PINA Media Summit in Savusavu, Fiji

Journalists address remoteness of Pacific region audiences
(Savusavu, Fiji)—The second full day of the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) Media Summit largely revolved around the theme of reaching spread out, rural audiences—a problem shared by news media around the world.

In the Pacific, distance and remoteness are especially noteworthy. Examples from the region include the Solomon Islands (249,000 square miles of territory--land and sea); Fiji (1 million square miles); Micronesia (1.15 million square miles); Cook Islands (757,000 square miles), and Palau (233,000 square miles). By comparison, the largest US state, Alaska, has 665,000 square miles.

“Remoteness is a real issue,” noted Kalifi Moana, PINA president. He said it’s PINA goal to reach all of the areas of the Pacific with media training and partnerships, even remote areas like New Caledonia, French Polynesia, and the Federated States of Micronesia. He said that the diversity of the peoples of the Pacific is a strength, not a burden. “Togetherness is our advantage,” he observed.

Other speakers like Rose Amos from the National Broadcasting Company in Papua New Guinea also stressed that “it’s our responsibility to give a voice to the voiceless in rural areas,” one of the key principles of peace journalism, it must be noted. Yet the challenge of reaching these audiences with news and information is formidable, given the distances as well as challenges like unreliable electricity and internet connectivity.

Pecili Naviticoko, the president of Vualiku Radio in remote northern Fiji, echoed these challenges to engaging rural audiences, noting that access to many of the places his media outlet serves is by boat only, and is thus weather-dependent. “There’s no shortage of stories” in these areas, he said. “The challenge is receiving them.” He shared slides showing his reporters “going the extra mile” by boat and on foot, wading through flooded areas, to help those in remote communities tell their stories.

Naviticoko and several other speakers noted the ongoing relevance of radio as often the only tool that can reach remote areas, especially during storms and earthquakes (like the one in Vanuatu several years ago).

Other sessions on day two focused on financing media, advising attendees to diversity revenue sources. It was commented that although paywalls have succeeded in larger markets like Fiji, for a variety of reasons, they wouldn’t work in smaller countries.

The day finished off with panels on women in media, development partners, and public service media. Especially poignant was the presentation of Esther Pavihi of the Broadcasting Corportation of Niue (population 1,600). She detailed her life in a one-person newsroom and overcoming ongoing struggles like rebuilding after a fire. Her dedication to journalism is admirable, and infectious.

Overall, the Media Forum was successful not just in the information shared, but in the networking done by the 150 or so attendees. I had the chance during a plenary session to share details about my East-West Center programs for Pacific journalists. I hope my networking pays off with even greater participation from these reporters.

A panel of Pac Islands journalists addresses their
common challenges during PINA.

 

PINA Media Summit, Savusavu, Fiji

Pacific journalists tackle free speech, AI issues at conference
(Savusavu, Fiji)-Despite challenges like ongoing government censorship and AI adoption, I came away from day one of the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) Media Summit yesterday at least mildly optimistic about the future of journalism in this region.

Since AI is at the top of everyone’s agenda, the conference understandably kicked off with a great session from an organization called Other Labs which presented data from a study they did (in conjunction with PINA) on AI in Pacific newsrooms. They found that the sector “is experimenting with AI,” and is open to both its challenges and opportunities. It also found that AI is used in Pacific newsrooms for handful of tasks like research and transcription; that AI is being adopted before policies and guidelines are in place; that there are limited AI resources for Pacific languages; that resource shortages are limiting AI adoption; and finally that in more than half of the 49 newsrooms in 11 countries surveyed, there is no AI training.

These findings roughly mirror a smaller, unscientific survey I did on the subject that I presented last Monday at workshops in Suva. (See previous blog).

This was followed by a presentation about Other Lab's 18-month project (The News AI Lab) which will bring to selected Pacific newsrooms AI enterprise tool access, technical and safety support, in-person trainings and events, and support for structured newsrooms. 

Fred Wesley's inspiration speech on
overcoming government censorship

Not all challenges and opportunities are new ones. Government censorship is a problem as old as the printing press. Here in Fiji, the press and the country went through some especially difficult times between 2006 and 2022 in this regard. According to conference presenter Fred Wesley, vice president of the Fijian Media Association (co-sponsor of the event), the Media Industrial Development Act of 2006 tightly controlled media so that no government criticism was possible. The government even stationed censors in newsrooms! Wesley said that no journalist was jailed during this free speech reign of terror because journalists censored themselves. “It taught us to jail ourselves,” he said. Once the law was repealed, the sun rose again on media freedom in Fiji, which was rated 180^th in press freedom (Reporters Without Borders) while the law was in effect, and 21^st in press freedom afterwards.

In his speech at the conference, Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka also addressed the significance of the law’s repeal, noting that it was “the defining moment of the restoration of press freedom” in Fiji. His speech was a call for responsible, non-sensational, non-inflammatory media in Fiji, and for a partnership with the media for combating mis and disinformation.

Coming from a country where media are increasingly being targeted by an angry, petulant administration, the resilience and courage shown by Fijian journalists is indeed inspiring.

After his speech, a ceremony was held at the Media Summit to launch a new entity, the Pacific Center for Communications and Journalism, to be housed at Fiji National University in cooperation with the Fijian Media Association. It will be devoted to training, research, responsible AI implementation, and developing leaders in the media sphere.

Stay tuned next week for my report on Day Two of the PINA Media Summit.

 

At the American Corner in Suva, comms pros analyze AI policy.

Journalists, comms pros, students tackle tough AI issues
(Suva, Fiji)-Here in Fiji as in the US, it seems like every conversation these days leads down one road straight to AI. Does AI represent a challenge or an opportunity here in Fiji and throughout the Pacific Islands region? And how does AI impact digital freedom in the region?

I addressed those key questions with journalists and public information communicators in a morning session titled, “Protecting Digital Media Freedom in the age of AI,” and in the afternoon with university students in a workshop called, “AI and the Future of Journalism in the Pacific.” 

The morning session began with analyzing contested definitions of digital media freedom—is it the ability to say anything, unfettered, online; or does freedom come from a regulated environment that is free from harassment and hate speech. This then led to a discussion of differing opinions about censorship. The communicators generally favored some regulation aimed at controlling hate speech. While I recognized the need to do so, I also cautioned about the slippery slope of government regulation of speech, and that what might be legitimately labeled as hate speech today might be broadened to include political speech tomorrow. 

Discussing pros/cons of AI regulation.

We discussed the pros and cons of the Trump administration’s essentially hand-off policy when it comes to regulating AI, and contrasted it with the common practice in this region of regulating AI and online speech in a way that protects national and indigenous digital sovereignty. I said, several times, that there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution to managing and regulating digital spaces.

In the second session, we discussed the threats to journalism from AI, including mis and disinformation; erosion and marginalization of local context; AI regulation as a pretext for censorship; and digital colonialism and loss of digital sovereignty. On the plus side, we analyzed how AI can be beneficial for journalists by helping to mitigate linguistic challenges; as a tool to mine and collate complex caches of information; workflow optimization; and strengthening indigenous knowledge and practice.

Finally, I shared with the students survey results that showed how Pacific Islands journalists use AI. This includes research, cataloging date; transcribing interviews; and writing first drafts and social media reports. Alarmingly, 5% of respondents admitted that they use AI to write final drafts of stories. A lively discussion followed about what are and aren’t appropriate uses of AI in a newsroom. The consensus was that AI needs to be used, but within certain limits. My colleague, AI researcher and reporter Roni Satria from CNN Indonesia, said it best when he wrote, “It is the journalist’s responsibility to decide what can be safely delegated to AI; what requires human-AI collaboration; and what must remain entirely under human editorial judgment. AI may assist and accelerate, but journalists must verify and contextualize, while editors retain accountability.”

Today's sessions were held at the American Corner, and sponsored by the US Embassy-Suva.

From Suva, I move on the Savusavu, Fiji later in the week to attend the Pacific Islands News Association media summit, a gathering of regional media. Stay tuned for that report.

Elderly trainer/professor leads AI discussion in Fiji.

Teens junk food information diet generates concerns
Part I
How worried should we be about an ignorant younger generation fattened up on propaganda, marketing pap, social media hype, and influencer-peddled information junk food?

On one hand, the 13 young journalists who participated in the East-West Center Summer Journalism Camp last month in Honolulu left me encouraged. These teens were analytical, critical thinkers who justifiably approach the news they consume with caution and skepticism. As young journalists themselves, they understand the difference between some bloviating influencer on YouTube and actual news.

Sadly, according to a recent alarming study that details how, where, and from whom teens get the information they consume, these teenage journalists may be the exception rather than the rule. 

One cause for alarm is where teens get their news. According to a Media Insight Project study, a whopping 81% of teens get their news from influencers or independent creators “at least sometimes.” (Overall, 57%  of American teens and adults get news from influencers or independent creators at least sometimes.) The study shows that 57% of teens get news daily from Social Media, in contrast to 30-36% for adults 35 and older. Teens get more news from Social Media than any other source.

This is a problem of course because much of the information spewed by influencers and digital content creators on social media is often uninformed and unverified—the very antithesis of credible news produced by journalists. A UNESCO study shows that 62% of digital content creators don’t fact check. “The survey uncovered trends in how creators assess information credibility including 42% who use social media metrics like likes and shares as primary credibility markers, while 21% of respondents share content based solely on trust in friends who shared it,” according to the study. 

It's even worse for fitness influencers. A study shows that less than 3% of fitness posts were supported by a valid scientific information, with advice instead being driven by personal opinions or commercial/brand sponsorships. 

Not only is the information teens primarily rely on of poor quality, it’s being delivered by unqualified self-promoters and entertainers rather than subject matter experts. Studies have shown that content creators usually lack professional credentials or qualifications in their respective fields, and instead draw followers based on their looks or charisma. For example, a Pew Research study showed that while 41% of health influencers claim some form of health care experience, yet only 17% hold traditional medical credentials, such as being a doctor, nurse, or other certified health care professional. The same holds true for fitness influencers, less than 20% of whom have professional qualifications or credentials.

When it comes to what kinds of information teens consume, the news doesn’t get any better. We’ll look at that aspect of the issue in part two of this report, and discuss how we might help teens improve their information diet.

Media report Iran war's inconvenient (and ugly) truths
The Iran war news carousel seems to be twirling around endlessly, spinning the same stale tales of Trump's threats, peace proposals bearing fruit "very soon," and death and destruction. However, if one looks close enough, there are examples of coverage that is more consistent with the principles of peace journalism. 

Iran News Carousel (AI generated image)

This counternarrative coverage eschews elite, military dominated, blow-by-blow storytelling about tactical military strikes, and instead looks to spotlight victims and the marginalized with reporting that moves beyond mere statistics to provide context and a glimpse into the humanitarian crisis fueled by this war.

For example, Democracy Now has broken out of the military-dominated narrative and instead reported extensively on Iranian civilian deaths while exposing the military's claims that civilians aren't being harmed. The New York Times has done the same, famously breaking down US culpability in the case of the destroyed girls school and the recent US bombing of a residential area.

PBS has provided exemplary coverage on the destruction of cultural sites, as well as the war’s impact on the daily lives of Iranians. The Guardian has also written a moving profile of daily life in Tehran amidst the war. 

Both the Guardian and BBC have highlighted the war’s devastating impact on medical care and medical facilities in Iran. 

The AP has gone one step further, and spotlighted how the Iran war has disrupted daily life around the globe (the Philippines, US, Nigeria, Nepal, Chile, Turkey, and Italy). These disruptions include high gas prices squeezing family budgets New York and how a print shop in Nigeria can’t operate because the fuel to run their generator is now too expensive.

It's encouraging to see this kind of exemplary reporting that shatters bogus administration claims about the war, its justification, and its terrible consequences. Peace journalism has always been predicated on the notion that journalism impacts citizens and societies, either positively or negatively. I think it’s clear that fact based coverage about the Iran war has naturally led to an informed public that, understandably, disapprove of the war (only 35% approve, according to Reuters). If the US is ever to extricate itself from this quagmire, the media need to keep reporting the war’s inconvenient truths, which in turn will maintain the political pressure to bring this debacle to a swift conclusion.