Right now, the United States and Israel are continuing their bombardment of Iran.

As the confirmed death toll climbs past 1330 and hospitals, schools, and residential neighborhoods are hit daily, the media apparatus that sold you the Iraq war and denied Israel’s genocidal assault on Palestinians for the last two years is now running the same playbook.

The Atlantic is laundering Netanyahu’s reputation as a “conflict-averse” leader while he tells the world this war lets him do what he’s “yearned for” for 40 years.

Bari Weiss is tweeting fire emojis at pro-war clips, falsely suggesting Iran has nuclear weapons, and devoting journalistic resources to tracking the Instagram likes of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s wife.

CNN is giving unchallenged airtime to International Criminal Court (ICC)-indicted Israeli officials claiming American soldiers have an “obligation” to die for Israel.

And that’s before the cable news network is taken over by Paramount, the Weiss operation run by the nepo-son of Larry Ellison, the single largest donor to Friends of the IDF.

The BBC, meanwhile, leads with nine dead in Israel while relegating some 180 children killed by the U.S. in a girls’ school in Minab to a footnote.

This is what the legacy media machine looks like in wartime. It has always looked like this.

And it is exactly why we launched Drop Site less than two years ago.

While Weiss and CBS were manufacturing consent for this war, Drop Site has had reporters on the ground reporting the facts.

In just the last week:

• Reza Sayah reported from Tehran on a double-tap bombing that killed over 20 people at a popular square during Ramadan, connecting the tactic to US strikes in Afghanistan, and Israel’s genocidal attacks on Gaza.
• Drop Site correspondent reported from Minab, where a missile struck a girls’ elementary school and killed 180 children, and from Lamerd, where a sports hall full of teenage girls was bombed during practice.
• We were among the first outlets on the ground verifying the strike in Minab as US and Israeli propagandists sought to deny and deflect.
• We have consistently obtained exclusive information from senior Iranian officials who have contradicted claims by Trump, claims that have just as consistently fallen apart under scrutiny.
• We exposed the fabricated CIA narrative about “tracking Khamenei for months” to his “secret location” — his secret location was his office, and he had refused to relocate.

Republished from Drop Site News.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pulitzer Prize–winning US journalist Chris Hedges joins Antoinette Lattouf on We Used To Be Journos to unpack his time in Australia, including some fraught interactions with sections of the Australian media.

The pair also discuss what he flew all this way to talk about — how Western journalists are betraying their colleagues in Gaza.

Hedges also offers some honest advice for young people who still want to tell stories and speak truth to power.

The We Used To Be Journos interview.                     Video: ETTE Media

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Killed.

At the Committee to Protect Journalists we documented that 2024 was the deadliest year for journalists, with an unprecedented number of those killed by Israel reporting from Gaza while covering Israel’s military operations.

That trend did not end; it continued instead in 2025, making this war by far the deadliest for the press in history.

When a journalist is killed in a besieged war city, the loss is no longer personal. It is institutional, it is the loss of eyes and ears on the ground: a loss of verification, context, and witness.

Journalists are the ones who turn statistics into stories. They give names to numbers and faces to headlines. They make distant realities real for the rest of the world, and provide windows into the truth and doors into other worlds.

That is why the killing of Anas al-Sharif last week reverberates so loudly, not just as a tragic loss of one life, but as a silencing of many stories that will now never be told.

Not just reporting
Anas al-Sharif was not just reporting from Gaza, he was filling a vital void. When international journalists couldn’t access the Strip, his work for Al Jazeera helped the world understand what was happening.

On August 10, 2025, an airstrike hit a tent near al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City where journalists had gathered. Al-Sharif and several of his colleagues were killed.

The strike — its method, its targets, and its aftermath – wasn’t isolated. It fits a pattern CPJ and other press freedom organisations have tracked for months: in Gaza, journalists are facing not just the incidental risks of war, but repeated, targeted threats.

And so far, there has been no accountability.

The Israeli military framed its action differently: officials alleged that al-Sharif was affiliated with Hamas and that the attack was aimed at a legitimate threat. But so far, the evidence presented publicly failed to meet the test of independent witnesses; no public evidence has met the basic standard of independent verification.

UN experts and press freedom groups have called for transparent investigations, warning of the danger in labelling journalists as combatants without clear, verifiable proof.

In the turmoil of war, there’s a dangerous tendency to accept official narratives too quickly, too uncritically. That’s exactly how truth gets lost.

Immediate chilling effect
The repercussions of silencing reporters in a besieged territory are far-reaching. There is the immediate chilling effect: journalists who stay risk death; those who leave — if they even can — leave behind untold stories.

Second, when local journalists are killed, international media have no choice but to rely increasingly on official statements or third-party briefings for coverage, many with obvious biases and blind spots.

And third, the families of victims and the communities they represented are denied both justice and memory.

Al-Sharif’s camera recorded funerals and destroyed homes, bore witness to lives cut short. His death leaves those images without a voice, pointing now only into silence.

We also need to name the power dynamics at play. When an enormously powerful state with overwhelming military capability acts inside a densely populated area, the vast majority of casualties will be civilians — those who cannot leave — and local reporters, who cannot shelter.

This is not a neutral law of physics; it is the to-be-anticipated result of how this war waged in a space where journalists will not be able to go into shelter.

We have repeatedly documented that journalists killed in this war are Palestinian — not international correspondents. The most vulnerable witnesses, those most essential to documenting it, are also the most vulnerable to being killed.

So what should the international community and the world leaders do beyond offering condolences?

Demand independent investigation
For starters, they must demand an immediate, independent investigation. Not just routine military reviews, but real accountability — gathering evidence, preserving witness testimony, and treating each death with the seriousness it deserves.

Accountability cannot be a diplomatic nicety; it must be a forensic process with witnesses and evidence.

Additionally, journalists must be protected as civilians. That’s not optional. Under international law, reporters who aren’t taking part in the fighting are civilians — period.

That is an obligation not a choice. And when safety isn’t possible, we must get them out. Evacuate them. Save their lives. And in doing so, allow others in — international reporters who can continue telling the story.

We are past the time for neutrality. The use of language like “conflict”, “collateral damage”, or “civilian casualties” cannot be used to deflect responsibility, especially when the victims are people whose only “crime” was documenting human suffering.

When the world loses journalists like Anas al-Sharif, it loses more than just one voice. We lose a crucial balance of power and access to truth; it fails to maintain the ability to understand what’s happening on the ground. And future generations lose the memory — the record — of what took place here.

Stand up for facts
The international press community, human rights organisations, and diplomatic actors need to stand up. Not just for investigations, but for facts. Families in Gaza deserve more than empty statements. They deserve the truth about who was killed, and why. So does every person reading this from afar.

And the journalists still risking everything to report from inside Gaza deserve more than sympathy. They deserve protection.

The killing of journalists — like those from Al Jazeera — isn’t just devastating on a human level. It’s a direct attack on journalism itself. When a state can murder reporters without consequence, it sends a message to the entire world: telling the truth might cost you your life.

I write this as someone who believes that journalism is, above all, a moral act. It’s about bearing witness. It’s about insisting that lives under siege are still lives that matter, still worth seeing.

Silencing a journalist doesn’t just stop a story — it erases a lifetime of effort to bring others into view.

The murder of al-Sharif isn’t just another tragedy. It’s an assault on truth itself, in a place where truth is desperately needed. If we let this keep happening, we’re not just losing lives — we’re losing the last honest witnesses in a world ruled by force.

And that’s something we can’t afford to give up.

Sara Qudah is the regional director for Middle East and North Africa of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Sara on LinkedIn: Sara Qudah

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

I unequivocally support Irish author Sally Rooney with all my heart and soul. The author risks imprisonment for donating funds from her books and the TV series based on Normal People to a Palestinian group.

Once again the United Kingdom tells Palestinians who they should support. Go figure.
In her opinion piece in The Irish Times last Saturday she said that:

“Activists who disrupt the flow of weapons to a genocidal regime may violate petty criminal statutes, but they uphold a far greater law and a more profound human imperative: to protect a people and culture from annihilation.”

Whenever the people resist or rebel they are deemed terrorists. That has been the case for indigenous people around the world from indigenous Americans to Indians in India to Aborigine and Māori, the Irish and the Scots, and the Welsh.

I went from being a “born-again” starry-eyed kibbutznik who believed in Zionism to a journalist who researched the facts and the hidden truths.

Those facts are revolting. Settler colonialism is revolting. Stealing homes is theft.

I kept in touch with some of my US-based Zionist kibbutznik mates. When I asked them to stop calling Palestinians animals, when I asked them not to say they had tails, when I asked them to stop the de-humanisation — the same de-humanisation that happened during the Nazi regime, they dumped me.

Zionism based on a myth
Jews who support genocide are antisemitic. They are also selfish and greedy. Zionists are the bully kids at school who take other kids toys and don’t want to share. They don’t play fair.

The notion of Zionism is based on a myth of the superiority of one group over another. It is religious nutterism and it is racism.

Empire is greed. Capitalism is greed. Settler colonialism involves extermination for those who resist giving up their land. Would you or I accept someone taking our homes, forcing us to leave our uneaten dinner on the table? Would you or I accept our kids being stolen, put in jail, raped, tortured.

The country was weird when I visited in 1982. It had just invaded Lebanon. Later that year it committed a genocide.

The Sabra and Shatila massacre was a mass murder of up to 3500 Palestinian refugees by Israel’s proxy militia, the Phalange, during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The horrific slaughter prompted outrage and condemnation around the world, with the UN General Assembly condemning it as “an act of genocide”.

I had been primed for sunshine and olives, but the country gave me a chill. The toymaker I worked with was a socialist and he told me I should feel sorry for the Palestinians.

It isn’t normal for a country to be ruled by the militia. Gun-toting soldiers roamed the streets. But you need to defend yourself when you steal.

Paranoia from guilt
Paranoia is a consequence of a persecutor who fails to recognise their guilt. It happens when you steal. The paranoia happens when you close doors. When you don’t welcome the other — whose home you stole.

In 2014, soldiers of the IDF — a mercenary macho army — were charged with raping their own colleagues. Now footage of the rape of Palestinian men are celebrated on national television in Israel in front of live audiences. Any decent person would be disgusted by this.

The army under this Zionist madness has committed — and continues to commit — the crimes it lied about Palestinians committing. And yes, the big fat liar has even admitted its own lies. The bully in the playground really doesn’t care now, it does not have to persuade the world it is right, because it is supported, it has the power.

This isn’t the warped Wild West where puritans invented the scalping of women and children — the sins of colonisers are many — this is happening now. We can stand for the might of racism or we can stand against racist policies and regimes. We can stand against apartheid and genocide.

Indigenous people must have the right to live in their homeland. Casting them onto designated land then invading that land is wrong.

When Israelis are kidnapped they are called hostages. When Palestinians are kidnapped they are called prisoners. It’s racist. It’s cruel. It’s revolting that anyone would support this travesty.

Far far more Palestinians were killed in the year leading up to October 7, 2023, than Israelis killed that day (and we know now that some of those Israelis were killed by their own army, Israel has admitted it lied over and again about the murder of babies and rapes).

Mercenary macho army
So who does murder and rape? The IDF. The proud mercenary macho army.

Once upon a time, a Palestinian kid who threw a stone got a bullet between the eyes. Now they get a bullet for carrying water, for going back to the homeground that has been bombed to smithereens. Snipers enjoy taking them down.

Drones operated by human beings who have no conscience follow children, follow journalists, follow nurses, follow someone in a wheelchair, and blow them to dust.

This is a game for the IDF. I’m sure some feel bad about it but they have to go along with it because they lose privileges if they do not. This sick army run by a sick state includes soldiers who hold dual US and Israeli citizenship.

Earlier this year I met a couple of IDF soldiers on holidays from genocide, breezily ordering their lattes in a local cafe. I tried to engage with them, to garner some sense of compassion but they used “them” and “they” to talk about Palestinians.

They lumped all Palestinians into a de-humanised mass worth killing. They blamed indigenous people who lived under a regime of apartheid and who are now being exterminated, for the genocide.

The woman was even worse than the man. She loathed me the minute she saw my badge supporting the Palestinian Solidarity Network of Aoteara. Hate spat from her eyes.

Madness.

De-brainwashing
I saw that the only prospect for them to change might be a de-brainwashing programme. Show them the real facts they were never given, show them real Palestinians instead of figments of their imagination.

It occurred to me that it really was very tempting to take them home and offer them a different narrative. I asked them if they would listen, and they said no. If I had forced them to come with me I would have been, you know, a hostage-taker.

Israel is evidence that the victim can become the persecutor when they scapegoat indigenous people as the villain, when they hound them for crime of a holocaust they did not commit.

And I get it, a little. My Irish and French Huguenot ancestors were persecuted. I have to face the sad horrid fact that those persecuted people took other people’s land in New Zealand. The victims became the persecutor.

Oh they can say they did not know but they did know. They just did not look too hard at the dispossession of indigenous people.

I wrote my book The Seasonwife at the ripe young age of 63 to reveal some of the suppressed truths about colonisation and about the greed of Empire — a system where the rich exploit the poor to help themselves. I will continue to write novels about suppressed truths.

And I call down my Jewish ancestors who hid their Jewishness to avoid persecution. I have experienced antisemitism.

Experienced cancelling
But I have experienced cancelling, not by my publisher I hasten to add, but I know agencies and publishers in my country who tell authors to shut up about this genocide, who call those who speak up anti-semitic.

I have been cancelled by Zionist authors. I don’t have a publisher like that but I know those who do, I know agencies who pressure authors to be silent.

I call on other authors to follow Rooney’s example and for pity’s sake stop referencing Hamas. Learn the truth.

Benjamin Netanyahu refused to deal with any other Palestinian representative. Palestinians have the right to choose their own representatives but they were denied that right.

What is a terrorist army? The IDF which has created killing field after killing field. Not just this genocide, but the genocide in Lebanon in 1982.

I have been protesting against the massacre of Palestinians since 2014 and I wish I had been more vocal earlier. I wish I had left the country when the Phalangists were killed. I did go back and report from the West Bank but I feel now, that I did not do enough. I was pressured — as Western writers are — to support the wrongdoer, the persecutor, not the victim.

I will never do that again.

Change with learning
I do believe that with learning we can change, we can work towards a different, fairer system — a system based on fairness not exploitation.

I stand alongside indigenous people everywhere.

So I say again, that I support Sally Rooney and any author who has the guts to stand up to the pressure of oppressive regimes that deny the rights of people to resist oppression.

I have spent a decade proudly standing with Palestinians and I will never stop. I believe they will be granted the right to return to their land. It is not anyone else’s right to grant that, really, the right of return for those who were forced out, and their descendants, is long overdue.

And their forced exile is recent. Biblical myths don’t stack up. Far too often they are stacked to make other people fall down.

Perhaps if we had all stood up more than 100,000 Palestinians would still be alive, a third of those children, would still be running around, their voices like bells instead of death calls.

I support Palestinians with all my heart and soul.

Saige England is an award-winning journalist and author of The Seasonwife, a novel exploring the brutal impacts of colonisation. She is also a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

One thing October 7 did accomplish was getting Israel and its allies to show the world their true face. Getting them to stand before all of humanity to say, “If you resist us, we’ll kill your babies. We’ll deliberately shoot your kids in the head.

“We’ll massacre medical workers. We’ll systematically destroy all your hospitals. We’ll rape you and torture you as a matter of policy.

“We’ll lay siege to the entire civilian population. We’ll make your entire land uninhabitable and then we’ll kick you all out and take it for ourselves.

“We’ll assassinate all your journalists and block foreign journalists from entry so that nobody can see what we’re doing to you.

“We’ll lie about all of these things the entire time, and you’ll know we’re lying, and we’ll know you know we’re lying, and you’ll know we know you know we’re lying.

“And we’ll get away with it anyway, because we hold all the cards.”

Sometimes I’ll run into people who say “What did Hamas expect to happen? They had to know Israel would do this!” They say this in an effort to lay the blame for Israel’s genocidal atrocities at the feet of Hamas, as though Israel is some kind of wild animal who can’t be held accountable for its actions if someone gets too close to its mouth.

But of course Hamas knew Israel and its allies would react this way. Of course they did.

They knew they were dealing with a murderous and tyrannical civilisation that is capable of limitless evil and doesn’t see Palestinians as human beings. They knew it because they’d lived under it all their lives.

That is the problem they were trying to address with their actions on October 7.

Palestine has single handedly unmasked the world

— Rahma (@Rahmazeinegypt) April 6, 2025

You can disagree with the decisions Hamas made on that day. You can say they should have used other means to pursue justice. You can denounce them, hate them, do the whole public ritual necessary for mainstream acceptance in Western society.

But one thing you can’t do is deny that Israel and its allies have been revealing their true face to the world every day since, at levels they previously were not.

It’s all fully visible now. It’s all right there on the surface. We can try to continue pretending we live in a free society that believes in truth and justice and regards all people as equal, but we’ll all know it’s a lie.

What we are, first and foremost, is a civilisation that will actively support history’s first live-streamed genocide. That’s the single most relevant fact about the Western world at this point in history. It’s staring us right in the face every day.

Hamas succeeded in exposing the true face of the empire.    Video: Caitlin Johnstone

October 7 certainly didn’t make life any easier for the Palestinians, but one thing it did do was take away our ability to hide from ourselves.

Hamas reached thousands of kilometres around the world and permanently destroyed our ability to avoid the truth about the kind of dystopia we are really living in.

Our rulers may succeed in eliminating the Palestinians as a people, but one thing they will never be able to do is put those blinders back on our eyes.

What has been seen cannot be unseen.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

This article was first published on Café Pacific.

One of the many casualties of the Trump administration’s crackdown on “soft power” that enabled many democratic media and truth to power global editorial initiatives has been BenarNews, a welcome contribution to the Asia-Pacific region.

BenarNews had been producing a growing range of insightful on powerful articles on the region’s issues, articles that were amplified by other media such as Asia Pacific Report.

Managing editor Kate Beddall and her deputy, Imran Vittachi, announced the suspension of the decade-old BenarNews editorial operation this week, stating in their “Letter from the editors”:

“After 10 years of reporting from across the Asia-Pacific, BenarNews is pausing operations due to matters beyond its control.

“The US administration has withheld the funding that we rely on to bring our readers and viewers the news from Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, the Philippines and island-states and territories in the Pacific.

“We have always strived to offer clear and accurate news on security, politics and human rights, to shed light on news that others neglect or suppress, and to cover issues that will shape the future of Asia and the Pacific.

“Only last month, we marked our 10th anniversary with a video showcasing some of the tremendous but risky work done by our journalists.

“Amid uncertainty about the future, we’d like to take this opportunity to thank our readers and viewers for their loyalty and trust in BenarNews.

“And to Benar journalists, cartoonists and commentary writers in Washington, Asia, Australia and the Pacific, thank you for your hard work and passion in serving the public and helping make a difference.

“We hope that our funding is restored and that we will be back online soon.”

BenarNews: A decade of truth in democracies at risk.    Video: BenarNews

One of the BenarNews who has contributed much to the expansion of Pacific coverage is Brisbane-based former SBS Pacific television journalist Stefan Ambruster.

He has also been praising his team in a series of social media postings, such as Papua New Guinea correspondent Harlyne Joku — “from the old school with knowledge of the old ways”. Ambruster writes:

“Way back in December 2022, Harlyne Joku joined Radio Free Asia/BenarNews and the first Pacific correspondent Stephen Wright as the PNG reporter to help kick this Pacific platform off.

“Her first report was Prime Minister James Marape accusing the media of creating a bad perception of the country.

“Almost 90 stories in just over two years carry Harlyne’s byline, covering politics, geopolitics, human and women’s rights, media freedom, police and tribal violence, corruption, Bougainville, and also PNG’s sheep.

“Her contacts allowed BenarNews Pacific to break stories consistently. She travelled to be on-ground to cover massacre aftermaths, natural disasters and the Pope in Vanimo (where she broke another story).

“Particularly, Harlyne — along with colleagues Victor Mambor in Jayapura and Ahmad Panthoni and Dandy Koswaraputra in Jakarta — allowed BenarNews, to cover West Papua like no other news service. From both sides of the border.

“And it was noticed in Indonesia, PNG and the Pacific region.

“Last year, she was barred from covering President Probowo Subianto’s visit to Moresby, a move condemned by the Media Council of Papua New Guinea.

“At press conferences she questioned Marape about the failure to secure a UN human rights mission to West Papua, as a Melanesian Spearhead Group special envoy, which led to an eventual apology by fellow envoy, Fiji’s Prime Minister Rabuka, to Pacific leaders.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Vanuatu’s media community was in mourning today following the death of Marc Neil-Jones, founder of the Trading Post Vanuatu, which later became the Vanuatu Daily Post, and also radio 96BuzzFM. He was 67.

His fearless pursuit of press freedom and dedication to truth have left an indelible mark on the country’s media landscape.

Neil-Jones’s journey began in 1989 when he arrived in Vanuatu from the United Kingdom with just $8000, an early Macintosh computer, and an Apple laser printer.

It was only four years after Cyclone Uma had ravaged the country, and he was determined to create something that would stand the test of time — a voice for independent journalism.

In 1993, Neil-Jones succeeded in convincing then Prime Minister Maxime Carlot Korman to grant permission to launch the Trading Post, the country’s first independent newspaper. Prior to this, the media was under tight government control, and there had been no platform for critical or independent reporting.

The Trading Post was a bold step toward change. Neil-Jones’s decision to start the newspaper, with its unapologetically independent voice, was driven by his desire to provide the people of Vanuatu with the truth, no matter how difficult or controversial.

This was a turning point for the country’s media, and his dedication to fairness and transparency quickly made his newspaper a staple in the community.

Blend of passion, wit and commitment
Marc Neil-Jones’s blend of passion, wit, and unyielding commitment to press freedom became the foundation upon which the Vanuatu Trading Post evolved. The paper grew, expanded, and ultimately rebranded as the Vanuatu Daily Post, but Marc’s vision remained constant — to provide a platform for honest journalism and to hold power to account.

His ability to navigate the challenges that came with being an independent voice in a country where media freedom was still in its infancy is a testament to his resilience and determination.

Neil-Jones faced numerous hurdles throughout his career — imprisonment, deportation, threats, and physical attacks — but he never wavered. His sense of fairness and his commitment to truth were unwavering, even when the challenges seemed insurmountable.

His personal integrity and passion for his work left a lasting impact on the development of independent journalism in Vanuatu, ensuring that the country’s media continued to evolve and grow despite the odds.

Marc Neil-Jones’ legacy is immeasurable. He not only created a platform for independent news in Vanuatu, but he also became a symbol of resilience and a staunch defender of press freedom.

Marc Neil-Jones explaining how he used his radio journalism as a “guide” in the Secret Garden in 2016. Video: David Robie

His work has influenced generations of journalists, and his fight for the truth has shaped the media landscape in the Pacific.

As we remember Marc Neil-Jones, we also remember the Trading Post — the paper that started it all and grew into an institution that continues to uphold the values of fairness, integrity, and transparency.

Marc Neil-Jones’s work has changed the course of Vanuatu’s media history, and his contributions will continue to inspire those who fight for the freedom of the press in the Pacific and beyond.

Rest in peace, Marc Neil-Jones. Your legacy will live on in every headline, every report, and every story told with truth and integrity.

Terence Malapa is publisher of Vanuatu Politics and Home News.

Photojournalist Ben Bohane’s tribute
Vale Marc Neil-Jones, media pioneer and kava enthusiast who passed away last night. He fought for and normalised media freedom in Vanuatu through his Daily Post newspaper with business partner Gene Wong and a great bunch of local journalists.

Reporting the Pacific can sometimes be a body contact sport and Marc had the lumps to prove it. It was Marc who brought me to Vanuatu to work as founding editor for the regional Pacific Weekly Review in 2002 and I never left.

The newspaper didn’t last but our friendship did.

He was a humane and eccentric character who loved journalism and the botanical garden he ran with long time partner Jenny.

Rest easy mate, there will be many shells of kava raised in your honour today.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

People get ready
There’s a train a-coming
You don’t need no baggage
You just get on board
All you need is faith
To hear the diesels humming
Don’t need no ticket
You just thank the Lord

Songwriter: Curtis Mayfield

You might have seen Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde’s speech at the National Prayer Service in the United States following Trump’s elevation to the highest worldly position, or perhaps read about it in the news.

It’s well worth watching this short clip of her sermon if you haven’t, as the rest of this newsletter is about that and the reaction to it:

‘May I ask you to have mercy Mr President.’       Video: C-Span

I found the sermon courageous, heartfelt, and, above all, decent. It felt like there was finally an adult in the room again. Predictably, Trump and his vile little Vice-President responded like naughty little boys being reprimanded, reacting with anger at being told off in front of all their little mates.

That response will not have surprised the Bishop. As she prepared to deliver the end of her sermon, you could see her pause to collect her thoughts. She knew she would be criticised for what she was about to say, yet she had the courage to speak it regardless.

What followed was heartfelt and compelling, as the Bishop talked of the fears of LGBT people and immigrants.

She spoke of them as if they were human beings like the rest of us, saying they pay their taxes, are not criminals, and are good neighbours.

The president did not want to hear her message. His anger was building as his snivelling sidekick looked toward him to see how the big chief would respond.

Vented on social media
So, how did the leader of the free world react? Did he take it on the chin, appreciating that he now needed to show leadership for all, or did he call the person asking him to show compassion — “nasty”?

That’s right, it was the second one. I’m afraid there’s no prize for that as you’re all excluded due to inside knowledge of that kind of behaviour from observing David Seymour. The ACT leader responds in pretty much the same way when someone more intelligent and human points out the flaws in his soul.

Donald then went on his own Truth social media platform, which he set up before he’d tamed the Tech Oligarchs, and vented, “The so-called bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a radical left hard-line Trump hater”.

Which isn’t very polite, but when you think about it, his response should be seen as a badge of honour. Especially for someone of the Christian faith because all those who follow the teachings of Christ ought to be “radical left hard-line Trump haters”, or else they’ve rather missed the point. Don’t you think?

Certainly, pastor and activist John Pavlovitz thought so, saying, “Christians who voted for him, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Of course, if you were capable of shame, you’d never have voted for him to begin with.”

I thought it was a bit rich for a man who has used the church and the bible in order to sell himself to false Christians who worship money, who has even claimed divine intervention from God, to then complain about the Bishop not staying in her lane.

Speaking out against bigotry
If religious leaders don’t speak out against bigotry, hatred, and threats to peaceful, decent human beings — then what’s the point?

Wow. Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde fearlessly calls out Trump and Vance to their faces. This is heroic. pic.twitter.com/igyKzC8dRo

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) January 21, 2025

I admired Budde’s bravery. Just quietly, the church hasn’t always had the best record of speaking out against those who’ve said the sort of things that Trump is saying.

If you’re unclear what I mean, I’m talking about Hitler, and it’s nice to see the church, or at least the Bishop, taking the other side this time around. Rather than offering compliance and collaboration, as they did then and as the political establishment in America is doing now.

Aside from all that, it feels like a weird, topsy-turvy world when the church is asking the government to be more compassionate towards the LGBT community.

El Douche hadn’t finished and said, “Apart from her inappropriate statements, the service was a very boring and uninspiring one. She is not very good at her job! She and her church owe the public an apology!”

It’s like he just says the opposite of what is happening, and people are so stupid or full of hate that they accept it, even though it’s obviously false.

So, the Bishop is derided as “nasty” when she is considerate and kind. She is called “Not Smart” when you only have to listen to her to know she is an intelligent, well-spoken person. She is called “Ungracious” when she is polite and respectful.

Willing wretches
As is the case with bullies, there are always wretches willing to support them and act similarly to win favour, even as many see them for what they are.

Mike Collins, a Republican House representative, tweeted, “The person giving this sermon should be added to the deportation list.”

Isn’t that disgusting? An elected politician saying that someone should be deported for daring to challenge the person at the top, even when it is so clearly needed.

Echoing the teachings of Jesus and calling out Trump’s cruelty, ignorance, and bigotry to his face, Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde delivers a sermon for the ages. Bishop Budde stared down authoritarian fascism and said ‘Not today, motherfucker.’ 😳👇 pic.twitter.com/JDBDa5RAgs

— Bill Madden (@maddenifico) January 21, 2025

Fox News host Sean Hannity said, “Instead of offering a benediction for our country, for our president, she goes on the far-left, woke tirade in front of Donald Trump and JD Vance, their families, their young children. She made the service about her very own deranged political beliefs with a disgraceful prayer full of fear-mongering and division.”

Perhaps most despicably, Robert Jeffress, the pastor of Dallas’s First Baptist Church, tweeted this sycophantic garbage:

Attended national prayer service today at the Washington National Cathedral during which Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde insulted rather than encouraged our great president @realDonaldTrump. There was palpable disgust in the audience with her words. @POTUS

— Dr. Robert Jeffress (@robertjeffress) January 21, 2025

Those cronies of Trump seem weak and dishonest to me compared to the words of Bishop Budde herself, who said the following after her sermon:

“I wanted to say there is room for mercy, there’s room for a broader compassion. We don’t need to portray with a broadcloth in the harshest of terms some of the most vulnerable people in our society, who are, in fact, our neighbours, our friends, our children, our friends, children, and so forth.”

The Republican party has made its pact with the Donald, and the Tech Bros have fallen over each other in their desire to kiss his ass; it will be a dark time for many regular people, no doubt, to stand up for what they believe in even as those with power and privilege fall in line behind the tyrant.

In my view Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde is a hero, and she does herself great credit with this courageous, compassionate, Christian stand

First published by Nick’s Kōrero and republished with permission. For more of Nick Rockel’s articles or to subscribe to his blog, click here.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Nine years ago, we wrote to you about the real-world harms caused by false information on Facebook. In response, Meta created a fact-checking programme that helped protect millions of users from hoaxes and conspiracy theories. This week, you announced you’re ending that programme in the United States because of concerns about “too much censorship” — a decision that threatens to undo nearly a decade of progress in promoting accurate information online.

The programme that launched in 2016 was a strong step forward in encouraging factual accuracy online. It helped people have a positive experience on Facebook, Instagram and Threads by reducing the spread of false and misleading information in their feeds.

We believe — and data shows — most people on social media are looking for reliable information to make decisions about their lives and to have good interactions with friends and family. Informing users about false information in order to slow its spread, without censoring, was the goal.

Fact-checkers strongly support freedom of expression, and we’ve said that repeatedly and formally in last year’s Sarajevo statement. The freedom to say why something is not true is also free speech.

But you say the programme has become “a tool to censor,” and that “fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the US.” This is false, and we want to set the record straight, both for today’s context and for the historical record.

Meta required all fact-checking partners to meet strict nonpartisanship standards through verification by the International Fact-Checking Network. This meant no affiliations with political parties or candidates, no policy advocacy, and an unwavering commitment to objectivity and transparency.

Each news organisation undergoes rigorous annual verification, including independent assessment and peer review. Far from questioning these standards, Meta has consistently praised their rigour and effectiveness. Just a year ago, Meta extended the programme to Threads.

Fact-checkers blamed and harassed
Your comments suggest fact-checkers were responsible for censorship, even though Meta never gave fact-checkers the ability or the authority to remove content or accounts. People online have often blamed and harassed fact-checkers for Meta’s actions. Your recent comments will no doubt fuel those perceptions.

But the reality is that Meta staff decided on how content found to be false by fact-checkers should be downranked or labeled. Several fact-checkers over the years have suggested to Meta how it could improve this labeling to be less intrusive and avoid even the appearance of censorship, but Meta never acted on those suggestions.

Additionally, Meta exempted politicians and political candidates from fact-checking as a precautionary measure, even when they spread known falsehoods. Fact-checkers, meanwhile, said that politicians should be fact-checked like anyone else.

Over the years, Meta provided only limited information on the programme’s results, even though fact-checkers and independent researchers asked again and again for more data. But from what we could tell, the programme was effective. Research indicated fact-check labels reduced belief in and sharing of false information.  And in your own testimony to Congress, you boasted about Meta’s “industry-leading fact-checking programme.”

You said that you plan to start a Community Notes programme similar to that of X. We do not believe that this type of programme will result in a positive user experience, as X has demonstrated.

Research shows that many Community Notes never get displayed, because they depend on widespread political consensus rather than on standards and evidence for accuracy. Even so, there is no reason Community Notes couldn’t co-exist with the third-party fact-checking programme; they are not mutually exclusive.

A Community Notes model that works in collaboration with professional fact-checking would have strong potential as a new model for promoting accurate information. The need for this is great: If people believe social media platforms are full of scams and hoaxes, they won’t want to spend time there or do business on them.

Political context in US
That brings us to the political context in the United States. Your announcement’s timing came after President-elect Donald Trump’s election certification and as part of a broader response from the tech industry to the incoming administration. Mr Trump himself said your announcement was “probably” in response to threats he’s made against you.

Some of the journalists that are part of our fact-checking community have experienced similar threats from governments in the countries where they work, so we understand how hard it is to resist this pressure.

The plan to end the fact-checking programme in 2025 applies only to the United States, for now. But Meta has similar programmes in more than 100 countries that are all highly diverse, at different stages of democracy and development. Some of these countries are highly vulnerable to misinformation that spurs political instability, election interference, mob violence and even genocide. If Meta decides to stop the programme worldwide, it is almost certain to result in real-world harm in many places.

This moment underlines the need for more funding for public service journalism. Fact-checking is essential to maintaining shared realities and evidence-based discussion, both in the United States and globally. The philanthropic sector has an opportunity to increase its investment in journalism at a critical time.

Most importantly, we believe the decision to end Meta’s third-party fact-checking programme is a step backward for those who want to see an internet that prioritises accurate and trustworthy information. We hope that somehow we can make up this ground in the years to come.

We remain ready to work again with Meta, or any other technology platform that is interested in engaging fact-checking as a tool to give people the information they need to make informed decisions about their daily lives.

Access to truth fuels freedom of speech, empowering communities to align their choices with their values. As journalists, we remain steadfast in our commitment to the freedom of the press, ensuring that the pursuit of truth endures as a cornerstone of democracy.

Respectfully,

15min – Lithuania

AAP FactCheck – Australia

AFP – France

AkhbarMeter Media Observatory – Egypt

Animal Político-El Sabueso – México

Annie Lab – Hong Kong SAR

Aos Fatos – Brazil

Beam Reports – Sudan

Check Your Fact – United States of America

Chequeado – Argentina

Civilnet.am – Armenia

Colombiacheck – Colombia

Congo Check : Congo, Congo DR, Central African Rep

Doğruluk Payı – Türkiye

Dubawa – Nigeria

Ecuador Chequea – Ecuador

Ellinika Hoaxes – Greece

Estadão Verifica – Brazil

Fact-Check Cyprus – Cyprus

FactCheck.org – United States of America

FactCheckNI – Northern Ireland

Factcheck.Vlaanderen – Belgium

Factchequeado – United States of America

FactReview – Greece

Factnameh – Iran

Faktisk.no – Norway

Faktograf – Croatia

Fatabyyano – Jordan

Full Fact – United Kingdom

Greece Fact Check – Greece

Gwara Media – Ukraine

Internews Kosova KALLXO – Kosovo

Istinomer – Serbia

Källkritikbyrån – Sweden

La Silla Vacía – Colombia

Lead Stories – United States of America

Les Surligneurs – France

Lupa – Brazil

Mafindo – Indonesia

Mala Espina – Chile

MediaWise – United States of America

Myth Detector – Georgia

Newtral – Spain

Observador – Portugal

Open – Italy

Pagella Politica / Facta news – Italy

Polígrafo – Portugal

PolitiFact – United States

Pravda – Poland

PressOne.PH – Philippines

RMIT Lookout – Australia

Snopes – United States of America

Taiwan FactCheck Center – Taiwan

Tech4Peace – Iraq

The Journal FactCheck – Ireland

The Logical Indian – India

VERA Files – Philippines

Verify – Syria

Editor: Fact-checking organisations continue to sign this letter, and the list is being updated as they do. No New Zealand fact-checking service has been added to the list so far. Republished from the International Fact-Checking Network at the Poynter Institute.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Every journalist that “outs” a conspiracy theorist or extremist paints a target on their own back.

The anti-truth brigade thrives in dark places and shining a light on it and its associates is doing a public service. Yet it comes at a cost.

The tone of abuse that it generates is even darker than the places from which it emanates. New Zealand journalists — particularly female journalists — are being subjected to taunts and threats on an unprecedented scale and in forms that are deeply disturbing.

Paula Penfold of the Stuff Circuit team that produced the documentary Fire and Fury, which unmasked many of those behind the February-March protest in Parliament grounds, revealed in the Sunday Star Times last weekend that since its appearance she has been targeted with death threats, abuse “and, unsurprisingly, conspiracy theories”.

She told the newspaper: “I’ve had lots before but never as many or as ugly or as threatening than after this documentary.”

Penfold’s situation was outlined in an article about the abuse three female Stuff journalists had endured for doing their jobs. Alongside Penfold were Kirsty Johnston, who revealed MP Sam Uffindell’s record at King’s College, and Andrea Vance, currently revealing the anti- brigade’s associations with local body candidates.

“You can’t fight crazy,” Vance told the SST. “It’s exhausting. Half their tactics are to tie you up in pointless circular arguments but if people honestly think we’re being paid by the government they’re not well.”

Attitude about media
Her latter point was a reference to an all-too-popular suggestion that the media en masse had been suborned by the Public Interest Journalism Fund. Anyone who thinks New Zealand’s media can be instantly brought to heel by $55 million spread among all of them over a period of four years is, indeed, not well.

Then again, the attitude toward journalists is “not well” either.

I felt immensely saddened to see this quote from Kirsty Johnston about the spread of trolling and abuse: “All reporters know it. They go to parties and don’t say what they do.”

When I was young, the only people who had that attitude were undertakers and the people who worked in the local VD clinic. We were proud to say we were journalists, reporters, photographers, sub-editors and so on.

Our broadcasting colleagues were equally open about their profession.

What went wrong, and when?

Fire and Fury – the documentary                      Video: Stuff Circuit

It has been a long time since the public put journalists on a pedestal. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the last statue to a journalist in Auckland was erected in 1901 (remembering George M Reed and still standing in Albert Park).

Slow decline
There was a slow decline over the years but in the 40 years I spent in daily journalism I never felt despised. Yes, I received two death threats in that time but the first was written in crayon and the second wasn’t aimed only at me, or even only at journalists (which was why it was reported to the police). What journalists are now experiencing is either something new or something old harnessed to something new.

I think it may well be the latter. The old component is anarchy and the new is digital communication. Together they are dynamite (excuse the pun).

Anarchy is basically the repudiation of existing systems of government and ordered society, represented by institutions such as Parliament and the media (the latter is seen as the mouthpiece of politicians). In the past it had a capital A and was an intellectual breeding grounds for socialism, communism, and other then-radical politics.

However, even then, it had its hangers-on who were drawn to its sometimes-violent rhetoric with little understanding or interest in its philosophy. The crazy bombers and assassins were seldom actually card-carrying members of an anarchist body.

Today, anarchy has a small a. We use the term to denote disorder and disarray. And it underlies much of the anti-this and anti-that ranting that permeates social media.

Put simply, there are people out there who want to see the institutions of civil society brought down. They have no clear idea what should replace it and they don’t care. In a way, they are calling for destruction for its own sake. That is at the core of conspiracy theories.

Social media has become the new explosive. Much easier to come by than volatile nitro-glycerine or the “safer” dynamite, it can carry a destructive force over a far greater distance.

Digital bomb-throwers
The digital bomb-throwers use it in two ways. The first is by undermining truth, which casts doubt over the legitimacy of institutions. The second is by discrediting those who represent those institutions. They reserve special attention, however, for those who would presume to unmask, undermine and discredit them.

So, it came as no surprise that the verbal attacks on journalists rose to a new pitch after the appearance of Fire and Fury on the Stuff website and the series of revelations about local body candidates’ undisclosed affiliations with groups that spread conspiracy theories.

The crescendo of hate requires fortitude on the part of the journalists exposing conspiracy theorists and other bad agents. They can take some comfort from the fact that media organisations take seriously their duty of care toward staff — and freelancers — facing threats.

RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson told me the abuse was taking its toll.

“We have responded with improved security and health and safety planning, at our offices and in the field. We also have set up improved process for dealing with inappropriate and abusive feedback and social media. There are things we can do to mitigate the effects of the abuse but we cannot reduce the impact or risk to zero.”

Television New Zealand’s head of news, Phil O’Sullivan, is similarly conscious of the risks and effects.

“TVNZ has not made any changes to security arrangements due to recent incidents. But we have many existing safety precautions for reporters in place. Depending on the story, this can include traveling with extra security when covering certain events, reporting from safe locations and from a distance if a situation feels volatile and using technology solutions – for example drone footage, or footage recorded on mobile phones rather than a camera set up where needed.

“We have a responsibility to report on all the stories impacting New Zealanders — but ultimately, we need to do that in a safe way. At the forefront of this is the wellbeing and safety of our people and we have a number of measures in place to support this.”

Probing anti-fact organisations
He makes an important point: Media organisations must not let these diatribes and threats stay their hands. Investigation into anti-fact and extremist organisations and individuals must continue and are no more important than during election periods, be they local or national.

There is, however, a caveat. Journalists who call out conspiracy theorists and latter-day anarchists also have a duty of care. They have a duty to ensure they have the facts and that what they say is fair.

Last Saturday, the Wairarapa Times-Age investigated “local government candidates with controversial links” under the heading “Who is pulling the strings?” It “outed” a mayoral candidate, Tina Nixon, saying she “had been promoted by conspiracy website Resistance.Kiwi” and on Facebook had followed people associated with far-right groups.

Its source was FACT Aotearoa, a group that exposes conspiracy theorists.

However, the newspaper did not make direct contact with Nixon (it left an email saying she had two hours to respond but she did not see it within the required timeframe). Her only link with Resistance.Kiwi had been in giving them permission — along with several other websites — to reprint her submission on the 3 Waters proposals.

Like many of us, she follows hundreds of websites and social media users but does not support what many of them say. FACT Aotearoa offered Nixon an apology, saying there appeared to be a “miscommunication” with the Wairarapa Times-Age. In my view, the newspaper failed her and electors by not substantiating information.

There is potential here for witch-hunting or, as my former colleague Fran O’Sullivan put it on social media when calling out the mistake, McCarthyism.

In addition to fact-checking, media should give their targets an opportunity to explain their position before a decision is made to publish or broadcast. Tina Nixon is an object lesson.

There is a further reason why media must take great care in “outing” conspiracy theorists and extremists. Get one wrong and it might be seen as an unfortunate error. Get more wrong and the conspiracy theorists and extremists will say gleefully (and, irritatingly, with a very small amount of justification) that the media can’t be believed.

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 a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Frontline investigative articles on Aotearoa New Zealand’s 23-day Parliament protester siege, social media disinformation and Asia-Pacific media changes and adaptations are featured in the latest Pacific Journalism Review.

The assault on “truth telling” reportage is led by The Disinformation Project, which warns that “conspiratorial thought continues to impact on the lives and actions of our communities”, and alt-right video researcher Byron C Clark.

Several articles focus on the Philippines general election with the return of the Marcos dynasty following the elevation of the late dictator’s son Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr and the crackdown on independent media, including Nobel Peace Prize co-laureate Maria Ressa’s Rappler.

Columbia Journalism School’s Centre for Investigative Journalism director Sheila Coronel writes of her experiences under the Marcos dictatorship: “Marcos is a hungry ghost. He torments our dreams, lays claim to our memories, and feeds our hopes.”

But with Marcos Jr’s landslide victory in May, she warns: “You will be in La-La Land, a country without memory, without justice, without accountability. Only the endless loop of one family, the soundtrack provided by Imelda.”

The themed section draws on research papers from a recent Asian Congress for Media and Communication conference (ACMC) hosted by Auckland University of Technology (AUT) introduced by convenor Khairiah A Rahman with keynotes by Asia Pacific Report editor David Robie and Rappler executive editor Glenda Gloria.

In the editorial titled “Fighting self-delusion and lies”, Philip Cass writes of the surreal crises in the Ukraine War and the United States and the challenges for journalists in the Asia-Pacific region:

“Similarly, there are national leaders in the Pacific who seem to truly want to believe that China really is their friend instead of being an aggressive imperialist power acting the same way the European powers did in the 19th century.”

With the Photoessay in this edition, visual storyteller and researcher Todd Henry explores how kava consumption has spread through the Pacific and into the diasporic community in Aotearoa New Zealand.

His “Visual peregrinations in the realm of kava” article and images also examine the way Pasifika women are carving their own space in kava ceremonies.

Unthemed topics include Afghanistan, the Taliban and the “liberation narrative” in New Zealand, industrial inertia among Queensland journalists, and Chinese media consumption and political engagement in Aotearoa.

Pacific Journalism Review, founded at the University of Papua New Guinea, is now in its 28th year and is New Zealand’s oldest journalism research publication and the highest ranked communication journal in the country.

The latest edition is published this weekend.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

We will continue bringing you the news, holding the powerful to account for their actions and decisions, calling attention to government lapses that further disempower the disadvantaged. We will hold the line.

Dear readers and viewers, We thought this day would never come, even as we were warned in the first of week of December last year that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would be handing down a ruling against us.

Because we have acted in good faith and adhered to the best standards in a fast-evolving business environment, we were confident that the country’s key business regulator would put public interest above other interests that were at play in this case.

We were, in fact, initially relieved that it was the SEC that initiated what appeared to us as a customary due diligence act, considering our prior information that it was the Office of the Solicitor-General that had formed, as early as November 2016, a special team to build a case against us.

We were wrong. The SEC’s kill order revoking Rappler’s licence to operate is the first of its kind in history — both for the Commission and for Philippine media. What this means for you, and for us, is that the Commission is ordering us to close shop, to cease telling you stories, to stop speaking truth to power, and to let go of everything that we have built — and created — with you since 2012.

All because they focused on one clause in one of our contracts which we submitted to — and was accepted by — the SEC in 2015.

Now the Commission is accusing us of violating the Constitution, a serious charge considering how, as a company imbued with public interest, we have consistently been transparent and above-board in our practices.

Transparency best proof
Every year since we incorporated in 2012, we have dutifully complied with all SEC regulations and submitted all requirements even at the risk of exposing our corporate data to irresponsible hands with an agenda.

Transparency, we believe, is the best proof of good faith and good conduct. All these seem not to matter as far as the SEC is concerned.

In a record investigation time of 5 months and after President Rodrigo Duterte himself blasted Rappler in his second SONA in July 2017, the SEC released this ruling against us.

This is pure and simple harassment, the seeming coup de grace to the relentless and malicious attacks against us since 2016:

We intend to not only contest this through all legal processes available to us, but also to fight for our freedom to do journalism and for your right to be heard through an independent platform like Rappler.

We’ve been through a lot together, through good and bad — sharing stories, building communities, inspiring hope, uncovering wrongdoing, battling trolls, exposing the fake. We will continue bringing you the news, holding the powerful to account for their actions and decisions, calling attention to government lapses that further disempower the disadvantaged.

We will hold the line. The support you’ve shown us all this time, and our commitment to tell you stories without fear, give us hope.

You inspire courage. You have taught us that when you stand and fight for what is right, there is no dead-end, only obstacles that can only make us stronger. We ask you to stand with us again at this difficult time.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Philippine Vice-President Leni Robredo will not allow the massive, volunteer-led movement she inspired in the 2022 presidential elections to just fade away following her loss to the late dictator’s son Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.

Facing tens of thousands of her supporters during her thanksgiving event at the Ateneo de Manila University in Quezon City on Friday, Robredo announced the creation of the Angat Buhay nongovernmental organisation, harnessing the so-called “pink revolution” her campaign inspired for the bigger battle ahead.

This NGO, set to be launched on July 1 or a day after Robredo steps down as vice president, will be named after the highly praised anti-poverty and pandemic response programme she has been running for the past six years.

“Hinding-hindi dapat pumanaw ang diwa ng ating kampanya. Ang pinakalayunin ng gobyernong tapat ay ang pag-angat ng buhay ng lahat. Kaya inaanunsyo ko ngayon ang target natin: Sa unang araw ng Hulyo, ilulunsad natin ang Angat Buhay NGO,” said Robredo, sending her “kakampink” supporters into a frenzy.

(The spirit of our campaign should never die out. The primary aim of an honest government is to uplift the lives of all. That’s why we are announcing our target: On the first day of July, we will launch the Angat Buhay NGO.)

The Vice-President plans to tap into the Robredo People’s Councils that her campaign team had strategically put up across provinces to help organise the hundreds of volunteer groups that were created for her presidential bid.

‘All is not lost’ pledge
Robredo may have lost the 2022 presidential race to her bitter rival Marcos, but she assured her supporters that all hope is not lost.

“Bubuin natin ang pinakamalawak na volunteer network sa kasaysayan ng ating bansa. Tuloy tayo sa pagtungo sa mga nasa laylayan at sa pag-ambagan para umangat sila,” said Robredo.

(We are going to build the biggest volunteer network in the history of our country. We will continue going to those on the fringes of society and working together to alleviate their lives.)

And once the Angat Buhay NGO had been been set up, it would serve all Filipinos in need, she said.

“Pero hindi tayo mamimili ng tutulungan…. Ipapakita natin ang buong puwersa ng radikal na pagmamahal,” said Robredo.

(But we will not choose who to help…. We will show them the full force of radical love.)

One of Robredo’s first campaign messages was a call for “radical love” — for her supporters to exercise sobriety and openness as they aim to convert those who were voting for another presidential contender.

It was only around mid-January of 2022 — about two weeks before the official campaign period started – that Robredo’s campaign slogan “Gobyernong Tapat, Angat Buhay Lahat (Honest Government, a Better Life for All)” was coined.

Heartbreaking loss for only woman
It was a heartbreaking loss for the lone female presidential contender, who was riding on a volunteer-spurred momentum in the crucial homestretch of the 90-day campaign. It made her critics step up their attacks, with three of her male rivals even ganging up on her in a now-infamous joint press conference on Easter Sunday.

Robredo’s presidential bid has sparked what has since been called a “pink revolution” never before seen in Philippine elections, where even Filipinos who do not usually engage in political activities saw themselves spending their own money and dedicating time just to campaign for her.

She hit the ground running when the official campaign period started. Robredo was indefatigable on the campaign trail, visiting multiple provinces in a span of a week.

She would start her day early in the morning and her grand rallies could last until midnight.

This was complemented by the massive volunteer base that Robredo attracted in the 2022 campaign. Her “kakampink” supporters organised soup kitchens, marches, motorcades, concerts, house-to-house campaigns, and grand rallies that were attended by tens of thousands – sometimes even in hundreds of thousands – across provinces.

Observers and Robredo herself likened the pink movement to the “People Power” collective effort of Filipinos in February 1986 to oust Marcos Jr’s father and namesake, the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, through a bloodless revolution.

But all of these were not enough to make Robredo the 17th president of the Philippines. This upset her supporters, many of whom continued to grieve and grapple with the election results.

But Robredo had already told them to accept the results. She then said that they should channel all their emotions into doing the necessary work needed to bring about a more meaningful change in the Philippines in the next six years.

Sociologist Jayeel Cornelio said Robredo’s post-elections call for her movement aims to counter what some political pundits believe to be a creeping authoritarianism under Marcos.

“Leni gets it. A disengaged citizenry will only embolden authoritarianism. Transforming the movement into the biggest volunteer network this country has ever seen is not only a social intervention. It is a political statement,” Cornelio tweeted.

Crusade vs disinformation
Robredo also made it clear on Friday that she would lead efforts to break the massive disinformation network on social media, rallying her “kakampinks” to join her in this crusade.

“Alam kong marami pa tayong lakas na ibubuhos. Nakikita natin ‘yan ngayong gabi. Itutuon ko ang enerhiya ko sa paglaban ng kasinungalingan at hinihiling kong samahan ninyo ako dito. Kailangan nating maging isang kilusang magtatanggol ng katotohanan,” said Robredo, sending her supporters into a frenzy.

(I know you still have a lot of strength left. We can see that tonight. I will channel my energy to fighting lies and I am asking you to join me in this fight. We need to become a movement that would defend the truth.)

Without directly mentioning any name, the Vice-President acknowledged that the Marcoses had spent years fortifying their disinformation network that sought to sanitise the Marcos regime and rid Filipinos’ memories of the atrocities committed during the Marcos dictatorship.

Studies have also showed that Robredo was the top target of these lies, which in turn benefitted Marcos’ presidential run.

Robredo believes she would need the help of the more than 14 million “kakampinks” who voted for her in the May polls to counter the well-entrenched disinformation network.

“Ang pinakamalaki nating…kalaban, namamayagpag na bago pa ng panahon ng kampanya, dahil dekadang prinoyekto. Matindi at malawak ang makinaryang kayang magpalaganap ng galit at kasinungalingan. Ninakaw nito ang katotohanan, kaya ninakaw din ang kasaysayan, pati na ang kinabukasan,” said Robredo.

(Our biggest…enemy was already dominant even before the campaign period because decades had been spent working on this. The machinery capable of spreading hate and lies is formidable. It stole the truth, so it also stole our history and our future.)

“Disimpormasyon ang isa sa pinakamalaki nating kalaban. Pero sa ngayon, maaring naghari ang makinarya ng kasinungalingan. Pero tayo lang ang makakasagot kung hanggang kailan ito maghahari. Nasa atin kung tapos na ang laban o kung nagsisimula pa lamang ito,” she said.

(Disinformation is one of our biggest enemies. For now, perhaps the machinery of lies rules. But it is up to us how long it would prevail. It is up to us to say the fight is over or if it is only just beginning.)

Mara Cepeda is a Rappler reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Threats, intimidation and misogyny have long been a reality for women in public life around the world, and the pandemic appears to have amplified this toxic reality.

Aotearoa New Zealand is led by one of the world’s best-known female prime ministers, Jacinda Ardern, and was the first country in the world to grant all women the right to vote.

Yet even here today, attempts to silence, diminish and demean the prime minister, female MPs and other prominent women have plumbed new depths, leading to calls for more robust policing of violent online and offline behaviour.

Unfortunately, the phenomenon extends well beyond elected representatives and public health professionals into most workplaces, including academia.

Women working in universities, including those in positions of academic leadership, are also routinely subjected to online vitriol intended to shut them down — and thus to prevent them exercising their academic freedom to probe, question and test orthodox ways of making sense of the world.

One of the commonest defences of abusive or threatening language (online or not) is an appeal to everyone’s right to free speech.

And this has echoes within universities, too, when academic freedom becomes a testing ground of what is acceptable and what isn’t.

A duty to call it out
The international evidence indicates that almost all of this behaviour comes from men, some of them colleagues or students of the women concerned.

The abuse comes in various forms (such as trolling and rape or death threats) and takes place in a variety of settings, including conferences. It is enabled by, among other things, the hierarchical nature of universities, in which power is stratified and unequally distributed, including on the basis of gender.

Threatened scholars warn that online harassment risks academic freedom. Rebekah Tromble and Patricia Rossini feared for their safety when the conservative online world turned against them last summerhttps://t.co/FZYo1e8Qzf pic.twitter.com/WLPGRRzIe0

— Times Higher Education (@timeshighered) February 15, 2019

As male academics we have an obligation not just to call out these sorts of behaviour but also to identify some of the corrosive consequences of the misogyny directed against women academics, wherever they may work.

We need to use our own academic freedom to assess what can happen to that of academic women when digital misogyny passes unchecked.

Whose freedom to speak?
Misogyny in university settings takes place in a particular context: universities have a statutory obligation to serve as producers and repositories of knowledge and expertise, and to act as society’s “conscience and critic”.

Academic freedom is what enables staff and students to carry out the work through which these obligations are met. This specific type of freedom is a means to various ends, including testing and contesting perceived truths, advancing the boundaries of knowledge and talking truth to power.

It is intended to serve the public good, and must be exercised in the context of the “highest ethical standards” and be open to public scrutiny.

A great deal has been written about threats to academic freedom: intrusive or risk averse university managers, the pressures to commercialise universities’ operations, and governments bent on surveilling and stifling internal dissent are the usual suspects.

But when women academics are subjected to online misogyny, which is a common response when they exercise academic freedom, we are talking about a different kind of threat.

Opinion: Misgendering students is not “academic freedom.” It’s an abuse of power. https://t.co/AatNwzrnB1

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) April 1, 2021

Betrayal of academic freedom
The misogynists seek to silence, shut down, diminish and demean; to ridicule on the basis of gender, and to deride scholarship that doesn’t align with their own preconceptions of gender and body type.

Their behaviour is neither casual nor accidental. As journalist Michelle Duff put it, it is intended to intimidate “as part of a concentrated effort to suppress women’s participation in public and political life”.

Its aim is to achieve the obverse of the purpose of academic freedom: to maintain an unequal status quo rather than change it.

It is to the credit of women academics that the misogynists frequently fail. But sometimes the hostility does have a chilling effect. For a woman to exercise her academic freedom when she is the target of online threats to rape or kill requires considerable bravery.

Women who continue to test perceived truths, advance the boundaries of knowledge and speak truth to power under such conditions are academic exemplars. They are contributing to the public good at considerable personal cost.

‘Whaddarya?’
The online misogyny directed at women academics is taking place in a broader context in which violent language targeting individuals and minority groups is becoming increasingly graphic, normalised and visible.

We do not believe the misogynistic “righteous outrage” directed at academic women is justified under the statutory underpinnings of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech — within or beyond a university — is not absolute, and to the extent that it is invoked to cloak violent rhetoric against women, existing constraints on that freedom (which are better thought of as protections for the targets of misogyny) need strengthening.

Men who engage in online misogyny almost always speak from an (unacknowledged) position of privilege. Moreover, by hiding their sense of entitlement behind core democratic notions, their self-indulgence does all of us a disfavour.

With academic freedom comes the moral responsibility to challenge misogyny and not stay silent. What so many women across New Zealand’s tertiary sector are subject to poses a challenge to men everywhere.

The kind of conduct our women colleagues are routinely subjected to is the sort of behaviour at the heart of Greg McGee’s seminal critique of masculinity and masculine insecurity in New Zealand, the play Foreskin’s Lament. In the final scene of the play, the main character stares out at the audience and asks: “Whaddarya, whaddarya, whaddarya?”

He might have been asking the question of every man, including those of us who work in universities.

Dr Richard Shaw is professor of politics, Massey University; Dr Andrew Dickson is senior lecturer, Massey University; Dr Bevan Erueti, senior lecturer — Health Promotion/Associate Dean — Māori, Massey University; Dr Glenn Banks is professor of geography and head of school, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University; Dr John O’Neill, head of the Institute of Education te Kura o Te Mātauranga, Massey University, and Dr Roger McEwan is senior lecturer, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz