I sympathise with the mainstream media. It's half-finished stories have to meet deadlines, and when the story is ready to publish, other stories push it aside.
Remember the story? NZ journalists arrested when investigating environmental abuse by Chinese real estate developers on Malolo island. Civil libertarians up in arms. Bainimarama orders their release, apologizes and invites them for afternoon tea. Talk of revoking the developer's licences.
Now here's the full story from the journalists
followed by details on the licence revocation.
There was talk on the social media that FreeSoul was not a Chinese company. Here's the answer to that.
Enjoy!
pn350
Showing posts with label #media freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #media freedom. Show all posts
Sunday, 14 April 2019
Friday, 22 February 2019
Weekend Reading 23-24 February 2019
 |
| pn277 |
Saturday 3pm. Are Facebook and Twitter Killing Mainstream Media and Blogs?
Sunday 6pm. Our Kauri Heritage.
Wednesday, 3 October 2018
John Armstrong's Advice to Jacinda. It's about changes but not nappies
 |
| pn109 |
shifting this way and that as he anticipates changes in the public mood. From February to September there's been a remarkable change.
From his February article headed cooing about Jacinda "may not be able to walk on water. Not yet anyway. But give her time." This, when when most journalists were sharing in the Jacinda "honeymoon."
To his most recent article headed, "Jacinda Ardern must stop the rot in 'drunken sailor' Government." Now, that many journalists are sharing tales of division, gloom, incompetence and deception. (my bold emphasis.)
By March, Jacinda "Looked like she was no longer in control during Labour's week from hell" and she "appeared flustered, even rattled, during the first crises to hit her Government."
By May, "Labour's record so far on affordable housing builds is pathetic" and "Row over 'waka-jumping law' puts stability of wobbly Government coalition to the test."
By June, "Ardern's baby leave gives her time to give serious thought to Labour's 'cannot be bothered' attitude to business sector."
By July, "Greens 'swallowing a dead rat' to vote for waka jumping law no great surprise."
By August, "Ardern's freeze on MPs' pay defused a political time-bomb - but praise was unjustified" and "Jacinda Ardern's handling of potential economic downturn has been ordinary."
And in September, "As Labour fast loses the plot, Sunday's moment of coalition unity was priceless" and "Jacinda Ardern's excursion to Nauru a PR disaster."
Some advice from John Armstong Now, in his 'drunken sailor' Government article he offers Jacinda eight pieces of emergency "to do" advice. Click on the link above for his advice in full. He starts with :
"Stop the (supposed Coalition) rot — and pretty darned soon ... as its components stumble from one mini-crisis to the next minor scandal ... Viewed in total ... the various mishaps and miscues add up to a fair-sized catalogue of catastrophe."
(This phrase alone shows how many of the so-called scandals and crises are created or greatly magnified by the media.)
His 1, 2 and 5 advice deal with the supposed coalition division,
His 3 advises her to stop mouthing about running and open and transparent government,
His 4 says stop apologizing for Peters,
His 6 and 7 offer good advice (highlight the health of the economy and kill talk about a capital gains tax,
And his 8, rather lamely advises Labour should start taking Simon Bridges seriously.
I look forward to Armstong and the NZ Herald publishing some fair, balanced and informed articles on the political scene. This was not one of them.
--ACW
Tuesday, 25 September 2018
White Man Behind A Desk Quits Comedy
White Man Behind A Desk quits comedy, pivots to political commentary
 |
| pn96 |
The calculus of supply and demand has driven WMBAD to abandon humour and focus instead on hot takes.
Here Robbie Nicol, Finnius Teppett et al pitch their wares
Here Robbie Nicol, Finnius Teppett et al pitch their wares
White Man Behind A Desk has given up comedy because it is a moral evil. Some people might think we gave up because of our inability to convert views into financial success or because we were never that funny to begin with. To those people, we would say, “Shut up.”
Luckily, we have discovered a job that requires neither knowledge nor humour – political commentary. (Click on Read more below.)
Friday, 14 September 2018
Who and what is the "disaster" here?
The NZTV1 online heading reads "Jacinda Ardern's excursion to Nauru a PR disaster." It's an opinion piece written by John Armstrong who concludes that our PM's attendance at the PI Forum meeting was a "disaster" -- even before she left NZ.
 |
| "shallow, sensational, knee-jerk rubbish" pn76 |
His reasons were the cost (which he largely discounted), Ardern defending her failure to meet and talk to the refugee asylum-seekers, and Winston Peters' refusal to raise the refugee quota. That's three, or 2½, issues, with the third one probably better targeted at Peters and more related to coalition tensions here in NZ, 4,600 kilometres to the south.
Hardly a disaster for Jacinda Adern -- unless John and the media wish to make it so.
The Pacific Island Forum meeting got a further 13 mentions in our media since I last wrote (pn70), mostly on RNZ International that few NZ residents watch or read. Of the 13, two were on climate change, two on security and one on trade, all on the agenda. A further two were are the China-Taiwan spat and - wait for it-- six, nearly one-half, were on refugees.
I agree with Roshika Deo, Amnesty International’s Pacific Researcher, writing on the refugee situation:
"The Forum was an opportunity for leaders in the region to say enough is enough and show that they would no longer stand by while the Australian Government’s abusive policies continue to risk more lives."I think also that it would have done the cause no harm (but probably made little difference because Australia is the key player here) for Jacinda Adern to have spoken with the refugees.
These concerns apart, I am more concerned with the dearth of substantial Forum news in our media and the negativity of the little that has been published.
If there was any "disaster," it was the making of Armstrong and his media colleagues.
Sometimes I'm left asking why should we defend freedom of the NZ media when it fails to cover major news and continually publishes shallow, sensational, knee-jerk rubbish like this.
This does not protect our freedoms. It abuses and threatens them.
--ACW
Friday, 7 September 2018
Media freedom in Fiji
The publication in the Asia Pacific Report of a range of views on today's media situation in Fiji is especially timely because of the forthcoming elections. The issues involved need to be discussed and put into context.
Its author Sri Krishnamurthi, a journalist and Postgraduate Diploma in Communication Studies student at AUT, does an excellent job in giving voice to a range of views:
From Hank Art, the publisher of The Fiji Times who was charged with sedition of publishing material critical of the Bainimarama Government (and found not guilty);
To NZ journalist Michael Field who was banned for a while from visiting Fiji (and whose grossly misleading articles, incidentally, was a major reason I started this blog in 2007). "The Bainimarama government is clever enough to realise that they might not last with a free media.”
To Ricardo Morris, current affairs magazine editor in Fiji, who notes that the Media Authority (MIDA) set up to oversee the 2010 Media Industry Development Decree, and became law in 2015, "doesn’t have to do much anymore because (chairman – Ashwin] Raj) simply has to make comment or criticise a media company for some perceived slight and everyone retreats." Self-Censorship is the norm.
“They’ll usually issue statements, and in the past there has been public shaming, so now you don’t really need to bring cases against the media because they are too afraid to do something that might jeopardise their position or if they do get charged they will get charged under some other criminal law as in the case of The Fiji Times now – they are charged under the Crimes Act, a case that has now gone to appeal. That’s a distinction.”
To Dr Shailendra Singh, coordinator of journalism at the University of the South Pacific, who wonders whether Fiji is ready for a free media. " Media have been known to inflame situations, just as governments have been known to use stability and security as pretexts to curtail media scrutiny and criticism. Finding the right balance can be elusive,“ he says.
“Whether Western notions of free, unrestrained media are suitable for a developing, fragile, ethnically-tense country is a moot point,” he says, reminding us without saying so that freedom needs to be in its historical and cultural contexts. What is applicable in the West may not be an exactd fit with what is needed or possible in other contexts.
“The media situation', he adds, " is not going to change – that I can say with some confidence. The laws are going to remain the same for some time yet."
How this may affect election results is anybody's guess.
Looking back to 2010
I wrote about the Decree in 2010, and went into some details explaining its provisions and implications. https://crosbiew.blogspot.com/2010/04/draft-media-industry-development-decree.html#more I quote from parts of it:
"There is an unstated assumption by many who criticize the Decree that democratic countries do not have laws like this but features of the Decree are seen in many countries. South African law, for example, can force journalists to reveal their sources; the Canadian Governor in Council (roughly the equivalent of Fiji's President and Cabinet) appoints directors and the board of the Canadian Broadcasting Commission. The media and the public have no say. Malaysia has at least five Acts that limit media freedom. Fiji differs not in the specifics of the Decree provisions but in the absence of checks on the authority of Government. This would be less worrying were the government elected.
"Another assumption is that the primary political role of the media is as a watchdog on government, for only then, it is assumed, can ordinary people enjoy their human rights. This is not the perceived role of the media in Singapore. There the media is seen as partners of government in nation-building. In other words, in that benevolent dictatorship, nation-building (i.e., acts to assist harmonious relationships in a multi-ethnic society) is seen as more important than media freedom and the public's right to access all information. Fiji is also a multi-ethnic county and the Fiji Decree is modelled on Singapore.
"A third assumption is that Western notions of media freedom usually provides the public with access to all information, presented in a fair and balanced manner. This is only partly true. Most media organizations are run as businesses, owned by businessmen and big business shareholders, and directed by people appointed by these same businessmen and shareholders. Rarely do we see the media speaking up for the poor, the underprivileged, consumers, the Trade Unions, workers on strike, or left-leaning governments. The Fiji Times most certainly did not when Fiji Labour Party-led government was in power. Media ownership and the extent of media freedom are linked."
*** Clearly, my views are close to those of Dr Singh. The social media threats of a coup to replace the Bainimarama Government if FijiFirst wins the elections need to be taken seriously, as did the bomb threats in 2009.
The Fiji Government definitely needs to be periodically urged to relax the MIDA Act and implement its provisions more liberally, while at the same time people need to recognize that media freedom may need to be more limited than in New Zealand or the West.
-- ACW
 |
| Sri Krishnamurti pn74 |
Its author Sri Krishnamurthi, a journalist and Postgraduate Diploma in Communication Studies student at AUT, does an excellent job in giving voice to a range of views:
From Hank Art, the publisher of The Fiji Times who was charged with sedition of publishing material critical of the Bainimarama Government (and found not guilty);
To NZ journalist Michael Field who was banned for a while from visiting Fiji (and whose grossly misleading articles, incidentally, was a major reason I started this blog in 2007). "The Bainimarama government is clever enough to realise that they might not last with a free media.”
To Ricardo Morris, current affairs magazine editor in Fiji, who notes that the Media Authority (MIDA) set up to oversee the 2010 Media Industry Development Decree, and became law in 2015, "doesn’t have to do much anymore because (chairman – Ashwin] Raj) simply has to make comment or criticise a media company for some perceived slight and everyone retreats." Self-Censorship is the norm.
“They’ll usually issue statements, and in the past there has been public shaming, so now you don’t really need to bring cases against the media because they are too afraid to do something that might jeopardise their position or if they do get charged they will get charged under some other criminal law as in the case of The Fiji Times now – they are charged under the Crimes Act, a case that has now gone to appeal. That’s a distinction.”
To Dr Shailendra Singh, coordinator of journalism at the University of the South Pacific, who wonders whether Fiji is ready for a free media. " Media have been known to inflame situations, just as governments have been known to use stability and security as pretexts to curtail media scrutiny and criticism. Finding the right balance can be elusive,“ he says.
“Whether Western notions of free, unrestrained media are suitable for a developing, fragile, ethnically-tense country is a moot point,” he says, reminding us without saying so that freedom needs to be in its historical and cultural contexts. What is applicable in the West may not be an exactd fit with what is needed or possible in other contexts.
“The media situation', he adds, " is not going to change – that I can say with some confidence. The laws are going to remain the same for some time yet."
How this may affect election results is anybody's guess.
Looking back to 2010
I wrote about the Decree in 2010, and went into some details explaining its provisions and implications. https://crosbiew.blogspot.com/2010/04/draft-media-industry-development-decree.html#more I quote from parts of it:
"There is an unstated assumption by many who criticize the Decree that democratic countries do not have laws like this but features of the Decree are seen in many countries. South African law, for example, can force journalists to reveal their sources; the Canadian Governor in Council (roughly the equivalent of Fiji's President and Cabinet) appoints directors and the board of the Canadian Broadcasting Commission. The media and the public have no say. Malaysia has at least five Acts that limit media freedom. Fiji differs not in the specifics of the Decree provisions but in the absence of checks on the authority of Government. This would be less worrying were the government elected.
"Another assumption is that the primary political role of the media is as a watchdog on government, for only then, it is assumed, can ordinary people enjoy their human rights. This is not the perceived role of the media in Singapore. There the media is seen as partners of government in nation-building. In other words, in that benevolent dictatorship, nation-building (i.e., acts to assist harmonious relationships in a multi-ethnic society) is seen as more important than media freedom and the public's right to access all information. Fiji is also a multi-ethnic county and the Fiji Decree is modelled on Singapore.
"A third assumption is that Western notions of media freedom usually provides the public with access to all information, presented in a fair and balanced manner. This is only partly true. Most media organizations are run as businesses, owned by businessmen and big business shareholders, and directed by people appointed by these same businessmen and shareholders. Rarely do we see the media speaking up for the poor, the underprivileged, consumers, the Trade Unions, workers on strike, or left-leaning governments. The Fiji Times most certainly did not when Fiji Labour Party-led government was in power. Media ownership and the extent of media freedom are linked."
*** Clearly, my views are close to those of Dr Singh. The social media threats of a coup to replace the Bainimarama Government if FijiFirst wins the elections need to be taken seriously, as did the bomb threats in 2009.
The Fiji Government definitely needs to be periodically urged to relax the MIDA Act and implement its provisions more liberally, while at the same time people need to recognize that media freedom may need to be more limited than in New Zealand or the West.
-- ACW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)