ANALYSIS: By Susan St John

With the coalition government’s second Budget being unveiled, we should question where New Zealand is heading.

The 2024 Budget laid out the strategy. Tax cuts and landlord subsidies were prioritised with a focus on cuts to social and infrastructure spending. Most of the tax package went to the well-off, while many low-income households got nothing, or very little.

Even the tiny bit of the tax package directed to low-income people fell flat. Family Boost has significantly helped only a handful of families, while the increase of $25 per week (In Work Tax Credit) was denied all families on benefits, affecting about 200,000 of the very poorest children.

• READ MORE: Budget 2025 at a glance: The big changes, winners and losers
• Budget 2025: Pasifika community braces for impact

In the recession, families that lost paid work also lost access to full Working for Families, an income cut for their children of about $100 per week.

No one worked out how the many spending cuts would be distributed, but they have hurt the poor the most. These changes are too numerous to itemise but include increased transport costs; the reintroduction of prescription charges; a disastrous school lunch system; rising rents, rates and insurance; fewer budget advisory services; cuts to foodbank funding and hardship grants; stripping away support programmes for the disabled; inadequately adjusted benefits and minimum wage; and reduced support for pay equity and the living wage.

The objective is to save money while ignoring the human cost. For example, a scathing report of the Auditor General confirms that Oranga Tamariki took a bulldozer to obeying the call for a 6.5 percent cut in existing social services with no regard to the extreme hurt caused to children and struggling parents.

Budget 2025 has already indicated that Working for Families will continue to go backwards with not even inflation adjustments. The 2025 child and youth strategy report shows that over the year to June 2024 the number of children in material poverty continued to increase, there were more avoidable hospitalisations, immunisation rates for babies declined, and there was more food insecurity.

Human costs all around us
We can see the human costs all around us in homelessness, food insecurity, and ill health. Already we know we rank at the bottom among developed countries for child wellbeing and suicide rates.

Abject distress existing alongside where homes sell for $20 million-$40 million is no longer uncommon, and neither are $6 million helicopters of the very rich.

At the start of the year, Helen Robinson, CEO of the Auckland City Mission, had a clear warning: “I am pleading with government for more support, otherwise what we and other food relief agencies in Auckland can provide, will dramatically decrease.

“This leaves more of Auckland hungry and those already there become more desperate. It is the total antithesis of a thriving city.”

The theory held by this government is that by reducing the role of government and taxes, the private sector will flourish, and secure well-paid jobs will be created. Instead, as basic economic theory would predict, we have been handed a long and protracted recession with few signs of growth and prosperity.

Budget 2025 signals more of the same.

It would be a mistake to wait for simplistic official inequality statistics before we act. Our current destination is a sharply divided country of extreme wealth and extreme poverty with an insecure middle class.

Underfunded social agencies
Underfunded and swamped social agencies cannot remove the relentless stress on the people who are invisible in the ‘fiscally responsible’ economic narrative. The fabricated bogeyman of outsized net government debt is at the core, as the government pursues balanced budgets and small government-size targets.

A stage one economics student would know the deficit increases automatically in a recession to cushion the decline and stop the economy spiralling into something that looks more like a depression. But our safety nets of social welfare are performing very badly.

Rising unemployment has exposed the inadequacy of social protections. Working for Families, for instance, provides a very poor cushion for children. Many “working” families do not have enough hours of work and face crippling poverty traps.

Future security is undermined as more KiwiSavers cash in for hardship reasons. A record number of the talented young we need to drive the recovery and repair the frayed social fabric have already fled the country.

The government is fond of comparing its Budget to that of a household. But what prudent household would deliberately undermine the earning capacity of family members?

The primary task for the Budget should be to look after people first, to allow them to meet their food, dental and health needs, education, housing and travel costs, to have a buffer of savings to cushion unexpected shocks and to prepare for old age.

A sore thumb standing
In the social security part of the Budget, NZ Super for all at 65, no matter how rich or whether still in full-time well-paid work, dominates (gross $25 billion). It’s a sore thumb standing out alongside much less generous, highly targeted benefits and working for families, paid parental leave, family boost, hardship provisions, accommodation supplement, winter energy and other payments and subsidies.

Given the political will, research shows we can easily redirect at least $3 billion from very wealthy superannuitants to fixing other payments to greatly improve the wellbeing of the young. This will not be enough but it could be a first step to the wide rebalancing needed.

New Zealand has become a country of two halves whose paths rarely cross: a social time bomb with unimaginable consequences. It is a country beguiled by an egalitarian past that is no more.

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

More than three years later, the two journalists run the agency from exile in the United States. To get out the news, they rely on the reporting of 15 female journalists hired in 10 provinces to replace the staff who fled. As the Taliban has become increasingly hostile to women journalists and the exile press, the newsroom takes extreme security precautions. Zoom meetings take place with a strict “cameras off” policy so that the women won’t be compromised if they recognize each other on the street.

In June, CPJ interviewed Karimi and Siddiqi in Columbia, Missouri, where they were attending a safety training for journalists in exile at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism. During the interview, both men checked their phones often, explaining the importance of remaining available at all times for their reporters.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Can you describe the atmosphere for the press immediately after the Taliban takeover?

Karimi: When the Taliban took over, our hope collapsed overnight. We were working journalists for eight years before the takeover and we used our journalism against extremist Taliban ideology. Our work aimed to promote democratic values and human rights in our country by creating a newsroom and outlet for female journalists. Eight years of such work was evidence enough for the Taliban to attack us. 

Siddiqi: Social norms in Afghanistan regarding women’s rights are very sensitive and this was the main reason we had to flee. When you are talking about women’s rights in Afghanistan, you are not only facing danger from the Taliban, but also from others in the country who adhere to such radical beliefs.

I remember when we were working in Herat, our office was in a very safe location, but even our neighbors would question why so many women were entering the building. They assumed there was some ethical wrongdoing. Since our work highlighted women’s issues, we were in danger from the Taliban and the pervasive misogyny in the society at large.

The Afghanistan Women’s News Agency is one of just a handful of women-focused outlets covering Afghanistan, like Rukshana Media and Zan Times. What led you to found it in 2016?

Karimi: Siddiqi and I both taught at Herat University. As a professor of journalism, I witnessed my female students struggle and face a lack of resources and opportunities every day. The disparity between them and my male students was blatantly obvious. Lack of access to media equipment, gender inequality in the newsroom, harassment and discrimination was a daily reality for these women.

In light of this, I decided to create a safe environment for my female students to publish their stories, [to] access media equipment and the internet eight years before the Taliban takeover. Although the Taliban was not yet in power, the extremist ideology had already begun to spread rapidly.

Families were understandably concerned when their daughters went to school or the newsroom, but when we established this newsroom solely for women, almost all female journalists across Herat came to work there. As a professor, I had the trust of these women’s families. That’s why I, as a man, was able to set up this space and reassure the families that it was safe.

Part of your staff is in exile, but you still have many female journalists based in Afghanistan. What’s their experience like?

Karimi: All of our female reporters on the ground have to remain anonymous for their safety as per our contract. Their names are never published with their stories. There are currently 15 female journalists working with us, spread across 10 provinces. Some of them are our former interns whom we hired permanently and some of them are currently interns who receive training through Zoom, so that they can be the next generation of female reporters. All of them are actively reporting, even interns, as they learn and are simultaneously paid for their work.

Siddiqi: It’s important to add that our reporters know each other by name only. Our reporters have never met or seen each other’s faces since we require them to turn their cameras off during virtual meetings. We are extremely strict about our security protocols in order to ensure that if one of our reporters faces Taliban retaliation, their colleagues will remain safe. Our reporters know that even a minor mistake can put our whole newsroom in danger.

It is obvious that these women are well aware of the danger that comes with being journalists. Why are they still in the country and choosing to report despite these risks?

Siddiqi: From my understanding and through my conversations with them, there are two main reasons. One, these women are wholly committed to their work. When I am talking with them, I learn that they work more than eight hours a day because they love their job. They all know the impact that they are making in the current environment. Two, financial security is also a huge part of their choice to report. It is rare for women to work and receive salaries in the country under the Taliban. AWNA pays its journalists and this provides them with some level of control and financial independence.

Karimi: These female journalists know that the stakes are very high. Many times I have told them that their security is our priority. We don’t want any report or story that puts their safety at risk, but they still don’t prioritize themselves. They prioritize their reporting. Nobody can stop them from making their voices heard even in the most repressive atmosphere.

What is it like for you when your reporters are so far away while you are in exile?

Karimi: To be honest, I am not comfortable. Sometimes I think something bad has happened to a colleague. Trying to minimize their risk is one of our strategies and biggest challenges. I am very concerned every single day.

Have any of the female journalists working for AWNA had dangerous encounters with the Taliban?

Siddiqi: Just a few days ago, one of our female reporters called me from Kabul while she was attempting to report on a business exhibition. Upon entering the venue, she was detained by the Taliban. In the commotion of a large crowd, she somehow managed to hide herself and escaped without facing arrest.

I called her after that and I reiterated that this cannot be the norm. I told her that we cannot lose her and that without her, there would be no reporting. My colleague replied that she tries her best and knows all the newsroom security protocols. But even for non-political events, this is the risk and the reality for female journalists in the country.

How has reporting from exile shaped your view of the future of the media in Afghanistan? 

Karimi: In my opinion, the lack of free and independent media in the country has created a need for reliable media in exile to combat Taliban propaganda and control. There is a lack of female-run media. We have bypassed the Taliban firewall by providing information from exile to empower people within the country, especially women.

Siddiqi: There are so many Afghan women who are students, photographers, activists, and writers, as well as journalists who can no longer publicize their work on their own channels due to safety concerns. Many of them have found a place in AWNA in order to share their work and add value to the media atmosphere. These are all citizens and female journalists. There are thousands of women who have something to share, journalists by training or not, who are acting as citizen journalists. They have something to show and we are dedicated to uplifting it.

Do you both hope to return to your country if things change?

Siddiqi: I chose to leave my parents, siblings, everything in order to escape the regime.

Life is not easy for me here. I left my memories and emotions in Afghanistan. Everyday these memories disturb me. I was educated and began my career in Afghanistan and I believe I owe my country.

Karimi: Of course I hope to go back to my country. Right now, I feel that I have three lives as an exiled journalist: The first is the life I left behind in Afghanistan, which includes most of my family. Half of my mind and heart remains there. My second life is this one in exile where I am forced to rebuild my personal and professional life from scratch. My third life revolves around how to keep my colleagues safe and to honor their mission as female journalists. I am constantly navigating these three lives and it is a devastating reality.

What is your hope for Afghan women journalists in the future?

Siddiqi: There is no hope bigger than Afghan women having their basic human rights and access to education. If there is no education for women, there is no understanding of their reality and rights. If there is no understanding in a society, there is no justice. If there is no justice, we are no longer in a human society, but in a jungle. The Taliban has shut off all the doors that were once available for Afghan women and together, we are trying to pry them open.

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

“We welcome the Kosovo authorities’ swift investigation into a death threat made against journalist Berat Buzhala and urge them to fully hold the perpetrators to account,” said Attila Mong, CPJ’s Europe representative. “Authorities should ensure all journalists in Kosovo can do their jobs without fear of reprisal.”

Buzhala published a screenshot of the Facebook message, which threatened to kill him and “some of your kind.” The Facebook account associated with the threat has since been deactivated.

Buzhala told CPJ he believes the death threat is a consequence of ruling party, government officials publicly accusing journalists of Nacionale of being pro-Serbian. Buzhala said the threat follows earlier incidents targeting Nacionale’s journalists with smears, verbal threats online, cyberattacks, and physical attacks.

Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia in 2008, but Serbia refuses to recognize Kosovo as a country.

The Association of Journalists of Kosovo, an independent trade group, has expressed alarm over the increasingly hostile rhetoric against journalists, often originating from government officials and ruling party members. 

Buzhala told CPJ that Kosovo police have launched an investigation, but he has no updates and doubts its effectiveness, as he believes government officials are the ones fueling hostility toward journalists.
CPJ emailed questions to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which oversees the police, but received no reply.

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

An investigative journalist who was barred from attending New Zealand’s national apology to survivors of abuse in care has now been granted accreditation.

Parliament’s Speaker has now granted temporary Press Gallery accreditation to journalist Aaron Smale for tomorrow’s apology for abuse in care. He must, however, be accompanied by a Newsroom reporter at all times.

It follows a significant backlash from survivors and advocates to the initial decision.

• READ MORE:  Speaker lifts ban on Newsroom journalist ahead of Crown apology
• Sorry means you don’t do it again — Aaron Smale
  
• Royal Commission of Inquiry into abuse in state care – state response

Smale has covered abuse in care, and the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the abuse, for eight years. His work has appeared in multiple publications and websites, including Newsroom, Newshub, The Listener, The Spinoff and RNZ.

Last week, speaker Gerry Brownlee declined an application from Newsroom for Smale to report on the apology.

Parliament’s Press Gallery had asked for an explanation, as a refusal was quite rare, especially when a reporter met the gallery’s criteria for accreditation.

It was told the application was declined, with the Speaker citing Smale’s conduct on a prior occasion.

This afternoon, the Press Gallery wrote to the Speaker, requesting a more fulsome explanation.

Speaker’s about-turn
In an about-turn, the Speaker approved the application.

The initial decision to decline Smale’s application was met with backlash by survivor groups and advocates, as well as politicians and Newsroom itself.

At a media conference at Parliament in July, Smale and the Prime Minister had an exchange over the government’s law and order policies, and whether the Prime Minister would acknowledge the link between abuse and gang membership.

According to Newsroom, Smale had also attended a media event at a youth justice facility in Palmerston North, and pressed Children’s Minister Karen Chhour over whether it had been appropriate to associate the memory of the Māori Battalion with the new youth justice programme.

“The Beehive was in touch with us to say they believed he had been too forceful and too rude, in their view, in those two occasions,” Newsroom’s co-editor Tim Murphy told RNZ’s Nine to Noon programme.

Murphy said that Smale had conceded he had pushed the children’s minister “a bit far”.

“But the one in Parliament, he was asking specific questions and kept asking them of the Prime Minister and I think that became irritating to the Prime Minister,” Murphy said.

‘Most informed’ of journalists
Describing Smale as “the most informed, possibly, probably of all New Zealand journalists” on the issue of abuse in state care institutions, Murphy said political discomfort should not be a reason to exclude Smale, and the ban should not stand.

“He should be there, and he should be asking questions, because he’ll know more than virtually everybody else who could be,” he said.

Murphy said Smale’s intention for his coverage of the apology itself was to write an observational piece through the eyes of survivors, and he was not intending to “get into a grilling.”

The Royal Commission Forum, an advisory group to the commission, said denying Smale accreditation was “profoundly concerning” and a damaging decision in the lead-up to the apology.

The Green Party said it was alarmed by the move, and said it set a dangerous precedent.

“As a society that values the role of the Fourth Estate, we should value the work of journalists like Aaron, because it helps us take a critical look at where we have gone wrong and how we may move forward,” said the Green Party’s media and communications spokesperson Hūhana Lyndon.

“Barring a leading journalist from an important event like this speaks to this government’s lack of accountability. It is something we might expect in Putin’s Russia, not 21st century Aotearoa New Zealand.”

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assurances can and should be given now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I am proud to welcome three eminent leaders with trailblazing careers in journalism, strategic litigation, and freedom of expression as new board members,” said CPJ Chair Jacob Weisberg. “Their experience and unwavering commitment to press freedom and journalist safety worldwide will prove to be a tremendous asset to CPJ and, in turn, the journalists we serve.”

Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC is a barrister, human rights lawyer, and international expert in media freedom who has acted in many landmark cases before the European Court of Human Rights, United Nations human rights mechanisms, and international tribunals. She is a Commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and Ireland’s Special Rapporteur on Child Protection. Gallagher KC’s caseload includes leading the international legal teams for the bereaved family of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia and publisher Jimmy Lai, imprisoned in Hong Kong.

Graciela Mochkofsky is the dean of CUNY’s Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism. Under Mochkofsky’s leadership, the Newmark J-School trained bilingual journalists who are working in newsrooms across the country. She has continued her journalistic work as a writer for The Paris Review, The Atlantic, and The New Yorker, where she produces a monthly column on Latinx culture and politics.

Julie Owono is the executive director of Internet Sans Frontières and the founder of the Content Policy & Society Lab, an organization first incubated at Stanford University that focuses on human rights-based internet content policies. She is also one of the inaugural members of the Meta Oversight Board and a researcher affiliated with the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University.

CPJ recognizes the long-standing contributions of Jane Kramer, Matt Murray, Clarence Page, Norman Pearlstine, and Alan Rusbridger, all of whom departed their role as directors in February. Their many years of service coincided with CPJ’s increased prominence as attacks on the press continue to proliferate worldwide. 

CPJ’s board of directors is composed of journalists, media executives, and leaders from related professions in the United States and around the world.

About the Committee to Protect Journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. CPJ defends the rights of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal.

More information about CPJ’s board of directors can be found here.

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

Newshub, one of the key media companies in Aotearoa New Zealand, is to close its newsroom on June 30, reports RNZ News.

Staff were told of the closure at an emergency meeting today.

Newshub is owned by US-based global entertainment giant Warner Bros Discovery which also owns Eden, Rush, HGTV and Bravo.

• READ MORE: Other Newshub reports

In 2020, it took over the New Zealand channel’s assets which had been then part of Mediaworks.

Staff were called to a meeting at Newshub at 11am, RNZ News reported on its live news feed.

They were told that the US conglomerate Warner Brothers Discovery, owners of Newshub, was commencing consultation on a restructuring of its free-to-air business

This included the closure of all news operations by its Newshub operation

All local programming would be made only through local funding bodies and partners.

James Gibbons, president of Asia Pacific for Warner Bros Discovery, said it was a combination of negative events in NZ and around the world. The economic downturn had been severe and there was no long hope for a bounce back

Revenue has ‘disappeared quickly’
“Advertising revenue in New Zealand has disappeared far more quickly than our ability to manage this reduction, and to drive the business to profitability,” he said.

He said the restructuring would focus on it being a digital business

ThreeNow, its digital platform, would be the focus and could run local shows

All news production would stop on June 30.

The consultation process runs until mid-March. A final decision is expected early April.

“Deeply shocked’
Interviewed on RNZ’s Nine to Noon programme, a former head of Newshub, Mark Jennings, said he was deeply shocked by the move.

Other media personalities also reacted with stunned disbelief. Rival TVNZ’s Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver said: “Thinking of my friends and colleagues from Newshub.

“So many super talented wonderful people. Its a terrible day for our industry that Newshub [will] close by June, we will be all the much poorer for it. Much aroha to you all.”

Newshub has broken some important Pacific stories over the years.

Jennings told RNZ a cut back and trimming of shows would have been expected — but not on this scale.

“I’m really deeply frankly shocked by it,” said Jennings, now co-founder and editor of Newsroom independent digital media group.

He said he expected all shows to go, including AM Show and investigative journalist Patrick Gower’s show.

Company ‘had no strategy’
“I think governments will be pretty upset and annoyed about this, to be honest.”

“Unless they have been kept in the loop because we’re going to see a major drop in diversity.

“Newshub’s newsroom has been, maybe not so much in recent times, but certainly in the past, a very strong and vibrant player in the market and very important one for this country and again as [RNZ Mediawatch presenter] Colin [Peacock] points out, who is going to keep TVNZ’s news honest now?

“I think this is a major blow to media diversity in this country.”

“First of all, Discovery and then Warner Bros Discovery, this has been an absolute shocker of entry to this market by them. They came in with what I could was . . . no, I couldn’t see a strategy in it and in the time they owned this company, there has been no strategy and that’s really disappointing.

“If this had gone to a better owner, they would have taken steps way sooner and maybe we wouldn’t be losing one of the country’s most valued news services.”

Loss of $100m over three years
Jennings said his understanding was the company had lost $100 million in the past three years, which was “really significant”.

“I wonder if it had been a New Zealand owner, whether the government might have taken a different view around this, but I guess because it’s owned by a huge American, multi-national conglomerate, they would’ve been reluctant to intervene in any way.”

He said Broadcasting Minister Melissa Lee, a former journalist who ran the Asia Down Under programme for many years, faced serious questions now.

“It’ll be her first big test really, I guess, in that portfolio.”

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.

Around 2 p.m. on February 5, security forces raided the newsroom of the privately owned multimedia economic news website FardayeEghtesad in Argentina Square in the capital, Tehran, detained all 30 staff inside the building, searched the newsroom, and confiscated everyone’s cellphones and other electronic devices, such as laptops.

The families of the journalists gathered outside the building shortly after as authorities kept the journalists incommunicado. After 14 hours, the security forces released most of the staff, according to those sources, which said authorities did not provide any explanation for the detention.

Five journalists were detained in the newsroom for four days.

Ali Mirzakhani, editor-in-chief of FardayeEghtesad, was released on February 9. The other four journalists—deputy editor Behzad Bahman-Nejad and video journalists Ali Tasnimi, Mehrdad Asgari, and Nikan Khabazi—were transferred on February 9 to an undisclosed location.

As of February 13, the four journalists were detained in Shapoor Police Department in downtown Tehran, according to news reports, which said the journalists were taken to their newsroom multiple times and were questioned for long hours while security forces repeatedly searched the newsroom.

The journalists have been denied access to legal representation, and their families have not been told the reason for their arrest, according to those reports. CPJ was unable to determine whether the journalists had been formally charged.

“Iranian authorities must free journalists Behzad Bahman-Nejad, Ali Tasnimi, Mehrdad Asgari, and Nikan Khabazi immediately and unconditionally and cease the practice of arbitrarily locking up members of the press,” said CPJ Middle East and North Africa Program Coordinator Sherif Mansour. “Such group detentions show, shamefully, that authorities do not find it necessary to disclose even a minimum of details about why these reporters have been arrested. Authorities must answer for the raid on the outlet and mass detention of 30 journalists.”

CPJ’s review of FardayeEghtesad shows that although authorities have not suspended the news website, its content hasn’t been updated since February 4.

Iran was the world’s sixth-worst jailer of journalists in CPJ’s most recent annual prison census, with 17 imprisoned journalists as of December 1, 2023.

CPJ emailed Iran’s mission to the United Nations in New York requesting comment on the case but did not receive any response.

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

“CPJ is delighted to announce Lydia Polgreen as the incoming vice board chair and welcome four distinguished journalists to our board,” said CPJ Chair Jacob Weisberg. “They represent a tremendous range of knowledge and experience, and share a fundamental commitment to press freedom and safety around the world.”

“Lydia’s decades-long experience as an international correspondent and as a media executive leading a team of hundreds of journalists worldwide makes her uniquely qualified to understand the challenges journalists face to report the news globally during a period of unprecedented attacks on the press,” said Weisberg.

Weisberg added: “All four new board members are not only accomplished journalists but passionate about the role that a free press plays in the world. We look forward to working with them to keep journalists free and safe. As a correspondent in the Middle East, a foreign editor, and now editor of the Financial Times, Roula is one of the UK’s most distinguished journalists. Alan is one of America’s most admired business journalists, with a storied career at the Wall Street Journal and Fortune. Maria, the co-founder and CEO of Rappler in the Philippines and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is an inspiration to me and so many others in our field. Jacqueline is a leader at Bloomberg, where for more than two decades she has managed coverage from the Americas to Europe to North Africa.”

Lydia Polgreen is an opinion columnist for The New York Times. She previously served as managing director of Gimlet, a podcast studio at Spotify, and as editor-in-chief of HuffPost, leading a team of hundreds of journalists publishing 16 editions in nine languages across the globe.

Roula Khalaf is editor of the Financial Times. She was previously deputy editor from 2016 to 2020, overseeing a range of newsroom initiatives and award-winning editorial projects and leading a global network of over 100 foreign correspondents.

Alan Murray is CEO of Fortune Media, where he oversees all of the company’s operations. Prior to joining Fortune in 2015, Murray was president of the Pew Research Center and spent almost two decades at The Wall Street Journal.

Maria Ressa co-founded Rappler, the Philippines’ leading digital-only news site. As Rappler’s CEO, Ressa faced political harassment and numerous arrests during the administration of former President Rodrigo Duterte. In 2021, Ressa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of her “efforts to safeguard freedom of expression, which is a precondition for democracy and lasting peace.”

Jacqueline Simmons has held various news reporting and managerial roles at Bloomberg in Europe and the U.S. since starting in 1996. Currently, as editorial lead, she oversees 30-plus bureaus in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, as well as multi-platform content strategy and planning.

CPJ’s board of directors is composed of journalists, media executives, and leaders from related professions in the United States and around the world.

###

About the Committee to Protect Journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. CPJ defends the rights of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal.

More information about CPJ’s board of directors can be found here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

Marion County Record reporter Deb Gruver was injured when local law enforcement executed a search warrant on the newspaper’s offices and forcibly seized her cellphone, alongside other equipment and journalistic work product. The Kansas newspaper reported that the seizures jeopardized its ability to publish its weekly edition.

A copy of the search warrant, obtained by the Kansas Reflector, shows that the search was undertaken as part of an investigation into alleged unlawful use of a computer and identity theft.

According to the Record, however, when a reporter requested a copy of the probable cause affidavit that summarizes the circumstances and evidence supporting the warrant, the district court issued a signed statement that there wasn’t one on file.

The Record reported that during an Aug. 7 city council meeting a local restaurant owner, Kari Newell, had accused the newspaper of illegally obtaining information that she had a prior DUI conviction and had driven without a license, as well as supplying the information to Marion Vice Mayor Ruth Herbel.

In an article responding to the allegations, Record Publisher and Editor Eric Meyer said that a source had reached out with the information via Facebook, and had independently sent it to Herbel as well. The Record had verified the allegations through a public website but decided not to publish it, instead alerting the Marion Police Department that the source may have obtained the information illegally.

The morning of Aug. 11, Marion County District Court Magistrate Judge Laura Viar signed the search warrant for the Record’s office. Marion Police Department officers and Marion County sheriff’s deputies executed it within two hours, ordering staff to leave the office as equipment was seized.

Meyer told the Reflector that officers seized “everything” from the newsroom, and that he wasn’t sure how the staff would complete the edition before it needed to go to press on Aug. 15.

Gruver alleged on Facebook that Marion Police Chief Gideon Cody injured her finger when he “forcibly yanked” her personal cellphone from her hand. “I’ve filed a report with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation because a previously dislocated finger was re-injured,” Gruver wrote.

The Associated Press reported that officers also read Gruver her rights while Cody watched, though the reporter was not arrested or detained.

Officers also executed a second warrant at Meyer’s home — where he lives with his 98-year-old mother, Joan Meyer, a co-owner and correspondent for the Record, the Reflector reported. Joan Meyer passed away the following day, which the Record attributed in part to the stress of the raid.

Eric Meyer, a veteran reporter from the Milwaukee Journal and former journalism professor at the University of Illinois, told The Kansas City Star following the raid that the Record had also been investigating Cody’s background and allegations of wrongdoing.

Cody, who did not immediately respond to a request for further information, told the Star that the lack of an article about the allegations shows they had no basis. “If it was true, they would’ve printed it,” Cody said.

On Aug. 14, a coalition of more than 30 press freedom organizations sent a letter to Cody condemning the raid and calling for the return of the newspaper’s equipment and reporting materials.

Freedom of the Press Foundation, which operates the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, called the raid “alarming.”

“Based on the reporting so far, the police raid of the Marion County Record on Friday appears to have violated federal law, the First Amendment, and basic human decency,” said Director of Advocacy Seth Stern. “Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.”

In a statement released on Facebook, Cody defended the legality of the raid and said that the Marion Police Department had received assistance from local and state investigators.

“It is true that in most cases, [the federal Privacy Protection Act] requires police to use subpoenas, rather than search warrants, to search the premises of journalists unless they themselves are suspects in the offense that is the subject of the search,” Cody wrote.

Meyer, who could not immediately be reached for comment, told the Record that while the paper’s attorneys are working to have the equipment returned, they also plan to file a federal lawsuit to ensure that such a raid never happens again.

“Our first priority is to be able to publish next week,” Meyer said, “but we also want to make sure no other news organization is ever exposed to the Gestapo tactics we witnessed today. We will be seeking the maximum sanctions possible under law.”

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

Local law enforcement executed a search warrant on the offices of the Marion County Record on Aug. 11, 2023, seizing computers, cellphones, a file server and journalistic work product. The Kansas newspaper reported that the seizures jeopardized its ability to publish its weekly edition.

A copy of the search warrant, obtained by the Kansas Reflector, shows that the search was undertaken as part of an investigation into alleged unlawful use of a computer and identity theft.

According to the Record, however, when a reporter requested a copy of the probable cause affidavit that summarizes the circumstances and evidence supporting the warrant, the district court issued a signed statement that there wasn’t one on file.

The Record reported that during an Aug. 7 city council meeting a local restaurant owner, Kari Newell, had accused the newspaper of illegally obtaining information that she had a prior DUI conviction and had driven without a license, as well as supplying the information to Marion Vice Mayor Ruth Herbel.

In an article responding to the allegations, Record Publisher and Editor Eric Meyer said that a source had reached out with the information via Facebook, and had independently sent it to Herbel as well. The Record had verified the allegations through a public website but decided not to publish it, instead alerting the Marion Police Department that the source may have obtained the information illegally.

The morning of Aug. 11, Marion County District Court Magistrate Judge Laura Viar signed the search warrant for the Record’s office. Marion Police Department officers and Marion County sheriff’s deputies executed it within two hours, ordering staff to leave the office as equipment was seized.

Officers also arrived simultaneously with a second warrant at Meyer’s home — where he lives with his 98-year-old mother, Joan Meyer, a co-owner and correspondent for the Record, the Reflector reported. Joan Meyer passed away the following day, which the Record attributed in part to the stress of the raid.

Eric Meyer told the Reflector that officers seized “everything” from the newsroom, and that he wasn’t sure how the staff would complete the edition before it needed to go to press on Aug. 15. According to the Record, Reflector and other sources, officers seized at least four computers, a file server, a backup hard drive, reporting materials and other equipment.

The personal cellphones belonging to reporters Deb Gruver and Phyllis Zorn were also seized. Gruver alleged on Facebook that Marion Police Chief Gideon Cody injured her finger when he “forcibly yanked” the phone from her hand.

Meyer, a veteran reporter from the Milwaukee Journal and former journalism professor at the University of Illinois, told The Kansas City Star following the raid that the Record had also been investigating Cody’s background and allegations of wrongdoing.

Cody, who did not immediately respond to a request for further information, told the Star that the lack of an article about the allegations shows they had no basis. “If it was true, they would’ve printed it,” Cody said.

On Aug. 14, a coalition of more than 30 press freedom organizations sent a letter to Cody condemning the raid and calling for the return of the newspaper’s equipment and reporting materials.

Freedom of the Press Foundation, which operates the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, called the raid “alarming.”

“Based on the reporting so far, the police raid of the Marion County Record on Friday appears to have violated federal law, the First Amendment, and basic human decency,” said Director of Advocacy Seth Stern. “Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.”

In a statement released on Facebook, Cody defended the legality of the raid and said that the Marion Police Department had received assistance from local and state investigators.

“It is true that in most cases, [the federal Privacy Protection Act] requires police to use subpoenas, rather than search warrants, to search the premises of journalists unless they themselves are suspects in the offense that is the subject of the search,” Cody wrote.

Meyer, who could not immediately be reached for comment, told the Record that while the paper’s attorneys are working to have the equipment returned, they also plan to file a federal lawsuit to ensure that such a raid never happens again.

“Our first priority is to be able to publish next week,” Meyer said, “but we also want to make sure no other news organization is ever exposed to the Gestapo tactics we witnessed today. We will be seeking the maximum sanctions possible under law.”

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

Own goals by two of our top news organisations last week raised a fundamental question: What has happened to their checking processes?

Both Radio New Zealand and NZME acknowledged serious failures in their internal processes that resulted in embarrassing apologies, corrections, and take-downs.

The episodes in both newsrooms suggest the “second pair of eyes” that traditionally acted as a final check before publication no longer exists or is so over-worked in a resource-starved environment that they are looking elsewhere.

The RNZ situation is the more serious of the two episodes. It relates to the insertion of pro-Russian content into news agency stories about the invasion of Ukraine that were carried on the RNZ website.

The original stories were sourced from Reuters and, in at least one case, from the BBC. By today 22 altered stories had been found, but the audit had only scratched the surface. The alleged perpetrator has disclosed they had been carrying out such edits for the past five years.

RNZ was alerted to the latest altered story by news watchers in New York and Paris on Friday. It investigated and found a further six, then a further seven, then another, and another. This only takes us back a short way.

A number of the stories were altered only by the inclusion of a few loaded terms such as “neo-Nazi” and “US-backed coup”, but others had material changes. Some are spelt out in the now-corrected stories on the site. Here are two examples of significant insertions into the original text:

An earlier edit to this story said: “Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February last year, claiming that a US-backed coup in 2014 with the help of neo-Nazis had created a threat to its borders and had ignited a civil war that saw Russian-speaking minorities persecuted.”

An earlier edit to this story said: “The Azov Battalion was widely regarded as an anti-Russian neo-Nazi military unit by observers and western media before the Russian invasion. Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused the nationalists of using Russian-speaking Ukrainians as human shields.”

Hot water with Reuters
The scale and nature of the inappropriate editing of the stories is likely to get RNZ into very hot water with Reuters. The agency has strict protocols over what forms of editing may take place with its copy and even the most cursory examination of the altered RNZ versions confirms that the protocols have been breached.

It is unsurprising that RNZ’s chief executive Paul Thompson has told staff he is “gutted” by what has occurred.

Both security analyst Dr Paul Buchanan and AUT journalism professor Dr Verica Ruper have cautioned against speculating on how the material came to be appear on the RNZ website and I agree that to do so is premature. Clearly, however, it amounts to much more than a careless editing mistake.

Paul Thompson has acted promptly in ordering an external independent enquiry into the matter and in standing down the individual who apparently handled the stories. It is likely that the government’s security services are also taking an interest in what has occurred.

What we can speculate on is the possibility that RNZ’s internal processes are deficient to the point that there is no post-production vetting of some stories before publication — that “second pair of eyes”.

We might also speculate that the problem is faced by The New Zealand Herald newsroom, following the publication of an eight-line correction at the top of page 3 of the Herald on Sunday, and carried equally sparingly on the Herald website.

“A story published last Sunday about a woman who triumphed over a difficult background to become a lawyer had elements that were false. In publishing the article, we fell short of the high standards and procedures we hold ourselves to.”

Puzzled by correction
Many readers would have been puzzled by the correction, which gave no details of the story concerned, nor did it identify those elements that were false.

There may have been legal reasons for omitting which details were incorrect, but not for leaving readers to puzzle over the story to which they referred.

It appears to relate to a three-page story in the Review section of the previous Sunday’s edition that was headed “From mob terror to high flyer”. The story related to the daughter of a woman jailed for selling methamphetamine. The daughter had gone on to a legal career in the United States.

I recall having some undefined concern about the story when I read it and still can’t quite put my finger on why the old alarm bell in the back of my head tinkled. Perhaps it was that — apart from previously published material — the story appeared to rely on a single interview. There also appeared to be a motive in telling the story to the Herald on Sunday — a forthcoming book.

The article seems to have been removed from the Herald website, but the short correction suggests that checks were missed. The same seems to have been the case with RNZ.

It is, of course, sheer coincidence that both RNZ and the Herald on Sunday should face such shortcomings in the same week. However, the likely root causes of their embarrassment are issues that all news media face.

First, the pressure on newsroom resources has increased the workload of all staff, from reporters in the field to duty editors. Time pressures are a daily, and nightly, reality and multi-tasking has become the norm.

Checking comes second
In such an environment, checking the work of other well-trained staff may come second to more pressing demands.

As an editor, I slept better knowing that each story had passed through the hands of a news editor, sub-editor and, finally, a check sub with a compulsive attention to detail who checked each completed page before it was transmitted to the printing plant. I fear our newsrooms are now too bare for that multi-layered system of checks.

If the demands of newspaper deadlines are tough, the pressures are manifestly greater in a digital environment where websites have become voracious beasts that cry out to be fed from dawn to midnight. New stories are added throughout the protracted news cycle, pushing older stories down the home page, then off it to subsidiary pages on the site tree.

The technology to satisfy the hunger has advanced to the point where reporters publish direct to the web using Twitter-like feeds. We saw it last week during the Auckland City budget debate when news websites were recording the jerk dancing minute by minute.

Clay Shirky, in his influential 2008 book Here Comes Everybody, popularised the term “publish, then filter”. It referred to a change from sifting the good from the mediocre before publication, to a digital environment in which users determined worth once it had been published.

However, increasingly, the phrase has taken on additional meaning. The burden of work created by digital appetites has seen mainstream media foreshortening the production process by removing some of the old checks and balances because they can always go back later and make changes on the website.

The abridgement may, for example, mean a pre-publication check is limited to headline, graphic, and the first couple of paragraphs. Or, in the case of “pre-edited” agency or syndication content, it may mean foregoing post-production text checks altogether (I hasten to add that I do not know whether this was the case with the RNZ stories).

Editorial based on trust
Editorial production has always been based on trust. It works both down and up. Editors trust those they rely on to carry out processes from content creation to post-production, and those responsible for one phase trust their work will subsequently be handled with care.

Individual shortcomings should not erode trust in the newsroom, but such episodes do point to a need to re-examine whether systems are fit for purpose.

Over a decade ago, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel wrote a book called Blur. It was about information overload. In it they state that, as journalism becomes more complicated, the role of the editor becomes more important, and verification is a bigger part of the editor’s role.

Incidents such as those that came to light last week reinforce that view. They also suggest that mainstream media organisations should leave Clay Shirky’s mantra to social media and bloggers. Instead, they should (thoroughly) filter, then publish.

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

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

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s publishing systems were disrupted by a cyberattack that prevented the newspaper from printing its regular Sunday edition on May 14, 2023, temporarily closed its newsroom and took select computer systems offline.

The Inquirer reported that it was not clear when the systems were first breached but that the attack was detected the morning of May 13, when employees found that the newspaper’s content management system wasn’t working. Inquirer Publisher and CEO Elizabeth H. Hughes said in a statement later that day that the paper had “discovered anomalous activity on select computer systems and immediately took those systems off-line.”

The newspaper said it was able to implement workarounds that day that allowed online publication to continue, albeit sometimes at a slower pace.

The Sunday early edition — which was compiled on May 12 — was successfully printed, but the company was unable to print the regular edition of the newspaper. It instead published solely the online version, and printing resumed during the afternoon of May 14 for the Monday edition.

The Inquirer reported that employees were barred from entering the newspaper’s offices until May 16, as the internet servers had also been disrupted.

In an emailed statement on May 14 to Inquirer journalists reporting on the attack, Hughes said that outside cybersecurity experts had been brought in to help restore systems and that an investigation was ongoing into who was behind the attack and whether any employees or particular systems were targeted.

“We appreciate everyone’s patience and understanding as we work to fully restore systems and complete this investigation as soon as possible,” Hughes said. “We will keep our employees and readers informed as we learn more.”

The Inquirer later reported on May 23 that a ransomware group that calls itself Cuba claimed it was behind the attack and had posted a trove of stolen data and files online. Hughes told the newspaper that the company has not found any evidence that materials were actually taken or shared online.

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

RNZ has announced Charlotte Cook as the new presenter of Midday Report — Te Pūrongo o te Poutūtanga on RNZ National and Susana Suisuiki as host of Pacific Waves on RNZ Pacific.

Cook has most recently been a senior reporter/producer for Morning Report and hosted the programme over the summer, as well as filling in on Midday Report.

Her career highlights to date include telling the stories of multiple New Zealanders on the front line of the war in Ukraine and reporting live from the Parliament protests when the police were called in to clear the grounds.

• READ MORE: Other RNZ reports on Asia Pacific Report

Cook is known for spotting a great yarn — her video of Wellington’s “Sushi Penguins” passed more than a million views, and her 2020 Elevator Pitch election series saw her challenge political party leaders to summarise why people should vote for them in the space of a quick trip in a lift.

Her podcast Hair and Loathing is a finalist for Best Documentary or Factual Talk Feature at the 2023 NZ Radio Awards.

Suisuiki joined RNZ Pacific as a journalist in early 2022 and has spent time on air as a fill-in newsreader and Pacific Waves host.

Succeeds Koroi Hawkins
She takes on the permanent presenter role following Koroi Hawkins’ move to the Pacific news editor role at RNZ Pacific.

A proud New Zealand-born Samoan, Suisuiki has strong family ties to the villages of Letogo and Satapuala in Upolu, Samoa.

She followed a long-held dream to pursue journalism, joining RNZ Pacific after six years working in the communications field with stints in public health, not-for-profit organisations, and foreign affairs/international development.

Born into a family of performers and creatives, she strives to carry on her family’s legacy through performing and teaching the Siva Samoa.

Her passion for the siva has led to choreographing and tutoring solo performances, one of which took the top award at the Polyfest Samoan stage in 2021.

RNZ head of news Richard Sutherland said both presenters are great examples of the outstanding fresh talent at RNZ.

“Charlotte quickly made her mark in the RNZ newsroom as someone with a keen eye for a story and the ability to build a rapport with the people she interviews, and that’s something she’s continued as a producer and reporter for Morning Report,” he said.

“Her stints as a fill in host on several programmes have proven she’s ready for this next step.

Key Pacific programme
“Pacific Waves is an important Pacific-focused current affairs programme that’s broadcast across the Pacific via the internet and short-wave radio, as well as on RNZ National.

“Susana has been a key part of the team contributing to the programme since she first joined the RNZ Pacific team early last year, and she’s impressed when hosting the show.

“It’s great to have Pacific Waves presented out of Aotearoa’s biggest Pacific city, Auckland.”

Suisuiki is on air in her new role immediately and Cook will present Midday Report from Friday.

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

• Go to Pacific Waves

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

The New York Times‘ Maureen Dowd

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd (4/29/23) has painted a picture of the newsroom that time forgot. Her remembrance of a frenetic, vibrant newsroom where sin united professionals, and the cubs learned from the veterans on the beat, matches the great depictions of newsrooms like The Wire’s Baltimore Sun or the New York Post in Pete Hamill’s A Drinking Life.

Dowd worries that the younger generation won’t know such pleasures. She quotes the Times’ Jim Rutenberg asking what a cinematic portrayal of a newsroom would look like today:  “A bunch of individuals at their apartments, surrounded by sad houseplants, using Slack?”

Beyond Memory Lane

Maureen Dowd’s New York Times column (4/29/23) expressing nostalgia for the old-style newsroom is accompanied by a 1965 photo in which each of the nine journalists pictured appears to be a white man.

Her piece is not a mere trip down memory lane, though. She used her column space deliberately to attack the Times union for pushing for more remote and hybrid work, as post-pandemic many office workers have seen the benefits of such scheduling. Contract talks at the paper have been rough, as 1,100 Times workers held a one-day strike at the end of last year over stalled negotiations (Reuters, 12/8/22). Dowd writes:

Remote work is a major priority in contract negotiations for the Times union, which wants employees to have to come in to the office no more than two days a week this year and three days a week starting next year. Management, which says one thing it is worried about is that young people will stagnate and see the institution as an abstraction if they work remotely too often, has committed to a three-day-a-week policy this year but wants to reserve the right to expand that in the future.

For office workers, this has been a struggle. The pandemic has taught us that we don’t need to spend five days a week commuting, or to use leave time to take care of a house chore in the middle of the work day. There is research showing remote scheduling is good for workers and employers alike (Forbes, 2/12/20; Entrepreneur, 11/5/22; Psychology Today, 2/28/23).

But Taylorism is a hell of a drug for bosses, who need to literally see workers’ asses in seats in order to justify their paychecks, even if the work is getting done just as efficiently, or even more so with hybrid schedules.

Dowd sides with the bosses, who think that remote work will mean workers won’t put their hearts into the job, even though the news profession itself has been in a downward spiral for decades.

While Dowd admits that “newsrooms have been shrinking and disappearing for a long time, of course, due to shifting economics and the digital revolution,” the thrust of her piece blames a younger generation, inspired by the pandemic to work remotely. “I worry that the romance, the alchemy, is gone,” she said, adding that once her co-workers realized “they could put out a great newspaper from home, they decided, why not do so?”

Generally, a younger generation has embraced flexible scheduling because for all the romanticizing of the so-called water cooler, the 9-to-5 grind has also included workplace sexual harassment, challenging physical environments for the disabled and other structural inequalities. Hybrid work doesn’t solve these issues, but these problems are the flip side to the rosy image of the days of yore.

News sector decline

The Village Voice (9/20/17) stopped publishing its weekly print edition after 62 years.

It’s easy for someone like Dowd, who joined the Times in 1983, to lose touch with what it’s like for a working journalist these days. I cut my teeth in journalism at Atlanta’s beloved alt-weekly, Creative Loafing, which was battered with layoffs since I sifted through city housing records under the guidance of the brilliant reporter Mara Shalhoup, now an editor at ProPublica. I was drawn to alt-weeklies, and my dream was to work for the Village Voice, which died (New York Times, 8/31/18) along with Boston’s Phoenix (WBUR, 3/14/13) and the San Francisco Bay Guardian (USA Today, 10/14/14).

The Forward, once the most important Jewish newspaper in America, where I was once a columnist, no longer prints on paper, and lost star reporters like Larry Cohler-Esses (Columbia Journalism Review, 2/5/20). I reported from the United Nations for Free Speech Radio News—it’s gone (Democracy Now!, 4/28/17). I was a reporter at the Chief-Leader for three years. Its sale, along with the shortsightedness of its previous owners, has led to what appears to be a shrinking product (Editor and Publisher, 9/1/21; Chief-Leader, 3/15/22).

I don’t say all this to ask for sympathy, but rather to underscore the fact that for journalists out there who are not patricians on the Times columnist roster—i.e., who are part of the 99% of the news industry economy—this is just the norm. My lifelong friends and colleagues have dealt with layoffs, restructurings, management hostility toward staff unions, precarious employment and increasing workloads.

We’d love to chain smoke and yell at each other as the deadline looms. But these positions are hard to find, not because we are lazy, but because the machinations of capital have reduced what was once a career into a burdensome, low-paying gig offering no future prospects.

Today, more and more journalists turn to Substack and Patreon as ways to make money, as the jobs in the industry dry up, and self-employment without editorial oversight becomes easier than scrounging for freelancer fees. The story of the news sector decline is an old one, but the most recent shakeups include the closure of BuzzFeed News (New York Times, 4/20/23), fighting over layoffs and pay at Gannett (New York Post, 11/4/22), bankruptcy preparations at Vice Media (Reuters, 5/1/23), downsizing at 538 (Variety, 4/25/23) and a protracted strike at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (WESA, 4/6/23).

If a journalist is lucky, maybe they can get a job—even if it doesn’t pay what’s needed to live, and is so overloaded with work that the job becomes untenable. The rest can work as precarious freelancers, trudging along without benefits or job protections.

Hollowing out

The hollowing out of the profession is, indeed, bad for journalism and thus for democracy. Dowd sees that problem—but not the root cause—when she says:

I’m looking for proof of life on an eerie ghost ship. Once in a while, I hear reporters wheedling or hectoring some reluctant source on the phone, but even that is muted because many younger reporters prefer to text or email sources.

“A problem with this,” said the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, who started with me at the [Washington] Star, “is that if you interview someone in writing, they have time to consider and edit their responses to your questions, which means that spontaneous, unexpected, injudicious and entertaining quotes are dead.”

Mayer, who is among the best at the New Yorker, is correct: An interview in person is better than on the phone, and a phone interview is better than email. But why is that happening? The preference for text and email, I have often found, is that because of this cultural shift, it is often easier to get in contact with someone over text or email, and some sources even insist on it.

Further, in an age where reporters must churn out more and more copy in shorter amounts of time, reporters must often find the most time-efficient manner to report under such thrifty constraints. Send out a flurry of email requests in the morning, get statements by midday, file as soon as you can. Rinse and repeat.

Shaming younger workers

If Dowd were using this example as a reason to give younger reporters more time to flesh out stories, real salaries and benefits to offer workers the chance at a lifelong career, bigger expense accounts for writers to travel to meet sources, and more staff to spread the work around more evenly, then she’d have a point.

A New York Times staffer declares a preference for “real raises” over “cute trinkets.”

Does Dowd blame the loss of the New York Times newsroom culture on, for example, management’s decision to lay off copy editors (Deadline, 6/28/17)? No, she somehow forgot that part. In essence, Dowd provides pure Boomerism, an elite worker in her twilight years shaming younger workers to slave over smaller and smaller scraps.

But it’s clear from her lashing out at the union that this piece was not meant to urge the industry to reverse its cost-cutting and deprofessionalization. She wants the younger, less-paid workforce at her employer to fall in line.

The Times had already fumbled an attempt to coax workers back to the office when it offered free lunch boxes to workers, a show of utter out-of-touchness (Gawker, 9/13/22). Dowd continued the awkwardness:

I’m mystified when I hear that so many of our 20-something news assistants prefer to work from home. At that age, I would have had a hard time finding mentors or friends or boyfriends if I hadn’t been in the newsroom, and I never could have latched onto so many breaking stories if I hadn’t raised my hand and said, “I’ll go.”

It’s a little sad to hear someone talk like this in public, when so many young journalists are eager to take assignments, even if that means filing from a Brooklyn coffee shop instead of a midtown office. The truth is many youngsters know how to socialize and date without the physical office, so neither a lunchbox or the prospect of a new hookup is going to break union solidarity when it comes to hybrid scheduling.

Dowd’s attempt to run interference for management should expose the weakness of Times management’s position here. At the Times, it should be an inspiration for unionists to keep fighting for a better workplace. And for the rest of us, it should be inspiration for a better industry, one that values its workers’ contributions.

ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter: @NYTimes). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.

The post Dowd’s Newsroom Nostalgia Is Management Propaganda appeared first on FAIR.

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

ANALYSIS: By Mark Jennings

Until weeks ago, the future of Aotearoa New Zealand’s public media organisations was looking so grim the government was prepared to spend $370 million over four years to merge TVNZ and RNZ and future proof the new entity it was calling ANZPM.

Last December, when the merger plan was under intense scrutiny, then Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern said RNZ “could collapse” if the merger did not go ahead.

Last week, Labour unveiled a very modest plan to strengthen public media. The old, very expensive one, had been thrown on the policy bonfire back in February.

• READ MORE: Other NZ public media reports

The “burn it” decision had been widely anticipated after new PM Chris Hipkins’ started dumping unpopular policies to focus on cost of living issues.

Broadcasting Minister Willie Jackson stayed on message when he released the new public media plan last week. “We have listened to New Zealanders and now is not the right time to restructure our public media.”

Under the new plan RNZ will get $25 million more a year, NZ On Air will get a one-off boost of $10m for 2023/24 and TVNZ will get nothing.

Jackson claims the extra money will “deliver world class public media for all New Zealanders.” This seems improbable given the earlier dire predictions.

The additional $25 million a year for RNZ represents a 60 percent increase in its funding. It sounds a lot but the broadcaster has been under resourced for the past 15 years.

Coping with pandemic
When National came to power in 2008 it froze RNZ funding for 9 years. The state broadcaster did get an increase from the Ardern government but it has had to contend with the additional costs of reporting on and coping with the covid-19 pandemic.

Lately, the demands of covering the Auckland floods and cyclone Gabrielle have stretched it further. Newsroom understands RNZ is currently running a deficit of close to $5 million.

The lack of funding is illustrated by the rundown premises RNZ occupies nationwide, its ageing equipment and out-of-date IT systems. Under constant financial pressure it has struggled to attract and keep top journalists.

Some of its best and brightest have been lured away to TVNZ, Newshub, Newsroom and Stuff.

Jackson’s media release said $12 million of the extra funding was for current services and $12 million for a new digital platform. $1.7 million is to support AM transmission so people can access information during civil emergencies.

Stuff, the NZ Herald and RNZ itself all reported (presumably from the media release) on the funding for the new multimedia digital platform. But there is no new platform. This was either clumsy language or a clumsy attempt at spin from Jackson and his comms people.

RNZ’s chief executive Paul Thompson told Newsroom the money would be used to make improvements to RNZ’s existing web platform and mobile app.

‘Fixing things’
“It is kind of fixing things that should have been fixed a long time ago. Our website and app are serviceable and do a good job but if we are going to be relevant in the future we need to be better than that.”

Thompson says the increase in the amount of baseline funding was calculated to restore RNZ to its former state, more than anything else.

“How much would it take us to stabilise our current operations and get them to where they need to be, so that’s well overdue. It is everything from our premises through to our content management systems, to our rostering — just having enough staff to do the job we do. It’s sufficient but we are going to have to spend every penny very wisely.”

A big part of the government’s reasoning for the merger was that minority audiences are under-served by the media.

Jackson now seems to expect RNZ to do the heavy lifting in this area. His media release quoted him saying the funding would allow RNZ to expand regional coverage and establish a new initiative to prioritise Māori and Pacific coverage.

Asked how he planned to do this, Thompson was circumspect. “It has got to be worked out . . . we are going to have to prioritise, we can’t do it all at once.”

Jackson wants other media to play an (unspecified) role in reaching these audiences. He has restored $42 million of funding to NZ On Air. Under the merger plan this money, which was the amount NZOA spent funding TVNZ programmes (mainly drama, comedy and off-peak minority programmes), was being handed to ANZPM to decide how it should be spent.

Production community upset
The local TV production community was upset by this as it far preferred NZ On Air to be the gatekeeper and not TVNZ executives who would likely end up working for the merged organisation.

Jackson has also given NZOA a one-off boost of $10 million for 2023/2024.

“The funding will support the creation of high-quality content that better represents and connects with audiences such as Māori, Pasifika, Asian, disabled people and our rangatahi and tamariki. It is vital that all New Zealanders are seeing and hearing themselves in our public media,” he said in his media release.

One-off funding can be of limited benefit. It usually has to be project-based rather than supporting ongoing programming and the staff that go with it. It is possible Jackson is hoping or expects NZ On Air to use more of its baseline funding to sustain new shows and programmes for minorities.

On the same day as Jackson’s announcement, but with less fanfare, NZOA released its own revised strategy.

The document says, above all, funded content must have a “clear cultural or social purpose.”

Priority will be given to songs and stories that contribute to rautaki (strategy for) Māori, support a range of voices and experiences, including those of people from varying ages, races, ethnicities, abilities, genders, religions, cultures, and sexual orientations.

Unclear about TVNZ
It is unclear where Jackson’s plan B leaves TVNZ. Throughout the merger discussions TVNZ executives, while saying they embraced the idea, were critical of the draft legislation, the level of independence the new entity would have and they often emphasised TVNZ’s commercial success.

Jackson has, on a number of occasions, linked TVNZ to the National Party which opposed the merger and was committed to rolling it back if elected in October.

When he became frustrated in an interview with TVNZ’s Jack Tame, before the merger was abandoned, Jackson used the line “your mates in National”.

During question time in Parliament last week, when asked what more he was doing to strengthen public media, Jackson said he was going to “sit down with Simon and the National Party mates over there.”

He was referring to TVNZ CEO, and former National Party minister, Simon Power.

Jackson said he wanted TVNZ to play a more active role in public broadcasting and, “we are going to traverse things with Simon in terms of a way forward.”

Power recently announced his resignation and will leave TVNZ in June. With many of the TVNZ board, including its influential chair Andy Coupe, likely to retire or be replaced in the next month, Jackson will, in reality, be sitting down with a new board and CEO to discuss his public media ambitions for TVNZ.

If he is interested in the job, RNZ’s Thompson must now be in with a real chance.

Thompson unequivocally endorsed the merger idea and was almost the only advocate able to clearly articulate its benefits. A new board, eager to take the company in a direction more sympathetic to its owner’s vision, might find that attractive.

Mark Jennings is co-editor of Newsroom. Republished with permission.

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

The man in charge of Fiji’s oldest newspaper has high hopes for press freedom in the country following the tabling of a bill in Parliament this week to get rid of a controversial media law.

Fiji’s three-party coalition government introduced a bill on Monday to repeal the 2010 Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) Act.

The MIDA Act — a legacy of the former Bainimarama administration — has long been criticised for being “draconian” and decimating journalism standards in the country.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji media freedom reports

The law regulates the ownership, registration and content of the media in Fiji.

Under the act, the media content regulation framework includes the creation of MIDA, the media tribunal and other elements.

“It is these provisions that have been considered controversial,” Fiji’s Attorney-General Siromi Turaga said when tabling the bill.

“These elements are widely considered as undemocratic and in breach of the constitutional right of freedom of expression as outlined in section 17 of the constitution.”

Not a ‘free pass’
Turaga said repealing the act does not provide a free pass to media organisations and journalists to “report anything and everything without authentic sources and facts”.

“But it does provides a start to ensuring that what reaches the ordinary people of Fiji is not limited by overbearing regulation of government.”

The Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley said he had a sense of “great optimism” that the Media Act would be repealed.

Wesley and the newspaper — founded in 1869 — were caught in a long legal battle for publishing an article in their vernacular language newspaper Nai Lalakai which the former FijiFirst government claimed was seditious.

But in 2018, the High Court found them not guilty and cleared them of all charges.

“After the change in government, there has been a change in the way the press has been disseminating information,” Wesley said.

“We have had a massive turnover [of] journalists in our country. A lot of young people have come in. At the The Fiji Times, for instance, we have an average age of around 22, which is very, very young,” he said.

Handful of seniors
“We have just a handful of senior journalists who have stayed on who are very passionate about the role the media must pay in our country.

“We are looking forward to Thursday and looking forward to the act being repealed and the draconian legislation kicked out.”

He said two thirds of the journalists in the national newspaper’s newsroom have less than 16 years experience and have never experienced press freedom.

He said The Fiji Times would then need to implement “mass desensitisation” of its reporters as they had been working under a draconian law for more than a decade.

He added retraining journalists would be the main focus of the organisation after the law is repealed.

‘Things will get better’
Long-serving journalist at the newspaper Rakesh Kumar told RNZ Pacific that reporting on national interest issues had been a “big challenge” under the act.

Kumar recalled early when the media law was enacted and army officers would come into newsrooms to “create fear” which he said would “kill the motivation” of reporters.

“We know things will get better now [after the repeal of the act],” Kumar said.

But he said it was “important that we have to report accurately”.

“We have to be balanced,” he added.

The bill to repeal the MIDA Act will be debated tomorrow.

While the opposition has already opposed the move, it is expected that the government will use its majority in Parliament to pass it.

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.

The Mediaworks’ radio station Today FM abandoned scheduling today when presenters broke from programming to question the future of their employer.

Broadcasters told their audience they were going off air and had been instructed to play music.

Today FM hosts Duncan Garner and Tova O’Brien told listeners before 9am the station and staff were being cut.

• READ MORE:  At the end of Today
• LISTEN TO RNZ MIDDAY REPORT: Media commentator Colin Peacock blames low ratings
• Other Today FM reports

“We’ve been told to play music.”

“This is it, folks.”

While still on-air, O’Brien said the station had not been given a chance.

Staff had been told they had the support of the chief executive, the board, the executive “and they have f…..d us”, she said.

Garner responded: “This is betrayal.”

Crying staff
“He said other staff had joined the two radio hosts in the studio and several of them were crying.

“Radio is one of those projects, where you have to settle in, and slowly but surely get your numbers, get your ratings, get your revenue,” Garner said.

He said the company was “bleeding cash”.

A short time later the station began playing music.

Show producer Tom Day tweeted that the Mediaworks board had made a proposal to shut down Today FM.

“They have given us only until the end of this afternoon to make submissions. I have no words.”

Today FM PULLED OFF AIR. as Duncan and Tova explain the station and staff are being cut.
“We’ve been told to play music”
“This is it, folks!”

— Tim Murphy (@tmurphyNZ) March 29, 2023

‘Gutting’ to be axed
Day told RNZ it was gutting to have their station axed by Mediaworks.

He confirmed the Mediaworks board had proposed to close down the Today FM Brand in a meeting this morning.

He wished they had been given more time to build their brand after being on the air for just over a year.

He said staff had attended a meeting with Palmer and HR staff this morning and it seemed clear the station would be shut down.

“It’s pretty much a done deal.”

Staff had been told there was a five-year plan for the station but instead it looked like it would close after just one year.

“We feel pretty gutted and let down,” he said.

‘Serious uncertainty’
A story on Today FM’s website says it is facing “serious uncertainty”.

It also references the appearance just before 9am of its key broadcasters Garner and O’Brien who went on air and used a swear word banned in most circumstances by the Broadcasting Standards Authority to describe their current situation.

In the on-air segment O’Brien said that following the resignation of Mediaworks head of news Dallas Gurney, soon after the sudden departure of chief executive Cam Wallace, the team had not been able to get the same level of assurance from the board or acting chief executive Wendy Palmer about the future of the radio station.

“We’ve got to hold out hope here, but we’re scared,” she said.

Tim Murphy, the co-editor of Newsroom, wrote that today’s development was shocking and gutting for many journalists and the industry.

Station-wide meeting
A station-wide meeting had been called with Palmer, the story said.

In a statement, Palmer said: “This morning at the MediaWorks board’s request, we have taken Today FM off air while we consult with the team about the future of the station.

“This is a difficult time for the team and our priority is supporting them as we work through this process.”

She said more information would be released at a later date.

Today FM was set up a year ago to replace Magic Talk, which had struggled to make inroads in the ratings.

MediaWorks also operates the Edge, the Breeze, Mai FM and the Rock among other stations.

Media commentator blames poor ratings
RNZ Mediawatch commentator Colin Peacock told Midday Report the company had spent a reported $6 million to $9 million to set up Today FM in a bid to compete with talkback radio market leader NewstalkZB.

The station needed to build its own news operation because Newshub and the TV channels had been sold to Discovery in 2021.

“The ratings didn’t work out bluntly over the past year,” he said.

The departures of Wallace and Gurney within the last month meant the biggest supporters of the station had left and current management was determined to cut costs.

He said “there was a lot to sort out” because the company would want to use the frequency and there would probably need to be payouts to any staff made redundant.

“They’ve really burned bridges with their staff so there will be fallout from this that will be financial as well.”

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.

“Earlier it was just one conversation they [authorities] would tap into,” Venu told CPJ in a phone interview. “They wouldn’t see what you would be doing in your bedroom or bathroom. The scale was stunning.”

The Indian journalists were among scores around the world who learned from the Pegasus Project in July 2021 that they, along with human rights activists, lawyers, and politicians, had been targeted for possible surveillance by Pegasus, the spyware made by Israel’s NSO Group. (The company denies any connection with the Project’s list and says that it only sells its product to vetted governments with the goal of preventing crime or terrorism.) 

The Pegasus Project found that the phones of two founding editors of The Wire – Venu and Siddharth Vardarajan – were confirmed by forensic analysis to have been infected with Pegasus. Four other journalists associated with the outlet – diplomatic editor Devirupa Mitra, and contributors Rohini Singh, Prem Shankar Jha, and Swati Chaturvedi – were listed as potential targets.

The Indian government denies that it has engaged in unauthorized surveillance, but has not commented directly on a January New York Times report that Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to buy Pegasus during a 2017 visit to Israel. The Indian government has not cooperated with an ongoing inquiry by an expert committee appointed by the country’s Supreme Court to investigate illegal use of spyware. In late August, the court revealed that the committee had found malware in five out of the 29 devices it examined, but could not confirm that it was Pegasus.

However, Indian journalists interviewed by CPJ had no doubt that it was the government behind any efforts to spy on them. “This government is obsessed with journalists who are not adhering to their cheerleading,” investigative reporter Chaturvedi told CPJ via messaging app. “My journalism has never been personal against anyone. I don’t understand why it is so personal to this government.” For Chaturvedi, the spying was an invasion of privacy “so heinous that how do you put it in words.” 

Read CPJ’s complete special report: When spyware turns phones into weapons

Overall, the Pegasus Project found that at least 40 journalists were among the 174 Indians named as potential targets of surveillance. With six associated with The Wire, the outlet was the country’s most targeted newsroom. The Wire has long been a thorn in the side of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for its reporting on allegations of corruption by party officials, the party’s alleged promotion of sectarian violence, and its alleged use of technology to target government critics online. As a result, various BJP-led state governments, BJP officials, and their affiliates have targeted the website’s journalists with police investigations, defamation suits, online doxxing, and threats.

Indian home ministry and BJP spokespeople have not responded to CPJ’s email and text messages requesting comment. However after the last Supreme Court hearing, party spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia criticized the opposition for “trying to create an atmosphere of fear” in India. “They [Congress party] were trying to spread propaganda that citizens’ privacy has been invaded. The Supreme Court has made it clear that no conclusive evidence has been found to show the presence of Pegasus spyware in the 29 phones scanned,” he said.

As in so many other newsrooms around the world, the Pegasus Project revelations have prompted The Wire to introduce stricter security protocols, including the use of encrypted software, to protect its journalists as well as its sources.

Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprashasta, political editor at The Wire, told CPJ in a phone interview that as part of the new procedures, “we would not talk [about sensitive stories] on the phone.” While working on the Pegasus project, the Wire newsroom was extra careful. “When we were meeting, we kept our phones in a separate room. We were also not using our general [office] computers,” he said.

Venu told CPJ that while regular editorial meetings at The Wire are held via video call, sensitive stories are discussed in person. “We take usual precautions like occasional reboot, keep phones away when we meet anyone. What else can we do?” he asks.

Chaturvedi told CPJ via messaging app that she quickly started using a new phone when she learned from local intelligence sources that she might have been under surveillance. As an investigative journalist, her immediate concern following the Pegasus Project disclosures was to avoid compromising her sources. “In Delhi, everyone I know who is in a position of power no longer talks on normal calls,” she said. “The paranoia is not just us who have been targeted with Pegasus.”

“Since the last five years, any important source I’m trying to talk to as a journalist will not speak to me on a normal regular call,” said Arfa Khanum Sherwani, who anchors a popular political show for The Wire and is known as a critic of Hindu right-wing politics. Sherwani told CPJ that her politician sources were the first ones who moved to communicate with her on encrypted messaging platforms even before the revelations as they “understood that something like this was at play.”

Rohini Singh similarly told CPJ that she doesn’t have any conversations related to her stories over the phone and leaves it behind when she meets people out reporting. “It is not about protecting myself. Ultimately it is going to be my story and my byline would be on it. I’m essentially protecting people who might be giving me information,” she said. 

Journalists also say they are concerned about the safety of their family members.

“After Pegasus, even though my name per se was not part of the whole thing, my friends and family members did not feel safe enough to call me or casually say something about the government. Because they feel that they are also being audiographed and videographed [filmed or recorded],” said Sherwani.

Chaturvedi told CPJ that her family has been “terrified” since the revelations. “Both my parents were in the government service. They can’t believe that this is the same country,” she said.

Venu and Sherwani both expressed concerns about how the atmosphere of fear could affect coverage by less-experienced journalists starting out in their careers. “The simple pleasure of doing journalism got affected. This may lead to self-censorship. When someone gets attacked badly, that journalist can start playing safe,” said Venu.

Said Sherwani: “For someone like me with a more established identity and career, I would be able to get people [to talk to me], but for younger journalists it will be much more difficult to contact politicians and speak to them. Whatever they say has to be on record, so you will see less and less source-based stories.”

Ashirwad agreed. “I’m very critical of this government, which is known. My stand now is I shall not say anything in private which I’m not comfortable saying in public,” he said.  

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Kunal Majumder/CPJ India Representative.

Miriam Zarriga, one of Papua New Guinea’s top experienced journalists, has been appointed as the PNG Post-Courier’s new chief-of-staff.

With more than 10 years working with the Post-Courier, Zarriga has extensive experience in political, security and general news reporting.

She replaces Lawrence Fong, a fellow stalwart of the Post-Courier who has held the position of chief-of-staff for the last three years.

• READ MORE: Stories by Miriam Zarriga on Asia Pacific Report

Fong welcomed Zarriga’s appointment and issued his unwavering support on behalf of the newsroom as she moves into her new role. He now shifts to become online content editor of the masthead.

Prior to her appointment, Zarriga played a key role in Post-Courier’s 2022 National General Election coverage alongside senior political journalist Gorethy Kenneth.

Her involvement provided extensive election coverage on election-related violence around the country, and in some cases facing the brunt of tribal warfare in daring situations.

‘No walk in the park’
Post-Courier’s editor Matthew Vari congratulated Zarriga on her appointment, saying the role embodied the challenges of running a modern newsroom.

“The chief-of-staff position is no walk in the park,” Vari said. “But I have every confidence in Ms Zarriga’s capabilities in ensuring we produce the best content for our readers.

“Her experience over the many years on the frontline of mainstream media provides Ms Zarriga with a wealth of understanding of what’s needed to be produced for our readers.”

The chief-of-staff role handles the content of the newspaper, and the day-to-day operations of the newsroom and its reporters.

Republished with permission.

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

A documentary from Stuff Circuit this week delved into Aotearoa New Zealand’s growing extreme far-right and anti-vax movement.

Why did the makers of Fire and Fury decide to platform a group of conspiracy-minded idealogues, and what did it get right that others got wrong?

In February, Newsroom’s Melanie Reid travelled to what was then called “freedom village” to interview some of the people behind the occupation taking place on Parliament grounds, Voices for Freedom leaders Alia Bland, Claire Deeks, and Libby Jonson.

“You guys started it yeah? The three of you?” Reid asked. “Three mums.”

“Three mums,” they agreed in unison.

The video feature was part of a wave of press that Voices For Freedom and its allies attracted in recent months.

Altruistic posture
Nurses For Freedom, a group founded by Voices For Freedom local coordinator Deborah Cunliffe, featured recently on Three’s The Project.

“Healthcare clearly matters to New Zealand. Our nurses want to help,” she said.

Cunliffe’s altruistic posture in the interview jarred a little with calls in the Nurses For Freedom Telegram group for Nuremberg 2.0 to be carried out on public figures who backed vaccination and covid-19 health measures.

At the end of that interview, presenter and former Black Cap Mark Richardson pointed out that the healthcare workers in question could get their jobs back with one simple step.

“Get the jab and go back,” he said. “I don’t care what your rationale is.

“Your country needs you. It’s like me fielding under the helmet. I didn’t want to do it but I did it for the good of the country.”

Other coverage was more sympathetic to the anti-vax cause.

An uncritical eye
A story by Evan Harding in Stuff’s Southland Times cast an uncritical eye over Nurses For Freedom’s claim to represent 700 nurses just waiting to return to work.

But according to figures from the Ministry of Health, only about 500 nurses have been suspended for failing to meet covid-19 vaccine requirements.

Stuff’s article has since been removed, replaced by a message saying it failed to meet the company’s editorial standards, and another article by Harding on vaccinations has received the same treatment.

Stuff wasn’t the only news organisation to pull a story after giving an uncritical platform to an anti-vaxxer.

Last month, The New Zealand Herald carried an article by the Northern Advocate about Brad Flutey, who was protesting against the closure of the Marsden Point refinery.

The story didn’t mention that Flutey is an anti-vaxxer who called for the Parliament protesters to shift their focus to Marsden Point as a way of retaining momentum after their occupation was broken up, nor that he had repeatedly called to overthrow the government, and had faced charges for refusing to comply with covid restrictions and wear a mask while shopping.

After receiving criticism, The Herald took the article down and later replaced it with a rewritten version headlined “Marsden Point Oil Refinery protest passes 100-day milestone in Northland – take two”.

The Platform platforming
While some organisations seem to have elevated these figures either by accident, or in contravention of their own editorial standards, broadcaster Sean Plunket’s platform The Platform has platformed a succession of anti-vaxxers and extremists on purpose.

This week, presenter Michael Laws talked to Counterspin Media host Kelvyn Alp, who once told Act leader David Seymour he was lucky protesters at the Parliament occupation hadn’t strung him up from the nearest lamppost.

An extrajudicial execution would seem like the most extreme possible form of deplatforming, but an association with intolerance does not appear to be a deal-breaker for The Platform, which has the tagline “Open. Tolerant. Free”.

The station had also aired long interviews with leaders of groups like Voices For Freedom and NZ Doctors Speak Out With Science in recent months, some of them not exactly neutral.

The Platform host Rodney Hide put his cards on the table before an interview with Alia Bland, revealing himself to be a member of her group:

“I am a very very very proud member of Voices For Freedom. This is my disclosure. I’m not having someone along that I’m neutral about. I am a fan of Voices For Freedom.”

After his interview with the well-known Facebook anti-vaxxer Chantelle Baker, Plunket was so moved that he even offered her a show.

“Do you want a weekly show on The Platform?” he asked. “I would be happy to have you on board on the strength of the open conversation we’ve had today.”

Personal platform clipped
But today The Herald reported Baker’s personal platform had been somewhat clipped, with her own Facebook page newly deactivated. Though the report said she was operating another page, just not under her own name.

The reason Plunket was making that offer, and interviewing Baker in the first place, was because she had just been featured in a documentary which painted her and other leading anti-vax figures in a less than flattering light.

Fire and Fury by Stuff Circuit came out last Sunday, and features clips taken from conspiracy and anti-vax groups on platforms like Telegram, which show the violent elements of the movement.

“You gotta love that sound of execution. It’s gonna happen,” one clip begins.

“The media in this country need burning. They really seriously need burning,” another voice continues.

The doco also showed a darker side to Voices For Freedom.

Far from just being — in the words of that Newsroom video — the project of “three mums”, Fire and Fury portrays a group which puts up an approachable, folksy front to draw people into a more radical, potentially violent agenda.

‘Fascistic’ ideas lurking
In an interview with host Paula Penfold, The Disinformation Project director Kate Hannah points out potential fascistic ideas lurking beneath some of the group’s messages on vaccines and health.

“The role of women and wellness in fascist and proto-fascist movements has always been really significant. Even in Italy and Germany in the 1920s, a lot of proto-fascist ideas came from or were augmented by ideas around health, well-being, rejection of modern medicine, because obviously if you are an uber-race, you don’t need modern medicine,” she said.

“All of the different groups that we see in New Zealand at the moment have features of fascistic ideas around power and control.”

The documentary also homes in on chat transcripts from former National Front leader Kyle Chapman identifying the “dark-haired” lady from Voices For Freedom as a potential political leader.

Penfold told Mediawatch the Stuff Circuit team decided to do the documentary after watching the Wellington protests and seeing talk on associated social media channels about making the country “ungovernable”.

They wrestled with how to to shine a light on what goes on in the shadier corners of the internet without giving further oxygen to dangerous figures.

“There were many many, many editorial conversations about how we should do that,” she said.

Guided by researchers
Those conversations were guided by groups who had studied the New Zealand far right.

They helped convince the team not to interview some of the people at the centre of their documentary, including Kelvyn Alp, former AUT law lecturer and conspiracist Amy Benjamin, and fellow conspiracy theorist Damien De Ment.

Penfold also cited a 2017 report called The Oxygen of Amplification by US-based independent nonprofit organisation Data & Society.

“We drew most of our guidelines from that on what we should and shouldn’t do,” she told Mediawatch.

That approach was criticised by some journalists, including Plunket, but Penfold said it was necessary.

“They’ve had their say. They have so many hundreds, thousands of hours of material on the internet already, and also the guidelines we were reading said it was dangerous to give them a platform that’s equal to the hate they’re already disseminating. And so this is not your ordinary right of reply situation. In a way it’s like we were giving our audience the right of reply to what’s already been said.”

Different approach
Stuff Circuit took a different approach in an earlier documentary on the conspiracy theorist Billy Te Kahika, where Penfold sat down with him for a long-form interview.

Penfold said the team was also careful then not to platform “dangerous” content.

“We didn’t let him platform any of his conspiracy theory views. That was an important distinction. We were challenging him on things he had said and things he had done and misrepresented in his career,” she said.

“In this instance we just didn’t want to give them an opportunity to revoice the conspiracies they already had voiced. Sitting them down and giving them that right of reply risked re-platforming their dangerous speech and we just didn’t want to do that.”

The question of whether to cover the extreme right, and how to do it, has been a vexed one in the media as conspiracy movements have grown noisier and more influential.

In a recent column for The Herald, Matthew Hooton warned of a “monstrosity” emerging on the right, and concluded with this conundrum for the media:

“Is it best to ignore these extremist movements for fear of giving them a platform? Or is it more important than ever to bring to public attention the true nature of their agenda?” he wrote.

Pacific Journalism Review paper
Disinformation researcher Byron C Clark has looked at that issue in a paper on the media’s coverage of the Parliament occupation for the Pacific Journalism Review.

#PacificJournalismReview #FRONTLINE3: The #NZ #media and the occupation of #Parliament by @byroncclark #altright #antivaxxers #citizensarrest #conspiracytheorists, #Counterspin #disinformation #harassment #mediacoverage #Parliament #qanoncult #Violence https://t.co/vW3VauXZgn pic.twitter.com/mVy6sBjBCR

— David Robie (@DavidRobie) August 21, 2022

Clark said Fire and Fury succeeded where some other attempts to cover the anti-vax extreme right had fallen down.

Though some far-right figures were hoping the publicity they received from the documentary would help grow their movement’s numbers, the documentary’s framing and editorial decision-making should make that unlikely, he said.

“They’re hoping they can use this to bring more people into the fold with their beliefs, but I think that’s going to be difficult to do because it’s put some of the more violent aspects of their beliefs out there and that’s probably for a lot of people going to be the first thing they know about something like Counterspin — that they’re calling for the violent overthrow of the government.”

Clark said the documentary’s approach could help dissuade some vulnerable people from joining conspiracy movements by inoculating them against some of the more pervasive forms of false information being peddled.

He backed Stuff Circuit’s decision not to interview the conspiracist figures they were covering.

“I think rather than giving them more oxygen by covering them in news articles or a documentary like this, it’s providing some of that balance that’s lacking in their own channels.

“It’s really more restoring balance to some of these ideas rather than giving these ideas oxygen.”

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.

Covid has now killed around 1700 people in New Zealand, but much of our news reporting and commentary has focused on how we’re moving on from the pandemic. Why is there such a mismatch between that media coverage, and the reality of a virus that’s inflicting more suffering and death than ever before?

On her show last week, Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan made a momentous announcement in an almost blithe, off-hand manner.

“The pandemic’s over for all intents and purposes but we’re still having to deal with this nonsense. Isn’t that ultimately why we’re feeling miserable because we all want a break? If I was in government what I’d do right now is ‘green setting guys, go for your life, party party, whatever’. Just for the mental break of it.”

The announcement that the pandemic is over would have been news to the families of the eight people reported to have died with covid-19 in New Zealand that day.

But du Plessis-Allan is far from an outlier in wanting to place a still raging pandemic in the rearview mirror.

Recently a senior Stuff executive sent staff a memo telling them their audience is “over covid” and has “actively moved on from covid content”.

It implored them to find cracker non-covid stories on topics including cons, crime, and safety, the cost of living, NZ culture, and stuff everyone is talking about.

Much wider group
Stuff’s audience is part of a much wider group that’s actively moving on from covid.

National leader Christopher Luxon just returned from a whirlwind overseas tour with the news that most people he met were no longer even talking about covid.

“It’s interesting to me I’ve just come back from Singapore, Ireland, and the UK. In most of those places we didn’t have a single covid conversation. In places like Ireland there’s no mask wearing at all.”

Luxon is right. Many places around the world have dropped their covid restrictions.

But even if we’re determined to ignore it, covid has remained stubbornly real, and is continuing to cause equally real harm.

In the United States, hospitalisations and reinfections are rising with the increasing prevalence of the BA.5 strain of omicron.

In the UK, about 13,000 hospital beds are currently occupied by covid patients. Hospitals are dealing with staff absences, exhaustion, persistent backlogs and problems discharging patients, and the UK government is considering bringing back restrictions if the situation gets any worse.

Same story as here
If that all sounds familiar, it’s because pretty much the exact same story is playing out here.

Association of General Surgeons president Rowan French delivered some dire news to RNZ’s Morning Report about hospitals’ current troubles with scheduling elective surgeries.

“It’s the worst I’ve ever seen it,” he said. “We don’t say that lightly but I think it is the worst we’ve ever seen it, particularly with respect to our ability to treat our patients’ elective conditions.”

French said those issues were exacerbated by a wave of covid-19 and winter flu.

Covid patients were taking up a lot of the beds that would normally be used by people recovering from surgery, and he couldn’t see an end in sight to the crisis.

There’s a jarring mismatch between that kind of interview and the concurrent harping about the need to move on from covid.

That’s producing cognitive dissonance, not just in the public, but among media commentators, some of whom are now bobbling between berating our minimal remaining efforts to mitigate covid-19 and lamenting the damage being caused by the uncontrolled spread of the virus.

Mental oscillations
In some cases, these mental oscillations can take place in mere hours.

On the morning of July 6, Newstalk ZB Wellington host Nick Mills had harsh words for the epidemiologists urging caution over covid.

“Michael Baker, let us get on with our lives. You go back to your lab. Do some intelligent work. Get paid truckloads of money doing it, and live in an extremely flash house. But for me, I don’t want to hear from you anymore. I want to get on with my life and our life.”

On du Plessis-Allan’s panel show The Huddle later that day, he had a different message about the severity of the latest wave.

“I’m absolutely terrified because it could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” he said. “If we have to go back [to a red setting] – and it will all be based on hospitals gonna have to be overcrowded — these numbers are terrifying.”

Maybe if Nick Mills had listened more closely to Professor Michael Baker, his research on BA.5 wouldn’t have come as such a nasty surprise.

To be fair to these hosts, their contradictory approaches to covid are pretty relatable.

Sick of the sickness
Even without any hard data to hand, it’s safe to say many people are sick of the sickness, and some are prepared to live in a state of suspended disbelief to act like that’s the case.

But covid isn’t over, and now many leading experts are saying it may never be.

Last week The Project commissioned a poll which showed 38 percent of people agree with those experts. They believe covid is here for good.

Afterward presenter Kanoa Lloyd quizzed epidemiologist Dr Tony Blakely about whether those respondents were right.

“It’s possible,” he said. “It’s rolling on. Remember influenza in 1918, we still get influenza every year. This is a coronavirus. It could keep coming up every year.”

Dr Blakely is among a number of epidemiologists and healthcare workers who have gone to the media lately to deliver the message that there is still a pandemic on.

On last weekend’s episode of Newshub Nation, the aforementioned Professor Michael Baker compared covid to the “inconvenient truth” of climate change — a global threat that demands real change and ongoing action to mitigate.

Common sense safety
He went on to link covid precautions to another common sense safety measure.

“If you go out when you have this infection and infect your friends and family, you are going to be killing some people — just like drinking and driving,” he said.

At The Spinoff, microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles stuck with the driving metaphor, imploring people to make popping on a mask as natural as clicking in your seatbelt.

This recent flurry of cautious messaging stands in stark contrast to much of the media coverage over the last few months.

Despite the fact 10 to 20 people per day have been dying of covid-19, that is had a muted response outside of the pro-forma coverage of the Ministry of Health’s 1pm press releases.

When covid-19 has been covered, the death toll has usually been superseded in the news by complaints from businesses about the few restrictions that remain.

Maybe that’s not such a surprise. News organisations have a powerful commercial incentive to give their customers what they want, and as Stuff’s executive said, audiences have moved on.

Like drunk party guest
But, like a drunk party guest at 3am, coronavirus does not care that you’re tired of it and you want it to leave.

A month ago, Newsroom’s Marc Daalder made that point in a prescient piece headlined “Covid isn’t over, it’s just getting started“.

He said the media needed to adjust from covering covid as a crisis to seeing it as an ongoing concern like the road toll or crime.

“It’s no longer temporary. It’s here to stay with us. And I don’t think that journalists have really figured out how to cover it as a daily issue, just like we cover all of the other daily issues that are really problematic,” he said.

“In some respects, it’s a bit bigger because it has a much more serious burden in terms of deaths and hospitalisations and long covid than something like the road toll, but just because it’s not a temporary crisis anymore, doesn’t mean that we should be ignoring it.”

Daalder said reporters could reorientate their coverage, writing more human interest stories on issues like the impact of long covid, and looking forward at how the virus and the fight against it will evolve.

“I think we are poorly served by media coverage, after the peak of the first omicron wave, in which there was no looking forward to what’s going to be happening in the short term or the long term.

Omicron peaked … and then?
“There was just this all this focus on what would happen when omicron peaked, and then it did, and, and nothing filled the void after that. And so I think it’s quite natural for people to assume that covid is over.”

Journalists could also apply more pressure to the government over the continuing levels of preventable suffering and death being caused by cmicron’s spread, Daalder said.

He has advocated for the return of the alert level system, which he believes was much more simple and comprehensible than the traffic light system implemented late last year.

“There’s not really very much accountability journalism that looks at holding the government accountable for essentially abandoning vulnerable people to the whims of the virus,” he said.

“You have this sort of very strange juxtaposition in the [parliamentary] press gallery where the covid minister will be asked by one person: ‘Are you concerned about BA.5? It’s starting to spread in New Zealand. Should we be increasing our restrictions?’

“And then in the next breath, the question is ‘Why aren’t we in green? When will we ever get to green?’.

Better balancing
“I’m not sure that either of those get to the heart of the present issue, which is that the current settings aren’t aren’t even aligned with a non-BA.5 world.”

Daalder said news organisations should find ways to balance their commercial incentives and the public interest role of journalism when it comes to important, but not always clickable, stories like covid or climate change.

“There’s an extent to which you should follow what audiences want. And you shouldn’t necessarily be trying to force something down their throats that they don’t want.

“But with something like covid, where it’s such a huge, important thing that’s happening, and that’s going to keep happening, regardless of whether you write about it or not.

“I think that’s where you know that that mission of journalism to tell the truth really comes in and overrides maybe some of the audience imperatives.”

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.

On May 24, agents of the Italian Anti-Mafia Investigation Directorate (Direzione Investigativa Antimafia) raided and searched the newsroom of public broadcaster RAI3’s investigative program “Report,” and the home of its reporter, Paolo Mondani, in Rome, according to a report in daily newspaper La Repubblica and the journalist, who corresponded with CPJ via email. 

The public prosecutor’s office in Caltanissetta, a town on the island of Sicily, issued a search warrant on May 20, as part of a leak investigation in relation to a report by Modani, which aired on RAI3 on May 23, about alleged links between organized crime groups and Italy’s far right, according to these sources.

Mondani told CPJ via email that the search warrant authorized agents to confiscate digital and paper documents. At around 7 p.m. on May 24, while the search was underway, the warrant was revoked by the prosecution before the police confiscated any documents from RAI3 or the journalist because authorities had found a confidential document they had been looking for during a separate search of a former policeman’s home.

The police did not obtain access to Mondani’s private devices, he told CPJ.

The search documents and warrant disclosed that the police had tailed Mondani’s news crew and secretly filmed its meeting with a key source, Mondani told CPJ. The police had also intercepted his phone calls, he said.

In addition, about a month before the report aired, Mondani had been summoned by the Caltanissetta prosecutor’s office to find out about interviews he was conducting, according to an interview he did on May 26 with news website BlogSicilia and the journalist.   

“Italian authorities should conduct a swift and transparent investigation into the circumstances of the raid and search of the newsroom of RAI3 investigative program ‘Report’ and the surveillance of its news crew, explain their actions, and stop harassing journalists in their leak investigation,” said Attila Mong, CPJ’s Europe representative. “Raiding and searching newsrooms and journalists’ homes and monitoring newsgathering activities has no place in an EU member state. Authorities should refrain from actions that risk endangering the confidentiality of professional sources, which might have a chilling effect on journalists’ work.”

Mondani’s report alleged that a politician from Italy’s neo-fascist right was at the scene during a bomb attack by the Sicilian Mafia on May 23, 1992, in the Sicilian town of Capaci that killed a judge, his wife, and the three members of their police escort, according to a report by news site Euractiv and the journalist.

Salvatore De Luca, public prosecutor of Caltanissetta, told Italian news agency ANSA that the journalist was not under investigation and that the searches were being carried out to verify the authenticity of the sources.

In August 2021, Italian police increased protection of “Report” host and deputy director Sigfrido Ranucci after an assassination plot against him by an organized crime group was revealed, as CPJ reported at the time.

CPJ emailed questions to the Anti-Mafia Investigation Directorate in Rome and the public prosecutor’s office in Caltanissetta, but did not receive an immediate reply.

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

“Sally is presiding over a global expansion at the Washington Post after a career leading journalists in Washington, the Middle East, and worldwide. Alessandra is a multilingual global journalist who brings her years of business and political news experience to her role at the helm of Reuters’ news operations. Julie’s leadership of The Associated Press’ global news operations draws on her years of experience in Washington as a reporter and a bureau chief.”

Buzbee, who leads a nearly 1,000-person newsroom at The Washington Post, is a former executive editor and senior vice president of The Associated Press (AP), where she led the organization’s coverage of the Iraq war and other regional conflicts and oversaw coverage of the 2012 and 2016 elections in the United States. “Journalists should be able to carry out their work free from intimidation to bring to light fact-based news and information that people need to know. No organization understands this better than CPJ, a stalwart defender of the rights of journalists and press freedom worldwide, and it’s my distinct honor to serve on the board,” said Buzbee.

Galloni oversees a Reuters staff of 2,500 journalists around the world and is a former correspondent and editor for The Wall Street Journal. Galloni joins the board 14 months after CPJ and Reuters launched the Reuters Photojournalism Gallery at CPJ’s headquarters in New York City. “The world needs independent journalism, but those who seek to gather and share news are under relentless attack,” said Galloni. “Journalists must be allowed to report in the public interest without fear of harassment or harm, in every corner of the globe. I am honored to be joining the CPJ board and supporting the work the organization does to champion press freedom globally.”

Julie Pace leads AP journalists across 100 countries. A former assistant managing editor and Washington bureau chief for the global news agency, she began her journalistic career at e.tv, South Africa’s first independent television network. “I’m honored to join the board of CPJ, an organization that does so much to help ensure that journalists can safely do their jobs in some of the most challenging places in the world. This work is more important than ever and I look forward to joining CPJ’s efforts to defend press freedoms and protect journalists,” said Pace.

CPJ will be strengthened by the collective decades of frontline coverage and media management experience, gravitas and leadership of these top journalists, whose organizations collectively employ more than 7,000 journalists. They join CPJ at a pivotal time for press freedom as journalists around the world face multilayered and increasingly complex challenges.

In 2021, CPJ helped win the release of 101 imprisoned journalists, a new record for the organization’s impact at a time when journalists are being imprisoned in record numbers. This includes nearly 40 journalists released from prison in the Middle East and North Africa and 21 freed in Europe and Central Asia—specifically, in Turkey.

More about CPJ’s work, including a full list of board and staff members, can be found on CPJ.org.

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

Criminal justice reporter Keri Blakinger speaks with us about her new memoir, out today, called “Corrections in Ink,” which details her path from aspiring professional figure skater to her two years spent in prison after she was arrested in her final semester of her senior year at Cornell University with six ounces of heroin. Blakinger says her relatively short jail sentence was a lucky case, which she attributes to progressive drug reform as well as her racial privilege. Blakinger went on to become an investigative journalist and now works at The Marshall Project, where she is the organization’s first formerly incarcerated reporter.

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

At about 3 p.m. on March 7, a man on a motorcycle fired multiple gunshots at the broadcaster’s office in Tegucigalpa, the capital, according to news reports and Radio Globo Director Hector Amador, who spoke to CPJ in a phone interview.

Amador said that he was in the station’s parking lot when he heard the shots, which destroyed several windows of a neighboring shop but did not hit the office itself, which is on the building’s second floor.

No one was injured in the attack, Amador said. He added that police arrested one suspect on the night of March 7, and a second suspect, the alleged gunman, on March 8. Police have accused both men of being members of a local gang, according to those news reports.

“Honduran authorities must fully investigate the recent attack on Radio Globo, determine its motive, and bring all the perpetrators to justice, including whoever orchestrated the attack,” said Natalie Southwick, CPJ’s Latin America and the Caribbean program coordinator, in New York. “Radio Globo staff members were fortunate that nobody was hurt, but they must be able to work without fearing for their lives. Honduran authorities must show that such a brazen attack in broad daylight carries real consequences.”

Amador said that he called an emergency number run by the National Protection Mechanism for Journalists immediately after the attack, but no one answered. He then contacted Security Minister Ramon Sabillon, who sent a police team to open an investigation.

Radio Globo is a Tegucigalpa-based radio station that covers national news, politics, and sports, and produces the TV news channel Globo TV. Amador told CPJ he believed the attack may have been retaliation for the outlet’s coverage of extradition proceedings against former President Juan Orlando Hernández. Hernández was arrested in February and faces possible extradition to the United States on drug trafficking and weapons charges, according to news reports.

Amador said that the former head of the national police threatened legal proceedings against him in 2019 over the outlet’s coverage of his alleged links with drug trafficking.

When CPJ contacted Sabillon via messaging app for comment, he said he would respond to questions but did not do so by the time of publication. CPJ also messaged Danilo Morales, the director of the protection mechanism, but did not receive a response.

In 2019, Radio Globo Director David Romero  was sentenced to 10 years in prison for allegedly defaming a former prosecutor; he died of COVID in detention in July 2020.

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