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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Highly respected and convivial Koroi Hawkins has become RNZ Pacific’s first Melanesian editor after arriving in New Zealand in 2010 and says he is “truly humbled” after nearly a decade at RNZ.

“It is a great honour. I am a Pacific journalist from the school of hardknocks so it was already a massive achievement just making it into the RNZ Pacific team,” Hawkins tells Asia Pacific Report.

“Never in a million years did I imagine I could ever become the editor when I arrived here. It is testament to all of the support and mentoring I have received here at RNZ Pacific that I was even confident to put my hand up,” he says humbly.

But what made RNZ Pacific’s manager Moera Tuilaepa-Taylor choose Hawkins for the role of editor in the first place?

The deciding factor was RNZ Pacific’s flagship daily current affairs programme Pacific Waves that delves into issues of Pacific peoples wherever they are in the world, and airs proudly and loudly across Pacific at 8pm (NZT) every weeknight, she says.

“Koroi’s time as producer and presenter of Pacific Waves has allowed him to develop his leadership and mentoring skills within the team, in particular with some of our younger reporters who had never worked in radio,” Tuilaepa-Taylor said.

“There’s respect and trust in his leadership and skills by the team, and that’s when we knew that he was the right candidate for the role. He had the right cultural attributes,” she said.

Science aspirations
However, Tuilaepa-Taylor was not the manager who hired Hawkins in the first place. Instead, it was former RNZ Pacific manager Linden Clark and ex-news editor Walter Zweifel who brought him to RNZ Pacific.

Ironically, Hawkins never wanted to be journalist originally — he studied science in high school.

“I never aspired to be a journalist. I was a science student through high school and wanted to be a marine biologist,” he said.

“But, I had a keen love for storytelling thanks to my mum Effie Hawkins, who is a retired early childhood teacher and who would always read me books.

“When I was old enough she encouraged me to read and to write letters to our family members overseas.

“I think that is when I realised as a working journalist that we could give a voice to the voiceless and hold those in power to account. That is when I found my passion for the craft,” says Hawkins.

Hawkins started working as a journalist in the Solomon Islands under the tutelage and guidance of Solomon’s legendary journalist Dorothy Wickham.

Start-up TV in Honiara
“I started as a news presenter for local start-up TV outfit One Television Solomon Islands under Dorothy Wickham.

“I was on holiday in Malaita with my wife and our newly born daughter Janelle and I wrote a small sport story on a futsal tournament at Aligegeo which was well received by the news department — and the rest is history they say.

He developed photography and videography skills for which is renowned for whenever on assignment covering events in the Pacific.

“I started with RNZ Pacific as an intermediate reporter. I brought with me photography and videography skills which I mostly used on reporting assignments in the region,” he says matter-of-factly as if it were nothing.

However, that wasn’t the only skill he mastered. When I worked with him he was adept and very helpful when doing digital web stories, knowing where the photo goes and how to web edit.

He was also very helpful to the younger reporters when it came to mastering audio for radio.

The one thing you notice about Hawkins when you meet him is a sense of calming presence about him when all else would be chaos around. That was the case in 2018 covering the Fiji elections, especially when covering about-to-become PM Sitiveni Rabuka’s court case just two days before the election.

‘Calmness from my mother’
“My calmness comes from my mother, she was always calm in a crisis and it also comes from operating in our Pacific newsroom situations where when things go wrong they are literally operation halting things like cyclones, power cuts and equipment breakdowns, riots, and coups,” he says.

“Things over which we have no control and just have to work around.”

“By comparison, the crises in New Zealand newsrooms are relatively manageable. I think also it must be an age thing, as I grow older both at home and at work I find myself always seeing solutions rather seeing obstacles.

“Some of it just comes with experience and I am always open to learning new things and trying new ways of doing things better than we did in the past.”

He rates his career highlight was when while calling his mum and dad in the Solomon Islands they told him they had heard him on air.

“I think the two main highlights in my career is calling my mum and dad in Munda and them telling me they heard me on the radio.

“And bringing my family out here to New Zealand to join me. They are my biggest fans and harshest critics and the reason I get up each day and head out the door,” Hawkins says.

Cyclone Pam, Papua assignments toughest
By far the most difficult assignments he has done was covering Cyclone Pam in 2015 as well as travelling to West Papua with RNZ Pacific’s legendary Johnny Blades.

“Cyclone Pam in 2015 was the most difficult in terms of length of time on the ground in challenging circumstances,” he says.

And Tuilaepa-Taylor agrees with him .

“His coverage of tropical cyclone Pam in Vanuatu, and also coverage of the Fiji elections with Sally Round and Kelvin Anthony — these are the things that come to my mind,” says Tuilaepa-Taylor.

Then there was the harrowing trip he went on to Jayapura in “untamed” West Papua in 2015 with Johnny Blades.

“Shooting video for Johnny Blades on a trip to West Papua was the most difficult in terms of operating in a hostile environment,” he said

“It was harrowing in the sense that you were being watched (by the Indonesian authorities) who were surveillng you.

‘Unnerving being watched’
“There was no harassment but it was very unnerving knowing you were being watched,” he says.

“But I would say reporting on political situations in the region like the most recent election in Fiji are the most challenging journalistically in terms of getting the facts and local context correct,” Hawkins says.

While in contrast he found the gentle and joyous Pacific creativity a very enjoyable experience.

“Our cultural festivals like the Festival of Pacific Arts or even Pasifika in Auckland and Wellington are the most enjoyable assignments for me seeing our Pacific cultures and languages celebrated gives me so much pride and hope for the future which my own children will inherit long after I am gone.”

It is that very depth of experience he brings to the vastness of his role as editor.

“I think the most important thing I bring to the role is my experience I have worked my way up the ladder form the bottom in Pacific and New Zealand newsrooms.

“I have affinity to a few Pacific cultures through my own heritage, my partner Margret’s heritage and through our extended families,” Hawkins says.

Consultative style
He seeks in his editorial stye to be fair and yet firm, but not authoritative but rather being consultative.

“ I believe we are stronger if everyone in the team contributes and I like to gather as much information and input as possible from my team before making decisions,” Hawkins said.

“Because I literally started from the bottom, I am very empathetic to people’s journeys and believe that where someone is now is not where they will be in a few years’ time.

“A lot of people took a chance on me and invested in me and gave me opportunities that helped me advance in my own career and I aspire to pay that forward,” Hawkins says.

With his time likely to be in high demand he will not continue doing Pacific Waves.

“No I will not be. The future of this role is still being decided. I am excited for whoever will be stepping into this role as it has been a transformative one for me.

“The programme has a huge regional and international following and we hope to continue building on the great work that was started by current and former RNZ Pacific colleagues.

And, does he hail from the Solomon Islands or elsewhere?

“That is probably a whole article in itself,” he said.

“In short, I was born in Nadi to a Fijian father and a part-Fijian part-Solomon Islands mother. I was adopted when I was three-weeks-old by my great aunt, who I call my mum, and who raised me in Honiara, Australia and Muna in the Western Solomons in that order.

“I speak English, Roviana and Pidgin and understand very basic Fijian. Although I am keen to learn more.

Fond Aotearoa memories
He speaks fondly of Aotearoa and he remembers the first time he came to the country.

“The first time I ever came to New Zealand was actually in 2010, thanks to Professor David Robie and the AUT Pacific Media Centre.

“I presented on the ethnic crisis in Solomon Islands and was accompanied by my partner Margret little did we know then that our future lay in Aotearoa. I first came to New Zealand to work for RNZ International in 2014,” he said.

The knowledge he intends to impart to his younger journalists to help them in the search for knowledge and experience comes from having been there and done that.

“I think sharing my experiences and being accessible has been well received so far. I am a living breathing example of how far you can come in this field if you apply yourself,” Hawkins says.

“Just letting them know I am in their corner I think is important. Every chance I get I love to introduce and connect people and not just within RNZ Pacific but in the wider region.

“It gives me great joy to see someone succeed of the back of an introduction or a contact reference.

“This work is hard but know we are all in it together makes it a little more bearable. It really is about the person next to you,” he says.

Sri Krishnamuthi is an independent journalist, former editor of the Pacific Media Watch project at the Pacific Media Centre and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

RNZ Mediawatch

New Zealand’s media were in emergency mode yet again this week, offering hours of extra coverage on air, online and in print.

Outlets in the hardest-hit places reported the basics — even without access to basics like power, communications and even premises.

What will Gabrielle’s legacy be for media’s role in reporting disasters and national resilience?

“Keep listening to the radio. You guys have done a great job updating people and it’s very much appreciated,” the Civil Defence Minister Keiran McAnulty told Newstalk ZB’s last Sunday afternoon as Gabrielle was just beginning to wreak havoc.

Barely two weeks earlier, sudden and catastrophic flooding in and near Auckland caught the media off-guard, but some commentators claimed the heavy warnings about Gabrielle were oppressively ominous — and risked “crying wolf”.

Gabrielle ended up as a national emergency and sparked non-stop rolling news coverage. There were few flat spots on TV and radio, and live online reporting around the clock also give a comprehensive picture — and pictures — of what was going on.

It stretched newsrooms to their limits, but news reporters’ work was skillfully and selectively supplemented with a steady stream of vivid eyewitness accounts.

Forestry slash flood
Tolaga Bay farmer Bridget Parker’s description on RNZ Nine to Noon of yet another inundation at her place with added forestry slash was among the most confronting (and sweary).

Checkpoint’s emotional interview on Wednesday with a couple that owned a house in which a friend “disappeared under water” was compelling — but also chilling.

RNZ’s Kate Green arrived in Gisborne on Monday with the only means of communicating that worked — a satellite phone.

“You can’t even dial 111. Everything that can break is broken,” she told RNZ Morning Report listeners, quoting the local mayor.

RNZ’s Māni Dunlop, who managed to fly in on Tuesday, told listeners that from the air the East Coast looked “buggered”.

Gisborne is a city and Tairawhiti a region not well covered at the best of times by New Zealand’s national media, which have no bureaux there. It is a bit of an irony that in the worst of times, it was so hard to get the word out.

But the locally-owned Gisborne Herald stepped up, somehow printing editions every day distributed free to 22,000 homes — with the help of NZDF boots n the ground on some days.

Proud news day
“I’m proud to be working on this paper today,” reported Murray Robertson said, signing off an eye-opening video of scenes of the stricken city posted online once power came back and a fresh Starlink unit kicked in.

On Wednesday, ZB’s Mike Hosking pleaded on air for diesel to keep their signal up in Hawke’s Bay, while the editor of Hawke’s Bay Today Chris Hyde — only months into his job — found himself literally powerless to publish when the rivers rose, cutting the electricity and cutting him off from many of his staff.

“The first day I was in a black hole. In a big news event, the phones ring hot. This was the biggest news event in Hawke’s Bay since the Napier earthquake  . . . and my phone wasn’t ringing at all,” he told Mediawatch.

Hyde, just 32 years old, was a student in Christchurch when The Press stunned citizens by publishing a paper the morning after the deadly 2011 quake.

Hyde said NZME chief editor Shayne Currie and The New Zealand Herald’s Murray Kirkness were instrumental in putting the Auckland HQs resources into getting NZME’s upper North Island dailies promptly back in print and available for free.

“Just keep supporting local news, because in moments like this, it really does matter,” Chris Hyde told Mediawatch.

On Wednesday, Hyde had the odd experience of seeing Tuesday’s edition of the paper on the AM show on TV before he had even seen it himself.

Cut-off news focus
On Wednesday, RNZ switched to focus on news for areas cut off or without power — or both — where people were depending on the radio. RNZ’s live online updates went “text-only” because those who could get online might only have the bandwidth for the basics.

Day of ‘danger’

This is the first copy of Tuesday’s @hawkesbaytoday that I’ve seen. It never made it to my home, to our offices, to our subscribers. When I wrote that headline had some idea of what was coming, and yet we had no idea. pic.twitter.com/57PmhoeyYr

— Chris Hyde (@chrishydejourno) February 16, 2023

“Thank God for news media in a storm,” was former Herald editor Gavin Ellis in his column The Knightly Views.

He was among the critics of media coverage of Auckland’s floods a fortnight earlier.

Back then he said social media and online outlets had trumped traditional news media in quickly conveying the scale and the scope of the flooding.

This time social media also hosted startling scenes and sounds reporters couldn’t capture — like rural road bridges bending then buckling.

But Gavin Ellis said earlier this week he couldn’t get a clearer picture of Gabrielle’s impact without mainstream media.

“Those two episodes where chalk and cheese. Coverage of Cyclone Gabrielle by all media was excellent, both in warning people about what was to come – although that wasn’t universal – and then talking people through it and into the aftermath, And what an aftermath it’s been,” he told Mediawatch.

“This is precisely why we need news media. They draw together an overwhelming range of sources and condense information into a readily absorbed format. Then they keep updating and adding to the picture.” he wrote.

Retro but robust radio

“It’s even more pressing if you haven’t got electricity, and you haven’t got those online links. That was when radio really came into its own,” said Ellis.

“Organisations like the BBC,and the ABC (Australia) are talking about a fully-digital future and moving away from linear broadcasting. What happens to radio in those circumstances if you haven’t got power? If you’re sitting on your rooftop surrounded by water, you can still have a radio on, he said.

“We need to have a conversation about the future of media in this country and the requirements in times of urgency need to be looked at,” Ellis told Mediawatch.

RNZ’s head of news Richard Sutherland’s had the same thoughts.

“It has certainly been a reminder to generations who have not been brought up with transistor radios they are important to have in a disaster. This will also sharpen the minds of people on just how important ‘legacy’ platforms like AM transmission are in civil defence emergencies like the one we’ve had,” he said.

“With the Tonga volcano, Tonga was cut off from the internet. and the only thing getting through was shortwave radio. In the 2020s, we are talking about something that’s been around since the early 1900s still doing the mahi. In this country, we are going to need to think very carefully about how we provide the belt and braces of broadcasting infrastructure,” he told Mediawatch.

“Everyone was super-aware of the way that the Auckland flooding late last month played out — and no one wanted to repeat that,” said Sutherland, formerly a TV news executive at Newshub, TV3, TVNZ and Sky News.

“Initially the view was this is going to be bad news for Auckland because Auckland, already very badly damaged and waterlogged. But as it turned out, of course, it ended up being Northland, Coromandel, Hawke’s Bay have been those areas that caught the worst of it,” Sutherland told Mediawatch.

News contraction
“Over the years, and for a number of reasons, a lot of them financial, all news organisations have contracted. And you contract to your home city or a big metropolitan area, because that’s where the population is, and that’s where the bulk of your audience is,” he said.

“But this cyclone has reminded us all as a nation, that it’s really important to have reporters in the regions, to have strong infrastructure in the regions. I would argue that RNZ is a key piece of infrastructure,” he said.

“This incident has shown us that with the increasing impact of climate change, news organisations, particularly public service lifeline utility organisations like RNZ, are going to have to have a look at our geographic coverage, as well as our general coverage based on population,” he said

“We are already drawing up plans for have extra boots on the ground permanently  . . but also we need to think where are the regions that we need to have more people in so that we can respond faster to these sorts of things,” he said.

“We are at a moment where we could do something a bit more formal around building a more robust media infrastructure . . . for the whole country. I would be very, very keen for the industry to get together to make sure that the whole country can benefit from the combined resources that we have.

“Again, everything comes down to money. But if the need is there, the money will be found,” he said.

Now that the government’s planned new public media entity is off the table, it will be interesting to see if those holding the public purse strings see the need for news in the same way.

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

Cyclone Gabrielle death toll rises to 11 after two deaths reported today https://t.co/ifMjC2wFsc

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) February 18, 2023

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Veteran Fijian journalist Netani Rika and his wife were resting in their living room when he was suddenly woken, startled by the sound of smashed glass. “I got up, I slipped on the wet surface,” he recalls.

He turned on the lights and a bottle and wick were spread across the floor. It was one of the many acts of violence and intimidation he endured after the 2006 military coup.

Back then, Rika was the manager of news and current affairs at Fiji Television.

No news at 6pm, no news at 10pm
Back then, Rika was the manager of news and current affairs at Fiji Television.

He vividly remembers the time his car was smashed with golf clubs by two unknown men — one he would later identify as a member of the military — and the day he was locked up at a military camp.

“We were monitoring the situation . . .  once the takeover happened, there was a knock at the door and we had some soldiers present themselves,” he said.

“We were told they were there for our protection but our CEO at the time, Ken Clark, said ‘well if you’re here to protect us, then you can stand at the gate’.

“They said, ‘no, we are here to be in the newsroom, and we want to see what goes to air. We also have a list of people you cannot speak to … ministers, detectives’.”

Rika remembered denying their request and publishing a notice on behalf of Fiji TV News that said it would “not broadcast tonight due to censorship”, promising to return to air when they were able to “broadcast the news in a manner which is free and fair”.

“There was no news at six, there was no news at 10, it was a decision made by the newsroom.”

Organisations like Human Rights Watch have repeatedly criticised Voreqe Bainimarama, who installed himself as prime minister during the 2006 coup, for his attacks on government critics, the press and the freedom of its citizens.

Fear and intimidation
Rika reported incidents of violence to Fiji police, but he said detectives told him his complaints would not go far.

“There was a series of letters to the editor which I suppose you could say were anti-government. Shortly after … the now-honourable leader of the opposition (Voreqe Bainimarama) called, he swore at me in the Fijian iTaukei language … a short time later I saw a vehicle come into our street,” he said.

“The next time (the attackers) came over the fence, broke a wooden louvre and threw one (explosive) inside the house.”

The ABC contacted Bainimarama’s Fiji First party and Fiji police for comment, but has not received a response.

The following year, Rika left his job to become the editor-in-chief at The Fiji Times, the country’s leading independent newspaper. With the publication relying on the government’s advertising to remain viable, Rika said the government put pressure on the paper’s owners.

“The government took away Fiji Times’ advertising, did all sorts of things in order to bring it into line with its propaganda that Fiji was OK, there was no more corruption.”

Rika said the government also sought to remove the employment rights of News Limited, which owned The Fiji Times.

“The media laws were changed so that you could not have more than 5 percent overseas ownership,” Rika said.

Rika, and his deputy Sophie Foster — now an Australian national — lost their jobs after the Media Act 2011 was passed, banning foreign ownership of Fijian media organisations.

‘A chilling law’
The new law put in place several regulations over journalists’ work, including restrictions on reporting of government activities.

In May last year, Fijian Media Association secretary Stanley Simpson called for a review of the “harsh penalties” that can be imposed by the authority that enforces the act.

Penalties include up to F$100,000 (NZ$75,00) in fines or two years’ imprisonment for news organisations for publishing content that is considered a breach of public or national interest. Simpson said some sections were “too excessive and designed to be vindictive and punish the media rather that encourage better reporting standards and be corrective”.

Media veterans hope the controversial act will be changed, or removed entirely, to protect press freedom.

Retired journalism professor Dr David Robie, now editor of Asia Pacific Report, taught many of the Pacific journalists who head up Fijian newsrooms today, but some of his earlier research focused on the impact of the Media Act.

Dr Robie said from the outset, the legislation was widely condemned by media freedom organisations around the world for being “very punitive and draconian”.

“It is a chilling law, making restrictions to media and making it extremely difficult for journalists to act because … the journalists in Fiji constantly have that shadow hanging over them.”

In the years after Fijian independence in 1970, Dr Robie said Fiji’s “vigorous” media sector “was a shining light in the whole of the Pacific and in developing countries”.

“That was lost … under that particular law and many of the younger journalists have never known what it is to be in a country with a truly free media.”

‘We’re so rich in stories’
Last month, the newly-elected government said work was underway to change media laws.

“We’re going to ensure (journalists) have freedom to broadcast and to impart knowledge and information to members of the public,” Fiji’s new Attorney-General Siromi Turaga said.

“The coalition government is going to provide a different approach, a truly democratic way of dealing with media freedom.” But Dr Robie said he believed the only way forward was to remove the Media Act altogether.

“I’m a bit sceptical about this notion that we can replace it with friendly legislation. That’s sounds like a slippery slope to me,” he said.

“I’d have to say that self-regulation is pretty much the best way to go.”

Reporters Without Borders ranked Fiji at 102 out of 180 countries in terms of press freedom, falling by 47 places compared to its 2021 rankings.

Samantha Magick was the news director at Fiji radio station FM96, but left after the 2000 coup and returned three years ago to edit Islands Business International, a regional news magazine.

“When I came back, there wasn’t the same robustness of discussion and debate, we (previously) had powerful panel programs and talkback and there wasn’t a lot of that happening,” she said.

“Part of that was a reflection of the legislation and its impact on the way people worked but it was often very difficult to get both sides of a story because of the way newsmakers tried to control their messaging … which I thought was really unfortunate.”

Magick said less restrictive media laws might encourage journalists to push the boundaries, while mid-career reporters would be more creative and more courageous.

“I also hope it will mean more people stay in the profession because we have this enormous problem with people coming, doing a couple of years and then going … for mainly financial reasons.”

She lamented the fact that “resource intensive” investigative journalism had fallen by the wayside but hoped to see “a sort of reinvigoration of the profession in general.”

“We’re so rich in stories … I’d love to see more collaboration across news organisations or among journalists and freelancers,” she said.

Lice Movono is a Fijian reporter for the ABC based in Suva. An earlier audio report from her on the Fiji media is here. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It is unlikely that the Mayor of Auckland, Wayne Brown, took any lessons from the city’s devastating floods but the rest of us — and journalists in particular — could learn a thing or two.

Brown’s demeanour will not be improved by a petition calling for his resignation or media columnists effectively seeking the same. He will certainly not be moved by New Zealand Herald columnist Simon Wilson, now a predictable and trenchant critic of the mayor, who correctly observed in the Herald on Sunday: “In a crisis, political leaders are supposed to soak up people’s fears…to help us believe that empathy and compassion and hope will continue to bind us together.”

Wilson’s lofty words may be wasted on the mayor, but they point to another factor that binds us together in times of crisis. It is communication, and it was as wanting as civic leadership on Friday night and into the weekend.

Media coverage on Friday night was limited to local evacuation events, grabs from smartphone videos and interviews with officials that were light on detail. The on-the-scene news crews performed well in worsening conditions, particularly in West Auckland.

However, there was a dearth of official information and, crucially, no report that drew together the disparate parts to give us an over-arching picture of what was happening across the city.

I waited for someone to appear, pointing to a map of greater Auckland and saying: “These areas are experiencing heavy flooding . . . State Highway 1 is closed here, here and here as are these arterial routes here, here, and here across the city . . . cliff faces have collapsed in these suburbs . . . power is out in these suburbs . . . evacuation centres have been set up here, here, and here . . . :

That way I would have been in a better position to understand my situation compared to other Aucklanders, and to assess how my family and friends would be faring. I wanted to know how badly my city as a whole was affected.

I didn’t get it from television on Friday night nor did I see it in my newspaper on Saturday. My edition of the Weekend Herald, devoting only its picture-dominated front page and some of page 2 to the flooding, was clearly hampered by early deadlines. The Dominion Post devoted half its front page to the storm and, with a later deadline, scooped Auckland’s hometown paper by announcing Brown had declared a state of emergency.

So, too, did the Otago Daily Times on an inside page. The page 2 story in The Press confirmed the first death in the floods.

I turned to television on Saturday morning expecting special news programmes from both free-to-air networks. Zilch . . . nothing. Later in the day TV1 and Newshub did rise to the occasion with specials on the prime minister’s press conference, but it seems a small concession for such a major event.

Radio fared better but only because regular hosts such as NewstalkZB’s All Sport Breakfast host D’Arcy Waldegrave and Today FM sports journalist Nigel Yalden rejigged their Saturday morning shows to also cover the floods.

RNZ National’s Kim Hill was on familiar ground and her interview with Wayne Brown was more than a little challenging for the mayor. RNZ mounted a “Midday Report Special” with Corin Dann that also tried to break through the murk, but I was left wondering why it had not been a Morning Report Special starting at 6 am.

Over the course of the weekend the amount of information provided by news media slowly built up. Both Sundays devoted six or seven pages to the floods but it was remiss of the Herald on Sunday not to carry an editorial, as did the Sunday Star Times.

It was also good to see Newsroom and The Spinoff — digital services not usually tied to breaking news of this kind — providing coverage.

“Live” updates on websites and news apps added local detail but there was no coherence, just a string of isolated events stretching back in time.

Overall, the amount of information I received as a citizen of the City of Sails was inadequate. Why?

Herein lie the lessons.

News media under-estimated the impact of the event. Although there were fewer deaths than in the Christchurch earthquake or the Whakaari White Island eruption, the scale of damage in economic and social terms will be considerable. The natural disaster warranted news media pulling out all the stops and, as they did on those occasions, move into schedule-changing mode (and that includes newspaper press deadlines).

Lesson #1: Do not allow natural disasters to occur on the eve of a long holiday weekend.

Media were, however, hampered by a lack of coherent information from official sources and emergency services. Brown’s visceral dislike of journalists was part of the problem but that was not the root cause. That fell into two parts.

The first was institutional disconnects in an overly complex emergency response structure which is undertaken locally, coordinated regionally and supported from the national level. This complexity was highlighted after another Auckland weather event in 2018 that saw widespread power outages.

The report on the response was resurrected in front page leads in the Dominion Post and The Press yesterday. It found uncoordinated efforts that did not use the models that had been developed for such eventualities, disagreements over what information should be included in situation reports, and under-estimation of effects.

Massey University director of disaster management Professor David Johnston told Stuff he believed the report would be exactly the same if it was recommissioned now because Auckland’s emergency management system was not fit for purpose — rather it was proving to be a good example of what not to do

Lesson #2: Learn the lessons of the past.

The 2018 report did, however, give a pass mark to the communication effort and noted that those involved thought they worked well with media and in communicating with the public through social media.

Can the same be said of the current disaster response when there “wasn’t time” to inform a number of news organisations (including Stuff) about Wayne Brown’s late Friday media conference, and when Whaka Kotahi staff responsible for providing updates clocked-off at 7.30 pm on Friday?

Is it timely for Auckland Transport to still display an 11.45 am Sunday “latest update” on its website 24 hours later? Is it relevant for a list of road closures accessed at noon yesterday to have actually been compiled at 7.35 pm the previous night? Why should a decision to keep Auckland schools closed until February 7 cause confusion in the sector simply because it was “last minute”?

Lesson #3: Ensure communications staff know the definition of emergency: A serious, unexpected, and potentially dangerous situation requiring immediate action.

There certainly was confusion over the failure to transmit a flood warning to all mobile phones in the city on Friday. The system worked perfectly on Sunday when MetService issued an orange Heavy Rain Warning.

It appears that emergency personnel believed posts on Facebook on Friday afternoon and evening were an effective way of communicating directly with the public. That is alarming because social media use is so fragmented that it is dangerous to make assumptions on how many people are being reached.

A study in 2020 of United States local authority communication about the covid pandemic showed a wide range of platforms being used and the recipients were far from attentive. The author of the study, Eric Zeemering, found not only were city communications fragmented across departments, but the public audience selectively fragmented itself through individual choices to follow some city social media accounts but not others.

In fact, more people were passing information about the flood to each other via Twitter than on Facebook and young people in particular were using TikTok for that purpose. Media organisations were reusing these posts almost as much as the official information that from some quarters was in short supply.

Lesson #4: When you need to communicate with the masses, use mass communication (otherwise known as news media).

Mistakes will always be made in fast changing emergencies but, having made a mistake, it is usual to go the extra yards to make amends. It beggars belief that Whaka Kotahi staff would fail to keep their website up to date on the Auckland situation when it is quite clear they received an enormous kick up the rear end from Transport Minister Michael Wood for clocking off when the heavens opened.

Or that Auckland Transport could be far behind the eight ball after turning travel arrangements for the (cancelled) Elton John concert into a fiasco.

After spending Friday evening holed up in his high-rise office away from nuisances like reporters attempting to inform the public, Mayor Brown justified his position with a strange definition of leadership then blamed others.

Sideswipe’s Anna Samways collected a number of tweets for her Monday Herald column. Among them was this: “Just saw one of the Wayne Brown press conferences. He sounded like a man coming home 4 hours late from the pub and trying to bull**** his Mrs about where he’d been.”

Lesson #5: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The BBC celebrated its 100th birthday last Tuesday. It came as the institution faces increasing competition for audiences from global entertainment providers, anxieties about the sustainability of its funding and a highly competitive global news market.

Its international broadcasting operation, the BBC World Service, is only a little younger, established 90 years ago.

Delivering news and programmes in 40 languages across the continents, it faces similar, significant questions about financing, purpose and its ability to deliver in a world of increased social media and online news consumption.

Currently the BBC’s international services are mostly funded by British people who pay a television licence fee, with a third of the total cost covered by the UK government.

The BBC claimed that, as of November 2021, the World Service reached a global audience of 364 million people each week.

The role of radio
Radio is still clearly a key means to extend the reach of the World Service and a core part of the BBC’s global news package. It is highly adaptable and reasonably affordable.

It also gives people in parts of the world where access to media can be difficult relatively easy access to news. Short-wave radio, the traditional means of broadcasting over very long distances, is also difficult for hostile regimes to block.

Recently, fears that Russia would target Ukraine’s internet infrastructure and erect firewalls to prevent its own citizens’ accessing western media sources, led the BBC to reactivate shortwave radio news services for listeners in both countries. UK government funding of £4.1 million supported this.

Current thinking about the World Service has been shaped by a 2010 decision of UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s government to withdraw Foreign and Commonwealth Office funding for BBC international operations from 2014. This seemed to end a 60 years-long era when the BBC was the key subcontractor for British global “soft power” (using cultural resources and information to promote British interests overseas).

The plan was that British TV licence-fee payers would fund the World Service, seemingly as an act of international benevolence, free of government ties. However, this seemed unlikely to be sustainable at a time when BBC income was being progressively squeezed.

In 2015, World Service revenues were boosted by a major grant from the UK’s Official Development Assistance fund, covering around a third of the World Service’s running costs.

One anonymous BBC insider was quoted by The Guardian saying that this would sustain the corporation’s “strong commitment to uphold global democracy through accurate, impartial and independent news”.

Even before the Second World War, the BBC claimed it only broadcast truthful and objective news. Policy makers recognised this as a crucial asset for promoting British interests overseas, and seldom sought to challenge (openly at least) the “editorial independence” of the BBC.

The BBC’s 2016 royal charter further entrenched this thinking, stating that news for overseas audiences should be “firmly based on British values of accuracy, impartiality and fairness”. The idea that a truthful approach to news was a core “British value” that could help promote democracy around the world became part of the BBC’s basic mission statement.

In 2017, the BBC established 17 new foreign-language radio and online services. To maximise possibilities for listening it purchased FM transmitter time in major cities around the world, and deployed internet radio, increasingly accessible to many users via mobile devices.

The focus was on Africa and Asia. However, the World Service also strengthened its Arabic and Russian provision to serve those who “sorely need reliable information”.

The British Broadcasting Company has placed an advertisement in today’s edition of The Times for its first permanent members of staff.

(14 October 1922) pic.twitter.com/iRSDfvHsAz

— The BBC, 100 years ago today (@BBC100yearsago) October 14, 2022

Fake news factor
The World Service’s rationale has been strengthened by growing concerns about “fake news”: distorted and untrue reports designed to serve the commercial or geopolitical interests of those who manufacture it.

The BBC has, in response, further emphasised its historic role as a truthful broadcaster. In its trusted news initiative it has worked with other global media outlets to tackle disinformation, hosting debate and discussion, and sharing intelligence about the most misleading campaigns.

Claims for continued relevance also rest on a drive to bring news to an ever larger audience. The BBC’s stated aim is to reach 500 million people this year, and a billion within another decade.

In 2021 the BBC claimed to be on course to realise this goal, reaching a global audience of 489 million. The audience for the World Service accounted for the single largest component of this global figure.

What then should we make of the BBC’s announcement in September 2022 that 400 jobs would have to go at the World Service due to the freezing of the licence fee and rapidly rising costs?

Radio services in languages including Arabic, Persian, Hindi and Chinese will disappear, and programme production for the English-language radio service will be pared down. Certainly, these cuts will reduce the BBC’s impact overseas.

But they should also be understood as part of a longstanding and ongoing transition from shortwave radio to web radio.

Similarly, cutting back on World Service non-news programming might not be a major cause for concern. In an age of global streaming services and social media, audiences can receive programmes from providers from across the globe.

The World Service would find it hard to compete with many of these services. However, the BBC remains in a pre-eminent position to offer trusted news.

By focusing on providing news online, the World Service is putting its resources where it can best promote British soft power and international influence, thereby improving prospects for its own continued existence.

However, abandoning radio entirely would be a mistake. As the Russian invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated, radio remains a crucial way to reach audiences who might find their access to trusted news via the internet suddenly cut off.

Dr Simon Potter, Professor of Modern History, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Solomon Islands government has prompted anger by ordering the censorship of the national broadcaster.

The government of Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare has forbidden it from publishing material critical of the government, which will vet all stories before broadcast.

The Guardian reports that on Monday the government announced that the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC), a public service broadcaster established in 1976 by an Act of Parliament, would be brought under government control.

The broadcaster, which airs radio programmes, TV bulletins and online news, is the only way to receive immediate news for people in many remote areas of the country and plays a vital role in natural disaster management.

Staff at SIBC confirmed to media that as of Monday, all news and programmes would be vetted by a government representative before broadcast.

The development has prompted outrage and raised concerns about freedom of the press.

“It’s very sad that media has been curtailed, this means we are moving away from democratic principles,” said Julian Maka, the Premier for Makira/Ulawa province, and formerly the programmes manager and current affairs head at SIBC.

“It is not healthy for the country, especially for people in the rural areas who need to have balanced views available to them.”

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has also condemned the move.

“The censoring of the Solomon Islands’ national broadcaster is an assault on press freedom and an unacceptable development for journalists, the public, and the democratic political process. The IFJ calls for the immediate reinstatement of independent broadcasting arrangements in the Solomon Islands.”

Claims of bias
The restrictions follow what Sogavare has called biased reporting and news causing “disunity”.

The opposition leader, Matthew Wale, has requested a meeting with the executive of the Media Association of Solomon Islands (MASI) to discuss the situation.

The Guardian reports there have been growing concerns about press freedom in Solomon Islands, particularly in the wake of the signing of the controversial security deal with China in May.

During the marathon tour of the Pacific conducted by China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, Pacific journalists were not permitted to ask him questions and in some cases reported being blocked from events, having Chinese officials block their camera shots, and having media accreditation revoked for no reason.

At Wang’s first stop in Solomon Islands, MASI boycotted coverage of the visit because many journalists were blocked from attending his press conference. Covid-19 restrictions were cited as the reason.

Sogavare’s office was contacted by the newspaper for comment.

Mounting pressure on SIBC ‘disturbing’
In Auckland, Professor David Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report and convenor of Pacific Media Watch, described the mounting pressure on the public broadcaster Solomon islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) as “disturbing” and an “unprecedented attack” on the independence of public radio in the country.

“It is extremely disappointing to see the Prime Minister’s Office effectively gagging the most important news service in reaching remote rural areas,” he said.

It was also a damaging example to neighbouring Pacific countries trying to defend their media freedom traditions.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The proposal for a new entity to replace Television New Zealand and RNZ has two fundamental flaws that must be fixed if it is to gain the public’s trust.

The first flaw is the assumption that an existing legal structure — the Autonomous Crown Entity — is an appropriate form of governance. The second is that it has provided inadequate protection from political interference. The two issues are related.

Let me say at the outset that I support the restructuring of public service media. It is an idea whose time has come. It is an opportunity to create, almost from the ground up, a public organisation designed to live up to a digital incarnation of BBC-founder Lord Reith’s dictum that public media should inform, educate and entertain (now, however, in a creative and clever mix).

My concern lies in the need for this new entity to demonstrate from the outset that it will be free-standing and free from influence. By treating its formation little differently from a stock-standard Autonomous Crown Entity (ACE) into which existing organisations are dropped, the government is sending the wrong signals. From Day One (i.e., right now) it needs to be treated very much as a special case.

Let’s not lose sight of what is possible here: The creation of a ground-breaking structure that can set new standards for public service media in the digital age – if it is born out of independent thinking, creativity, and wisdom.

And let’s not forget why it is vital that it succeed in that aim. Public trust in the institutions of democracy and a free society are being systematically undermined. We need to look no further than the darkly manipulated “protest” in front of Parliament.

Stirrers wanted the prime minister and journalists lynched and violent “protesters” set fires and threw paving bricks at police. They were supported throughout by a much wider social media narrative that neither politicians nor the media could be trusted.

Public trust in media eroding
Public trust in media is already on the way down. AUT’s Centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy polled trust in media last year and found it had declined across all four industry-wide metrics it had measured in 2020. RNZ and TVNZ remain the most trusted brands but both declined year-on-year. So, too, did all media included in the previous survey.

There is a real need for media institutions in which the public has trust and the JMaD studies point to public service media being at the pinnacle of that structure.

I have no doubt that the Minister of Broadcasting and Media, Kris Faafoi, is well-intentioned. As a former journalist he is only too well aware of the importance of trust and of the need to protect, nurture and champion media independence. Whether his cabinet colleagues have the same set of imperatives is harder to judge.

However, the restructuring requires a longer view than what might happen around the cabinet table over the next few months. We need to be concerned that the structure which emerges is not only fit for purpose now, but will endure for decades and be capable of withstanding winds of political change that on a global scale are showing more negative than positive signs.

In other words, it must be robust enough to survive not only known risks but also some conceivable unknowns: We had a Robert Muldoon, so could we have a Donald Trump?

Unfortunately, the announcement last week provides a less-than-reassuring beginning. The cabinet go-ahead was sparse on structural and operational detail. It did speak of a charter and proposed legislation that will contain a much-vaunted guarantee of editorial independence from ministerial control. However, that is undermined by other planned moves and much of the potential damage could be done even before the new structure is up and running.

Significantly, control of the governance of the implementation phase of the restructuring is one area of the cabinet paper and supporting documents in which there is real detail. Absence of detail elsewhere is explained away by saying these are matters for the Establishment Board to decide.

Seen as the architect
The draft terms of reference for the Establishment Board state it will be responsible for overseeing the detailed organisational design of the new entity and the transition to the new structure. In other words, it is to be seen as the architect. That was certainly the inference in Kris Faaoi’s announcement last week.

Yet the Establishment Board is precisely where the Minister (and his Cabinet colleagues) and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage have a potentially high level of influence.

The Establishment Board is expected to stay aligned to any cabinet decisions and is responsible for ensuring it “progresses government policy” and meets the minister’s objectives.

All members (up to nine) are to be appointed by the minister, who will also appoint the chair. The minister can terminate any member’s term before the expiry date and there is no requirement for him to state cause.

The board will not have its own staff but may ask the Ministry for Culture and Heritage – which will provide the secretariat — to appoint people to provide specialist or technical advice. MCH will also procure other services on the board’s behalf and its chief executive will decide what functions it will delegate to the board. Meanwhile MCH will continue to provide advice directly to the minister.

The Establishment Board will, according to the terms of reference, operate on a consensus basis — not a majority vote — and where it can’t reach consensus “the chair will advise the minister of the difference of opinion”. That begs the question: Does the minister effectively have a deciding vote?

He certainly has a tight hold on what the Establishment Board says in public. The section in the terms of reference relating to the Establishment Board’s relationship with the minister is devoted almost entirely to public statements. There can be “no surprises” (no surprise there) and the chair is the sole spokesperson.

The minister is to be informed of any public comment “either prior to, or as soon as possible after comment is made”, and all press releases must be sent to the minister in advance.

Multiple avenues for influence 
All of this suggests to me that both the minister and the ministry have multiple avenues through which they can influence the way the new structure is put together.

I freely admit there is good reason for liaison. For example, the early activity of the board will take place while the entity’s empowering Act and other law changes are working their way through the legislative process. The board’s thinking on the new entity should be reflected in that legislation and, if it isn’t, we might question why it is not.

However, there are equally good reasons why the Establishment Board should be seen to be independent. If the minister deflected questions on detail by saying they were matters for the Establishment Board, then let it be so.

The way it now stands, it looks (as my betting old dad would say) as though the government is trying to have a quid each way. Hedging bets is not a good way to begin the trust-building process.

Step one in that process should be an unequivocal statement from the minister that the Establishment Board does, in fact, have autonomy and, so long as its actions support the aims of the new entity, it will not be subject to ministerial or ministry direction. It should also have the power to appoint its own advisors.

Then there is the new entity itself. I was frankly surprised that work by a Chief Executives Working Party (to which I was an advisor), a Business Study group, and then a Business Case Governance Group did not produce a unique structure for what will be a unique organisation. Specifically, I expected to see the strongest recommendations for iron-clad protections, and I expected to see such protections accepted by cabinet. That hasn’t happened…yet.

Instead, cabinet has accepted the option of an Autonomous Crown Entity with a traditional minister-appointed board, with two board members appointed in consultation with the Minister for Māori Development. The only aspects that separate it from a stock-standard ACE is a charter (to which I’ll return) and a section that protects the entity’s editorial independence. As it stands, that section is less prescriptive that either the Television New Zealand Act or the Radio New Zealand Act.

Statement of good intentions
Cabinet has approved what is titled a “proposed basis for charter structure” that is little more than a statement of good intentions. Admittedly, no charter should be so detailed that it limits initiative or the ability to respond to changed circumstances.

However, what is missing from this document is an overarching statement that the organisation as a whole will be predicated on autonomy and independence. Instead there is a clause stating that the organisation itself should “demonstrate editorial independence”.

Also missing — or among the 12 redacted sections of the cabinet paper relating to financial implications — is how the new entity will be protected from the cudgel that governments here and elsewhere have used to bring recalcitrant public broadcasters to heel. That big stick is control of the purse-strings.

It is vital that there be some certainty of funding, both for operational reasons and to demonstrate to the public that the entity doesn’t kowtow to government in order to pay the bills.

We do not know what the core level of public funding will be, the term over which it will be paid, and who will set it. Funding, of course, is ultimately in Parliament’s hands and, as we’re talking taxpayer money, that is as it should be. However, it still needs protecting in some way from a vengeful ruling party – and here I want you to think forward to that Trump figure in our possible future. Multi-year funding, for example, is a pre-requisite.

There is still time to put right the governance shortfalls in the proposal.

The first step should be for the government to accept the need for an additional tier of governance that sits, effectively, above the board. Not to second-guess it, but to ensure that it meets the spirit of the charter under which the entity will operate, to review proposed budgets and Crown appropriations, and to act as a shield against external interference from government, the ministry or elsewhere.

Why Guardians are needed
The entity needs Guardians. RNZ’s board is described as guardians but they are effectively the equivalent of company directors (even if they are absolved from the need to turn a profit). The new entity will need something more akin to the Guardians of Lakes Manapouri, Monowai, and Te Anau that were established by Norman Kirk to protect those waters against detrimental effects from the hydro power scheme.

The Guardians of Public Media should, however, differ from that precedent in several fundamental ways.

First, they should not be appointed by a minister but by Parliament. In fact, the board of the entity should be similarly appointed, as is the case with a number of European public service media.

Second, they should produce an annual report, made not to a minister but to Parliament. It should include a judgement on funding adequacy and a review of the entity’s relationship with the minister, the ministry, and government as a whole.

This annual report should replace the proposed yearly review by at least four government departments, but not annual reports to Parliament by the entity itself.

The cabinet paper proposes a five-yearly review of the charter by Parliament. That can be read as a review by the politicians in power. Therefore any parliamentary review should be preceded by a Guardian review of the charter’s fitness for purpose and it is that review that should go to the House. That way, if a ruling party wants to mess unilaterally with the charter, it will be seen for what it is. In addition, each year the guardians should review performance against charter objectives, separate from any assessment by the entity itself.

They should also act as a bulwark against interference in decisions relating to any content produced or disseminated, and that is not limited to news. A shiver still runs down the spines of old broadcasters at the mention of Robert Muldoon’s undoubted role in the decision in 1980 not to screen the drama Death of a Princess to avoid upsetting the Saudi government.

More protection for news
News and current affairs, however, require more protection and guarantees of autonomy than other forms of programming. That was not apparent in the documents released last week. There must be explicit prohibitions — in legislation and in the charter — on both external and internal interference in news operations. A minister is not the sole potential source of pressure. Officials, board members, commercial staff, and management of the entity must be held at arm’s length.

Legislation should also preclude the chief executive from also holding the position of editor-in-chief. Paul Thompson holds both positions at RNZ and has done so without controversy, but the new entity will be both much larger and will be a hybrid of commercial and non-commercial functions.

I believe all of the entity’s news and current affairs functions and decision-making, including the position of editor-in-chief, must be kept within that department if autonomy and independence are to be seen to be real.

Details missing from last week’s announcement and document release created frustration but there may be a brighter side. If the detail has yet to be worked out, there is still time for Kris Faafoi, his cabinet colleagues, his ministry, and the Establishment Board to get it right.

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

• Read the full Gavin Ellis article here:

Fundamental flaws in public media plans call for big fixes

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The announcement of the government’s decision to merge RNZ and TVNZ into a non-profit “public media entity” was long anticipated but, coming in the second year of Labour’s second term, underwhelming in its lack of detail.

Cabinet had discussed the proposal back in 2019, and yesterday’s announcement was expected to be the culmination of extensive planning, consulting, expert committees and corporate accounting reports.

The protracted process was intended to give shape to the broadcasting minister’s vision of a multi-platform public service provider capable of fulfilling its cultural and civil remit into the 21st century.

And while it’s significant that the government recognises the importance of strong public media across all platforms in New Zealand, and is committed to its strategic vision, in many respects the announcement raises more questions than it answers.

Video: NZ Herald

Commercial tension
Firstly, how will the organisational and governance structures across radio, television and online services function? Minister Kris Faafoi has indicated that these details will now be delegated to a new “establishment committee”, although the Strong Public Media governance group had delivered a business case to cabinet last year.

Complications arise because TVNZ is a commercial entity, which competes directly with other commercial media for (slowly declining) audiences and advertising revenues, while RNZ is a fully funded public service provider with a charter.

The minister has affirmed that the current non-commercial radio services will be retained. But aligning the commercial television arm and future online services — for example, the integration of the RNZ and TVNZ news operations — entails potentially contradictory priorities, even under the broad directives of a public charter.

Plans unveiled for #NZ‘s new mega public media –
it will operate under a #charter, with “trustworthy #news” as a core service #AsiaPacificReport #RNZnews #RNZPacific #publicmedia #publicbroadcasting #KrisFaafoi @shrek45 @EveningReportNZ #communitymediahttps://t.co/Wf6sLWKP7p pic.twitter.com/5dpefe2XCc

— David Robie (@DavidRobie) March 10, 2022

Secondly, what funding arrangements will support the new public media entity? The ratio of public to commercial revenues and the mechanisms for ensuring its adequacy across future changes of government are critical, but have not been specified — although some redacted figures in related cabinet papers suggest these have been estimated.

The minister suggests these will be determined through forthcoming budget deliberations. If this implies that the level of funding depends on annual budget wrangling with other cabinet portfolios, then there is little hope of gaining substantial and sustainable commitment over the demands of health, education, housing and other policy priorities.

NZME and Stuff voice unease over merger of TVNZ and RNZ, but TV3 owner says ‘so far, so good’. https://t.co/NV9ji1mMJ0

— Stuff (@NZStuff) March 10, 2022

Budget uncertainty
Faafoi’s predecessor, Clare Curran, ran into this problem in 2018. Having announced an anticipated investment of NZ$38 million to develop RNZ’s services, the budget delivered only $15 million.

Prior to that, Labour’s attempt to restructure TVNZ with a dual-remit charter was compromised by cabinet disagreements. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage allocated $95 million of public funding only for Treasury to extract $142 million in dividends.

Crucially, balancing public service and commercial expectations requires the organisational structure and funding arrangements to be in sync. But this is unlikely to happen if one is determined by a committee and the other is left to the uncertainties of the budget.

There are successful public service operators, such as RTE in Ireland or CBC in Canada, which have mixed commercial and public funding. In both cases, though, the public ratio is more than 50 percent. It would be wishful thinking to suppose cabinet would provide 50 percent public funding to align TVNZ’s services with a public charter remit.

That would cost at least $150 million per year — triple the current allocation to RNZ and TVNZ. When reliance on commercial revenue predominates, commissioning and scheduling decisions inevitably reflect the imperative to optimise eyeballs and advertising dollars.

Time is tight
Even with base-line funding assured for the non-commercial RNZ services, without any mechanism to ensure adequate ratios are maintained, there is a risk that future revenue increases will come to depend increasingly on developing commercial spin-offs online.

This would inevitably affect the new entity’s capacity to use the expansion of its online services to deliver more diverse content to a full range of audiences.

The minister has suggested the new entity will be established by 2023. Given the legislation has yet to be drafted, that time-line is already tight. Any further delays or announcements of bold intentions without concrete substance will risk pushing Labour’s public media plans further toward the 2023 election.

If the new entity has not been established before then, and with Labour slipping in the polls, all bets on the future of public media in Aotearoa New Zealand are off.

Dr Peter Thompson is associate professor of media studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor about Russian strikes on four radio and TV towers in Ukraine since March 1 that constitute a war crime.

The strikes have prevented Ukrainian media from broadcasting. At least 32 TV channels and several dozen radio stations have been affected, reports the Paris-based global media freedom watchdog.

Since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine on February 24, it has deliberately targeted TV antennae throughout the country.

Under international law, antennae used for broadcasting radio and TV signals cannot be regarded as legitimate military targets unless they are used by the armed forces, or are temporarily assigned to military use, or are used for both civilian and military purposes at the same time.

RSF’s complaint demonstrates that the TV towers were civilian in nature, and that Russia deliberately targeted Ukrainian media installations because, Russia said, these installations were participating in “information attacks”.

The complaint filed by RSF emphasises the intentional nature of these attacks, and the fact that they are being carried out on a large scale, which shows that they are part of a deliberate plan.

“Deliberately bombarding many media installations such as television antennae constitutes a war crime and demonstrates the scale of the offensive launched by Putin against the right to news and information,” RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said.

Plea on crimes against media
“These crimes are all the more serious for clearly being part of a plan, part of a policy, and for being carried out on a large scale. We call on the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor to put crimes against media and journalists at the heart of the investigation he opened on February 28.”

The ICC’s chief prosecutor announced on February 28 that he was opening an investigation into the situation in Ukraine.

On March 2, 39 countries that are parties to the Rome Statute (the treaty establishing the ICC) formally referred the situation in Ukraine to the prosecutor.

These referrals allow him to begin his investigations at once, without having to seek authorisation from the court’s judges first.

After Kyiv being fired on by the Russian armed forces for the previous week, the city’s TV tower was hit by a precision strike on March 1 that abruptly terminated broadcasting by 32 TV channels and several dozen national radio stations.

This deliberate strike had been announced in advance by the Russian Defence Ministry. Under the guise of protecting civilians, the Defence Ministry issued a signed confession to its crimes.

The Kyiv TV tower — which had an adjoining technical building that was destroyed by the bombardment — had no military use and was used only by civilian TV and radio stations, such as the public TV channel UA Pershiy, the privately-owned TV channel 1+1 and the TV news channel Ukraine 24.

Broadcasts were cut short
The viewers and listeners of these media outlets, whose broadcasts were cut short by the Russian strike, had to switch to satellite operators or go online to access their programming until broadcasting was reinstated later in the day.

The Russian strike killed Evgeny Sakun, a cameraman working for the Kyiv Live local TV channel who was at the TV tower, and four other people.

Since that first major attack on an essential installation for accessing news and information, Russia has attacked other TV towers.

According to the information obtained by RSF and its local partner IMI, at least three other radio and TV towers, in Korosten, Lysychansk and Kharkiv, have been the targets of Russian strikes, and two radio antennae, in Melitopol and Kherson, stopped broadcasting after Russian soldiers took control of those cities.

Strikes targeted the TV tower in the city of Lysychansk (in the Luhansk region, whose independence Russia has recognised) late in the morning of March 2. The radio and TV tower in the northeastern city Kharkiv was targeted by two Russian missiles shortly before 1 pm, causing its broadcast to be suspended.

Later the same day, another strike destroyed the TV tower in the norther city of Korosten.

These strikes against telecommunications antennae show a clear intention by the Russian armed forces to prevent the dissemination of news and information. The warning issued shortly before the attacks makes it clear that Russian military want to end what they call “information attacks”.

This desire is confirmed by the fact that the Russian army has cut Ukrainian TV and radio signals in several cities after taking control of them. In the southern region that Russia has invaded from Crimea, the occupation forces have blocked Ukrainian TV and radio broadcasts from the telecommunication towers in the cities of Melitopol and Kherson.

Russian ‘fake news’ law cripples media
The equipment on these towers has been changed and they are now broadcasting the pro-Kremlin propaganda channel Russia 24.

The satellite signal of UA Pershiy, a TV channel owned by the Ukrainian public broadcasting corporation Suspline, is meanwhile being subjected to jamming attempts by Russia, and its website was hacked on March 1.

Meanwhile, RSF has called on the Russian authorities to immediately repeal a draconian law adopted on March 4 that makes the publication of “false” or “mendacious” information about the Russian armed forces punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

It leaves little hope for the future of the country’s few remaining independent media outlets.

Many leading foreign media — including the BBC, CNN, Bloomberg News, ABC, CBS News and Canada’s CBC/Radio-Canada — have decided to temporarily suspend broadcasting or news gathering in Russia since the amendment, which applies to foreign as well as Russian citizens, was signed into law by President Vladimir Putin.

Ukraine is ranked 97th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index, while Russia is ranked 150th.

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A radio journalist has been shot dead outside his home by two gunmen on a motorcycle, Philippines police said – four years after the provincial broadcaster survived a similar attempt to kill him.

Virgilio Maganes, 62, who lived northwest of Manila in the province of Pangasinan, was shot six times yesterday and died at the scene, police said, reports Al Jazeera.

Maganes is the 18th journalist to have been killed since President Rodrigo Duterte took office in 2016, and the 190th since Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown in 1986, according to the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP).

Few of the perpetrators are ever brought to justice.

Maganes survived the previous attempt on his life by pretending to be dead.

“We demand that authorities work fast to solve his death, which could be related to the botched attempt on his life on November 8, 2016, when motorcycle-riding gunmen fired at him as he rode a tricycle,” the NUJP said.

On that occasion, the gunmen left a note at the scene saying: “I’m a drug pusher, don’t emulate me.”

Such messages were common in extrajudicial killings during the height of Duterte’s war on drugs that led to thousands of deaths.

Police said they had not established a motive for the attack on Maganes. At least two other journalists have been killed for doing their work in 2020, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), and both cases remain unsolved.

Reporters Without Borders said in a Tweet it was “terrible news” and called for an independent investigation to “find the culprits of this gruesome murder”.

?? Terrible news! In the #Philippines, radio journalist Virgilio Maganes was shot six times this morning in front of his house in Pangasinan (North). He was killed immediately. @RSF_inter calls for an independent investigation to find the culprits of this gruesome murder. @nujp pic.twitter.com/ASHkZFKnt8

— RSF (@RSF_inter) November 10, 2020

The Presidential Task Force on Media Security, which was set up to tackle media murders, described the killing as “an act of cowardice” and vowed to hunt down those responsible, while Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said both Maganes’s murder and the 2016 attack would be investigated to establish whether they were linked to his work as a journalist.

Media under pressure
The Philippines is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist and the media has found itself under increasing pressure since Duterte was elected president.

ABS-CBN, the country’s largest broadcaster, was ordered to close after the regulator failed to renew the channel’s 25-year operating licence while veteran editor Maria Ressa and her online news site Rappler, are facing numerous court cases on charges ranging from tax evasion to defamation.

Both ABS-CBN and Rappler have been critical of Duterte’s drug war and his government’s policies.

The country’s largest newspaper, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, which has also published stories critical of the drug war, was pressured to be sold to Ramon Ang, an ally of the president, after Duterte threatened its owners with legal consequences.

The newspaper also reported on Duterte’s alleged hidden wealth in the run-up to the 2016 election.

The Duterte administration denies targeting media for its reporting.

Index on Censorship, which campaigns for freedom of expression, condemned Maganes’s killing.

“Press freedom has nosedived under Duterte who heads a constant campaign of harassment,” the organisation said on Twitter. “The world must come together in rage against these awful attacks.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The covid-19 coronavirus pandemic has brought numerous challenges to the way journalists report and has limited the stories they’re able to tell, forcing many of them to drop coverage of issues like the environment in order to focus on the public health crisis.

But for Jakarta-based Kantor Berita Radio (KBR), the first independent national radio news agency in Indonesia, the pandemic was an opportunity to make its climate change coverage more relevant.

Using a mix of live radio talk shows and videos, innovative outreach and personal stories, KBR is helping raise awareness about climate change by looking at how it intersects with covid-19.

READ MORE: Radio storyttelling and community empowerment in the Philippines

Before the coronavirus outbreak, the station had developed a project called “What’s In It For Me?” Supported by a grant from Internews’ Earth Journalism Network, the project was designed to explore the different ways climate change affects people’s daily lives.

The goal was to build public engagement through storytelling, in the hope of triggering a wider debate about climate issues between the public and policy-makers.

That plan could have been derailed when covid-19 took center stage, but KBR quickly moved to explore how concerns about the virus also related to climate change, producing content on topics such as energy use and forest fires that were both timely and relevant.

Three talk shows
Between May and June, the station produced three talk shows.

• “How to use energy wisely during the covid-19 pandemic.” (May 15) This show explored the links between energy consumption and climate change and discussed ways in which people could use energy more wisely at home to keep electricity bills down.
• “Anticipating a water crisis in Indonesia.” (May 22) With all the hand washing required during a pandemic, water use has gone up, but access to clean and adequate water supplies remains a huge problem in many parts of the country. The discussion during this show revolved around the reasons for the scarcity as well as environmental justice issues, and allowed speakers to share solutions.
• “Forest fires and the dry season in the midst of covid-19” (June 12) The third talk show, looked at how covid-19 heightens the challenge of combating Indonesia’s perennial land and forest fires and could exacerbate health problems related to the blazes. Speakers outlined the public health links between covid-19 and forest fires and discussed what’s being done and what more is needed to address the problem.

The key challenge for KBR has been ensuring the content is relevant to its audience. But Ardhi Rosyadi, an editor and producer at KBR, says they’ve tried to overcome this by bringing in diverse speakers – including experts, government officials, activists and community leaders – who can clearly explain the issues at both a national and local level.

“We believe that diversity of speakers is crucial because our audience is also diverse,” said Rosyadi. “Our radio talkshow is broadcasting in 34 provinces and each area is experiencing climate change in different ways. And for us, it’s important to make our audience feel connected with the topic, because we want them to feel that it’s also important and eventually take part and do something.”

Expanding to video, growing engagement
The talk shows have all been broadcast live as part of KBR’s flagship program Ruang Publik, which means Public Space in Bahasa Indonesia. To reach new and younger audiences they have  also converted them to podcasts that can be shared online and through mobile apps, such as Spotify.

KBR also worked to grow its audience by recording videos of its talk shows and streaming them live on Facebook. The pandemic has now motivated KBR to carry out its shows primarily through online videos, said Citra Parstuti, KBR’s editor-in-chief.

Content is prerecorded and rebroadcast on YouTube and other social media platforms, with most newsroom teams able to broadcast from home and production carried out in the studio.

Transition to YouTube
KBR has already seen the fruits of its efforts. During a typical one-hour radio talk show they might get between three and six questions (sent through call-ins or text messages). The transition to YouTube has seen this number jump, with 30 questions/comments offered in the third show on June 12, said Parstuti.

“What can we do as society? Because last year, we experienced land burning for five months and it was devastating for us. It will be harder for us in the middle of [the] corona pandemic like now,” read a comment from a viewer on YouTube during that June 12 show.

“From the comments and questions that we received throughout the talk show, we have a sense that the audience understands that we are living in the midst of climate crisis, by looking at their own backyards,” Prastuti wrote in a recent report on the project.

“We believe that this is a good start to inform and educate public to understand climate crisis. Through our talk shows, we are showing that the impacts are real and happening now.”

In coordination with the talk shows, KBR also invites bloggers to listen to the live shows and then write blog posts as part of a writing competition drawing on insights and data shared during the discussion.

Prastuti said they have chosen to target the blogger community because bloggers have the ability to continue the conversation and share information in a more practical way on their own platforms and among their audience. The three winners selected have all been women.

“Our radio talk shows play an important role to give ‘ammunition’ to their writings and also lights further curiosity to dig out for more information,” Prastuti wrote in her report. “The writing competition is a way to find new champions who care, understand and can campaign on climate change issues.”

Short audio spots
As a final effort to extend its content as widely as possible, KBR has taken some of the best quotes from speakers and created short audio spots that it broadcasts up to five times a day in the week following the talk shows.

KBR says it is an attempt to reach listeners after the broadcast is over in a shorter, more straightforward way.

The station’s creative new approaches are already brightening up climate change coverage, and it intends to broadcast more YouTube videos and plans to mainstream environmental topics into the station’s regular shows.

Eventually, KBR plans to host talks shows outside of the studio with live audiences, one that it hopes will have grown bigger despite, or perhaps because of, the pandemic.

The Pacific Media Centre is a partner of Internews’ Earth Environment Network.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Host Sherry Zhang interviewed the director of the Pacific Media Centre, Professor David Robie, about the tragic life and death of Jenelyn Kennedy from gender violence in Papua New Guinea today on the Southern Cross segment of Radio 95bFM.

Professor Robie discussed the rather horrific image of her lifeless body on the front page of The National newspaper and the ethical dilemma about publishing this photo to bring into focus gender-based violence.

The image was defended by senior journalist Rebecca Kuku who was criticised in social media for taking the stance.

LISTEN: More Southern Cross radio clips on Soundcloud

However, while Professor Robie supported publication of the photo and also published it on the PMC’s Asia Pacific Report, he said the newspaper should have also had a front-page editorial explaining why they ran the picture.

“Jenelyn’s story needed to be told – as a reporter, a woman, a mother, a sister, I failed to be her voice when she was alive and I’d be damned if I would fail her now in her death,” wrote Rebecca Kuku.

“Her voice needs to be heard and that picture was used to ensure her voice was loud and clear and to also awaken the authorities who seem to be sleeping, to open their eyes to the realities of gender-based violence (GBV).”

Jenelyn who eloped with Bosip Kaiwi when she was just 15, bore him two children and was killed at 19.

Then contributing editor of Pacific Media Watch Sri Krishnamurthi discussed the Cook Islands where members of Parliament (MPs) want to go to extraordinary lengths to ban a senior Cook Islands News journalist.

Rashneel Kumar who reported on MPs seeking travel perks was this week awaiting the decision of the Speaker of the House, Niki Rattle, while media groups have protested over the parliamentary move.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand established its credentials as an independent small nation after the fatal bombing of the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior in 1985, says an author and academic who spent weeks on the vessel shortly before it was attacked.

On 10 July 1985, the Rainbow Warrior was sunk at an Auckland wharf by two bombs planted on the hull of the ship by French secret agents.

The event is often referred to as the first act of terrorism in New Zealand.

LISTEN: The Afternoons with Jesse Mulligan Crime NZ interview with David Robie
WATCH: Eyes of Fire archival videos
READ: The Eyes of Fire book

Two French agents planted two explosives on the ship while it was berthed at Marsden wharf, the second explosion killing Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira.

Dr David Robie, who is an AUT professor of journalism and communication studies, as well as the director of the university’s Pacific Media Centre, had spent more than 10 weeks on the ship as a journalist covering its nuclear rescue mission in the Pacific.

He wrote about his experience in Eyes of Fire, a book about the last voyage of the first Rainbow Warrior – two other Rainbow Warrior ships have followed.

In 1985, Rongelap atoll villagers in the Marshall Islands asked Greenpeace to help them relocate to a new home at Mejato atoll. Their island had been contaminated by radioactive fallout from US atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.

Environmental journalism
“At the time I was very involved in environmental issues around the Pacific and in those days Greenpeace was very small, a fledgling organisation,” he tells Jesse Mulligan.

“They had a little office in downtown Auckland and Elaine Shaw was the coordinator and she was quite worried that this was going to be a threshold voyage.

“It was probably the first campaign by Greenpeace that was humanitarian, it wasn’t just environmental – to rescue basically the people who had been suffering from nuclear radiation.”

Shaw, he says, was looking for media publicity on the issue and several journalists from Europe and the US had been invited on board as the Greenpeace crew carried out their mission.

“There were about six journalists who went onboard but I ended up being the only one from the Southern Hemisphere.

“It was a big commitment at the time because I was a freelance journalist and it meant joining the Rainbow Warrior in Hawai’i and being onboard until 10-to-11 weeks, right up until the time of the bombing.”

He says the 49m ex-fishing trawler, originally named the Sir William Hardy, built in Aberdeen, Scotland, had been comfortable enough at sea, having been refitted as an environmental sailing ship as well as engines. “It had a lot of character… I guess all of us onboard grew to love it incredibly.”

Moruroa protest planned
The US had carried out 67 nuclear tests at the Marshall Islands. France was also carrying out 193 tests in the Pacific and Greenpeace had planned on confronting that situation at Moruroa Atoll after its Marshall Islands rescue effort.

New Zealand had already voiced disapproval of the testing in the region, with then Prime Minister David Lange in 1984 rebuking the French for “arrogantly” continuing the programme in the country’s backyard.

Dr Robie left the ship when it docked in Auckland after the Marshall Islands stage of the mission. Three days after the ship had docked, a birthday celebration was held for  Greenpeace campaign organiser Steve Sawyer onboard. The attack happened after the party.

Just before midnight on the evening of 10 July 1985, two explosions ripped through the hull as the ship.

Portuguese crew member Fernando Pereira was killed after returning on board after the first explosion.

“I think it was an incredible miracle that only one person lost his life,” Dr Robie says. He was not at the party at the time and joined the crew early it the morning when he heard the news.

He objects to the prominent media angle at the time, which he says focused on suggestions it was not the perpetrator’s intention to kill anyone.

‘Outrageous act of terrorism’
“It was an outrageous act of terrorism and the bombers knew very well, as they were getting information all the time, that there was a large crowd onboard the Rainbow Warrior that night and the chances were very high that there could have been a loss of life.”

Two of the cabin crew were situated immediately above the engine room when the first bomb planted there went off. The second bomb was planted near the propeller to ensure the ship was hobbled.

Dr Robie had been able to visit the ship later after it had been towed to Devonport naval base.

“I was quiet staggered – my old [cabin] floor had sort of erupted, Fernando had a cabin right close to that and he probably got trapped there.”

Thirteen foreign agents were involved, operating in three teams. The first team brought in the explosives, the second team would plant these and the third was on stand-by in case anything went wrong with the first two teams.

“A commanding officer kept an overview of the whole operation. I think there was an element of arrogance, the same arrogance as with the testing itself. There was a huge amount of arrogance about taking on an operation like this in a peaceful country – we were allies of France at the time – and it is extraordinary that they assumed they could get away with this outrageous act.”

Two of the spies were caught. Two General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) officers, Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart, were arrested on July 24. Both were charged with murder, pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.

Repression of independence movements
“You have to see it within the context of the period of the time,” Dr Robie says.

He says that the French policy of repression against independence movements in New Caledonia and Tahiti, with assassinations of Kanak leaders like Eloi Machoro, needed to be understood to put the Rainbow Warrior attack in perspective. France was bitterly defending its nuclear force de frappe.

“New Zealand was unpopular with the major nuclear powers and there was certainly no sympathy for New Zealand’s position about nuclear testing. So, there wasn’t really any co-operation, even from our closest neighbour, Australia.

“Had we had more cooperation… we probably would have got agents who were on board the Ouvea, the yacht that carried the explosives, in Norfolk Island. But it is extraordinary we got two [agents] anyway.

“But we did not benefit in any way from [state] intelligence… so I think we were very much let down by our intelligence community.”

The case was a source of considerable embarrassment to the French government.

“They did pay compensation after arbitration that went on with the New Zealand government and Greenpeace. But justice was never really served… the 10 years were never served, both Prieur and Mafart were part of the negotiations with French government.

NZ was held ‘over a barrel’
“Basically, France had New Zealand over a barrel over trade and the European Union, so compromises were reached and Prieur and Mafart were handed over to France for three years. Essentially house arrest at Hao atoll, the rear base of the French nuclear operations in Polynesia.”

Dr Robie said the rear base was widely regarded as a military “Club Med”.

He says they didn’t even spend three years there, but left for France within the time period.

While the attack was on an international organisation rather than New Zealand itself, most New Zealanders saw it as an attack on the sovereignty of the nation

Dr Robie says it left a long-lasting impression on New Zealanders.

“It was a baptism of fire. It was a loss of innocence when that happened. And in that context, we had stood up as a small nation on being nuclear-free. Something we should have been absolutely proud of, which we were, with all those who campaigned for that at the time. I think that really established our independence, if you like, as a small nation.

“I think we have a lot to contribute to the world in terms of peace-making and we shouldn’t lose track of that. The courage that was shown by this country, standing up to a major nuclear power. We should follow through on that kind of independence of thought.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch  contributing editor Sri Krishnamurthi discusses a new book today on West Papua, The Road: Uprising in West Papua, reviewed by Professor David Robie, in his weekly 95bFM segment Southern Cross.

The book is authored by Australian investigative journalist John Martinkus who has covered wars and conflicts in Asia and the Middle East for years, including the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

David picks up on the author’s theme of “The Road” – the 4000-plus km Trans-Papua Highway – supposed to be for development in the Melanesian region.

But, as John Martinkus makes very clear in this damning book launched in Sydney this afternoon, it is more about repressing the West Papuans while exploiting the the rich natural resources such as the giant Freeport mine.

There is a section in the book paying tribute to the Pacific Media Watch coverage of West Papua.

Also discussed, is the Philippines with President Rodrigo Duterte’s government shutting down the largest television broadcasters, ABS-CBN with 42 channels across the country.

And, was NZME trying to pull a “fast one” over Stuff in a takeover bid.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz