisations, NGOs, churches and student leaders have called on the Indonesian government in Jakarta to consider Papua Governor Lukas Enembe’s health problems with kindness.

The student organisations that have appealed to President Joko Widodo and the chair of the anti-corruption agency KPK include the International Alliance of Papuan Students Associations Overseas (IAPSAO), which has an affiliate in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The letter sent to President Jokowi and the KPK stressed the universal human rights of Governor Enembe over his poor health. He has been governor since 2013.

• READ MORE: Fate of Papua’s Governor Enembe – the ‘son of Koteka’ – lies in balance amid allegations
• Other reports on Governor Lukas Enembe

Governor Enembe, 55, has been accused of corruption in what is widely seen as a politically motivated case given his position in Indonesia’s centrist Democratic Party with a general election due early in 2024.

The allegations against him have spread to Australia, but his lawyers have dismissed all accusations.

According to the public broadcaster ABC in Australia, the authorities have said “the total amount under investigation was in the ‘trillions of rupiah’, or hundreds of millions of dollars”.

The governor’s lawyers said he had a swollen leg and general poor health due to diabetes and a series of strokes. In recent years he had had heart and pancreatic surgery.

Risk of ‘political instability’
In the letter, signed by the presidents of the Papuan Student Association in the USA-Canada, Germany, Russia, Japan and Oceania, was a plea that the central government ought to consider the risk of “political instability” in the province due to Governor Enembe’s deteriorating health.

Although the governor is unable to be physically present in the office, government services in Papua province are running normally.

While going through medical treatment from home, Governor Enembe encouraged all civil servants in the province to “deliver their responsibility with full commitment”.

Since he has been banned from travelling for medical treatment overseas, Governor Enembe has been examined twice at his home in Jayapura by medical teams from Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore.

The team, comprising several expert doctors and nurses, was brought in from Singapore for the first visit because the governor had been forbidden to seek treatment abroad.

Dr Anton Mote, the governor’s personal doctor who led the first examination, named the team as Cheng Ho Patrick (a cardiologist), Mariana Binti Ayob and Snooky Tabiliras Lagas (a nurse). The examination was conducted on October 11.

According to Dr Mote, Governor Enembe needed to get treatment in Singapore

Jakarta unresponsive
Tabloid Jubi reports that prior to and after the first examination, Governor Enembe’s family and lawyers had asked the central government of Indonesia to consider his health by allowing him to get treatment in Singapore. However, Jakarta had not responded.

“That’s the reason we brought in a doctor from Singapore because [Governor Enembe] must continue to receive continuous medical care,” said Dr Mote.

Meanwhile, the Papua Times reports that KPK had a coordinating meeting about the case involving Governor Enembe on October 24.

This led to a decision to send a team of medical doctors from the KPK and the Indonesian Medical Association (IDI) to examine Governor Enembe.

Laurens Ikinia is a West Papuan postgraduate communication studies student at AUT University.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The University of the South Pacific’s Journalism Programme is open to strengthening engagement and partnership with the Australia Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) following the recent visit of senior ABC executives to Fiji.

Last week, ABC International Services head Claire Gorman, ABC International Development public affairs lead Jo Elsom, ABC Sport head Nick Morris and ABC Asia Pacific News managing editor Matt O’Sullivan met USP Journalism coordinator associate professor Shailendra Singh and staff to discuss ways ABC International Development (ABCID) and its regional media development programme (PACMAS) could assist the media in Fiji and journalism students at USP.

The discussions with the visiting ABC delegation focused on the possibility of content sharing, student professional attachments as well as priority areas for partnership such as youth, gender and regional cooperation to strengthen capacity-building and opportunity for growth.

USP Journalism students and staff have participated in a number of ABCID/PACMAS capacity-building workshops and training, including the Women Leaders Media Masterclass, Reporting the Story of Us: Media Masterclass, Factcheck webinar, Pacific Resilience Masterclass as well as a Training of Trainers short-course for Fiji journalists at the Fiji National University’s National Training Productivity Centre.

The ABC executives were also given a brief tour of the newly-refurbished USP Journalism facilities at Laucala campus.

Geraldine Panapasa is editor-in-chief of the University of the South Pacific’s award-winning journalism newspaper Wansolwara. Republished under a partnership between Asia Pacific Report and Wansolwara.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Wansolwara.

The Australian government is moving fast to reset relations with Australia’s Pacific partners, including a larger Pacific role for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Detailed research undertaken late last year for the ABC in our six key Pacific markets (Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu and Tonga) confirms that the ABC today is used, valued and highly trusted by Pacific audiences.

This result has been made possible through the ABC’s multi-channel approach, and by thoughtful programming made with Pacific partners and designed specifically for Pacific audiences.

• READ MORE: Other reports on Radio Australia in the Pacific

In terms of reach, access to AM/FM radio today is significantly higher than access to shortwave across the Pacific, and our research confirms that the most effective way today to engage audiences in urban and peri-urban regions is through FM radio transmission.

ABC Radio Australia currently has 13 transmitters across the Pacific. ABC Australia (TV) broadcasts to 16 Pacific island nations and territories under more than 25 distribution deals.

Meanwhile, a transition to digital and social media in the Pacific is also well underway. Smartphone use is high in urban areas, and increasingly, the ABC connects to its Pacific audiences via Facebook and through our digital offerings.

Our multi-channel approach is paying off. Total Pacific user interactions late last year with the ABC, whether via the ABC website, the ABC app or social media channels, were reportedly higher than usage and interactions with any other international provider, including the BBC, CNN, RNZ and CGTN.

Big jump in numbers
In the Papua New Guinea market, the research showed that more than half of all respondents had either watched ABC Australia (TV), listened to ABC Radio Australia or accessed the ABC online in the second half of 2021. That’s a big jump in audience numbers within just a few years.

The Australian government has plans to review the merits of restoring shortwave radio and the ABC will be contributing to that process. Part of that will include understanding how many people still have access to shortwave radios and the interest or need to use them as an information source.

In terms of content, the ABC’s unique advantage lies in its commitment to, and relationship with, Pacific audiences. We aim to be local. Our Asia–Pacific newsroom is the only one of its kind in Australia, with 50 journalists and producers telling the stories that matter to Indo-Pacific audiences, told in Bahasa Indonesia, Tok Pisin and Chinese as well as English.

Our flagship daily current affairs programme, Pacific Beat on ABC Radio Australia, features interviews with leaders and newsmakers, attracting audiences of all ages and genders. Then there’s Sistas, Let’s Talk (conversations with inspirational Pacific women), Wantok (Pacific-focused news and current affairs in Tok Pisin, Solomon Islands pidgin and Bislama), Island Music (reggae, dancehall and R’n’B with a focus on the Pacific region) and Pacific Playtime (for kids and families across the region).

A shared love of sport offers opportunities to strengthen social ties across the Pacific, and particularly to engage young people. ABC Radio Australia takes the men’s and women’s National Rugby League competitions to lovers of the sport across the region.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade supports the ABC to produce the only pan-Pacific sport-focused TV show, That Pacific Sports Show, and a fresh and humorous sport-oriented radio show and podcast, Can You Be More Pacific?, hosted by Australian and Pacific sportspeople.

This commitment to genuine partnership with the Pacific is paying off. The proportion of respondents in Pacific markets last year who valued the ABC across all its channels as a “trusted source of news and information” was comparable to that in Australia, at a very high 75 percent.

Pacific content locally available
It’s also worth noting that all the content we produce for Pacific audiences is available domestically in Australia, helping to maintain regional ties and build greater Australian awareness about our Pacific neighbours.

The ABC’s International Development Unit, supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and donors like USAID and the United Nations, works with partners across the region to enhance journalism skills and media capacity.

The ABC also provides skills development training for specific challenges like election coverage and emergency broadcasting, plus support for media associations, like the Media Association of the Solomon Islands, which has been active in campaigning for press access and freedom in the Solomons.

The government has committed to increase funding to the ABC’s international programme by $8 million a year over the next four years. The focal points of this strategy are enhanced regional transmission, more content production, and increased media capacity training for Pacific partners.

This approach has been informed by the ABC’s own proposals.

Over recent years, various ideas have been floated for a new administrative process or organisation to “manage” Australia’s media presence in the Pacific. That would add unnecessary bureaucracy.

There’s a lot more the ABC could do in and for the Pacific. The ABC today has the strategy, systems and relationships in the Pacific to enable rapid expansion, given funding support.

And our research confirms there is a demand for it.

Claire M. Gorman is the head of international services at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Republished from The Strategist with the author’s permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Auckland University of Technology has unreservedly apologised to a former academic turned Australian MP for its botched handling of her complaint regarding sexual harassment by a former staff member.

Dr Marisa Paterson was director of Australian National University’s Centre for Gambling Research in 2020 when she publicly accused internationally-respected gambling expert Max Abbott of stalking and harassing her.

He stepped down as dean of the School of Health and Environmental Sciences​ after the story was aired by the news organisation Stuff. He later resigned as a professor.

• READ MORE: Dr Marisa Paterson, who previously revealed she was sexually harassed, reaches settlement with New Zealand university
• The 2021 Davenport report into harassment and sexual harassment at AUT

In a joint statement with the university issued through the Office of the Human Rights Proceedings today, Dr Paterson, now a Member of the ACT Legislative Assembly, said she made the complaint because she wanted the harmful behaviour to stop and for the situation to be investigated.

“My desperation in lodging a formal complaint was extreme — my career was everything to me and I knew that making a complaint would have significant implications. The independent report that was commissioned by AUT and this apology, are public recognition that I did not experience the appropriate or adequate response to the harm I experienced.”

Dr Paterson said in addition to the sexual harassment, she suffered “long-term distress and implications” from having to fight an institution for an adequate response.

“But today, what I went through is being publicly recognised. And my voice today is being heard — most importantly by AUT. It is accounted for and it is being recognised as an equal through this joint statement. My statement today is not one of forgiveness. This is a public step in leadership.

“This can never happen again.”

‘Poor investigation’
Chancellor Rob Campbell said AUT offered its unreserved apology to Dr Paterson for its poor investigation into her complaint and lack of communication through the process.

“We would also like to recognise your courage in coming forward, and to thank you for providing the opportunity for AUT to learn from this and initiate a process of culture change which we are confident will improve the experience of people learning and working in the university,” he said.

“We hope that our actions will be viewed as reflecting a survivor-centred approach and positive shift in institutional culture.

“We trust that this genuine apology will support you in your pathway forward.”

He said the university was already working to respond the 36 recommendations in the independent review, including the development of a stand-alone sexual harassment policy, a new three tier complaints process, and training for all managers.

The Office of the Human Rights Proceedings said the apology and joint statement was a positive outcome for both sides.

‘Absolute tenacity’
Director Michael Timmons said it reflected “Dr Paterson’s absolute tenacity and her strength in accessing justice for what happened to her”.

“But it also shows AUT has acknowledged what has happend to her and is publicly holding themselves to account.”

He conceded the outcome had been a long time coming.

In an interview with the ABC in Australia, Dr Paterson said: “I am feeling vindicated. I feel that today there has been some justice served. This has been many years in the making for me, and I think that this is a big day for human rights and for women.”

Dr Paterson first laid a complaint with the Human Rights Commission in November 2021 but it was not resolved.

Mid-way through this year, she contacted the Office of the Human Rights Proceedings, which is responsible for providing publicly-funded representation to complainants taking legal action under the Human Rights Act.

Timmons said the settlement has avoided the need for further legal proceedings.

“This case is really important because it says to big institutions, particularly tertiary institutions, that they have firm obligations under the Human Rights Act for the actions of their staff.”

Max Abbott’s name was not mentioned in the apology or statement as the case only concerned AUT’s actions, he said.

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

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The ABC has soundly condemned the Solomon Islands Office of the Prime Minister for a series of “factual errors” in a statement released which criticised the Four Corners investigative report Pacific Capture: How Chinese money is buying the Solomons.

In a rare statement defending its independent journalism, it said today the ABC “stood by the accuracy and integrity” of the reporting in this programme.

• READ MORE: The ABC defence
• The Solomon Islands government criticism
• ABC 4 Corners: The documentary
• Other China in the Solomon Islands reports

It said about the programme broadcast on August 4:

The ABC wishes to correct the following factual errors in the press release issued by the Solomon Islands Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet regarding the Four Corners report Pacific Capture, which examined the impact of China’s growing presence across Solomon Islands.

At no point did the program rely on “misinformation and distribution of pre-conceived prejudicial information”.

It was not our intention to “cause division between the governments of Australia and Solomon Islands”, rather to highlight issues of concern to all Solomon Islanders.

We completely reject the offensive notion of “racial profiling that is bordering racism and race stereotyping”. In fact, we were determined to tell the story from the perspective of Solomon Islanders and the program reflected their concerns. Its main interviews were with two eminent Solomon Islanders, rather than relying on “foreign experts” as is often the case. The ABC rejects the idea that we were “putting words into the mouths of the interviewees” and sees this as insulting to the Solomon Islanders who appeared in the program.

On the issue of Kolombangara, the ABC did not say that the “shareholders have made a decision to sell off the company to a Chinese firm”. Rather, the program accurately reported that the issue had been discussed at board level and that the Australian directors were so concerned about a potential sale to a Chinese state-owned company that they twice wrote to the Federal Government expressing concerns that the purchase could be used by Beijing to establish a base under the cover of a commercial enterprise. Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s office confirmed it was aware of the issue. Her office has also not ruled out intervening. The ABC also notes that the plantation on Kolombangara is owned 85 per cent by the Nien Family of Taiwan and 15 percent by the government of the Solomon Islands, not the 60/40 split claimed in the press release.

It is incorrect to claim that the program did not acknowledge that Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare “repeatedly reaffirmed to Solomon Islanders and the Pacific region that there will be no military or naval base in Solomon Islands”.

The program said: “At a meeting in Fiji, Sogavare assured the new Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that Beijing won’t be allowed to establish a military base in the Solomons.” It went on to say that one of the main concerns was that a commercial enterprise controlled by Beijing could one day be used to house military assets.

The ABC stands by the accuracy and integrity of the reporting in this program.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has condemned the censoring of the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) as an “assault on press freedom” and an “unacceptable development” amid mounting concern over China’s influence on the media and security.

“The censoring of the Solomon Island’s national broadcaster is an assault on press freedom and an unacceptable development for journalists, the public, and the democratic political process,” the IFJ said in a statement.

“The IFJ calls for the immediate reinstatement of independent broadcasting arrangements in the Solomon Islands.”

• READ MORE: Solomon Islands orders national broadcaster SIBC to ‘self-censor news’
• Campaign over Solomons media freedom ‘misguided’, claims PM’s office
• Other Solomon islands media freedom reports

The government of the Solomon Islands on August 1 ordered the national radio and television broadcaster SIBC to censor its programmes of anti-government voices.

The Prime Minister and Cabinet Office of the Solomon Islands mandated the SIBC to censor its programmes of perspectives critical of the incumbent government.

According to SIBC staff, the acting chairman of the board, William Parairato, outlined the new guidelines on July 29.

Both news and paid programmes are to be vetted in line with government regulations, as the government attempts to crack down on “disunity”.

SIBC now beholden
Special Secretary to the Prime Minister Albert Kabui indicated that the SIBC would now be beholden to a government-appointed board of directors, who would be appointed solely from the Prime Ministerial office.

The SIBC, which has moved from a state-owned enterprise to receiving all funding from the ruling government, had previously allowed paid programmes to broadcast criticism of the government.

The broadcaster also provided full live coverage of Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong’s visit to Honiara in June, with coverage funded by the Australian High Commission.

Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavere has been unavailable for comment, as reported by several news organisations.

In recent months the Solomon Islands has further developed existing links to China, which the Australian Broadcaster Corporation argues is indicative of “authoritarian and anti-journalist” developments in Solomon Islands’ leadership.

The IFJ raised concerns surrounding press freedoms in the Solomon Islands during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to the Pacific in May.

Wang Yi’s press tour of the Solomon Islands featured heavily restricted press conferences, with local journalists collectively confined to one question for the nation’s Foreign Minister.

Sourced from an IFJ dispatch.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

ANALYSIS: By Graeme Dobell

Australia’s polity grapples with the need to remake and rebuild our media voice in the South Pacific.

Domestic political battles and budget cuts have degraded the central role Australia played in islands journalism in the 20th century. Australia’s media voice in the South Pacific is at its weakest since Robert Menzies launched the shortwave radio service in 1939.

Now we must reimagine that role and empower that voice for the 21st century — a new model of talking with, not to, the South Pacific.

The policy failure that has so weakened our voice in the past decade had one deeply familiar element — recurring Oz amnesia about our interests, influence and values in the islands.

See the amnesia lament offered by a Canberra wise owl, Nick Warner, in his Financial Review op-ed about “Australia’s long Pacific stupor’”: “For two generations, since the end of World War II, Australia has squandered the chance to build deep and enduring relations with our neighbours in the South Pacific. And now it’s almost too late.”

This is a candid view from the heart of the Canberra system. You don’t get much more plugged in and powerful than Warner, who served as our top diplomat in Papua New Guinea, led the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, and then headed the Department of Defence, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and the Office of National Assessments.

‘Stupor’ history framing
Warner’s “stupor” history frames his diagnosis of how China could clinch a security treaty with Solomon Islands:

“China is now seemingly entrenched in Solomons and will also be looking for other opportunities for a base elsewhere in the Pacific. But, for better or worse, Pacific politics seldom provide certainty. It’s not too late for Australia to shore up its place in the South Pacific and to protect its strategic interests.”

The need to “shore up our place” that Warner points to brings us back to a specific example of the stupor/amnesia — the degrading of our media voice in the islands and the role of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

In the South Pacific, Radio Australia and the international television service, ABC Australia, still do great work. But they have only a third of the budget they enjoyed a decade ago. Underline that stupor/amnesia fact: spending on the ABC as our Indo-Pacific media voice has been cut by two- thirds.

In 2014, the Abbott government hacked into the ABC by killing funding for international television, a sad, bad and dumb decision that also decimated Radio Australia.

Political payback in Canberra produced a gang-that-couldn’t-shoot-straight tragedy in the South Pacific. The Abbott aim was to scratch the anti-Aunty itch, but he badly wounded a major instrument of Australian foreign policy. The damage was compounded when the ABC turned off shortwave in 2017; here again was a domestic focus that damaged our regional interests.

For an account of all this, see ASPI’s “Hard news and free media as the sharp edge of Australia’s soft power“.

Aunty as the villain
In this long-running melodrama with elements of dark comedy, a valiant ABC is also a victim — with foes instead seeing Aunty as villain. What a long run the drama has had: three generations of Murdochs have warred with Aunty, starting in the 1930s with Keith Murdoch’s bitter fight against the creation of an independent ABC news service.

A re-run of the domestic battle devaluing our international voice happened with Labor’s election campaign launch last month of its Indo-Pacific broadcasting strategy, promising the ABC an extra $8 million a year for international programmes, plus a review of whether shortwave should be restored.

Labor’s idea is a good first step to restart Australia’s conversation with the islands, Jemima Garrett writes, but it “seems to be simply pushing out more ‘Australian content’ and crowding the regional airwaves with ‘Australian voices’. This is ‘soft power’ in a crude form – a one-way monologue when what is needed is a dialogue — a 21st century conversation in which Australia and Australians talk ‘with’ and not ‘to’ our Pacific neighbours.”

Preferring hard power to soft power, Prime Minister Scott Morrison called Labor’s policy “farcical”, saying that in the South Pacific, “I sent in the AFP [Australian Federal Police]. The Labor Party wants to send in the ABC, when it comes to their Pacific solution.”

Australia, of course, needs it all—the AFP and the Australian Defence Force, but also the ABC.

In this argument, I declare my love of Aunty. I worked as a journalist for Radio Australia and the ABC (1975–2008) and had the huge privilege of spending much time as a correspondent in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific.

I did break the habit of a lifetime by putting the boot into Aunty when it switched off shortwave. The ABC had damaged its international role, set by parliamentary charter, in favour of its domestic responsibilities.

Soft-power thinking
Labor’s soft-power thinking is work in the minor key compared to the recent effort of parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

In the final sitting week before the start of the election campaign, the committee issued its report “Strengthening Australia’s relationships in the Pacific”. The media recommendations were the most ambitious to come out of Canberra in many a day:

“The Committee notes the media environment within the Pacific is becoming more contested, and recognises Australia has a national interest in maintaining a visible and active media and broadcasting presence there. The Committee recommends the Australian Government considers steps necessary to expand Australia’s media footprint in the Pacific, including through:

– expanding the provision of Australian public and commercial television and digital content across the Pacific, noting existing efforts by the PacificAus TV initiative and Pacific Australia;

– reinvigorating Radio Australia, which is well regarded in the region, to boost its digital appeal; and

– consider[ing] governance arrangements for an Australian International Media Corporation to formulate and oversee the strategic direction of Australia’s international media presence in the Pacific.’

I own up to the idea for the creation of an Australian international media corporation, contained in my submission [No 21] to the inquiry. The committee’s findings and the idea of a new international body, to build on the ABC foundations, will be the next column in these musings on the Oz media voice in the South Pacific.

This article was first published in The Strategist journal of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI). Graeme Dobell is ASPI’s journalist fellow and this is republished with the author’s permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Living in New Zealand as a student Laurens Ikinia wanted to create a space for the West Papuan diaspora to gather.

“We have been facing challenges and oppression back home so it is really hard for us to preserve and maintain our culture,” he said.

The West Papuan Students Association in Oceania started in 2020 but they launched the “Empowering Wantoks” programme last year.

• LISTEN TO ABC PACIFIC BEAT: Interview with Laurens Ikinia
  
• READ MORE: Other reports on the Papuan students

Guest speakers are invited to discuss topics with students about West Papua and they host language classes as well.

Ikinia is a Masters of Communication postgraduate student at the Auckland University of Technology and said that living in New Zealand had been a good experience.

“We are studying and living in a country that has a diverse community where indigenous people and non-indigenous people live together,” he said.

“That makes us feel like we are welcome.”

However, the students are currently campaigning to be able to finish their studies in New Zealand after Indonesia abruptly cancelled their scholarships at the start of this year.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

On May 5, 2022, a United States District Court judge quashed a subpoena issued to ABC News seeking footage, documents and journalist communications as part of a criminal lawsuit involving a cast member from the television show "The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City."

According to court documents, ABC News aired a documentary featuring cast member Jennifer Shah and her alleged involvement in a telemarketing fraud scheme. Shah issued a subpoena to ABC News on Feb. 11, 2022, requesting seven categories of documents, including all video footage, documents, interviewer notes and identification of all government agents and members of the prosecution who provided the news outlet with information.

According to court documents, Eileen Murphy, the senior editorial producer of the documentary, said thousands of documents and materials were collected as part of the reporting process. ABC News staffers also interviewed non-confidential and confidential sources but did not interview any prosecutors involved in the case.

Lawyers for ABC News filed a motion to quash the subpoena on Feb. 25, 2022, stating the information requested was protected under journalists' privilege and was "unreasonable or oppressive" under the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 17.

U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein heard oral arguments on April 25. In granting the motion to quash on May 5, Stein wrote that the request did not overcome journalistic privilege and did not meet the requirements set out in United States v. Nixon, that materials must be “relevant, specifically identified, admissible, and not otherwise procurable by due diligence."

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

Good news — an Australian parliamentary review recommends a more “expansive” media presence in the Pacific.

Bad news — little of that expansion envisions a role for island media.

Instead, the committee endorsed a proposal for “consultation” and the establishment of an independent “platform neutral” media corporation, versus the existing “broadcasting” organisation.

• READ MORE: Televising Australian soft power in the Pacific

That proposal was among several points raised at two public hearings and nine written submissions as part of Australia’s “Pacific Step Up” programme, aimed at countering the growing regional influence of China.

Former long-time Pacific correspondent Sean Dorney last month told the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade that Australia was previously leading regional media spaces.

“But the vacant space that was left there when Australia Network disappeared, as people have said, has really been taken over by China,” he said.

“Throughout my time as the Pacific correspondent for the ABC, I saw this Chinese influence growing everywhere.”

Local media delivery
Dorney suggested local media ought to deliver news content in any future media expansion.

“I’ll just end off by saying that, if we did boost broadcasting again, it does require greater collaboration.

“There are excellent journalists out there in the Pacific that we could work with to create content for both of us. It’s our region, and I think we should embrace it.”

Similar points were made by Free TV Australia.

“Key to the success of the PacificAus TV initiative has been Free TV’s ability to work with our Pacific broadcast partners to ensure that the programming made available meets the needs of the Pacific communities.”

However recommendations for local staff were not picked up in the final findings of the standing committee.

Only “consultation” was called for.

Relatively comprehensive
Taking up ten of 176 pages, the report’s media section is nonetheless seen as relatively comprehensive compared with the dismantling of broadcasting capacity in recent years.

This includes the literal dismantling of shortwave equipment in Australia despite wide protest from the Pacific region.

Nearly three years previously, a 2019 Pacific Media Summit heard that discontinuation of the shortwave service would save Australia some $2.8 million in power costs.

A suggestion from a delegate that that amount could be spent on $100,000 for reporters in each of 26 island states and territories was met with silence from ABC representatives at the summit.

However, funding would be dramatically expanded if the government takes up suggestions from the submissions to the joint committee.

Members of the Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative (AAMPI) called for the “allocation of a total of $55-$75 million per year to ensure Australia has a fit-for-purpose, multi-platform media voice in the Asia Pacific region.”

Overall, submissions called for greater recognition of the media in “soft power” calculation.

Public diplomacy tool
AAPMI member Annmaree O’Keeffe said that “international broadcasting and its potency is not recognised at government level as a public diplomacy tool.”

Consultancy group Heriot Media and Governance cautioned against trying to use media as a policy messenger.

“A substantial body of research internationally supports the view that audiences are likely to invest greater trust in an international media service if they perceive it to be independent of political and other vested interests.”

Heriot also noted the loss of radio capacity, submitting that “shortwave [radio] had been the only almost uninterruptible signal when local media had been disabled by natural events or political actions.”

ABC told the inquiry that around 830,000 Pacific Islanders access their various platforms each month.

Off-platform, there were 1.6 million views of ABC content via social media such as YouTube.

Jason Brown is a long-time Pacific reporter based in Aotearoa New Zealand and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

International media has been facing scrutiny from indigenous groups in the Pacific for the way it has been covering the Russia-Ukraine war.

Some have highlighted “double standards” among journalists who have brought attention to the plight of Ukrainians, while long-standing conflicts like those in Indonesia’s provinces of West Papua and Papua are often ignored.

Vanuatu’s opposition leader and former foreign minister Ralph Regenvanu said a media clampdown in West Papua had made it difficult for media to report on the situation there.

• LISTEN TO ABC PACIFIC BEAT: Ukraine’s war with Russia has been making world headlines — so why isn’t the conflict in West Papua?
• UN report calls for independent probe into ‘shocking’ rights abuses in Papua
• Other West Papua reports at Asia Pacific Report

“The media blackout is a big contributing factor,” he said.

“In Ukraine, at least, we have journalists from around the world, whereas in West Papua, they’re banned completely.”

This week, the United Nations issued a statement sounding the alarm on human rights abuses in Papua, and called for urgent aid.

It also urged the Indonesian government to conduct full and independent investigations into allegations of torture, extrajudicial killings and the displacement of thousands of West Papuans.

Independent observers refused
But Regenvanu said Indonesia had refused to allow independent observers into the territories.

“Indonesia has just refused point blank to do it, and has actually stepped up escalated the occupation in the military, suppression of the people there,” he said.

A senior US policy advisor to Congress, Paul Massaro, drew heat from indigenous activists online after he tweeted: “I’m racking my brain for a historical parallel to the courage and fighting spirit of the Ukrainians and coming up empty. How many peoples have ever stood their ground against an aggressor like this? It’s legendary.”

I’m racking my brain for a historical parallel to the courage and fighting spirit of the Ukrainians and coming up empty. How many peoples have ever stood their ground against an aggressor like this? It’s legendary

— Paul Massaro (@apmassaro3) February 26, 2022

Veronica Koman from Amnesty International said such commentaries about the situation in Ukraine ignored the many instances of indigenous resistance against colonisation.

“West Papuans have been fighting since the 1950s. First Nations in Australia have been fighting since more than 240 years ago,” Koman said.

“That’s how resilient the fights are … it’s just pointing out the the double standard.”

Koman said the West Papua and Papua provinces of Indonesia are currently experiencing some of the worst humanitarian crises.

The war in Ukraine will be televised, unlike West Papua. https://t.co/gZRXnK39rC

— Veronica Koman 許愛茜 (@VeronicaKoman) February 24, 2022

“Sixty thousand to 100,000 people are being displaced right now in West Papua due to armed conflict, and these displaced people are mostly ignored,” she said.

“They are not getting assisted and all because mostly they are in forests. And they are afraid to return to their homes so are just running away from Indonesian forces.

“The situation is really bad and deserves our attention. And Ukraine war shows us that another world is possible, if only there’s no double standards and racism.”

Republished with author’s and ABC Pacific Beat’s permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

ABC‘s headline (1/30/22) is based on one polling question that gave a reason to oppose Biden’s promise and no reason to support it.

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll (1/30/22) is a poster child for what is wrong with many media-sponsored polls these days. Instead of a serious effort to measure what the public is thinking about any specific issue, the poll glides superficially across a whole range of subjects, never stopping long enough to provide understanding of any one of them—creating an illusion of public opinion that is either misleading, biased or simply inaccurate.

(In this article, I focus on just one of the 11 issues covered—what President Joe Biden should do about a Supreme Court opening. In a future piece, I will deal with the other ten issues.)

The poll asked respondents:

To fill the opening in the Supreme Court, do you think Joe Biden should:

1. Consider all possible nominees

2. Consider only nominees who are Black women as he has pledged to do

The results show 76% for all possible nominees, 23% for a Black woman.

The ABC headline announces, “Majority of Americans Want Biden to Consider ‘All Possible Nominees’ for Supreme Court Vacancy.”

The story itself notes that “President Joe Biden’s campaign trail vow to select a Black woman to fill a high-court vacancy without reviewing all potential candidates evokes a sharply negative reaction from voters.”

That’s it. There are no questions that probe how many people even knew there was a Supreme Court opening, or whether people were aware of what Biden’s promise was, or why he might have made the promise, or what people might know about the historical record of Black women serving on the Supreme Court.

For people who are clueless about the issue, the single question pitted an implicit standard of fairness (“all possible nominees”) versus what on the surface seems to be an unfair advantage to Black women. Without context, the poll results provide us no insight into what people are thinking when it comes to the historical record of racial and sexual bias, and whether/how it should be addressed.

If ABC was determined to pursue a superficial approach to this issue, its one question could have been more objective:

To fill the opening in the Supreme Court, President Biden has promised to nominate a Black woman. Do you agree or disagree with that decision, or don’t you have an opinion one way or the other?

1. Agree

2. Disagree

3. No opinion

That question still provides no context for the respondent, but at least it is balanced. The ABC question gives a reason why one might oppose Biden’s promise, but provides no balancing reason why one should support it. The revised question provides no reason either to support or to oppose the question.

A better revised question might be to add this qualifier after “nominate a Black woman”: “…who would be the first Black woman ever nominated.”

With either question wording, the results almost certainly would have been much different from what ABC reported.

In addition, the poll should follow up with an intensity question—whether people hold those views strongly or not. For many respondents, their opinions are simply top-of-mind, nothing they have considered seriously and thus easily subject to change.

To understand public opinion, it’s imperative to know how many Americans really care about an issue, and how many really don’t care one way or the other. ABC found that 99% had an “opinion,” though certainly many of those people were not actually engaged on the issue.

There are other ways to approach the matter. If ABC wanted to explore the public’s view in greater depth, it could have asked:

Which comes closer to your point of view:

1. Biden should look at all possible qualified nominees, regardless of race or gender.

2. Biden should nominate a Black woman for the Supreme Court, because no Black woman has ever been nominated despite many who were qualified

3. Or are you unsure

Again, intensity questions should follow.

In addition, the poll could have tested some pieces of knowledge after the initial question, to see how respondents might react if they knew, for example, that former presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump both promised that they would appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. Would that information have changed respondents’ opinions or not?

In short, there were several ways ABC could have explored public opinion on this issue in an objective way, had the network genuinely wanted to understand what the public was thinking. But ABC chose to ask just the one (biased) question, so it could move on to more superficial questions about other issues.

And instead of an insight into public opinion on the Supreme Court opening, ABC gives us only a partisan soundbite.

ACTION ALERT: You can send messages to ABC News here (or via Twitter: @ABC). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread.

The post ABC News/Ipsos Poll: More About a Soundbite Than Public Opinion appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by David W. Moore.

CDC director Rochelle Wallensky told Good Morning America (1/7/22) that it was “really encouraging news” that the vaccinated people dying from Covid were mostly “people who were unwell to begin with.”

Asked on ABC‘s Good Morning America (1/7/22) about “encouraging headlines that we’re talking about this morning, this new study showing just how well vaccines are working to prevent severe illness,” CDC director Rochelle Wallensky responded:

The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75%, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities, so really these are people who were unwell to begin with. And, yes, really encouraging news in the context of Omicron; this means not only just to get your primary series but to get your booster series, and, yes, we’re really encouraged by these results.

As the hashtag #MyDisabledLifeIsWorthSaving began trending on Twitter, disability rights activists like Ady Barkan were asking, “Are our deaths less tragic? Are our lives less valuable? Are we less human?”

Because they were picked up by right-wingers as proof that Covid concerns are overblown, media outlets like CNN (1/12/22) went into factcheck mode to explain that Wallensky’s comments were distorted and taken from context.

CNN‘s factcheck (1/12/22) focused on the false claim that Covid-19 is not a real threat—and not on the genuine implication that it’s “really encouraging” when mostly people with health issues die from Covid when they’re vaccinated.

Crucial seconds were missing from the tape, you see, which would clarify that Wallensky was referring specifically to the results of a study that found that a majority of deaths among the vaccinated involved comorbidities, not deaths overall. The subtext seemed to be that it’s a confusing time and, just maybe, some people might be looking for something to be offended by.

Yeah, no. Information may certainly be unclear or shift with time, but priorities and attitudes remain—and those reflected in a statement that, within whatever subgroup, fatalities affecting primarily those with preexisting health issues are “good news” is disturbing. (For what it’s worth, some of the things the CDC defines as comorbidities: diabetes, high blood pressure, Down’s syndrome, cystic fibrosis, obesity, pregnancy and asthma.)

Susan Henderson of the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund did not misunderstand the context of Wallensky’s comment. She wrote in an open letter that the message from the CDC was not only

abhorrent, it perpetuates widely and wrongly held perceptions that disabled people have a worse quality of life than nondisabled people and our lives are more expendable.

When physicians hold these beliefs, and they do…the outcomes for disabled people, especially during a pandemic such as we are living through, can be fatal.

Messages from the head of the CDC must convey that all lives are valuable, and the loss of any life from COVID-19, whether it is the life of a person with a disability, an older adult, or a 32-year-old with no known disabilities, is a tragedy.

As Barkan said:

We live in the wealthiest country in history. We can afford to give healthcare to everyone. We can afford enough masks, tests and medical staff to keep everyone safe. But that requires seeing the full humanity of each of us.

News media could aid that effort if they would set aside the frame of back-and-forth political gotchas, and assume the value of all human beings, and our right to live full lives, as not a talking point but a premise.

The post It’s Not ‘Encouraging’ That Mostly the Disabled Die Despite Covid Shots appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

Year after year, the number of journalists killed in relation to their work in Latin America has surpassed the number of those in jail at the time of CPJ’s prison census. This year is no different. Though the global number of murdered journalists declined from 2020 to 2021, Mexico remains the Western hemisphere’s deadliest country for the press. As of December 1, CPJ documented nine cases of journalists killed in Mexico alone. Of those, three were clearly targeted for their work and CPJ is still investigating the motives for the killing of the other six, as well as the case of Jorge Molontzín Centlal, who has been missing since March. 

Even those numbers don’t fully capture the potential for violence that threatens the region’s journalists. This year alone, in addition to those reporters killed in Mexico, Colombia and Haiti, others in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Haiti narrowly survived shooting attacks. 

While deadly violence remains a major form of censorship in countries like Mexico and Colombia, the tactics for silencing journalists in Latin America and the Caribbean are evolving, appearing in legislation and court decisions across the region.

After nearly a decade tightening their control over the media, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and his wife, Vice President Rosario Murillo, responded to nationwide protests in 2018 with a systematic crackdown on freedom of expression. The repression intensified in 2021, with authorities harassing and detaining journalists and opposition candidates, banning civil society organizations, and making quick use of new laws criminalizing critical expression and punishing outlets receiving foreign funding ahead of the controversial November presidential election that returned Ortega to power for a fourth consecutive term. 

Sports journalist and political commentator Miguel Mendoza, and Juan Lorenzo Holmann, the publisher of the national daily newspaper La Prensa, have spent months in pre-trial detention at Managua’s notorious El Chipote prison. Mendoza is facing charges of conspiracy against national integrity, while Holmann is accused of money laundering and customs fraud. Both have been denied access to their lawyers and family members. The criminal cases against Mendoza and Holmann are some of the most extreme examples of Nicaraguan’ authorities ongoing strategy to use the judicial system to intimidate and punish critical media voices.

Mendoza and Holmann are held alongside political prisoners, including former journalist turned presidential candidate Miguel Mora, who spent 172 days at El Chipote between 2018 and 2019 after police raided the Managua offices of 100% Noticias, the outlet he founded. Nicaraguan officials have summoned dozens of other journalists for questioning and threatened them with potential criminal investigations. Since the beginning of this year, dozens more have fled the country and gone into exile, leaving Nicaraguans with an ever-shrinking number of sources of reliable, critical information.

In Cuba, one of the few countries in the region that regularly appears on the prison census, there are currently three journalists in prison – a figure that does not account for the greater number of reporters subject to regular intimidation tactics that include short-term arbitrary interrogations and arrests, along with systematic efforts by Cuban authorities to stifle independent journalism.

As the largest protests in recent years began on July 11 and expanded to more than 50 towns and cities in Cuba, authorities detained journalists, blocked reporters from leaving their homes, and interrupted access to the internet and social media platforms, as CPJ documented.

Cuban journalist Lázaro Yuri Valle Roca, who covers social and political affairs on his YouTube channel, is in pretrial detention in a prison in Havana on accusations of contempt and enemy propaganda. Journalists Mary Karla Ares, a reporter for the community newspaper Amanecer Habanero, and Camila Acosta, the correspondent of Spanish newspaper ABC and a contributor to Cubanet, are in pretrial detention after being arrested while covering the protests. 

Cuban authorities have also sought to tighten control over digital spaces. In August, new telecommunications regulations further criminalized online content and restricted internet access in Cuba, the only country in the Americas included on CPJ’s most recent 10 Most Censored list, published in 2019.

The use of criminal investigations and repressive laws – from outdated defamation laws to increasingly creative new pieces of legislation targeting independent media outlets’ sources of financial support – remains an effective tactic to sideline and silence outspoken journalists across the region. 

In Brazil, sports and politics blogger Paulo Cezar de Andrade Prado is serving a five-month sentence for a defamation case dating back to 2016. Prado has faced multiple previous defamation suits, and was imprisoned in 2015 and 2018 following convictions for criminal defamation, according to CPJ research.

In many places, just the threat of jail time is enough to send a chilling message. 

This year, authorities in countries across the Americas, including Brazil, Peru, and Colombia, brought criminal defamation suits against investigative journalists, many of whom were reporting on allegations of corruption or misconduct by public officials.

And the trend toward legislation that can be used to silence critical journalism – in the name of defending national sovereignty, eradicating hate speech, and protecting public health – shows no sign of stopping.

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, national and local leaders passed emergency response measures that restricted the media’s capacity to report freely and the public’s ability to access information, according to a report by CPJ and Thomson Reuters Foundation’s TrustLaw program. Following in Nicaragua’s footsteps, officials in both Guatemala and El Salvador introduced legislation that would give the national governments more control over the activities and international funding of NGOs – including nonprofit media organizations. With many leaders across the region taking an increasingly hostile stance toward the journalists who hold them accountable, other Latin American countries may also follow this troubling path.  

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Natalie Southwick and Carlos Martínez de la Serna/CPJ Staff.

Since July 11, protests have erupted in several Cuban cities, with demonstrators calling for the end of the country’s communist government and protesting an economic crisis, worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to press reports, which said they were the biggest demonstrations in the country in decades.

Authorities have disrupted internet access in the country, and police have detained at least seven journalists, according to news reports and statements by the Cuban press freedom organization ICLEP and human rights organization CUBALEX.

“Cuban authorities have responded to the country’s largest anti-government protests in decades with expected hostility and aggression to members of the press and disruptions of internet access,” said CPJ Central and South America Senior Researcher Ana Cristina Núñez. “Authorities must release all journalists from detention immediately, restore regular access to the internet on the island, and cease their desperate attempts to hide popular discontent from Cubans and the world.”

On July 11, authorities in the province of Camaguey arrested journalists Henry Constantin, Iris Mariño, and Niefe Rigau of the independent outlet La Hora de Cuba, and authorities in Guantánamo province arrested Niober García and Rolando García, both journalists with the independent news agency Palenque Vision, according to ICLEP and CUBALEX.

CPJ could not immediately determine the circumstances of their arrests or whether they had been formally charged. According to data from ICLEP, which CPJ reviewed, those journalists’ whereabouts are unknown.

Also on July 11, police beat Ramón Espinosa, a correspondent with The Associated Press in Havana, according to news reports, which featured photos of the journalist bleeding from his nose and face.

On July 12, state security agents detained Camila Acosta, a correspondent for the Spanish daily ABC and the independent news website Cubanet, at her home in Havana, and Cubanet reporter Orelvis Cabrera in the province of Matanzas, according to press reports and Cubanet Executive Director Hugo Landa, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app.

Authorities are holding Acosta at the Fourth Station of the National Revolutionary Police in Havana for alleged public disorder and disobedience, and Cabrera’s whereabouts are unknown, according to those sources. CPJ could not immediately determine the circumstances of Cabrera’s arrest or whether either journalist has been formally charged.

Acosta had been reporting on the protests since July 11 for ABC and on her Twitter account.

Authorities have also intermittently blocked dozens of reporters from leaving their homes, including 14yMedio reporter Luz Escobar and at least 26 ICLEP reporters located throughout the country, including in the provinces of La Habana, Matanzas, Pinar del Río, Mayabeque, Sancti Spíritus, Artemisa, and Guantánamo, according to Normando Hernández, ICLEP’s U.S.-based general manager, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app, and a tweet by Escobar.

Authorities have also sporadically shut down internet access on the island and restricted access to social media and messaging platforms, including Facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Instagram and Telegram, according to news reports and tweets by NetBlocks and the Open Observatory, two organizations that track internet shutdowns.

Cuban authorities regularly block access to independent news websites. Social media networks are normally accessible to internet users on the island but are often interrupted during times of unrest, according to news reports and CPJ research.

One local journalist, who spoke to CPJ on the condition of anonymity, citing security concerns, said they were able to use VPN software to evade the censorship of specific websites, but were often disconnected from the internet entirely.

“It is hard to confirm information inside Cuba at this time, because of the blocking of the internet,” Hernández said.

CPJ emailed the National Revolutionary Police, the Ministry of the Interior, and ETECSA, the Cuban telecommunications regulator, for comment, but did not receive any responses. 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

“Not a great week for journalism at the ABC”, News Corp’s Sharri Markson tweeted earlier this month, when the week was barely a day old.

It is hard to remember the last time a News Corp columnist declared it was a great week for journalism at the ABC. Markson’s tweet linked to a story in The Australian that quoted former Attorney-General Christian Porter saying his dropping of his defamation claim against the ABC was “a humiliating backdown by the ABC”.

Apart from reporting the settlement, the main basis for the article was that the ABC had warned its staff not to claim victory following Porter’s withdrawal, and to be careful in the way they talked about it.

• READ MORE: View from The Hill: Porter decides it’s time to ‘fold em’ in ABC defamation case
• Latest $84 million cuts rip the heart out of the ABC, and our democracy
• Conspiracy theories on the right, cancel culture on the left: how political legitimacy came under threat in 2020

At such a legally sensitive moment, one might have thought the ABC warning to staff was mere prudence, but it also points to more recurring issues about how media organisations view their journalists’ statements on social media. These issues are likely to become more common, not less.

The right to tweet?
The Sydney Morning Herald recently published a story quoting Liberal Senator and former ABC journalist Sarah Henderson saying the national broadcaster’s social media policy was “woefully inadequate”.

There are genuine dilemmas here. Journalists as professionals and employees are subject to certain disciplines. What they tweet can and will affect the way others perceive their work.

Conversely, as citizens, they also have the right to free expression.

In April, The Australian’s economics editor, Adam Creighton, sent this tweet:

Covid19 has killed free speech. Covid19 will be the most formative event of my life.
Virtue signalling dominates truth.
The West is finished.

— Adam Creighton (@Adam_Creighton) April 11, 2021

Does such a cri de coeur affect how readers regard his judgement and capacity to report? Or should he have the right to say how he feels?

What constitutes crossing the line?
The ABC is the Australian media organisation that has most earnestly sought to resolve these dilemmas. It has four eminently sensible guidelines:

• do not mix the professional and the personal in ways likely to bring the ABC into disrepute
• do not undermine your effectiveness at work
• do not imply ABC endorsement of your personal views
• do not disclose confidential information obtained through work.

Henderson pointed to two breaches of these guidelines. One was from an ABC lawyer who called the Coalition government “fascist” and Prime Minister Scott Morrison “an awful human being” on Twitter, and then resigned. Henderson said he should not have been allowed to resign, but should have been fired.

Her other example involved what she called “Laura Tingle’s trolling of a prime minister” last year. This is an inaccurate use of the word trolling, but increasingly politicians (and journalists) seem to equate any criticism of themselves on social media as trolling.

Tingle’s single offending tweet concluded “we grieve the loss of so many of our fine colleagues to government ideological bastardry. Hope you are feeling smug Scott Morrison”. The tweet was posted late at night after a farewell function for her friend and colleague Philippa McDonald, and it was deleted the next morning.

It is asking a lot of ABC journalists to feel detached and impartial about government cutbacks to their own organisation that adversely affect the careers of their colleagues. Nevertheless, the ABC has a large investment in Tingle’s public credibility, and the tweet was immediately addressed internally.

ABC managing director David Anderson injected an unusual note of common sense when he was asked whether Tingle was reprimanded during a Senate estimates hearing. He called Tingle’s tweet “an error of judgement” and said “there’s a proportionality that needs to be applied”.

ABC boss David Anderson says rural and regional jobs have been ring fenced from the current cuts. As of last week about 70 ABC staff whose roles are gone are yet to depart the public broadcaster. Everyone leaving knows their job is gone. #estimates

— Tom McIlroy (@TomMcIlroy) October 21, 2020

The dangers of an unduly restrictive approach
The larger danger is that journalists, especially those at the ABC, will get caught up in public controversies surrounding their own work. While at one level they clearly should have the right to defend themselves, the problem is the temptation to succumb to the cheap point-scoring in which critics often engage, to be dragged down from the professional standards of the original programme.

Though recent public controversies have focused on apparent breaches on social media not being sufficiently punished, there are also dangers and potential injustices in an unduly restrictive approach.

The most obvious victim of a journalist being punished for social media activity was SBS football commentator Scott McIntyre, who posted a series of tweets on ANZAC Day in 2015 about the “cultification of an imperialist invasion”.

Then-Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull thought they were “despicable remarks which deserve to be condemned”, and contacted the head of SBS, Michael Ebeid. Ebeid fired McIntyre the same day.

Malcolm Turnbull denies influence over SBS decision to sack Scott McIntyre over controversial Anzac tweets. http://t.co/tzxHMBkCrD

— The Sydney Morning Herald (@smh) April 27, 2015

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson was then quoted as saying McIntyre’s freedom of speech was not being curtailed, and that his historical claims “will be judged very harshly”.

Whatever the merits of his ANZAC tweets, they had no relationship to his role as a football commentator. Is his reporting on soccer compromised by his views on the ANZAC tradition?

This episode illustrates that “political correctness” and “cancel culture” are found across the political spectrum — and media organisations will continue to grapple with these issues as the social media profiles of their journalists continue to grow.

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

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

• President Trump calls the Bidens an organized crime family during official White House event in Florida
• President Trump criticizes Miami townhall moderator Savannah Guthrie after she questions him on coronavirus
• Presidential candidate Joe Biden reaches more viewers on ABC than President Trump reaches on NBC
• The National Women’s Law Center releases a study saying many who report sex harassment face retaliation
• California voters are set to decide in November whether to overturn ban on affirmative action by public institutions
• The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules to extend the deadline for absentee ballots and allow more ballot dropboxes

The post President Trump calls the Bidens an organized crime family during official White House event in Florida; President Trump criticizes Miami townhall moderator Savannah Guthrie after she questions him on coronavirus; Presidential candidate Joe Biden reaches more viewers on ABC than President Trump reaches on NBC appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

NEW YORK — Disney CEO Bob Iger, who steered the company’s absorption of Star Wars, Pixar, Marvel and Fox’s entertainment businesses and the launch of a Netflix challenger, is stepping down immediately, the company said in a surprise announcement Tuesday.

The Walt Disney Co. named as his replacement Bob Chapek, most recently chairman of Disney’s parks, experiences and products business.

“Did not see this coming — Wowza,” tweeted LightShed media analyst Rich Greenfield.

Iger will remain executive chairman through the end of his contract on Dec. 31, 2021. Besides leading the board, Iger said he will spend more time on Disney’s creative endeavors, including the ESPN sports network, the newly acquired Fox studios and the Hulu and Disney Plus streaming services. He said he could not do that while running Disney on a day-to-day basis.

“It was not accelerated for any particular reason other than I felt the need was now to make this change,” Iger said on a conference call with reporters and analysts.

Iger’s most recent coup was orchestrating a $71 billion acquisition of Fox’s entertainment assets in March and launching the Disney Plus streaming service in November. That service gained nearly 29 million paid subscribers in less than three months. In a statement, Iger said it was the “optimal time” for a transition.

Pivotal Research Group analyst Jeffrey Wlodarczak said Iger had implied he would stay until his contract ended in 2021.

“On the other hand, they just successfully closed the Fox deal and had an unquestionably successful launch of Disney Plus so maybe he felt earlier was better to hand off the reins,” he said.

Colin Gillis, director of research at Chatham Road Partners, said the choice of Chapek seems solid because his parks division has had success.

Chapek said that while he has not led television networks or streaming services, his background in consumer-oriented businesses should help. Chapek and Iger both stressed that Disney would continue to follow the direction it had already been taking.

Disney is facing challenges to its traditional media business as cord-cutting picks up. Its own streaming services require it to forgo money in licensing revenue, although the company is betting that money from subscriptions will eventually make up for that.

In the short term, Disney parks in Hong Kong and Shanghai, China, remain closed because of the coronavirus outbreak. In a CNBC interview, Chapek said the virus outbreak may be a “bump in the road,” but he said the company could weather it. “Affinity for the brand will way outlast any short-term blip we have from the coronavirus,” Chapek said.

Iger told CNBC he had no plans to stay with Disney beyond next year.

Iger’s appointment as CEO in 2005 had been accompanied by controversy and protest from dissident shareholders Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold. But he has come to be seen as a golden-boy top executive, and even someone who could run for president.

Iger told Vogue in 2018 that he had started seriously exploring a run for president because he is “horrified at the state of politics in America today,” but the Fox deal stopped his plans. Oprah Winfrey told Vogue that she “really, really pushed him to run.”

Iger, a former weatherman, joined ABC in 1974, 22 years before Disney bought the network.

At ABC, Iger developed such successful programs as “Home Improvement,” “The Drew Carey Show,” and “America’s Funniest Home Videos” and was instrumental in launching the quiz show “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” He was also criticized for canceling well-regarded but expensive shows such as “Twin Peaks” and “thirtysomething.”

Before the Fox deal, Iger steered Disney through the successful acquisitions of Lucasfilms, Marvel, Pixar and other brands that became big moneymakers for Disney.

Since Iger became CEO, Disney’s stock price has risen fivefold. Its stock fell more than 2% in extended trading following the announcement.

Iger, 69, was the second-highest paid CEO in 2018, as calculated by The Associated Press and Equilar, an executive data firm. He earned $65.6 million. The top earner was Discovery’s David Zaslav who earned $129.5 million.

Susan Arnold, the independent lead director of the Disney board said succession planning had been ongoing for several years.

Chapek, 60, is only the seventh CEO in Disney history. Chapek was head of the parks, experiences and products division since it was created in 2018. He was previously head of parks and resorts and before that president of consumer products.