Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has paid tribute to all those working the media industry in his message to mark World Press Freedom Day.

He said in his May 3 message thanks to democracy his coalition government had removed the “dark days of oppression and suppressions”.

“Today as we join the rest of the international community in celebrating World Press Freedom Day, let us recommit ourselves to the values and ideals of our fundamental human rights freedom of expression and the freedom of the press,” said Rabuka, a former coup leader.

“With our recent history, let as not take this freedom for granted.”

Rabuka also remembered the late Sitiveni Moce who died in 2015.

RNZ Pacific reports Moce was left paralysed and bedridden in 2007 after being assaulted by soldiers shortly after the 2006 military coup.

“Today is also an opportune time to remember those in the media fraternity that made the ultimate sacrifice.”

‘Brave photographer’
“In particular, I pay tribute to my ‘Yaca’ (namesake), the late Sitiveni Moce who died in 2015.

“This brave newspaper photographer was set upon by a mob in Parliament House in 2000, and again by some members of the disciplined forces in 2007 for simply carrying out his job which was to capture history in still photographs.

“His death is a sombre reminder of the fickleness of life, and how we must never ever take our freedoms for granted.”

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Little more than a month into the new US presidency, The Washington Post’s owner dimmed the light on a motto that became a beacon for freedom during the first Trump administration.

“Democracy dies in darkness” has appeared below Washington Post for the past eight years.

Last month it was powdered in irony after the newspaper’s owner, Jeff Bezos, decreed in an email to staff that the newspaper’s editorial section would shift its editorial focus and that only opinions that support and defend “personal liberties” and “free markets” would be welcome.

Amazon founder Bezos had already sullied the Post’s reputation by refusing to allow it to endorse a candidate during the presidential election — an action capable of no other interpretation than support for Donald Trump.

Since then, there has been a US$1 million Amazon contribution to Trump’s inauguration and, according to the Wall Street Journal, a US$40 million deal with First Lady Melania Trump for an authorised documentary to be run on Amazon’s streaming service.

Now Bezos has openly bowed before the new emperor and dimmed The Washington Post’s lights.

Martin Baron, editor of the Post when the democracy motto — the first in the newspaper’s 140-year history — was adopted, last month described Bezos’s directive as a “betrayal of the very idea of free expression”.

Standing up to Trump
Two years after the slogan appeared on the Post masthead, a former editor of The New York Times, Jill Abramson, published a book titled Merchants of Truth. In it she praised Bezos (who had bought the Washington newspaper six years earlier) for his support of Baron in standing up to Donald Trump’s assaults on the media and his serial falsehoods.

However, she also made a prediction.

“Though it hadn’t yet happened, it seemed all but inevitable that the Post’s coverage would one day bring Bezos’s commitment to freedom of the press into conflict with Amazon’s commercial interests, given the company’s size and power as it competed with Apple to become America’s first trillion-dollar conglomerate.”

That day has come.

It is patently obvious that Jeff Bezos puts the interests of his US$2 trillion Amazon empire ahead of a newspaper that last year lost US$100 million. In the process he has trashed the Post and turned readers against it.

In the 24 hours after last month’s email was revealed, it lost 75,000 online subscribers. It had already shed close to 300,000 when the refusal to endorse a presidential candidate was revealed (I was one of them).

It is unsurprising that he puts an enormously profitable enterprise ahead of one that is costing him money. However, rather than risking the future of a fine newspaper, he could have sought a buyer for it.

He could even afford to sell it for one dollar to staff or to an individual who has a stronger commitment to the principles of free speech than he can now muster. He has done neither.

Chilling effect
Instead, he is prepared to modify content to make The Washington Post more acceptable to the White House in order to protect — perhaps even enhance — his other interests. That will have a chilling effect on the journalists he employs.

In an industry that has lost more than 8000 newsroom roles over the past three years, fear for your job can be a powerful inducement to conform.

An analysis of Bezos’ current strategy by the Wall Street Journal (which paid more attention to commercial interests than journalistic principles) suggested that Bezos had already paid a very high price for being perceived by Trump as an enemy during his first term.

“In 2019, the cost of crossing Trump and funding the Resistance became staggeringly clear to Bezos. Amazon lost out to rival Microsoft on a mammoth $10 billion cloud-computing contract issued by the Pentagon.

“It was a surprising decision since Amazon Web Services was the industry leader in cloud computing and was judged by many to have presented a stronger bid. This time around, the risks to Bezos appear far greater. Trump 2.0 is faster, more ruthless and more skilled at pulling the levers of government power.

“Amazon is vulnerable on many fronts — from antitrust to contracts.”

An even higher price could be paid, however, by the people of the United States (and beyond) as Trump uses those levers to diminish the ability of news media to hold him to account.

Press Corps manipulation
His manipulation of the make-up of the White House Press Corps has been another example. The White House Correspondents Association has been stripped of its role in deciding which journalists have access to the president. Not only has this resulted in the ascendancy of Trump acolytes like Brian Glenn of Real America Voice but America’s pre-eminent wire service, the Associated Press, has been ejected from the Press Pool.

Ostensibly, the ban was due to the AP refusing to change the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America in its copy. It is far more likely, however, that the wire service’s balanced coverage and quest for accuracy stands in the way of Trumpian disinformation.

And, of course, his war on words even goes beyond the media to stripping government websites of words, phrases and ideas that challenge or complicate the administration’s views.

I agree with a New York Times editorial that characterised these actions as Orwellian — protecting free speech requires controlling free speech. It said the approach was “deliberate and dangerous.” It labelled Trump’s moves to control not only the flow of information but the way it was presented as “an expansive crackdown on free expression and disfavoured speakers that should be decried not just as hypocritical (Trump and his supporters advocate a form of free speech absolutism) but also as un-American and unconstitutional”.

These are strong words. Sadly, they have yet to result in a mass movement to restore sanity.

And that leaves me at a loss to understand what in Hell’s name has happened to principled people in the United States. If I (and many like me) are affronted by what is happening far from here, why are we not hearing a mass of voices demanding a stop to actions that threaten not only the United States’ international reputation but the very fabric of its society?

Orwell on truth
In 1941, George Orwell made a radio broadcast on truthfulness that may have awful portents for Americans. In it he said:

“Totalitarianism has abolished freedom of thought to an extent unheard of in any previous age. And it is important to realise that its control of thought is not only negative but also positive. It not only forbids you to express — even to think — certain thoughts but it dictates what you shall think, it creates an ideology for you, it tries to govern your emotional life as well as setting up a code of conduct. And as far as possible it isolates you from the outside world, it shuts you up in an artificial universe in which you have no standards of comparison.”

That, I suspect, would be music to Donald Trump’s ears. And Jeff Bezos’s dictating the limits of what is acceptable on The Washington Post’s op/ed pages is one tiny step it that direction.

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. This article was published first on his Knightly Views website on 4 March 2025 and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

One week ahead of the Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony, the #HoldtheLine Coalition has called on the government of the Philippines to drop all pending cases and charges against veteran journalist and Nobel laureate Maria Ressa and grant her unrestricted permission to travel to Oslo to accept this international award.

The government of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has strongly opposed Maria Ressa’s application to travel to Oslo for the Nobel ceremony but three out of four courts have now granted her permission to fly out for the December 10 award ceremony.

While Ressa’s legal team is almost certain that the remaining court will permit her to travel this week, the #HoldtheLine Coalition is concerned that the Philippine authorities may yet attempt to undermine Ressa’s free expression and restrict her movement.

“The government’s relentless and retaliatory campaign against Ressa serves a sole purpose: to silence independent journalism and curtail the free flow of information in the country,” said the HTL steering committee.

“In keeping with its public claims of support for free expression, the Philippines should overturn its opposition to Maria Ressa’s application to travel to Oslo, and drop all remaining charges against her immediately.”

In its announcement of the prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said it was honouring Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov for their efforts to safeguard press freedom.

The Philippines is ranked 138th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

Contact #HTL Steering Committee: Gypsy Guillén Kaiser (press@cpj.org); Julie Posetti (jposetti@icfj.org); and Rebecca Vincent (rvincent@rsf.org)

The #HTL Coalition comprises more than 80 organisations around the world. This statement is issued by the #HoldTheLine Steering Committee, but it does not necessarily reflect the position of all or any individual coalition members or organisations.

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Those born after 2001 have only known a world “at war on terror”.

This means a generation growing up under under fears and moral panics about Muslims and unparalleled security measures around their bodies and lives.

In my new book, Coming of Age in the War on Terror, I look at what this has meant for young Muslims in Australia as they navigate their political identities at school.

In 2018 and 2019, I interviewed and held writing workshops with more than 60 Muslim and non-Muslim high school students across Sydney who were born around the time of the September 11 terror attacks.

We explored their fears, their levels of trust with peers and teachers and political expression in a post 9/11 world.

No matter how many Muslim students spoke to me about their typically adolescent hobbies and interests, almost every student spoke about the impact of political and media discourse in their everyday lives.

Abdul-Rahman, a 17-year-old Muslim boy at an Islamic school in western Sydney, put it this way:

I’m not afraid of terrorism. I’m afraid of being accused of being a terrorist.

Another student, Laila, told me:

I’ve always had this almost preconceived guilt attached to me […] [It’s] the million messages in the media, politicians, popular culture, all these little things that add up and add up.

‘Countering violent extremism’
For teenagers to talk about themselves as potentially “accused” is devastating, but not particularly surprising.

For two decades, millions of federal and state dollars have been poured into “countering violent extremism” programmes targeting Muslim youth. There has been no subtlety here.

Counter-terrorism policies have been announced by politicians on the steps of mosques, with a focus on geographic and demographic populations deemed “at risk” (in other words, suburbs with large Muslim populations).

Consultations and round tables with government over “national security” have been highly publicised. Meanwhile, Islamophobic attacks have been condemned by politicians and the police because of how they might “undermine” relationships of cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement and the Muslim community.

The public has been routinely reassured the government is tackling the “problem” of young Muslim Australians, “with strong, deradicalisation programmes, working with Muslim communities”.

The figure of the vulnerable but also dangerous Muslim youth pops up time and time again, from moral panics around young “homegrown” terrorists, to attempts to introduce “jihadi watch” schemes in schools.

The pressure to self-censor
This landscape trickles down into young people’s everyday lives, including their schools.

The pressure to self-censor and manage your political and religious expression at school was a common theme among many students, resonating with what academics in the United Kingdom describe in their research.

Anticipating how their tone, words and emotion would be interpreted by teachers and peers restricted students’ political expression.

This included a young Palestinian girl who had to push back against teachers, who reprimanded her for wearing a “Free Palestine” t-shirt at school, to students who refrained from writing about Iraq or Afghanistan as part of assignments because they had been cautioned not to “bring overseas conflicts into the classroom”.

Other students talked of staying quiet if controversial topics came up in class, such as news of a terrorist attack involving Muslims, or media headlines about Islam.

I also met students who tried to appear as “good” or “moderate” Muslims (which inevitably meant apolitical) and erased all traces of their Muslimness to “fit in”.

Feeling targeted, isolated
In 2015, there was a media frenzy about youth radicalisation in prayer rooms in Sydney’s state schools. I interviewed students at a school in north-west Sydney three years later and they spoke about how that controversy had been felt in their school life.

Most of the students from suburbs and schools who came under media and political scrutiny as “problematic” had felt targeted and isolated. One student withdrew from his Muslim peers, abandoned his prayers at school, took different routes to school to avoid being hassled by the media, and “shut down” in class.

I got dragged into an argument with other kids in class about me following the same religion as these terrorists […] but my tone […] I came off very aggressive […] then I was scared, because that’s what people think of as radical extremists […] I felt like I’d be taken straight to the principal and you would have to deal with that. So I shut up.

We need a new approach
After two decades of seeing young Muslims as “problems” to be contained and managed, it is time we approached them in a different way.

Adolescence is a time to encourage critical thinking and support young people navigating their political identities and agency. Young people need to be empowered to work through their political and religious ideas and identities in safe, supportive environments. They need to be seen as individuals in their own right, not members of a demonised, racialised collective.

The vast majority of the young Muslims I spoke to were matter-of-fact about the global rise of Islamophobia and racism. They knew about certain jokes and assumptions in the popular vernacular (for example, “Allahu Akbar and bomb jokes” or “terrorist” equals “Muslim”).

Many were concerned about what this meant as they grew up and left school. They worried about facing discrimination at work and being able to practise their faith openly. They also knew how this suspicion and dehumanisation had been triggered by wider discourses and policies over which they had no power.

It is not up to the 9/11 generation to change this. We need teachers, politicians and the media to create a culture where young Muslims feel accepted and secure in their right to express their religious and political identities.

• This article was produced as part of Social Sciences Week, running 6-12 September. A full list of 70 events can be found here. Randa Abdel-Fattah will appear in a webinar on the “Implications of 9/11: 20 years” at 6pm on Thursday September 9.

Dr Randa Abdel Fattah is a DECRA research fellow, Macquarie University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Artist Dinar Candy has held a protest action over the extension of Indonesia’s Enforcement of Restrictions on Public Activities (PPKM) by wearing a bikini on the side of a road in Jakarta, reports CNN Indonesia.

During the action, Candy also brought a banner with the message, “I’m stressed out because the PPKM has been extended”.

Candy was arrested by police last Wednesday, August 3, about 9.30 pm near Jalan Fatmawati in South Jakarta. She was taken directly to the South Jakarta district police for questioning.

In addition to this, police also confiscated material evidence in the form of a mobile phone belonging to Candy, which is alleged to have been used to record the protest.

And it was not only Candy. Her younger sister and assistant were also questioned by police for recording the protest at Candy’s request.

After being questioned by police, who also sought advice from an expert witness on morality and culture, Candy was then declared a suspect.

“We have declared DC as a suspect for an alleged act of pornography,” South Jakarta district police chief Senior Commissioner Azis Andriansyah told journalists on Thursday.

Candy has been charged under Article 36 of Law Number 44/2008 on Pornography which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison or a fine of 5 billion rupiah (NZ$987,000).

Candy not detained
Despite being declared a suspect, police have not detained Candy who is only obliged to report daily. Andriansyah said that Candy’s protest wearing a bikini did not heed cultural norms.

This is because Candy’s action was held in Indonesia where there are cultural and religious norms which apply in society.

“Anything that is done in Indonesia [is subject to] existing norms, there are ethics, there are cultural norms, there are religious norms which apply in our society, now, the actions of the person concerned did not pay heed to cultural norms,” said Andriansyah.

A number of parties, however, believe that Candy’s bikini protest does not need to be prosecuted under law.

National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan) Commissioner Theresia Iswarini believes that Candy did not commit a crime even though she wore a bikini during the protest. She suspects that Candy’s protest was related to mental health issues.

“It would indeed be best, it has to be thought about, [although] this [wearing a bikini in public] is indeed inappropriate, but it does not mean she committed a crime, remember,” Iswarini told CNN Indonesia.

The Jakarta Legal Aid Foundation (LBH), meanwhile, is worried that the state is going too far in regulating what people wear in public. LBH Jakarta lawyer Teo Reffelsen is of the view that in the future the state could enforce its own values on what the public wears.

“If so, then eventually our prisons will be full just because people wear bikinis,” Reffelsen said.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Protes Bikini Dinar Candy Berujung Jerat UU Pornografi”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Asia Pacific Report, the Auckland-based independent news and analysis website, has been increasingly targeted by Indonesian trolls over the past three months, involving a spate of “letters to the editor” and social media attacks.

One of the most frequent letter writers, an “Abel Lekahena”, who claims to be a “student” or “writing on behalf of the people of Papua”, has accused APR of “only taking the separatists’ narrative as they played the victim”.

Sometimes he is purportedly a student living in “Yogyakarta”; at other times he is a migrant from East Nusa Tenggara “currently living in Manokwari, West Papua”. He has written to Asia Pacific Report 10 times in the past eight weeks – twice in one day on December 29.

“Lekahena”, if that is even his real name, claims in his latest letter on Monday that since January, “the armed separatists prowled in Intan Jaya” and burned a missionary plane on January 6 and he has cited several clashes between pro-independence militants seeking independence for West Papua and the colonial Indonesian security forces.

He also blames the increase of internal Papuan refugees on the rebels.

“Instead of feeling guilty, armed separatists continue to make victims, spread propaganda, and take refuge behind refugees’ issues to seek sympathy from the domestic and international public,” claimed Lekahena in his letter to APR’s news editor.

“I would like to point out that Asia Pacific Report as a credible media should have also publish/talk/discuss [sic] regarding the endless list of the Free Papua armed separatists’ crimes in January-February 2021.”

Lekahena follows with a long list of web links to alleged Papuan rebel “crimes” while utterly ignoring the widely documented human rights violations and atrocities attributed by international watchdogs to the Indonesian security forces – both recently and over the last half century since Indonesian paratroopers invaded in 1961 and Jakarta gained control of the Papuan half of New Guinea island in a sham “Act of Free Choice” in 1969.

‘Separatist’ smear label
Our reply to Abel Lekahena is first that editorially we do not accept the term “separatist” which is a smear label that should not be used when describing indigenous people struggling to regain their homeland. This offensive word should also be discarded by the world’s media and news agencies as well.

We are reporting the struggle of pro-independence militants and human rights activists against a grave injustice. Papuans are Melanesian, just like their brothers and sisters across the border in Papua New Guinea.

They are Pacific Islanders.

Nevertheless, Asia Pacific Report seeks to independently report Papuan development, education, health, human rights, social justice and many other issues with courage, balance, fairness and vigour.

Second, a random look at newspaper headlines in Papua today – such as the West Papua Daily English language edition of Tabloid Jubi – reveals the plight of many Papuans and it is time Western countries, especially Australia and New Zealand, woke up to the reality and really put pressure on Jakarta to urgently allow a fact-finding team with the UN Rapporteurs on Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples to visit Papua:

March 10: Indonesia ‘must take responsibility’ for Nduga and Intan Jaya displaced people

March 10: Indonesian police, military investigate ‘stray bullet’ case that injures a youth in Mimik

March 8: Police arrest nine, disperse International Women’s Day rallies in West Papua

March 8: ‘Indonesia has gone too far’: A disabled man and a teenager in West Papua’s Intan Jaya shot dead

March 4: ‘The case is manipulated’: Two Papuan students detained by Jakarta police

Reveal yourself
Finally, Abel Lekahena, we invite you reveal who you are really are, and stop wasting our time with pointless propaganda for the Indonesian security forces. Many reports have surfaced about the trolling of media in Pacific countries perceived to be sympathetic voices to West Papuan self-determination.

Facebook and other social media have scrapped or suspended many fake web pages created by the Indonesian military and other authorities.

Let us get on with our job of informing our readers with the facts, stripped of the TNI (Indonesian security forces) fake news and spin or repression, and continue our commitment to speaking truth to power.

Dr David Robie is the retired director of the Pacific Media Centre.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is relieved by the January 4 ruling of UK District Judge Vanessa Baraitser to block the United States’ attempt to extradite WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.

However, it is extremely disappointed by the court’s failure to reject the substance of the case, leaving the door open to further prosecutions on similar grounds, RSF says in a statement today.

Although Judge Baraitser decided against extradition, the grounds for her decision were strictly based on Assange’s serious mental health issues and the conditions he would face in detention in the US.

On the substantive points in the case – in which the US government has pursued Assange on 17 counts under the Espionage Act and one count under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – the judge’s decision was heavily in favour of the prosecution’s arguments, and dismissive of the defence.

“We are immensely relieved that Julian Assange will not be extradited to the US. At the same time, we are extremely disappointed that the court failed to take a stand for press freedom and journalistic protections, and we disagree with the judge’s assessment that the case was not politically motivated and was not centred on journalism and free speech,” said RSF’ Director of International Campaigns, Rebecca Vincent.

“This decision leaves the door open for further similar prosecutions and will have a chilling effect on national security reporting around the world if the root issues are not addressed.”

The US government has indicated that it intends to appeal against the extradition decision.

Detained on remand
Assange remains detained on remand in high-security Belmarsh prison, pending the judge’s consideration of his bail application on January 6.

RSF has called again for his immediate release, and will continue to monitor proceedings.

Despite extensive difficulties securing access – including refusal by the judge to accredit NGO observers and threats of arrest by police on the scene – RSF monitored the January 4 hearing at London’s Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey).

It has been the only NGO to monitor the full extradition proceedings against Assange.

The UK and US are respectively ranked 35th and 45th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2020 World Press Freedom Index.

Asia Pacific Report’s Pacific Media Watch collaborates with RSF in Paris.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz