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

Dear TVNZ,

We are deeply concerned with the misleading nature of the journalism presented in your recent coverage of the escalating crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. By focusing on specific language and framing, while leaving out the necessary context of international law, the broadcast misrepresents the reality of the situation faced by Palestinians.

This has the effect of perpetuating a narrative that could be seen and experienced as biased and dehumanising.

The International Court of Justice’s ruling on January 26, 2024, mandated that Israel prevent its forces from committing acts of genocide against Palestinians and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.

This ruling highlights the severity of Israel’s actions and the international community’s obligation to hold those responsible accountable. However, TVNZ’s coverage has often failed to reflect this legal and humanitarian perspective.

Instead it echos biased narratives that obscure these realities. This includes the expansion of genocidal like acts to the West Bank and the serious concerns about the potential for mass ethnic cleansing and further escalation of grave human rights violations.

Under international law, including the Genocide Convention, media organisations have a crucial responsibility to report accurately and avoid inciting violence or supporting those committing genocidal acts.

Complicity in genocide can occur when media coverage supports or justifies the actions of perpetrators, contributing to the dehumanisation of victims and the perpetuation of violence. By failing to provide balanced reporting and instead contributing to harmful stereotypes and misinformation, TVNZ risks being complicit in these grave violations of human rights.

Tragic history of attacks
New Zealand’s own tragic history of attacks on Muslims, such as the Al Noor Mosque shootings, should serve as a powerful reminder of the consequences of dehumanising narratives. The media plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception, and it is deeply concerning to see TVNZ contributing to the marginalisation and demonisation of Muslims and Palestinians through biased reporting.

We urge you to review your coverage of the genocide to ensure that it is fair, balanced, and aligned with international law and journalistic ethics. Specific examples of biased reporting include recent stories on Gaza that failed to mention the ICJ ruling or the context of an illegal occupation.

This includes decades of systematic land confiscation, military control, restrictions on movement, and the suppression of Palestinian voices through media censorship and the shutdown of local newspapers. Accurate and responsible journalism is essential in fostering an informed and empathetic public, especially on matters as sensitive and impactful as this.

On August 29, 2024, TVNZ aired a news story that exemplifies problematic media framing when reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The story begins by benignly describing Israel’s “entry into the West Bank” as part of a “counter-terrorism strike”— the largest operation in 10 years — implying that the context is solely anti-terrorism.

Automatically, the use of the word terrorism, sets the narrative of “good Israel” and “bad Palestinian” for the remainder of the news story.  However, the report fails to mention numerous critical aspects, such as the provocations by Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, visiting the Al-Aqsa Mosque and threatening to build a synagogue at Islam’s third holiest site, or Israel’s escalations and violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The Convention considers the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population into the territory it occupies a war crime, and under international law, Palestinians have the right to resist such occupation, a right recognised and protected by international legal frameworks.

The story uses footage, presumably provided by the IDF, that portrays the Israeli military as a calm, moral force entering “terrorist strongholds”, which is at odds with abundant open-source footage showing the IDF destroying infrastructure, terrorising civilians, and protecting armed settlers as they displace Palestinians from their homes.

Bulldozers used to destroy Palestinian homes
It portrays the IDF entering the town with bulldozers, but makes no mention of how those bulldozers are used to destroy Palestinian homes and infrastructure to make way for Israeli settlements.

Furthermore, the report fails to mention that just last month, the Israeli government announced its plans to officially recognise five more illegal settlements in the West Bank and expand existing settlements, understandably exacerbating tensions.

The narrative is further reinforced by giving airtime to an Israeli spokesperson who frames the operation as a defensive counter-terrorism initiative. The journalist echoes this narrative, positioning Israel as merely responding to threats.

Although a brief soundbite from a Palestinian Red Crescent worker expresses fears of what might happen in the West Bank, the report fails to provide any counter-narrative to Israel’s self-defence claim.

The story concludes by listing the number of deaths in the West Bank since October 19, implying that the situation began with Hamas’s actions in Gaza on that date, rather than addressing the illegal Israeli occupation since 1967, as the root cause of the violence.

Why is this important?
The news story is a violation of the Accuracy and Impartiality Standard with TVNZ failing to present a balanced view of the situation in Palestine, potentially misleading the audience on critical aspects of the conflict.

Secondly, the news story violates  the Harm and Offence Standard, being an insufficient and inflammatory portrayal of the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine contributing to public misperception and harm.

Additionally, there is a concern regarding the Fairness Standard, with individuals and groups affected by the conflict not being given fair opportunity to respond or be represented in the broadcast.

These breaches are significant as they undermine the integrity of the reporting and fail to uphold the standards of responsible journalism. Holding our media outlets to high journalistic standards is essential, particularly in the context of the genocide in Gaza.

The media plays a significant part in either exposing or obscuring the realities of such atrocities. When news outlets fail to report accurately or neglect to label the situation in Gaza as genocide, they contribute to a narrative that minimises the severity of the crisis and enables and prolongs Israel’s social license to continue it’s genocidal actions.

Should there be no substantial changes to address our concerns,  we will escalate this matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for further review.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) has declared its solidarity with civil society groups and student protesters demonstrating against the torture of a Papuan man, Defianus Kogoya, by Indonesian troops in West Papua last February.

The torture was revealed in a video that went viral across the world last month.

PANG said in a statement that peaceful demonstrations came after the video was circulated showing Defianus Kogoya bound in a water-filled barrel, being beaten and cut with knives by Indonesian soldiers.

Indonesian authorities have since admitted and apologised for the torture, and announced the arrest of 13 soldiers.

In the same video incident, two other Papuan men, Warinus Murib and Alianus Murib, were also arrested and allegedly tortured. Warinus Murib died of his injuries.

Reports state that 62 protesting students have been arrested and interrogated before they were released, while two people were seriously injured by Indonesian security forces.

In an earlier protest, 15 people were arrested for giving out pamphlets. Protesters demand all military operations must cease in West Papua.

“We condemn the excessive military presence in West Papua and the associated human rights violation against Papuans,” said the PANG statement.

“We also condemn the use of heavy-handed tactics by the Indonesian police to violently assault and detain students who should have the right and freedom to express their views.

“This demonstrates yet again the ongoing oppression by Indonesian authorities in West Papua despite decades of official denial and media censorship.”

United Nations experts have expressed serious concerns about the deteriorating human rights situation in the Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua, citing shocking abuses against indigenous Papuans, including child killings, disappearances, torture and mass displacement of people.

Thirteen arrests over the Papuan torture video.    Video: Al Jazeera

Media censorship
In its concluding observations of Indonesia’s second periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 26 March 2024, the Human Rights Committee expressed deep concern over:

• patterns of extrajudicial killings,
• enforced disappearances, torture, and
• other forms of cruel and degrading treatment, particularly of or against indigenous Papuans and the failure to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions.

The committee also highlighted continuing reports of media censorship and suppression of the freedom of expression.

“We call on the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) and the people and the governments of all Pacific Island countries to demand that Indonesia allow for the implementation of the decision of the PIF Leaders in August 2019 for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to conduct a mission to West Papua,” the PANG statement said.

“We call on the special envoys of the PIF on West Papua to expedite their mandate to facilitate dialogue with Indonesia, and particularly to pave the way for an urgent UN visit.

“We echo the calls made from the 62 students that were arrested for the Indonesian government to cease all military operations in West Papua and allow the United Nations to do its job.

“Our Pacific governments should expect nothing less from Indonesia, particularly given its privileged position as an associate member of the MSG and as a PIF Dialogue Partner,” PANG said.

Republished from the PNG Post-Courier with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Paul and Selwyn deep dive into the battle to control a narrative, waged by all sides in a polarised combative world, and how modern mainstream media institutions, like Radio New Zealand, fall vulnerable in the absence of robust all-sides-considered analysis and debate.

In this episode, Paul and Selwyn analyse how fourth Estate bias, propaganda, and conflict-force fact-vacuums are the challenge of our times in this disinformation age.

Upon this context, Paul and Selwyn consider:

* Why Is the Radio New Zealand sub-editor pro-RU-content debacle symptomatic of a fact-vacuum environment?

* Why is all media vulnerable to disinformation in the absence of robust NATO-Ukraine-Russia analysis?

* What are the unspoken of ‘big picture’ shifts in Russian Federation / Global South relations?

LINKS and REFERENCES:

• https://KiwiPolitico.com
• https://www.dekoder.org/de/person/ekaterina-schulmann-0
• https://www.rnz.co.nz/media/180
• https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/news-extras/story/2018893905/rnz-editorial-audit
• https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/491788/nz-entering-ukraine-conflict-at-whim-of-govt-former-labour-general-secretary
• https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/02/25/russia-ends-nowhere-they-say
• https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-russian-elites-think-putins-war-is-doomed-to-fail

INTERACTION:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

You can continue to interact with this podcast, simply by going to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Paul and Selwyn will deep dive into the battle to control a narrative, waged by all sides in a polarised combative world, and how modern mainstream media institutions, like Radio New Zealand, fall vulnerable in the absence of robust all-sides-considered analysis and debate.

In this episode, Paul and Selwyn will analyse how fourth Estate bias, propaganda, and conflict-force fact-vacuums are the challenge of our times in this disinformation age.

Upon this context, Paul and Selwyn will consider:

* Why Is the Radio New Zealand sub-editor pro-RU-content debacle symptomatic of a fact-vacuum environment?

* Why is all media vulnerable to disinformation in the absence of robust NATO-Ukraine-Russia analysis?

* What are the unspoken of ‘big picture’ shifts in Russian Federation / Global South relations?

LINKS and REFERENCES:

• https://KiwiPolitico.com
• https://www.dekoder.org/de/person/ekaterina-schulmann-0
• https://www.rnz.co.nz/media/180
• https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/news-extras/story/2018893905/rnz-editorial-audit
• https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/491788/nz-entering-ukraine-conflict-at-whim-of-govt-former-labour-general-secretary
• https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/02/25/russia-ends-nowhere-they-say
• https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-russian-elites-think-putins-war-is-doomed-to-fail

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A request by the Philippines’ biggest radio and TV network for a new franchise has been rejected by a congressional committee in a vote that will go down in history as a flagrant violation of the country’s constitution, says Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

The Paris-based media freedom watchdog has urged support for the #HoldTheLine coalition as the way to respond.

TV screens will remain dark and radio sets silent as a result of yesterday’s decision by the House Committee on Legislative Franchises to drive the final nails into the ABS-CBN network’s coffin.

READ MORE: #HoldTheLine campaign launched to back Maria Ressa, independent media

Last May, the Philippine congress refused to renew the network’s 25-year franchise when it expired. Today the committee voted overwhelmingly, by 70 votes to 11, not to give it a new one.

Between the two decisions, ABS-CBN’s representatives argued their cause in a series of 13 hearings lasting a total of around 100 hours.

But the committee’s members, most of whom support President Rodrigo Duterte, responded with a range of accusations against the network’s management, including tax evasion and violation of the law on foreign investment in the media.

“Rump parliament”
Above all, they implied that any decision to give ABS-CBN’s TV channels and radio stations a new franchise would be conditioned on a change in editorial policy and on coverage favourable to the Duterte administration’s nationalist and populist policies. The network refused.

This means that ABS-CBN has little chance of getting a new franchise before the end of the current legislature in 2022 – a legislature in which the overwhelming majority behaves likes a “rump parliament” blindly following the executive, said RSF in a statement.

“The parliamentarians who rejected this request for a new franchise will go down in history as legislators who preferred to support the ruling caste’s personal interests instead of defending the spirit of the 1987 constitution,” said Daniel Bastard, head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

“This vote is like a thunderbolt in the Philippine media landscape’s already troubled sky. It should be noted that, in a sign of how the independent media are persecuted, many of the spurious arguments used by parliamentarians hostile to ABS-CBN were identical to those that government agencies have been using against the Rappler news website.”

Repeated attacks
Rappler and its CEO, Maria Ressa, are also charged with tax evasion and violating the law on foreign investment in the media although “even the quickest analysis shows that the cases against them are riddled with legal inconsistencies”, said RSF.

Compounding all the previous judicial harassment, Ressa and a former Rappler reporter, Reynaldo Santos Jr, were convicted last month on a “Kafkaesque cyber-libel charge” carrying a sentence of up to six years in prison.

In response to these “repeated attacks on the Fourth Estate by the Duterte clique, which has managed to corrupt both legislature and judiciary”, RSF has launched an international “HoldTheLine” campaign in support of independent media that are trying to hold out in the Philippines.

An online petition demands the withdrawal of all the spurious charges against Maria Ressa, Rappler and its journalists.

The Philippines is ranked 136th out of 180 countries and territories in RSF’s 2020 World Press Freedom Index, two places lower than in 2019.

The Pacific Media Centre’s Pacific Media Watch freedom project is an associate of Reporters Without Borders.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Wendy Bacon

Journalism is not a crime, which is why we must support Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in his battle against extradition to the United States, where he would be tried for offences under the Espionage Act.

On Wednesday last week, it was Assange’s birthday. His last seven birthdays were spent in Ecuador’s London embassy where he had sought refuge to prevent extradition. After UK police violently removed him from the embassy in April, he spent this year’s birthday in Belmarsh high-security prison.

In February, there will be a hearing to decide if Assange will be extradited to the United States. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison. Assange is literally in mortal danger.

READ MORE: Demasking the torture of Julian Assange

Recently the Professor of International Law at Glasgow University and UN Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, who visited Assange, found he was showing “symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture …”.

He referred to a “relentless and unrestrained” campaign since Wikileaks started publishing evidence of war crimes and torture in 2010, to criminalise its investigative journalism in violation of both the US Constitution and international human rights law.”

Melzer said this campaign includes intimidation, defamation and an “endless stream of humiliating, debasing and threatening statements in the press and on social media, but also by senior political figures, and even by judicial magistrates.”

Support for media freedom – not based on who you like or don’t like
Media freedom is very much in the news. Earlier this month, Australia’s most senior media bosses from the ABC, Newscorp and Nine fronted the National Press Club to argue for media law reforms that would strengthen the capacity of journalists to expose the truth.

This followed Federal Police raids on the ABC and the home of The Australian’s reporter Annika Smethurst.

Reform is badly needed. Giant messages of collective solidarity – Journalism is Not a Crime – were beamed across social media. Those messages of solidarity are not based on our opinion of the individual journalists nor the record of Smethurst’s employer Newcorp, which has bullied its critics and promoted climate denialism.

Those matters are irrelevant to our support when it comes to an issue of the freedom of journalists to publish in the public interest. Let’s remember this when we approach the terrible predicament of Assange.

Assange has been a member of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance since 2007. In 2011, Assange won a Walkley Award for his “outstanding contribution”. The Walkley judges said that Wikileaks applied new technology to “penetrate the inner workings of government to reveal an avalanche of inconvenient truths in a global publishing coup”.

One of those many inconvenient truths was the exposure by video of US helicopter attacks in Baghdad that killed 11 civilians including two Reuters journalists. These are the very same acts of journalism that are now the basis of the US Espionage charges.

Much will turn in any US trial on whether First Amendment protection of free speech is offered to Assange as a journalist and publisher. The issue of his relationship to journalism could turn out to be critical.

Let’s consider the significance of his act of publication – an important test of journalism is whether the publication was in the public interest.

Nine years have passed since acts of journalism for which the US government wants to put him on trial. Younger Australians may not remember the massive furore caused by the publication in 2010 of the Collateral Murder videos. Thousands of other documents revealed secret manoeuvres by US, Australian and other politicians, and their mendacious public stances.

The impact of these publications needs to be remembered in the context of revelations that the US justification for the war on Iraq was based on fabricated US intelligence fed to uncritical politicians and journalists, including in Australia. The 2010 leak was a blow to the US security state not because anyone was harmed, but because it threatened public support and compliance for US foreign policy goals.

Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning was subsequently imprisoned and tortured for her role in releasing the files. She has currently been reimprisoned and is facing bankruptcy for refusing to testify in Grand Jury proceedings investigating Assange.

Back in 2010, US and Australian leaders threatened Assange with criminal action, the international community of journalists stood in solidarity with him. This is not to say that there were no detractors but to acknowledge an international groundswell of respect and support for Assange.

“It is unacceptable to try to deny people the right to know,” said Aidan White, general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) that covers 600,000 journalists in scores in more than 140 countries. “These revelations may be embarrassing in their detail, but they also expose corruption and double-dealing in public life that’s worthy of public scrutiny.

“It’s untenable to allege, as some people have, that lives are being put at risk here. The only casualty here is the culture of secrecy that has for too long drawn a curtain around the unsavoury side of public life.”

In accepting a Walkley Award, leading journalist Laurie Oakes said he was ashamed of the Australian government’s hostile response and called on journalists to reject then PM Julia Gillard’s view that the Wikileaks publication was illegal. This was greeted with applause.

In 2012, the UK National Union of Journalists also acknowledged the “important contribution made by Julian Assange himself” and stated that “the type of journalism to which Wikileaks has made a significant contribution represents a real challenge to those governments, wherever they are, which rely on propaganda, torture, warfare and subversion to accomplish their political and economic aims.”.

In 2011, Assange was also awarded the Martha Gellhorn prize for brave reporting. This award is given for reporting that “a human story that penetrates the established version of events and illuminates an urgent issue buried by prevailing fashions of what makes news.”

The winner must tell an ” unpalatable truth, validated by powerful facts, that exposes establishment conduct and its propaganda …”.

Seven years on, we live in more conservative times. There is no denying that support from journalists this year has been muted, but it is worth noting that there are many journalists, filmmakers and other media workers among 200 people who wrote recently to Assange’s union – the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) – calling on it to build its campaign in support of Assange.

The MEAA has written two strong letters seeking to meet with the government and opposing extradition. The union wrote, “the extradition of Assange and prosecution by the United States for what are widely considered to be acts of journalism would set a disturbing global precedent for the suppression of press freedom”.

A petition opposing extradition now has more than 160,000 signatures.

US indictment criminalises journalistic inquiry
The International Federation of Journalists, representing more than 600,000 media professionals in more than 140 countries, recently passed an urgent motion at the request of the MEAA. It wrote in a statement, “… this indictment would criminalise journalistic inquiry by setting a dangerous precedent that can be abused to prosecute journalists for their role in revealing information in the public interest. By following this logic, anyone who publishes information that the US government deems to be classified could be prosecuted for espionage.”

The range of those supporting Assange is impressive. But there are also a few dissenting voices including Peter Greste, himself imprisoned in Egypt on journalistic freedom issues.

Shortly after Assange’s arrest, Greste published a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, arguing that Wikileaks was not a news organisation. He argued that Assange simply “dumped” hundreds of thousands of documents onto his website, free for anybody to go through, regardless of their contents or the impact they might have had.”

Contacted by the author, Greste who is now a spokesperson for the newly formed Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom said that his board was “constantly reviewing the case, at this stage the AJF has not changed its position. We appreciate Julian’s awards and his membership of the MEAA, but for the time being, the AJF is standing by its current thinking.”

Experienced investigative journalist Andrew Fowler, who previously worked at Four Corners and has closely studied Wikileaks, strongly rejected Greste’s views. Respected retired SBS broadcaster Mary Kostakidos is also a strong supporter of Assange.

It is not correct to say that Wikileaks just dumped documents. Here, for example, is the introduction providing context for the publication of the Collateral Murder videos. (As far as I am aware the material providing at wikileaks.org is the same material as was there in 2011.)

Back in 2011, University of Technology Sydney (UTS) published a piece I wrote for World Press Freedom day on its website. It was also published by the Pacific Media Centre and on this blog. After pointing out that Wikileaks described itself as a media organisation, I wrote: “According to its website, the criteria WikiLeaks applies in deciding whether to publish leaks are these: that the information has not previously been revealed; that it was previously restricted, censored or otherwise withheld from the public; and the information is of political, diplomatic, ethical or historical significance.

“WikiLeaks also has a practice of querying issues about the veracity of information …The real issue is the openness of governments and whether they are actively misleading the citizens of their own and other countries. What is at stake are the boundaries of secrecy and whether citizens have a right to know what governments and large corporations are doing.”

Journalists will disagree about where those boundaries. There will be differences between journalists about how far deletions of names in leaked documents should go and whether documents on which stories rely should be published in full. Wikileaks’ focus on publishing documents to enable transparency influenced other news organisation. What is routine today was still unusual in 2010.

It has been acknowledged by the US State Department that no sources were found to have been harmed by the 2010 document publications. In any case, the 2010 documents had already been seen by hundreds of thousands of people. What we can say is that Wikileaks has a very strong record in publishing genuine documents and protecting hits own sources. That is the job of a journalist.

There is no space here to review all the accusations against Wikileaks. The opponents who constantly trivialised the threat from a US grand jury were wrong.

Given the campaign to denigrate his character, the least we can say is that personal allegations against him need to be validated by evidence, and there is much debate about their veracity.

Accusations of sexual misconduct
I will just say this on the matter of sexual assault allegations against Assange. As a feminist, I absolutely support the right of all women to make complaints and not to be abused or denigrated for doing so. There is now only one woman whose matter is an ongoing issue. There is no doubt that her statement raises suspicion that Assange had unprotected sex with her without consent.

But it equally true that Assange has provided evidence in the form of a statement that provides a different account consistent with his innocence. He waited years before being given the opportunity to do that. He has not been charged and deserves to be afforded natural justice – certainly, his guilt should not be asserted. It is no criticism of the woman to argue that the Swedish prosecutors have behaved inconsistently.

There is evidence that they have been pushed by UK authorities. (For those who want to read more about this topic, Professor Melzer published this considered response to some critics of his statements two days ago. He has found that in the Swedish case, “the responsible authorities have deliberately abused Swedish law, procedures and institutions for the purposes of persecuting Assange…”.)

This case cannot currently be resolved.

My support for Assange is not based on an issue of whether he is a good person or whether everything he has ever published was based on sound decision-making. I do not know him. This is about whether journalists who publish information in the public interest are criminals.

It is time to focus on the substance of the US Espionage charges. which place him in grave danger. We must hope that Assange does not spend his next birthday in a US prison. If we fail, other journalists who are not compliant with the goals of governments will be exposed to ever increasing risks.

Here is a link to a video of a speech I gave at a NSW Greens forum on Wikileaks in 2010.

• Wendy Bacon is a Sydney investigative journalist and retired journalism professor. She is on the advisory board of the Pacific Media Centre and Frontline editor of Pacific Journalism Review. This is an edited version of an article by her published by Altmedia last week. It was also the basis for a speech I gave at a vigil in support of Julian Assange.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Last week was a big one for the media. Not only did New Zealand’s biggest newspaper launch a new paywall, but Thursday was “World News Day”, and Friday was “World Media Freedom Day”. All of this prompts the question, how well is New Zealand society and democracy served by the media in 2019?

The World Press Freedom Index recently pronounced New Zealand as having the seventh most free media in the world (up one from eighth) – see: Press freedom threatened by business imperatives. The main point made by Reporters Without Borders, who authored the report, is: “The press is free in New Zealand but its independence and pluralism are often undermined by the profit imperatives of media groups trying to cut costs.”

Commenting on the latest rankings, RNZ’s media commentator Colin Peacock says “We’re still in the top 10 for global press freedom but our media need to be vigilant against incursions on their freedoms too” – see: Uncharted waters for media freedom.

Peacock discusses various challenges for the New Zealand media, especially in terms of the post-Christchurch environment in which the state appears to have more potential control over information. He points out, for example, “The forthcoming Royal Commission is bound to uncover things various agencies want to conceal or – at the least – ‘manage.’ Investigations by the media will overlap with the official ones and could bring them into conflict with agencies citing national security needs as a reason to withhold information.”

He also points to challenges in the law regarding whistleblowers in New Zealand, who don’t have much protection if they inform the media of “illegal, corrupt or unsafe” practices in their workplaces.

The big issue this year in media-democracy conversations has been the survival of media outlets, in the context of the declining traditional business model of newspapers and broadcasters. This has been hastened, of course, with the rising influence of social media. This is dealt with well in Bruce Cotterill’s column, We need real journalists, not just social media.

Cotterill emphasises the importance of a healthy media for scrutinising the powerful, but laments that the declining business model is [working] against this. He concludes: “We aren’t seeing enough depth or debate that a community needs to become fully informed. Sadly, it seems society is looking more and more at social media, despite its inaccuracies and agendas. We need more bright people who want to be great journalists. We need universities that are prepared to develop proper journalists. And we need news organisations, with business models that work, that are prepared to invest in those people and the stories that need to be told. And we, the public, have to be prepared to pay it. Then and only then, will we have the strong democracy and informed society that we all should want to be a part of.”

In terms of the business landscape, it’s worth looking at the definitive source of information about the changing patterns of business and what the various commercial models mean for democracy – see Wayne Hope’s blog post summarising AUT’s annual NZ Media Ownership 2018.

According to the head of TVNZ, Kevin Kenrick, “the New Zealand media is not sustainable in its current form”, and we can expect to see some major changes of ownership in the near future – see Colin Peacock’s TVNZ hints at bold digital moves.

One big and imminent change is the sale of Stuff, with increasing speculation being that TVNZ could even buy it. The significance of this is discussed by Peacock: “Absorbing the country’s biggest publisher of news and the country’s most viewed news website would certainly give TVNZ the digital heft TVNZ wants. And, when asked, Kevin Kenrick hasn’t ruled out making a bid for it. But that would radically reshape New Zealand journalism. TVNZ would end up owning most of the country’s newspapers and employing more of the country’s journalists than anyone else. It could extend state ownership to a branch of the media that’s always been out of the government’s reach.”

This is also discussed in detail in Tom Pullar-Strecker’s column, Minister reassures media over ‘plurality’ in wake of hints TVNZ may want Stuff. He says, “A takeover of Stuff’s online news business by TVNZ could leave NZ Herald publisher NZME and television channel three owner MediaWorks as the only remaining major national private media businesses, while also putting them in the position of competing for audiences against a stronger state-owned competitor.”

Also in this article is a discussion with the Broadcasting Minister, Kris Faafoi, about the potential creation of a new version of the old collaborative New Zealand Press Association (NZPA), with financial help from the state: “Faafoi said he was encouraged that RNZ, NZ on Air and Stuff were investigating a model pioneered by the BBC in Britain under which the BBC and British newspapers pool some resources to provide local reporting. It is understood other media companies including NZME and Allied Press, which owns The Otago Daily Times, are also involved in the talks. Faafoi said he expected an update on the initiative soon. But he said that would be only part of a solution for the media”.

Another Tom Pullar-Strecker column discusses this and how Faafoi is going as the replacement for Clare Curran as Minister of Broadcasting – see: Government could help pave way towards a solution for the media. Pullar-Strecker discusses the plurality problem of media ownership, and whether the state might end up undermining private media, and comments “Providing state subsidies to keep private media on ‘life support’ is not a great solution either though. It risks subverting the independence of all journalism, and voters probably wouldn’t swallow it anyway.”

And for another interesting discussion of how state-sponsored news reporting and analysis could undermine democracy, see Jeremy Rose’s Journalism courtesy of (foreign) taxpayers. He reports on how “Seven senior Kiwi journalists spent a week in Hawaii late last year and produced just one story between them. It didn’t cost their organisations a cent – the tab was picked by the US State Department.”

The Herald’s editorial director of business, Fran O’Sullivan, has recently made the case for the New Zealand government to step up and “put a price on a vibrant democracy” by backing “the New Zealand media so it remains a vigorous watchdog against the abuse of power” – see Hamish Fletcher’s New Year Honours: Back media, Herald writer Fran O’Sullivan urges Govt.

O’Sullivan says: “It’s more important than ever before that journalism does what it should and holds the powerful to account, in particular in business and government, where they do have the ability to strongly influence New Zealand and people’s livelihoods”.

Therefore, the New Zealand Government should be addressing the current media business model problems: “That doesn’t mean the Government should step in and run media, but you could also set up a public-private partnership in some of these areas where contribution is made in the same way it’s made to creative arts and looking at the value that we place on media in society and making sure that it is held up because it is absolutely essential when you look at what is happening internationally with foreign interference in elections and so forth”.

For an interesting – if bizarre – case study of how governments can attempt to influence the media, it’s worth looking at the recent run-in between political journalist Hamish Rutherford and Cabinet Minister Shane Jones. Back in March, the Stuff journalist broke a story about a potential conflict of interest for the Minister. Jones responded with an attack on Rutherford, describing him as a “bunny boiler” and threatening to dish dirt on him under parliamentary privilege.

Rutherford responded in a column, explaining his side of the story – see: Bunny boiler jokes aside, Shane Jones’ threats could be chilling.

Here’s the most important part: “This would be an extraordinary situation for us to be in and it would contradict media freedom in a small country. I believe that other journalists have also stayed with Jones. After nearly a decade of journalism in Wellington, I have socialised with MPs of every political party. If any MP believes that this is a way to escape scrutiny then they should make very clear that they feel that way. The fact that no-one from the Government has properly shot down Jones’ threat to malign me in Parliament will not deter me. But it should be a chilling warning of the potential consequences for anyone planning to question this Government’s integrity.”

Other state-imposed sanctions and infringements on media practices occur from time-to-time, and are of varying seriousness or concern. This week has seen some sort of victory for journalists’ legal right to protect their sources under the Evidence Act, with a Court of Appeal ruling that a 2014 broadcast story didn’t require the media to give away information in a subsequent defamation case – see Bonnie Flaws’ Court order to reveal Campbell Live story sources overturned.

The judge in the case sided with the media involved and said the removal of source protection for journalists in this case would “serve to chill the freedom of the media to report on matters of public interest”.

There is also continued debate about the role of the New Zealand media in dealing with the post-Christchurch situation, and especially the trial of the alleged shooter. The agreement of the New Zealand media about how to cover that trial is sparking some interesting debates in some interesting places. On the Russia Today (RT) website, for example, you can read Igor Ogorodnev’s critique: Media collusion to censor Christchurch mosque shooter trial is understandable… and deeply sinister.

Politico’s Jack Shafer had this to say: “New Zealanders needn’t worry about their government censoring the press. On Wednesday, five of the country’s major news outlets proved themselves only too happy to censor themselves” – see: Why New Zealand’s press just put on blinders for its biggest story.

Shafer argues: “This kind of thinking is normally seen in an authoritarian state, where “dangerous” ideas are officially cloaked from view by leaders worried about the threat to their own power.” Furthermore, “The pact might create a precedent the government will exploit every time it wants to stifle news coverage in the name of public safety.”

In response, The Spinoff’s Alex Braae strongly disagrees, saying “I don’t believe the overseas critics of this decision have any understanding of the context they’re talking about – rather they’re taking a theoretical position and running hard on it” – see: Overseas critics don’t get why our terror trial reporting restrictions matter.

For a more positive take on the power of the media, it’s worth reading The Christchurch Press editorial from last Thursday, celebrating World News Day, championing local journalism, and proclaiming that, True or false, we need the news. The newspaper points out that in New Zealand, as in the US, the media is a good bulwark against the dangerous rise of fake news.

But it’s the rise of public relations industry the newspaper takes aim at, pointing out the recent release of statistics on the number of PR jobs overshadowing journalists: “It was reported that, for every journalist, there are more than six people working in public relations. Twenty years ago, it was one journalist for two people in PR. In New Zealand, the rises and falls are similar. There were 2214 print, radio and TV journalists in the 2006 census, evenly matched against 2247 PR professionals. In 2013, the number of journalists had almost halved to 1170 and PR professionals had grown by more than 50 per cent, reaching 3510. People in PR are not necessarily the enemies of truth. But they are tasked with promoting the interests of clients, which means accentuating the positive and sometimes obscuring the negative.”

In response to such arguments, marketing and communications specialist Cas Carter has written in defence of the public relations industry, pushing back against the concept that “there are two sides at war: Journalists and PR people. This is not the case” – see : Why PR firms shouldn’t be tarred with the same brush as Trump.

Carter defends her industry: “And the demand for information has increased, as has the number of channels people expect to get it through.  Organisations can no longer rely on the media to get our story across – nor should we. In fact, these days organisations are writing and recording their own content and sending it directly to their audiences through websites, social media, publications, events and partnerships. The media takes advantage of that content to help inform their stories and meet ever-increasing demand to provide 24/7 coverage while facing rounds of budget and staff cuts.”

Finally, at the start of this year, The Spinoff’s editor-in-chief, Duncan Greive published a series of excellent analyses of the main media players in New Zealand, based on what he said were “anonymous conversations with senior executives”. The most interesting, were the following: RNZ in 2018: will well-meaning government interference end its dream run?, TVNZ in 2018: the public broadcaster finally remembers who owns it, Stuff: the media monster no one wants to own, NZME: the media giant still at war after all these years, and MediaWorks in 2018: is the toughest kid in the media finally going to be released from private equity prison?

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is winning praise for her campaign to clean up the internet, and in particular for her announcement of the “Christchurch Call” Summit to be held with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris next month. And if they can come up with some meaningful and effective ways to make the internet less available to terrorists and violent extremists then this will be a major accomplishment.

Regulating the internet is notoriously difficult, however. It might be one of the big issues of our time, but no one seems to have the answers for how to do it in a way that will be both effective and satisfactory. There’s a good chance the whole episode will amount to yet another talkfest of platitudes and politicking. This is certainly the view of Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper, who forecasts an outcome of “full, frank and meaningless words” – see: Irony to New Zealand and France’s terrorism summit next month.

Not only this, Soper suggests that the motivations for the summit are opportunistic: “The idea no doubt came from the French President Emmanuel Macron who’s been haemorrhaging in the opinion polls at home… The international voice of reason and compassion Jacinda Ardern would have immediately come to mind and the pledge she’s now calling the Christchurch Call was born.”

The Herald’s political editor takes umbrage at such scepticism, declaring this type of view out of place: “They are the sort of critic who would never start anything unless success were guaranteed. The suggestion that Ardern do nothing after the murders of 50 people in New Zealand were live-streamed and shared on social media is to deny human nature and New Zealand’s own instincts” – see: Jacinda Ardern is knee-deep in planning joint initiative with France.

Audrey Young predicts real change will emerge from a difficult area of reform: “It won’t eliminate the evils that lurk within social media. But it won’t be nothing either.” She sees it as a positive sign that Ardern and Macron are being so inclusive in their approach: “Ardern’s natural instincts are to collaborate as broadly as possible… That factor alone makes it important to get co-operation from social media themselves, rather than using heavy-handed regulation or attempting to bully the corporates into participation.”

However, as with other international agreements, the more people you bring to the table, the greater the likelihood of a watered-down outcome. And this is the point made in Tom Pullar-Strecker’s article, The devil will be in the detail of the ‘Christchurch Call’. This reports Colin Gavaghan, director of the Centre for Law and Policy in Emerging Technologies at Otago University, as cautioning against going too broadly: “The risk, he argues, is you can end up with texts that are pitched at such a level that ‘no-one could disagree with them’ but which don’t tend to mean anything in practice.”

Pullar-Strecker’s article emphasises the uniqueness of this summit, as normally the outcomes are relatively pre-determined, with a text negotiated in advance for participants to sign up to. This won’t necessarily happen in this instance.

The success or otherwise of the initiative will be determined, it seems, by how ambitious the internet regulation campaign ends up being. Ardern, herself, is very keen to see a narrow focus for the regulations, which deal specifically with the online sharing of terrorist acts. Ardern says: “This is not about freedom of expression. This is about preventing violence and extremism and terrorism online”.

This approach is easier than going down the route of attempting to take on “hate speech” and extremist politics in general. And that is also the advice of Paul Brislen: “There are a number of things they should be looking at. The trick will be narrowing it down to something that is achievable because there are so many things that are getting out of control with the world of social media that need a regulator to step in… Trying to stay focused is going to be critical” – see Thomas Coughlan’s Speculation rife on value of ‘Christchurch Call’.

But even a focus just on violence and terrorism could be incredibly difficult. The same article makes this point: “Victoria University of Wellington media studies lecturer Peter Thompson said just defining what terrorism was presented difficulties. ‘It’s not a straightforward thing to decide what is and isn’t terrorism: live-streaming mass murder, well yes, but how do you decide which groups are considered terrorists or not?’ he said.”

Rick Shera from Netsafe and Internet NZ is also pleased that the Government is focused on dealing to the narrower and less contentious issue of terrorism: “I’m glad we are sticking to violent extremism and terrorism. Once you go into fake news, damage to democracy and other forms of online harm it becomes very difficult. Freedom of speech and the US position on that make it hard to make gains, so if the target is narrow it may be easier” – see Colin Peacock’s Does social media reform have the law on its side?

In this article by Peacock, the major issue of the United States is brought into the debate. After all, the US tech companies are based there, and benefit from that country’s very strong ethos and constitutional protections of political freedoms. This is lamented by some participants in the debate. For example, Internet NZ’s chief executive Jordan Carter is quoted, saying “The nature of their black and white constitutional protections on free speech in the US – and the current state of their politics – don’t leave me with any confidence that they will be able to drive change in this area”.

Clearly, the strong US resistance to censorship and over-regulation of speech means that Ardern’s “Christchurch Call” could run into problems. And it’s not just the US Constitution that might stymie reform, as explained by tech expert and journalist Bill Bennett, in Peacock’s article: “The problem with the US is they have two things that stop them from acting. One is the First Amendment which is all about free speech and not censoring people. The second thing is something called Section 230 that gives social media companies an out. They are not responsible for things posted on their site”.

There are, however, some major debates going on in the US about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And the above article reports internet law academic Eric Goldman suggesting that any subsequent changes from that debate might be crucial: “He thinks cutbacks of Section 230’s scope do pose serious risks to free speech online. So is it the outcome of this behind-the-scenes legal argument playing out in the US right now – and not a headline-making political summit in France – which will really determine whether internet giants take responsibility for extreme content on their platforms?”

For the best discussion of these political freedom issues, see Gordon Campbell’s column, On Ardern and Macron’s campaign against violent social media content. In this, Campbell explains what might be coming after two decades of self-regulation of the internet, given the strong political appetite for serious regulation.

He worries that Ardern and co will end up going beyond just the clampdown on terrorist and extremist violence, and might produce something that impacts on general political activity: “Once you get beyond those low hanging fruit….it becomes difficult to censor online content without doing real damage to freedom of expression, and to genuine political dissent. It would be unfortunate if the best friends of the Ardern/Macron initiatives turn out to be the tyrants in countries that would (a) dearly love to see tech companies forced to hand over the keys to encryption, and (b) would readily embrace further restrictions being put on the online content their dissidents are allowed to post.”

He also believes regulation could ultimately prove unpopular, which is why Facebook and the like want it to be carried out by governments, “presumably, so that the politicians then get to wear the backlash once people realise the full implications of allowing the state to define and police the content deemed acceptable on the Net.”

Mostly likely, there will be simple progress made in Paris, such as tightening up of Facebook Live. The big question will be whether online providers end up having to do more vetting of content before it’s published, which would be of huge consequence, and what Campbell calls a “disastrous outcome”.

And he gives the example of his own media platform, Scoop: “Every year, Scoop also publishes close on a million New Zealand press releases issued by all and sundry. In that respect, Scoop functions as a national community noticeboard. It rejects press releases that contain libels and/or socially inflammatory hate speech. Imagine though, if Scoop was required to pre-check every one of those press releases for accuracy, balance and for whether or not they might hurt the feelings of people in public office. It would not be remotely practical or affordable for Scoop to do so – and its efforts would be gamed by those with malice in mind against the organisations issuing the press releases in question.”

Similarly, Internet NZ’s Jordan Carter suggests that relying on artificial intelligence to vet and remove content could be a problem: “Applying overly tight automated filtering would lead to very widespread overblocking. What if posting a Radio New Zealand story about the Sri Lanka attacks over the weekend on Facebook was automatically blocked? Imagine if a link to a donations site for the victims of the Christchurch attacks led to the same outcome? How about sharing a video of TV news reports on either story?”.

Carter has his own list of “six thoughts” about how to make the regulation of the internet work, including keeping the scope of the exercise narrow, and striking the right balance between “preventing the spread of such abhorrent material on the one hand, and maintaining free expression on the other” – see: How to stop the ‘Christchurch Call’ on social media and terrorism falling flat.

There really will be difficulties, no matter what approach is chosen. Claire Trevett points out: “As with climate change, making the right noises and getting the desired results are two very different things. It will be something akin to Hercules wrestling the Hydra. As soon as one head is chopped off, another two will appear” – see: PM Jacinda Ardern gathers allies to wrestle the social-media Hydra.

And it’s the politicians themselves who might have the most to lose, given their increasing preference to use Facebook and the like “to bypass the filter of the traditional media and speak directly to supporters and voters. This has some pluses for those politicians – but not necessarily for democracy. Over-reliance on social media over journalistic media allows them to escape questioning on issues they may not want to face. Macron has also come in for criticism for trying to stifle the ‘Yellow Vest’ protest use of social media. Ardern herself has been known to vote with her fingers when it comes to expressing her disapproval with certain social media platforms.”

Facebook and Instagram have been key parts of Ardern’s campaigning, and Trevett points out that “in the last election, Labour spent $475,000 on advertising on Facebook – four times as much as National – as it tried to appeal to younger voters.”

Finally, for the lighter side of the debate and some apparent irregularities in social media regulation, see Hamish McNeilly’s Gone in 20 minutes: Facebook strips student nude mag cover and Andrew Gunn’s We’re taking urgent steps to address this.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

There’s always been a strong tension in politics between politicians’ right to privacy and the demands of political accountability. The difficult question is: which of these ideals should be paramount? This ethical question has been ever-present throughout the whole Jami-Lee Ross mega-scandal. And one of the most contentious media questions has been about whether National MP Sarah Dowie should be identified publicly as the woman who apparently had an extra-marital affair with Ross for over two years. 

This has now been decided, with the publication [Friday] morning on the New Zealand Herald front page of a story by David Fisher, in which he explains: “Ross, 33, has previously named Invercargill MP Dowie, 43, as one of the women with whom he had an extra-marital relationship while National MP for Botany” – see: Police probe text allegedly sent from phone of MP Sarah Dowie to Jami-Lee Ross.

Fisher reports: “Ross and Dowie were understood to have been in a relationship for more than two years. It is believed to have ended around May. During that time, Dowie and Ross were both in marriages with children each. Dowie and her husband later separated.”

Previously, Fisher explains, even though Ross had told journalists about the affair “the Herald and Newstalk ZB obscured Dowie’s name from statements made by Ross. The decision to disclose her identity now comes after police have confirmed that a text message allegedly sent from the phone of Dowie – a sitting MP – is under investigation by police.”

The text message to Ross included the statement “You deserve to die”. Fisher explains why this is important: “The text message raised questions over whether there was a breach of the Harmful Digital Communications Act, passed under National and voted for by Dowie. The law regulated digital communications, including text messages, making it illegal to urge someone to self-harm.”

The police investigation was revealed on Tuesday by Newshub and Stuff – you can see both reports and interviews here – see Tova O’Brien’s Jami-Lee Ross says abusive text triggered his mental breakdown, and Tracy Watkins’ Police investigate text sent to Jami-Lee Ross as disgraced MP eyes return to Parliament.

Both of these items revealed important parts of the story. For example, Ross is reported in Watkins’ story as explaining his suicidal feelings on the night that he read the text message: “I just didn’t feel like existing any more, I didn’t feel like I had anything left. So on that night the police were contacted. I didn’t know at the time but they had deployed the police dogs, there was a police helicopter, there were ground units looking for me, they had stopped the train on the train tracks because I told my wife that I was on train tracks.”

The media’s decision to identify Dowie

There will be plenty of debate about whether the media outlets have done the right thing in “outing” Sarah Dowie. For instance, on Twitter, lobbyist Neale Jones‏ responded to the news: “This makes me uneasy. I realise a police investigation does create a public interest, but given what we know about how JLR victimises women I don’t think Dowie’s name should have been released.”

Yet the decision by media outlets to name Dowie became virtually inevitable once a police investigation into the texting became known. After all, has there ever been a case of the media not identifying an MP who is known to be under investigation by the police?

As Barry Soper has explained today, “It’s not the Parliamentary Press Gallery’s job to protect MPs when a police investigation is under way” – see: Sarah Dowie, the police inquiry, and the text from her phone. Soper, who is the political editor of Newstalk ZB – the radio stablemate of the Herald – also adds: “The decision to name Dowie in no way countenances the behaviour of Ross towards the women who have anonymously made claims of harassment and bullying against him.”

The contents of the text to Ross are also republished by Soper: “Before you interpret this as your usual narc self – don’t. Interpret it as me – you are a f***ing ugly MF pig. Shave that f***ing tuft of hair off your f***ing front of skull head and own your baldness – you sweaty, fat, toe inturned mutant. You deserve to die and leave your children in peace and your wife out of torment – f***er!”

Virtually all other media outlets have followed the Herald’s lead today. For example, Stuff’s political editor Tracy Watkins published the following story: Sarah Dowie named as National MP investigated over text to Jami-Lee Ross. In this, Watkins reports “National’s Invercargill MP Sarah Dowie has been widely linked to the text on social media but has only been named by news media now because of the police investigation. She has not responded to texts and calls and Stuff has been told she will not be speaking publicly.”

The Herald has also followed up David Fisher’s revelation with another report about how the police have not yet contacted Dowie in their investigations, and National Party activists in Dowie’s Southland electorate aren’t talking to the media about the issue – see: Text message investigation: No immediate show of support for National MP Sarah Dowie over Jami-Lee Ross text.

Previously, Dowie’s local newspaper, The Southland Times, has taken a close interest in the story, publishing two very sharp editorials aimed at the local MP, but without identifying her. The first, Another issue arises from the Ross case, raised the question of whether the then-anonymous MP should face charges for her text under the Harmful Digital Communications Act. The newspaper concluded: “When more information is provided, as it must be, the appropriate consequences for the text sender – including whether she can stay in her role – then become a legitimate issue.”

A second Southland Times editorial was much more pointed, accusing the unnamed local MP of “hypocrisy” – see: ‘Moving on’ is not acceptable. The editorial included a list of questions for the MP and her party:

• “Has a separate investigation been launched to speak to the MP who reportedly sent his text?
• What discussions has the party had with the MP who reportedly sent a text like that?
• Has that MP been censured, faced internal discipline, or been stood down from duties? If no action has been taken by the party, why not?
• Does the National Party believe that the text message sent breached the Harmful Digital Communication Act?
• Does the National Party still believe the MP, who reportedly sent the text, is still fit to be an MP and represent the National Party, given they reportedly sent a text saying someone deserved to die?
• Has the MP offered to stand down? Or, are they still carrying out their duties as normal?”

Late last year I also covered the issue of whether the media should, or would, identify Sarah Dowie as the MP mixed up in the Jami-Lee Ross scandal – see: The Media’s fraught role in the Jami-Lee Ross scandal. This included the different views of a number of people on the issue of identifying Dowie.

Probably the most interesting was that of veteran journalist Graham Adams, who wrote the following on Facebook in favour of naming Dowie: “the female MP whose name has been frequently mentioned on social media represents a conservative electorate, is socially conservative herself and has promoted family values from her first days in Parliament. I think the public should always been told when an MP’s publicly professed values are at sharp variance to their own private behaviour. That is an obligation the media should fulfil. Furthermore, she has no right to privacy when she has anonymously and publicly shamed Jami-Lee Ross in the Newsroom piece by Melanie Reid. She’s an MP and a highly educated professional whose actions should be held to account. If she had any courage, she would come clean herself.”

In another article, Adams also raised questions about whether the media was being inconsistent or cowardly in avoiding publishing the MPs’ name – see: The Jami-Lee Ross saga: Questions around cover-ups continue.

The possibility of Sarah Dowie being prosecuted

Will Sarah Dowie actually be prosecuted by the police for the text to Jami-Lee Ross? There are certainly some who think this is over the top – for example, rightwing commentator Matthew Hooton tweeted this morning in response: “FFS. What a lot of nonsense, and a shameful waste of @nzpolice resources.”

In David Fisher’s article today, the analysis of Netsafe chairperson Rick Shera is reported: “Shera said the new law allowed serious emotional distress to be a trigger for action, meaning it could be enough for conviction – or a civil case – if the recipient of a message seriously considered self-harm. In criminal cases, it was necessary to show the ‘intent’ behind sending the message. The context in which it was sent, the resilience of the person who received it and the age of the people involved were also factors considered. The legislation shows someone convicted of inciting someone to self-harm or suicide could face up to three years in prison.”

But there is a “high bar for prosecution” according to Lucy Bennett’s article, National MPs staying quiet on latest Jami-Lee Ross foray into the public. Reporting on the views of Netsafe chief executive Martin Cocker, Bennett says: “Any prosecution would have to take into consideration the context in which the comment was made but under the Act, a single text message inciting suicide could be considered a harmful digital communication.”

Cocker adds: “Whether a person complains is a significant factor for the police in considering whether to take a prosecution because so often with armful digital communications stuff it’s wrapped up in very personal, complex cases where prosecution may not be in everybody’s best interests. Police have got to take that into consideration”.

Blogger No Right Turn sees some poetic justice in the police investigation, because “Back in 2015, she voted for National’s Harmful Digital Communications Act, an overly-broad law which criminalised exposing corrupt politicians on the internet. Now, she’s being investigated for possible prosecution under that law” – see: Hoist by her own petard.

He also says: “A lot depends on what exactly the police decide to charge her with. Because the ‘inciting suicide’ offence carries a maximum penalty of three years, meaning that if Dowie is convicted, she would automatically lose her seat in Parliament. And if the Police don’t charge her with that, its going to look like another case of them going soft on politicians, just as they have done in the past.”

David Farrar has blogged about both the media naming Dowie and the police investigating her, and is highly dismissive – see: Dowie named. In terms of the investigation, Farrar doesn’t believe there’s any chance of a prosecution: “The idea that a solitary ‘I hate you and wish you were dead’ text message as a relationship broke up could be in breach of the law, is risible. If so, hundreds of thousands of people are probably also criminals. Merely saying I wish you were dead is not the same as incitement.”

Finally, the must-read Jami-Lee Ross story of the week is his 2600-word statement on Facebook: Leaving bitterness and hatred behind.

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

The former president of of Timor-Leste’s public television network says he has been sacked for political reasons.

Gil da Costa was removed this month from the post of chairperson of the board of directors of Timor-Leste Radio and Television (RTTL) following an audit undertaken by the government – and he had no knowledge of the result.

He has told the Portuguese news agency Lusa that his removal from office – which he first learned about on the news – was a political decision following the audit that was led by his successor.

Ousted: Gil da Costa found out about his sacking through the news media. Image: RTTL

“I heard from the news that I had been ousted. They did not even talk to me before or about any problem that existed,” Gil da Costa told Lusa yesterday.

Da Costa alleged that he was removed after the audit whose results he never knew without any prior information from the government and without even having the opportunity to be heard or give any explanation.

“It was definitely a political decision”, considering it “serious” the fact that his removal happened after the audit mandated by the Secretary of State for the Media (SECOMS), Merício dos Reis, and conducted in October by Francisco da Silva who became his successor and took office today.

“The appointment of my successor is political. They use alleged mismanagement and alleged irregularities to fire me, but whoever replaced me was the person who led the audit process,” Da Costa said.

Audit credibility
“And I do not even know if the audit has credibility. I have not even seen the results yet.”

Gil da Costa also also said he had acted directly to stop attempts at political interference in the newsroom, a “common” practice in the past and attempts were made to do this during his tenure at RTTL.

“There have been several attempts at political interference on me and directly on journalists to try to influence editorial content,” he said.

“As head of RTTL I always insisted that I wanted it to be an independent institution without political interference. And I’ve tried to do this. And there was a lot of political interference,” he said.

The sacking decision was made known to the public and himself in a short notice from the government at the meeting of the Council of Ministers on January 9, which did not even mention his name, Lusa reports.

Appointed: Francisco da Silva took office today. Image: RTTL

“The government approved the proposal for a Government Resolution on the dismissal of the current chairperson of the board of directors of Timor-Leste Radio and Television, and the appointment of the new chairperson of the board of directors of Timor-Leste Radio and Television, EP , Francisco da Silva on the proposal of the Secretary of State for the Media, Merício dos Reis,” the statement said.

Despite several attempts, Lusa was not able to obtain a comment from Secretary dos Reis.

Fretilin appointment
Gil da Costa was appointed to the position of RTTL president by a government resolution approved on January 25, 2018, replacing Milena Abrantes, who ended her four-year term that same month.

Asked whether his nomination – by the previous Fretilin-led minority government – had been political and therefore he had now been dismissed, Gil da Costa rejected this suggestion, claiming that he had accumulated “great professional experience” and fought to avoid “political interference”.

“I worked for many years with international agencies. And I may have been appointed by the Fretilin government but I did not obey Fretlin. The RTTL is from the state, not from the government. It is an institution of the state, not the government,” he said.

To avoid delays in wages, “I made the decision to use RTTL’s own revenue in advertising”.

“RTTL has been out of money for six months. And I don’t understand why,” he said.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the discrimination practised by the Chinese delegation against local and international media at the summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) held last weekend in Papua New Guinea and attended by President Xi Jinping.

During the APEC leaders summit, held from November 17-18 in Port Moresby, several accredited media – including the Australian public broadcasting TV channel ABC and the local EMTV News channel and National daily newspaper – were prevented from covering three events organised by the Chinese delegation and involving Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The events included a dinner with President Xi’s counterparts from eight Pacific Island States, reports RSF.

READ MORE: Nothing to see here … Chinese state media has little to say over APEC summit drama

Chinese journalists were apparently the only ones allowed to cover these events.

“The delegation, which did not see fit to explain the reasons for this discrimination, cynically invited excluded journalists to use the recordings broadcast by the Chinese media as the source of information for their articles,” RSF said.

-Partners-

Cédric Alviani, director of RSF’s East Asia office, said: “It is intolerable that a foreign delegation in an international event would claim the right to choose which journalists can be admitted or not to cover the proceedings.”

He added that this incident was “a new example of the media control strategy established by Beijing, which is no longer limited to the Chinese territory and tends to spread internationally”.

China is one of the world’s worst jailers of journalists, holding more than 60 professional and non-professional journalists behind bars.

In the 2018 World Press Freedom Index published by RSF, the country stagnates at 176 out of 180. In the RSF Index, President Xi is described as a “predator” against press freedom.

In Auckland, the Pacific Media Centre’s Pacific Media Watch freedom project also condemned the “assault on Papua New Guinea’s freedoms of speech, expression and access to information” in a country that has a constitutionally guaranteed free media.

President Xi Jinping’s “predator” against media freedom file with RSF. Source: RSF

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Human rights activists say that the conduct of both physical and communication surveillance is prone to abuse and is a violation of a citizen’s right to privacy. If left unchecked, it can lead to ‘far worse attacks.’

• Human rights groups say the administrations of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Rodrigo Duterte are similar in their “intensity” of use of state surveillance
• The conduct of state surveillance can lead to abuse and violate a citizen’s right to privacy
• The secrecy surrounding state surveillance in the Philippines makes it hard to hold accountable state agents who violate the right to privacy
• The Commission on Human Rights can help those placed under state surveillance without probable cause because they can conduct investigations and issue subpoenas to state agents

READ MORE: State surveillance – a necessary evil?

State surveillance is not new to the Philippines. Administrations across history have engaged in this monitoring to protect national security – to prevent terrorism, rebellions, and attacks.

The conduct of both physical and communication surveillance, however, can lead to abuse and violation of a citizen’s rights to privacy when left unchecked. It also plays a role in silencing dissent and valid criticism, according to human rights activists.

Two administrations post-Marcos stand out when it comes to state surveillance – those of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and President Rodrigo Duterte.

While the Arroyo administration allegedly had a so-called “Order of Battle” (OB), Amnesty International Philippines chairperson Ritz Lee Santos said that the Duterte version is reportedly called “persons of interest”.

The list allegedly includes activists and individuals the administration deemed to be critical.

There are several ways by which surveillance can be carried out, such as through wiretapping, bugging, or physical monitoring.

Human rights groups forced to go ‘old-school’
“We have monitored several instances of physical surveillance,” said Kaparatan secretary general Cristina Palabay. “May nagmamanman, may naghihintay sa amin sa labas (there are people on tailing us, waiting outside) so we had to cancel some meetings, of course, because you can never tell what’s next.”

One of these incidents includes the discovery of a tracking device in Karapatan’s service van. It was discovered after they got the vehicle back from custody at the Manila Police District during the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit in November 2017.

There were also many hacking attempts of the social media accounts of several human rights activists, according to Santos.

“There are attempts to hack my account, even my email address,” Santos recalled in a mix of English and Filipino. “Because I have this setting on my phone, I get informed if there are attempts to open my email or social media account.”

Karapatan, meanwhile, now refers to their office as a “fixed point” – or a place vulnerable to electronic and physical surveillance. The group fears that their cellphones and landlines have been compromised, exposing their conversations with clients and other groups.

Because of these threats, Palabay said that as much as possible, they do everything “old school.”

“Kapag may mga bagay na tingin namin ay hindi na dapat sinasabi online, we go old school (If there are things that we think shouldn’t be said online, we go old school),” she said. “Offline. No phones, landline, internet.”

Laws and terrorism
Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable “except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.”

There are also laws such as the Anti-Wiretapping law and the Cybercrime Prevention Act that prevent instances of communication interference without a court order.

However, human rights defenders point out the Human Security Act which says that interception and recording of “any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words,” with the use of any type of surveillance equipment or any means suitable is allowed in cases of terrorism.

This is what scares members of progressive groups – especially with the latest move of the Philippine government seeking to tag at least 600 individuals as terrorists. The list includes alleged leaders and members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA).

The government also wants to label as terrorist several human rights workers such as United Nations rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples Victoria Tauli Corpuz, Karapatan national executive committee member Elisa Tita Lubi, and Jose Molintas, former Asia representative to the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), among others.

Privacy violations, watchdog role compromised
For many critics, this reflects the Duterte administration’s overall stance against dissent. Human rights organisations and those who have called out government policies – especially the violent war on drugs – have been continually threatened and demonised by the President himself.

Human rights workers main job is to ensure that people – and the government – realise the importance of following due process and protecting rights enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution and various international treaties.

Because they act as watchdogs of the state, placing them under state surveillance is not just a violation of their rights but also an interference of their work, according to Santos.

“If there’s really surveillance and those who are placed under it have no records of criminal offence, are not enemies of the state, and are just exercising their right to say something for or against the government, then there are insecurities,” he said.

Palabay, meanwhile, said that vilifying human rights defenders often goes hand in hand with surveillance. In many cases, several of these incidents lead to far worse attacks just to silence dissent and beyond an act of intimidation by state agents.

“Palaging may physical tapos kasabay niyan ‘yung public vilification sa amin (There’s always physical surveillance partnered with public vilification),” she said. “Kapag hindi na nila mapatahimik (when they know people cannot be silenced), they will try to file cases, and if that doesn’t work, they go on to worst forms of attacks like attempted murder. Sometimes they succeed.”

This was echoed by Jam Jacob, legal and policy adviser for technology and rights advocacy group Foundation for Media Alternatives.

“Surveillance is a violation of privacy, a prelude to more human rights violations like desaparacidos, those abducted,” he explained. “Sa umpisa, tinitiktikan sila, minamanmanan, paano iyong routine nila (At first, they’ll being tailed, monitored, what their routines are).”

READ MORE: ‘Demonizing’ human rights under Duterte

Philippines dangerous for human rights defenders

The Philippines is often referred to as one of the most dangerous countries in the world to be a human rights defender. In 2017, Front Line Defenders said in its annual report that 80% of deaths of human rights defenders took place in 4 countries: Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and the Philippines.

Meanwhile, at least 4 human rights workers have been killed under the Duterte administration so far: Karapatan Negros Oriental coordinator Elisa Badayos, Bicol paralegal Edwin Pura, Catholic priest Father Marcelito Paez, and Moro human rights activist Billamin Turabin Hasan.

Since 2001, at least 40 human rights workers of Karapatan have been killed.

It doesn’t help that the President himself have threatened human rights workers in the past.

“One of these days, kayong human rights, kayo ang imbestigahin ko, totoo, conspiracy,” he said on August 16, 2017. “Sabihin mo pulis, barilin mo na ‘yang kasali diyan. If they are obstructing justice, you shoot them. Para makita talaga kung anong klaseng human right… Galit ako sa inyo. Because hindi niyo tinitimpla kung anong klaseng papasukan ninyo. Basta human rights.”

(One of these days, I will investigate you human rights, conspiracy. Tell them, ‘Police, shoot those who are part of it’ so they can see the kinds of human rights. I’m mad at you; you don’t look at what you’re getting into, all about human rights.)

Where to go?
The cloak of secrecy surrounding state surveillance and how it is done in the Philippines makes it hard to fully realize how capable the government is in monitoring individuals and groups. This makes it difficult to hold accountable state agents who violate the right to privacy.

Santos recalled there were several times during formal gatherings or national conferences where they tried to confront state agents about surveillance. They, however, always refuse to admit or deny they engage in this act.

The lack of accountability mechanism, according to Jacob, makes the whole system of state surveillance prone to abuse. It can even lead to others – such as journalists, students, and any individual or groups seen as “destabiliser” by the government – to being monitored.

“So if it is necessary, to some extent yes but is it prone to abuse? Yes, also, especially if it continues to operate the way it is,” he explained. “It’s okay if it’s used to monitor legitimate internal threats to the state, but not individuals or groups who voice out valid criticism.”

“It should not be free rein, like without at all mechanisms to keep things in check,” Jacob added.

What can be done?
According to the Commission on Human Rights, individuals who feel like they are placed under state surveillance can avail of their help.

Mandated by the Constitution to investigate alleged human rights violations by the state, it can issue subpoenas on state agents who can in turn produce documents that can help their case buildups.

“Malalaman natin kung lawful ba ang operation na surveillance on a person or group,” said Richard Laron of CHR’s legal department. “Are they armed with a mission order? Baka naman intimidation iyan? Legitimate ba? Lawful ba? May basis ba yan?”

(We can find out if the surveillance operation on a person or group is lawful. Are they armed with a mission order? Maybe that’s only intimidation? Is it legitimate? Lawful? Is there any basis?)

But the fact still stands that conducting state surveillance on a person without probable cause or “verified information” is tantamount to violating his or her rights.

“If there’s no probable cause or certain specific or verified information you’re engaging in any unlawful activity, the conduct of state surveillance is unlawful or arbitrary,” CHR lawyer Arlene Ven said.

Privacy violation only counts if ‘life-threatening’
Another remedy that can be invoked is the writ of habeas data. A petition for this writ, a remedy against “gathering, collecting or storing of data or information” through surveillance, can be filed before a regional trial court.

Jacob, however, warns that securing this writ can be very hard.

“Kung mapu-prove mo lang na na-violate ang iyong privacy pero wala naman corresponding threat to your life, liberty, and security, walang writ na ibibigay sa’yo (If you can only prove that your right to privacy was violated but it has no corresponding threat to your life, liberty, and security, the courts will not issue a writ),” he said.

While legal remedies is always on the table, human rights organisations often resort to more safety protocols in line with the continuous threats and state surveillance.

Karapatan, example, ramped up their physical and digital security through trainings. Sweeps for any bug or listening device in their office are conducted more frequently, and they’ve worked out ways to protect the data they use for work.

Going through the principle of strength and security in numbers, between 50-100 people join the group’s fact-finding missions – especially in militarised areas in the Philippines.

Human rights organisations will continue to fight
But despite the danger heightened by the administration’s continuous threats, human rights organisations say they will not stop doing their job in depending the rights of marginalised communities under what critics call a “repressive” regime.

“Siyempre hindi na mawawala iyong takot at palaging nandoon iyon,” Palabay said. “Pero sa totoo lang, kaya medyo hindi kami ganoon katakot, wala ito sa mga naranasan ng mga tinutulungan namin.“(Fear is always there but these are nothing compared to the abuses the people we help experience.)

But in a country where democracy is reportedly backsliding, it might only be a matter of time before state surveillance starts targeting ordinary citizens.

Jodesz Gavilan and Sofia Tomacruz have compiled this article as part of a special report series for the independent website Rappler. The website is fighting for survival against a “war on press freedom” being waged by the Duterte government in the Philippines. Read the full series here. Rappler has been running a campaign under the slogan “Support a free and fearless media” for the past six months.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Wadan Narsey in Suva

In 2016, two of Fiji’s main media organisations, the privately owned The Fiji Times and state-owned Fiji Broadcasting Corporation, came to public attention, for the wrong reasons — laws regarding ethnic sensibilities in multiracial Fiji.

The international community needs to note that taken together, they call into question the neutrality of Fiji’s prosecuting, regulating and defending institutions.

I make no statement on the neutrality of the judiciary presiding on the case currently — the public can make their own minds up when the judgments are given.

The Fiji Times (Na Lalakai)
On the 27 April 2016, Nai Lalakai (the Fijian vernacular publication owned and published by The Fiji Times) printed an article by one Josaia Waqabaca who pointed out that a petition had been handed to Aiyaz Khaiyum (Fiji’s Attorney-General) to either engage in a “veisorosorovi” (a formal indigenous Fijian reconciliation) with indigenous Fijians or leave Fiji.

The article also alleged:

“The Muslims are not indigenous Fijians. These people are the very ones who have invaded various countries, including Bangladesh in India, and have committed murder there and raped the women and abused their children, until they have come to power, and are now in possession of it.”

The generalisations about Muslims are abhorrent to most decent Fiji citizens and me, while the statement conveniently ignores that some indigenous Fijians are also Muslims.

The Director of Public Prosecutions promptly pressed charges, not just against the article’s author (Waqabaca) and the editor of Nai Lalakai editor (Anare Ravula), but also against the editor of the English language daily, The Fiji Times (Fred Wesley), to whom Ravula reports to, the Fiji Times publisher (Hank Arts) and Fiji Times Limited as well.

The charge was that they made or caused to be published, a statement in the iTaukei language Nai Lalakai newspaper that was likely to incite dislike, hatred or antagonism of the Muslim community.

While the original charges were laid in August 2016 with Magistrate Shageeth Somaratne presiding, the case has dragged on (justice delayed is justice denied?), with the presiding judge being changed at least once.

Opposing the bail variation for Arts
The DPP’s Office has subjected itself to even great public scrutiny through their opposition to a request for a bail variation by publisher Hank Arts.

The State Prosecutor and Deputy DPP (Lee Burney) alleged that the charges against publisher Hank Arts were “serious” and he should not be allowed to travel to New Zealand for two weeks.

No doubt the presiding judge will decide whether the charges against Arts are serious.

But why on earth would the DPP’s Office think that this responsible elderly citizen, who has not a hint of a criminal record, might abscond in New Zealand?

Arts had even offered his two properties in Fiji and his FNPF balance as surety, basically his life savings.

Even more, two prominent Fiji businessmen with unquestionable reputations in Fiji (David Aidney and Jinesh Patel), had also agreed to be Arts’ surety and not travel abroad while he was away.

But not just the previous magistrate, but also the current judge, Justice Thushara Rajasinghe, concluded that these financially massive sureties were not enough to grant the bail variation.

The judge’s judgment cannot be called into question by mere mortals like me.

But the treatment of Hank Arts and Fred Wesley by the DPP’s Office is extraordinary when viewed alongside the contrasting treatment accorded to the CEO of the government-owned Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (FBC) in a comparable situation of the division of responsibility between the producer/editor and the CEO.

Is FBC privileged?
In November 2016, complaints were made by members of the public (Peter Waqavonovono, Seni Nabou and Jope Tarai) against the state-owned Fiji Broadcasting Corporation to the Police, Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) and the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission (FHRADC), about the allegedly racist contents of an FBC programme Wasea Bhasha in which the host Nemani Bainivalu said in the Fijian vernacular words to the effect that Fijian education was lagging because:

* iTaukei did not speak English; some teachers drank grog all night and came to work lazy; if only iTaukei boys concentrated on their studies and not play, they too could reach universities and graduate.

Bainivalu is also supposed to have said that  “many iTaukei boys roam around in the night with their mobile phones, wasting time”  and that  “Indo-Fijian boys and girls do not roam around in the night”.

The complainants claimed that the content was tantamount to “explicit racism” insinuating that iTaukei people are inferior because they fail in universities because they spend more time participating in sports and that iTaukei people are academically poor because they do not know how to read in English.

The Citizens’ Constitutional Forum issued a statement noting that “promoting broad generalised comparisons between Fiji’s major ethnic groups without facts to base them is irresponsible journalism.” The CCF urged MIDA follow on with necessary investigations and recourse.

The Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Ro Kepa, called on the CEO of FBC to resign and for an investigation to be made.

The Leader of the opposition National Federation Party (NFP), Professor Biman Prasad,  asked if MIDA was being neutral and asked him to resign from one of his two posts so that he could do an effective job.

Government reactions
The Chairman of MIDA and FHRCAD Ashwin Raj stated that that the Wasea Bhasha episode contained generalisations and stereotypes that lacked “accuracy, balance and fairness about social progress of the iTaukei community”.

But he concluded that “the programme failed to meet the threshold for inciting communal discord.. There was no overt call to violence. …  there is no pattern of hostility towards any community…  The journalist has offered a public apology in all of the three major languages admitting negligence on his part as the producer and presenter of the programme.”

Raj determined that the issue would not be referred to the Media Tribunal.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (New Zealander Christopher Pryde) considered laying charges against the Wasea Bhasha producer and presenter (Bainivalu), the chief executive officer (Vimlesh Sagar), and the acting manager (Mohammed Faiyaz Khan).

He concluded: “In order for a charge of inciting communal antagonism to succeed, the broadcast must have been of such a nature and sufficiently egregious to justify the sanction of the criminal law. In other words, the broadcast must do more than simply insult or cause offence to people. .. the item does not reach the necessary threshold for a reasonable prospect of conviction were the matter to go to trial”.

He announced regally “I decline to sanction a prosecution”.

Contrasting the two cases
It is clear that many indigenous Fijians took offence at the ethnic generalisations.

But I might even largely agree with the sentiments expressed by Cristopher Pryde and Ashwin Raj on the content of the sentences being translated by Nemani Bainivalu, Bainivalu’s statements were made as examples in a mere language translation programme, probably based on Nemani Bainivalu’s own personal observations and views. They were not presented as definitive statements by an FBC expert on the issues.

My personal view is that some of Bainivalu’s statements on ethnic behavioural differences are probably correct in general (for example the detrimental effects of not speaking English, drinking grog excessively, playing sports excessively) and can be backed by survey data from the Fiji Bureau of Statistics and Ministry of Education.

One of Bainivalu’s statements is anecdotal (which ethnic community in general roams around more at night) while one is probably incorrect (which ethnic community wastes more time on mobile phones).

But the real issue is not the content of Bainivalu’s translation examples, but the contrasting approaches taken by DPP Pryde and MIDA Chairman Raj to the Fiji Times case, as to who exactly are charged for mistakes made by subordinates.

The approach with FBC
In the FBC case, it is reported that the DPP considered laying charges against the Wasea Bhasha producer and host Nemani Bainivalu (as expected), but only against the acting chief executive officer Vimlesh Sagar and the acting manager Mohammed Faiyaz Khan.

There was no mention of the possible charging of the CEO of FBC, Riyaz Khaiyum or even of the board members of the FBC or the relevant government minister who are ultimately responsible for FBC, just as some Patels are owners of The Fiji Times and are being charged.

Riyaz Khaiyum hedged that it was an “unfortunate choice of words by the producer/presenter that was in total contradiction to the intention and policy of FBC as a responsible national broadcaster”.

When asked if FBC TV has checks and balances in place for the program before it goes on air, Riyaz Sayed-Khaiyum easily passed the buck, alleging that Nemani Bainivalu eventually became responsible for the content of the show, implying that he himself, the CEO or his organization was not in any way responsible.

While the DPP thought that the charges against the FBC were not “egregious” enough (Pryde’s obfuscating version of “outstandingly bad” or “shocking”), the FBC CEO Riyaz Khaiyum thought it bad enough to terminate Bainivalu’s contract.

FBC then ran a slot on TV in English, Fijian and Hindi in which Bainivalu admitted abjectly that he had “acted irresponsibly” and said he had resigned, when he could have also asked “why only me?”

Before you rush to compare it all to Pontius Pilate washing his hands off the matter, remember it was not Pilate but the Jews who  crucified Jesus, whereas here it was Riyaz Khaiyum himself who gave Bainivalu “the boot” rather than taking any responsibility himself.

But more important than futile biblical comparisons, the Fiji public needs to ask why the DPP’s prosecution of the five entities associated with The Fiji Times case was so different when it came to those higher up.

The book is thrown at The Fiji Times
Every Fiji citizen with common sense understands that the language proficiency requirements of vernacular papers means that in practice, it is the vernacular editor who makes the day to day decisions on the content of each issue before it goes to print, just as the FBC CEO alleged for his program producer, Bainivalu, before it went to air.

In practice, neither the English edition editor, nor the publisher nor the owners of the parent publishing company can be reasonably expected to have direct daily roles in the vetting of content in the vernacular, as they cannot reasonably be expected to know the vernacular language enough, just as I doubt if FBC CEO (Riyaz Khaiyum) has any in-depth knowledge of the Fijian vernacular, enough to vet its sophisticated content.

Nevertheless, in The Fiji Times case, the DPP chose to prosecute not only the article author (Waqabaca) and the Nai Lalakai editor (Ravula) but also the English medium editor (Fred Wesley), the English-speaking publisher (Hank Arts) and the (English-speaking) Gujarati owners of The Fiji Times Limited.

Whether the English-speaking publisher Hank Arts and Fiji Times editor Fred Wesley can be held responsible for allegedly racist content in the vernacular newspaper they do not vet in practice, will be decided by the presiding Sri Lankan judge, even if cynics note that it will be under the constitution and media decrees that have been imposed on Fiji without the approval of any Parliament (before any generalisations are made about Sri Lankan judges, note that at least one Sri Lankan judge – in the Soko case- has gone against the political tide).

Note that there was no explicit call for violence in the Nai Lalakai/Fiji Times case either, a fact deemed by Ashwin Raj to be pertinent in not charging FBC’s producer/presenter of Wasea Bhasha.

But the public can legitimately ask, and indeed, if they want a free media in Fiji, it is their deep social responsibility to ask: are there different prosecuting standards for The Fiji Times CEO and for the FBC CEO?

Is the more severe and protracted treatment of The Fiji Times by the DPP’s Office intended to intimidate them further than has already occurred?

The public (and researchers into Fiji media) are reminded that Riyaz Khaiyum is the brother of the Attorney General (Aiyaz Khaiyum) and he not only became the CEO of FBC in “unusual” circumstances after the 2006 military coup, but his editorial policies have arguably favored the Bainimarama Government, while receiving preferential financial assistance from Government, assistance denied to their primary television competitor (Fiji One) or the private radio communication companies like Communications Fiji Limited.

The peculiar roles of Pryde, Raj and Riyaz
Historians of contemporary Fiji will one day put under the microscope all the many individuals (such as Christopher Pryde, Ashwin Raj and Riyaz Khaiyum) who have kept the Bainimarama regime ticking over.

Christopher Pryde appeared in Fiji soon after the 2006 coup and quickly assumed prominent positions in the military state’s apparatus, despite the military government being declared illegal by the 2009 Fiji Court of Appeal, a judgment never reversed.

Six years ago, Ashwin Raj was relatively unemployed or underemployed at the University of the South Pacific until two economics professors (no prizes for guessing who) prevailed upon the USP Vice Chancellor to offer him more substantive work, which he eventually obtained under a belligerent and aspiring Deputy VC of USP managing USP’s STAR project (now apparently gone into a Black Hole).

It was not long before the Bainimarama government discovered that Raj’s gift of the gab requiring the public to futilely buy dictionaries, would be a great asset as Chairman of MIDA.  Indeed, media censorship, intimidation and media funding biases flourished under Ashwin Raj’s benign gaze, while he pounced on any allegedly anti-government statements, such as the so-called “kerosene and water” comment by Ratu Timoci Vesikula at a village meeting.

Then Ashwin Raj was also appointed as the Chairman of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission, apparently or conveniently choosing not to recognise the many possible conflicts of interest in the two roles (“power corrupts absolutely”?).

The public might note (if they care) that the websites of both MIDA and the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission are virtually empty of serious content, probably an accurate reflection of the extent to which Ashwin Raj is fulfilling his responsibilities to the wider Fiji society (although no doubt pleasing the Bainimarama government).

Raj has made no public statement about the curtailment of the basic human right of Hank Arts to travel abroad for two weeks for an important family occasion — the marriage of his stepdaughter — despite his giving more than ample sureties.

Riyaz Khaiyum was once a good journalist and we oldies will remember his penetrating and humorous interview of Prime Minister Rabuka while both were jogging on the Suva Point sea front after the 1987 coup.

One of the sad outcomes of all of Fiji’s military coups is that the smears generated by the coup leaders inevitably sticks to even the well-intentioned citizens who choose to support illegal governments, their laws and their unfair prosecutions (no doubt personal benefits also help).

History may be harsh on coup supporters and accomplices who think that a few “good things” done by the coup makers justify the coups, and their own behavior.  But that is no comfort to those who continue to suffer the ill effects of coups and even more into the future when the huge increase in public debt has to be paid.

Especially when Fiji history proves that such individuals will merely brush off the dirt before they depart, scot-free and with their ill-gotten gains, to their eventual peaceful permanent abodes abroad, which follow rules of law and social behavior that they so readily helped to trash in Fiji.

An even bigger tragedy for indigenous Fijians and their future, is that those that remain in Fiji will be forgiven in “true Fijian tradition” and welcomed back into the fold, without ever fully and honestly revealing,  atoning or being punished for their sins.

While the carrots have always been there for those who have supported coups, there have been no sticks to discourage future coup makers.

The incarceration of George Speight is merely a reminder to sleeping historians to explain why that one jailed sparrow does not represent the caging of summer.

Academic and media commentator Professor Wadan Narsey blogs at Narsey on Fiji – Fighting Censorship and this article is republished here from his blog with permission.