The Disappearance of Keith Olbermann

Published on Saturday, January 22, 2011 by Consortium News from Commondreams.org

by Robert Parry

Keith Olbermann’s abrupt departure from MSNBC should be another wake-up call to American progressives about the fragile foothold that liberal-oriented fare now has for only a few hours on one corporate cable network.

Though Olbermann hosted MSNBC’s top-rated news show, “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” he disappeared from the network with only the briefest of good-byes. Certainly, the callous treatment of Olbermann by the MSNBC brass would never be replicated by Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing Fox News toward its media stars.

At Fox News, the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have far greater leeway to pitch right-wing ideas and even to organize pro-Republican political events. Last November, Olbermann was suspended for two days for making donations to three Democratic candidates, including Arizona’s Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was wounded in the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson.

Now, with Olbermann’s permanent departure on Friday, the remainder of MSNBC’s liberal evening line-up, which also includes Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell (who will fill Olbermann’s 8 p.m. slot), must face the reality that any sustained friction with management could mean the bum’s rush for them, too.

The liberal hosts also must remember that MSNBC experimented with liberal-oriented programming only after all other programming strategies, including trying to out-Fox Fox, had failed – and only after it became clear that President George W. Bush’s popularity was slipping.

In nearly eight years at “Countdown,” Olbermann was the brave soul who charted the course for other mainstream media types to be even mildly critical of Bush. Olbermann modeled his style after legendary newsman Edward R. Murrow, who stood up to excesses by communist-hunting Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 1950s, even borrowing Murrow’s close: “Good night, good luck.”

But MSNBC’s parent company, General Electric, never seemed comfortable with Olbermann’s role as critic of the Bush administration, nor with the sniping between Olbermann and his Fox News rival, O’Reilly, who retaliated by attacking corporate GE on his widely watched show.

In 2009, the New York Times reported that GE responded to this pressure by having GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt strike a deal with Murdoch that sought to muzzle Olbermann’s criticism of O’Reilly, in exchange for O’Reilly muting his attacks on GE.

Olbermann later disputed that there ever was a truce and the back-and-forth soon resumed. But it was a reminder that GE, a charter member of the military-industrial complex and a major international conglomerate, had bigger corporate interests at play than the ratings for MSNBC’s evening programming.

So, too, will Comcast, the cable giant that is assuming a majority stake in NBC Universal, which controls MSNBC. The Washington Post reported on Saturday that sources at MSNBC quashed speculation that Olbermann’s departure was connected to the Comcast takeover, which was approved by federal regulators this week.

Media Orphans

The troubling message to progressives is that they remain essentially orphans when it comes to having their political interests addressed by any corporate news outlet. While the Right has built its own vast media infrastructure – reaching from newspapers, magazines and books to radio, TV and the Internet – the Left generally has treated media as a low priority.

Though some on the Left saw hope in the MSNBC evening line-up, the larger reality was that even inside the world of NBC News, the other content ranged from the pro-Establishment centrism of anchor Brian Williams to the center-right views of MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough to CNBC’s mix of free-market extremism and corporate boosterism.

While gratified to be given a few hours each night on MSNBC, the Left surely had nothing to compare with Murdoch’s News Corporation and its longstanding commitment to a right-wing perspective on Fox News and News Corp.'s many other print and electronic outlets.

As I wrote in an article last November, “Olbermann and the other liberal hosts are essentially on borrowed time, much the way Phil Donahue was before getting axed in the run-up to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, when MSNBC wanted to position itself as a ‘patriotic’ war booster.

“Unlike News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch, who stands solidly behind the right-wing propaganda on Fox News, the corporate owners of MSNBC have no similar commitment to the work of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz.

"For the suits at headquarters, it’s just a balancing act between the ratings that those shows get and the trouble they cause as Republicans reclaim control of Washington.”

Those corporate priorities also were underscored in the pre-Iraq invasion days when MSNBC dumped Donahue, then the network’s biggest draw. But Donahue had allowed on some guests critical of Bush’s planned war.

After the invasion in March 2003, MSNBC’s coverage was barely discernable from that of Fox News, with both networks superimposing American flags on scenes from Iraq and producing pro-war promotional segments showing heroic images of U.S. soldiers being welcomed by happy Iraqis (with no scenes of the war’s carnage). [See Consortiumnews.com's "America's Matrix."]

The ongoing significance of America’s media imbalance is that it gives the Right enormous capabilities to control the national debate, not only during election campaigns but year-round. Republicans can deploy what intelligence operatives call “agit-propaganda,” stirring controversies that rile up the public and redound to the GOP’s advantage.

These techniques have proved so effective that not even gifted political speakers, whether the savvy Bill Clinton or the eloquent Barack Obama, have had any consistent success in countering the angry cacophony that the Right can orchestrate.

One week, the Right's theme is “Obamacare’s death panels”; another week, it’s “the “Ground Zero Mosque.” The Democrats are left scrambling to respond – and their responses, in turn, become fodder for critical commentary, as too wimpy or too defensive or too something.

The mainstream media and progressives often join in this criticism, wondering why Obama let himself get blind-sided or why he wasn’t tougher or why he can’t control the message. For the Right and the Republicans, it’s a win-win-win, as the right-wing base is energized, more public doubts are raised about the President, and the Left is further demoralized.

Like Clinton before him, Obama has reacted to this political/media landscape by shifting rightward toward the “center,” further alienating his liberal base. Many on the Left respond by denouncing Obama as a sell-out and deciding to either sit out elections or vote for a third party.

This dynamic has been instrumental to the Right’s political victories over the past three decades even as those policies – from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush – have worsened the lives of middle- and working-class Americans.

The sudden disappearance of Keith Olbermann from television is another ominous omen that this dynamic will continue.

© 2011 Consortium News

Who Profits from Silly Campaign Season?

by Laura Flanders from commondreams.org

We need another word for silly season. It's way beyond silly how some are competing in this midterm race.

In Illinois in particular, it's not been pretty in the tight fight for Barack Obama's old seat. At three different points in a recent televised debate, Democratic contender Alexi Giannoulias challenged Republican Representative Mark Kirk over his claims that he had been shot at in a plane when he was serving in Iraq. 
"The question, Congressman, is, why would you not tell the truth? Why would you make all this stuff up?" Giannoulias asked.

Actually the question is, "What, Congressman Kirk, did you do while the Illinois economy was diving off a cliff?"

According to the 2010 Report on Illinois Poverty, close to 20 percent, or 3.5 million, Illinois residents live in poverty or close to it. The poorest in the state face 1930s style unemployment rates of 27 percent.

What's Kirk's record? He voted against the Reinvestment Act, against tax cuts for the average person. He voted FOR tax cuts for the super rich, and voted six times for a loophole that rewards companies that export jobs.

While Giannoulias is no dream candidate, at least he's for reinvesting such that the state as a whole stands a chance. Kirk's for tax policies that let the super rich get ever further ahead.

Campaigns this year are likely to spend a record $3 billion on television advertising -- and more than ever it's negative. There is no way precisely to quantify it but quality we can assess: It sucks. Mudslinging may be good for ratings, but it's no way to make decisions about our shared future. Money media, however, are laughing all the way to the bank.

Stars and Stripes Accuses US Military of Censorship

Stars and Stripes accuses U.S. military of censorship in Iraq
June 24, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Stars and Stripes, the newspaper that receives U.S. military funding to help it cover and get distributed free to American forces in war zones, complained Tuesday of censorship by military authorities in Iraq.

In a story on its Web site, the newspaper known as Stripes said the military violated a congressional mandate of editorial independence by rejecting a request to embed reporter Heath Druzin with the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division, which is attempting to secure the city of Mosul.

The military cited various problems in Druzin's reporting on previous embed assignments with units of the division, according to the story.

One example noted by the military was a March 8 story that said many Mosul residents would like the American soldiers to leave and hand over security tasks to Iraqi forces, the Stripes Web site said.

"Despite the opportunity to visit areas of the city where Iraqi Army leaders, soldiers, national police and Iraqi police displayed commitment to partnership, Mr. Druzin refused to highlight any of this news," Maj. Ramona Bellard, a public affairs officer, wrote in denying Druzin's embed request, according to the Stripes story.

A military official in Iraq defended the move to turn down the reporter's request.

"U.S. Army units in Iraq remain committed to the media embed program and appreciate objective media reporting," said Lt. Col. David H. Patterson Jr., a spokesman for Multi-National Corps-Iraq. "The relationship that Druzin established with the command during a previous embed did not facilitate being invited back."

Patterson added that Druzin was welcome to embed in another unit and that the 1st Cavalry Division was open to having a reporter other than Druzin.

"Accusations of censorship are without merit," Patterson said.

Other allegations against Druzin by the military included that he used quotes out of context, behaved unprofessionally and persisted in asking Army officials for permission to use a computer to file a story during a communications blackout period, the Stripes story said.

Terry Leonard, editorial director at Stars and Stripes, denied the Army's allegations, calling Druzin's previous reporting on the division accurate and fair.

"To simply say 'you can't send him because we didn't like what he wrote' is unacceptable," Leonard said. He noted that Congress set up Stripes as an independent newspaper so that "no commander can decide what news troops in the field receive."

Army officials have offered to allow a different Stripes reporter to embed with the division or to allow Druzin to embed with a different Army unit in Kirkuk, Leonard said.

Stripes rejected those offers because the military has no right to deflect coverage from Mosul or decide which Stripes reporter covers its operations, Leonard said.

"To deny Mr. Druzin an embed under the reasons stated by Maj. Bellard is a direct challenge to the editorial independence of this newspaper," Leonard wrote in his appeal to the decision, according to the Stripes story. "That independence is mandated by Congress. The denial of the embed constitutes an attempt at censorship and it is also an illegal prior restraint under federal law. ... The military cannot tell us what stories to write or not write."

Stripes receives close to $10 million a year from the Department of Defense to help defray the costs of covering "contingency" operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the publishing and distribution of roughly 85,000 free newspapers a day, Leonard said.

The newspaper receives additional government subsidies, with the total amounting to less than half of its budget, he said. Other revenue comes from ad sales and circulation at permanent U.S. military bases and elsewhere, Leonard said.

CNN has been denied embed requests on occasion but never because of the past conduct of individual journalists. The reasons have almost always involved logistical details involving security and force coverage.

Guam to Save the Day Again with Military Buildup

Military Build-Up: Guam to Save the Day Again
By Mia Concepcion Triton’s Call, Volume 31, Issue 02

Driving around the island, one can see some big changes happening. New restaurants, businesses, and housing complexes are carving their way through Guam’s natural landscapes.

Multiple roads are currently going through extensive reconstruction to prepare for the military buildup, the transfer of 8000 U.S. Marines and their 9000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam.

According to Governor Felix Camacho in his address to the U.S. Senate Committee and Energy Resources, the Marines will start departing their old base in Okinawa in 2012 and the relocation will be complete by 2014. With such a close deadline for the Marines’ arrival, Guam is working overtime to be prepared.

Both the Japanese and the United States government are spending billions of dollars, 15 billion to be exact, to help Guam prepare for this nearly 25 percent increase in population.

Japan is agreeing to foot some of the bill to ensure a speedy relocation due to social problems between Okinawans and the Marines.

Great amount of publicity given to rapes done by U.S. Marines. According to the Japan Press Weekly, the number of sex offenses in the military forces is 22 times the amount occurring in Japan. Okinawan political activists were strong in voice and were adamant about the ridding of the Marines, one even travelling to Guam to speak of the military presence and the ills that come along with it.

Some newspapers, on the other hand, have criticized some of Okinawa’s media, saying that things were blown out of proportion in order to serve a special need. According to Stars and Stripes, the number of offences committed by the Marines is merely a fraction of the number of offences committed by locals.

Either way, there has been an obvious apprehension on both sides and the relocation seemed the best choice to get rid of it. This is where Guam comes in, to save the day in the same way the buildup will save Guam’s day, financially.

With the recession of multiple economies, these are not the brightest days of our island. The Japanese economy hasn’t been in its best shape either, which has a direct and serious effect on the island.

Guam, an island heavily relying on the money pulled in from Japanese tourists, is also feeling the tightening of the belt. The number of flights from Japan is steadily going downhill, thus the number of tourists and there is nothing else for our economy to rely on.

With such desperation regarding money on island, many people are really looking to this Marine buildup as an economic savior who couldn’t have come at a better time. The government of Guam seems to be stuck in a financial whirlpool, never quite getting out and the more people involved only results in a bigger debt, a bigger hunger.

Students of the University of Guam are in a unique position and have an invaluable perspective on this change on island. We can benefit enormously from this buildup and increase in population and military presence. We are embarking on our careers and it could not be a better time for us to do so.

With so many businesses and agencies coming to support the buildup, we have endless professional choices.

Older generations seem to be in consensus that this buildup will be a good thing. They have been on Guam long enough to see her during the good times: when politicians were trustworthy, when the government wasn’t in debt and when schools were actually safe havens for children.

Needless to say, things aren’t the same. Being able to gauge how good things were with money, it is easier for them to welcome this military expansion with open arms.

Maybe it’s a feasible way for them to return Guam to her good old days. Maybe they don’t want to see the social problems that might arise with the increased Marine presence on the island. Maybe it’s not going to be that big of a deal.

But denying that there will be social changes is a huge mistake. Any area that experiences a large population increase will, without a doubt, face a little tension, especially when there are differences in culture if transition is not done properly.

As young adults living on a small island with an already prominent military community, we see first-hand what these tensions can lead to. We see animosity rooted in cultural misunderstandings and what comes out of it: harsh words being exchanged, violence and worst, the passing of this animosity onto future generations.

We see numerous fights involving two different ethnicities, always on opposite sides and rarely mixing. We also hear the hatred and anger from certain elders about those “guys”.

I remember specifically waiting outside the Globe for a friend to come out. As I sat outside, I noticed that there was a military guy laid out on the ground. He was unconscious and wasn’t receiving help from anyone except for his lone friend, holding up his head. I thought he had blacked out from drinking but upon speculation, I learned that two local guys had attacked him. I insisted that some guys help him out, but they only replied with a cold “That’s what they deserve”.

It wasn’t a “That’s what he deserves” but a general statement about a large amount of people. I’m not saying that this misunderstanding is only on one side but it’s a multi-faceted thing. Tons of military guys, probably missing home and still getting used to Guam, tend to speak badly of the island. We have heard multiple times that they can’t wait to get off this rock.

With Chamorros being a proud people, it’s easy to understand how upset one can get when hearing such talk. Young men tend to be protective of their homeland, no matter where it may be, and will get violent in order to get their point across. We’ve heard countless stories, from both sides, about how things aren’t as pleasant as one would hope in regards to the relations between the locals and the military. We have heard about how the Chamorro people can be extremely hospitable or can be mean-spirited. We have also heard that members of the military are the most interesting people or the most obnoxious.

Either way, we need to open our eyes and our minds. As of right now, the buildup seems like a mere blueprint. Sure, we see new roads being constructed and new buildings going up left and right but are we ready for this? We can have numerous shopping malls and restaurants but what we need to prepare ourselves for are the cultural and social changes we are going to see in our community.

We, as a whole, could look forward to sharing our majestic island with others. We can teach others the joys of our culture instead of chastising those who don’t understand it.

That being said, we can also learn from other cultures to become better citizens of the world. We live in a wonderful place and we’re blessed to call Guam our home. It’s only right that we represent her the proper way; with respect and understanding, no matter who you are.

We could look at this buildup with fear, excitement or utter confusion but the number one thing to do is to keep open our minds and our hearts. We, as students of the University of Guam, are the island’s future leaders and we need to be the ones to show the way.

M. Variety Banned by JGPO

Variety Banned by JGPO
Wednesday, 29 April 2009 01:59
by Jennifer Naylor Gesick
Marianas Variety News Staff

THE Joint Guam Project Office yesterday barred the entry of the Marianas Variety staff to all three venues hosting the Guam Industry Forum III. Two Variety reporters and a staff photographer were told by officials at the check-in tables at the Sheraton, Hilton and Marriot hotels that the Variety has been “banned” from attending the event.

Onsite industry forum personnel notified the reporting staff that the ban was on a “federal level” and was issued as a “government order” from U.S. Marine Corp Capt. Neil Ruggiero with the Joint Guam Project Office. JGPO is the liaison between Guam and the military regarding the military buildup.

The ban was in effect in all venues, as confirmed by Variety reporters in the field. Press passes were printed for every media company on island, except for the Variety.

When reached for comment yesterday afternoon, Ruggiero refused to call the restriction a “ban,” and claimed that the forum personnel were subcontracted and were not speaking directly for JGPO.

Registration fee
Ruggiero argued that Variety could have attended the event as a business if the publishers had registered with the forum.

“Marianas Variety was given the same opportunity as anyone else, they just chose not to be paying registrants, [Pacific Daily News] chose to pay and they were allowed access,” he said.

“I had to pay to work, everybody has to pay to be there,” Ruggiero added.

However, any media covering the event was allowed in free.

In response to claims of a violation of the freedom of the press in restricting access to the forum, Ruggiero responded that “the press who only stays one session is allowed in free.” That accommodation was not extended to the Variety.

Ruggiero also said that a Variety columnist was given access to represent the paper.

Variety columnist Jayne Flores confirmed that she was given a pass, but Ruggiero later said, “I told her she could not come as Marianas Variety or write any news for them.”

Firing range
The “ban” stemmed from a story titled “DoD’s plan to build off-base ranges confirmed,” published in the Jan. 15 issue of the Variety, in which the JGPO was reported to have confirmed speculations on the Department of Defense’s plan to build firing ranges on Route 15 in Yigo, commonly known as “the back road to Andersen.”

“These are small arms ranges that are not new to Guam; rifle and pistol ranges as well as machine gun ranges that are direct fire weapons and primarily used for the annual qualifications of Marines,” the Variety quoted a written article submitted by Ruggiero on behalf of the author Lt. Col. Rudy Kube, JGPO’s operations director.

Prior to publication of the story, the Variety editor informed Ruggiero that Kube’s piece would be rewritten as a staff-story. He did not object to the request, but protested when the article was published.

Ruggiero has since informed the paper’s staff that Variety would no longer have any access to any JGPO officials.

Out of context
“Your paper took an editorial out of context. In doing so your readers did not get the full story,” Ruggiero said. “We chose to no longer deal with your paper.”

Ruggiero denied sending a response to the editors, which is commonly done to properly address such issues. “No, I did not write a rebuttal letter. I wanted Amier [Younis] (Variety operations manager) to reprint the original letter as a whole,” he said.

Ruggiero could not grant Variety’s request for access as of press time. “I will have to talk to my boss about that.”

Expressing her opinion on the media ban, Sen. Judy Guthertz, in a letter promptly written yesterday to JGPO director Maj. Gen. David Bice, USMC (Ret.), stressed the importance of granting all media companies equal treatment.

She wrote, “I am writing to express my disappointment that representatives of the federal government have reportedly prohibited a member of Guam’s media, specifically the Marianas Variety, from covering the Guam Industry Forum.

“I understand that JGPO may have a problem or problems with the content of one or more of the Variety’s news stories or editorials. Whatever the case may be, I urge you to strive to work out those problems with the editors and publisher, and not prevent members of the media to cover an important part of what will likely be our island’s more important story this year,” she told Bice.

The letter concluded: “Multiple media voices can be of great value to a community, especially one as small as Guam, where coverage from different sources can often help to provide a variety of points of view.”

Native Radio Building Community

Native Radio Building Community
In These Times
September 27, 2008

For many communities — especially the country’s Native American tribes — radio still promises a way to spread news, share stories and support a cultural or regional identity.
By Mike Janssen

As new technologies take hold in the marketplace — and in the minds of consumers — old media are starting to look, well, older. FM radio is no exception. The debut of new cell phones that deliver audio applications spurred predictions of radio’s demise.

But for many communities, radio still promises a way to spread news, share stories and support a cultural or regional identity. This is especially true for the country’s Native American tribes, which have seized a rare chance to start new radio stations as a way of strengthening their communities.

Last fall, many Native people joined hundreds of schools, activists, churches and nonprofit groups that applied for new noncommercial FM stations with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Most of these applications were for frequencies in smaller towns and rural areas. (Radio spectrum in larger cities is too crowded to accommodate new signals).

Because the FCC had not accepted applications for noncommercial stations in more than seven years, demand was high.

Working to help tribal applicants was Native Public Media (NPM), a spin-off of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters, which advocates on behalf of community stations across the country. NPM focuses on all media, not just radio. One of its goals is to increase Native access to broadband Internet.

But even in the Internet era, radio still suits the needs of Native communities, says Loris Ann Taylor, NPM’s executive director. Cheap and ubiquitous, radio is easily accessible to the poor, the illiterate and the low-tech. Radio also covers great distances instantaneously, making it particularly valuable for tribal communities in far-flung villages.

In Alaska, Native communities use radio to exchange personal messages and keep abreast of potentially dangerous weather.

“Radio really reaches across those barriers,” Taylor says. “In Indian country, radio still works.”

For Taylor, empowering Native communities with their own stations also carries a deeper significance. Through locally controlled media, tribal communities gain the power to reflect their Native cultures back to each other — a right denied them throughout decades of persecution and genocide. Taylor still remembers the grade-school teacher who pinched her hand if she spoke her Hopi language in class.

“What I find really important about my work is that radio allows us to be who we want to be,” she says. “It’s like freedom.”

Many noncommercial stations around the country focus on community issues. This is especially true of Native stations, which cover topics such as health, education and the environment; feature locally programmed music; and broadcast in Native languages that in some places are spoken by very few people.

With help from Native Public Media, 37 Native nations applied for 51 radio stations last fall. None of the applicants currently operates a station, according to Taylor. Even if some of those applicants fail in their bid for licenses, Native radio could double its U.S. presence. (There are 33 Native stations on the air now.)

It could also branch out geographically. No tribal stations broadcast east of the Mississippi, but last fall’s applicants included the Seneca tribe of New York and the Houma of Louisiana.

So far, 12 tribes have received FCC clearance to build stations. Many are now looking for startup funds, pricing equipment costs and planning programming.

One is South Dakota’s Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate tribe, which once operated a radio station but lost the license when it failed to meet annual FCC requirements. Its drive to regain a station began at the urging of a few tribal members who run an Internet station, says Garryl Rousseau, chair of the new FM station’s board.

Many of the tribe’s 6,000 members want the station to promote their Dakota language, Rousseau says, which is in need of a boost. In a 2003 survey, less than 10 percent of members rated their command of Dakota as either “fluent” or “good,” and half said they couldn’t speak a word.

“It hasn’t gotten any better,” says Rousseau. He envisions a radio station that could partner with tribal schools to develop language education programs.

Other tribes face a longer wait to see whether they will receive broadcast licenses, as the FCC sorts out conflicts involving multiple applicants vying for competing frequencies. Among these applicants are the Coeur d’Alene tribe of northern Idaho, where Valerie Fast Horse, the director of information technology, learned of the opportunity to start a station through Taylor. (Both serve on the telecommunications committee of the National Congress of American Indians, an organization of tribal governments made up of 250 member tribes).

The Coeur d’Alene reservation covers 345,000 acres and is home to 2,000 tribal members who have no radio station that provides programming about their region or culture, Fast Horse says. They get their news from a station in Spokane, Wash.

Fast Horse says she envisions a radio station that covers local sports, tribal government and the Coeur d’Alene’s culture, music, language and history. The station could also deliver news about forest fires and heavy snowstorms.

And perhaps, most importantly, it could help improve the tribe’s relationship with non-Native neighbors. The Coeur d’Alene recently encountered friction with a group of nearby residents over control of resources, says Fast Horse.

“We need to tell our own stories about ourselves in a way that’s suitable to us,” she says. “Others can say what they want — it could be favorable or unfavorable. If we can tell our story, people have another voice to listen to.” 

Mike Janssen is a freelance writer and editor based in the Washington, D.C. area. His articles frequently appear in Current newspaper, the trade newspaper covering public broadcasting. His website is mikejanssen.net.

Pacific Pulse

AUST NETWORK LAUNCHES PACIFIC PULSE
www.fijidailypost.com/news.php?section=1&fijidailynews=19894

SUVA (FDP Online/Pacific Media Watch): Chief executive of Australia Network, Bruce Dover, yesterday announced the launch of a unique new television programme, Pacific Pulse, as part of Australia Network’s ongoing commitment to providing relevant content to its viewers.

Australia Network currently runs on Fiji One after normal local programming hours. It was originally Australia Television and later ABC Asia Pacific.

“A weekly feature-style television programme which will reflect the people, the personalities and the places which make the Pacific truly unique, Pacific Pulse will go beyond the headlines to explore the many other stories of this diverse, vibrant region,” a statement released yesterday by Australia Network said.

“Pacific Pulse will give Pacific viewers a new insight and perspective on local events and issues that matter to them,” said Dover.

Pacific Pulse will be co-presented by Tania Nugent, the face of Australia Network’s Nexus program, and Clement Paligaru, whose voice is recognised across the Pacific as a former presenter of Radio Australia’s Pacific Beat and current co-presenter of In the Loop, and will feature contributions from respected Pacific specialists.

“I am delighted with Australian Network launching Pacific Pulse – a program that captures the soul of the Pacific and offers an optimistic perspective,” said Murray Green, director, ABC International.

“This is another example of Australia Network’s ongoing commitment to providing relevant and engaging content for the Pacific,” Green added.

Tania Nugent, one of the presenters of the newly launched Pacific Pulse television programme, said they would be giving audiences “informative, entertaining and stimulating content” but more importantly, they would be providing “more than the headlines for our viewers".

Australia Network will also be providing viewers with a new evening Pacific News Bulletin, led by Australia Network’s correspondent, Sean Dorney, who has reported extensively on Pacific issues for three decades.

Pacific Pulse will be broadcast across the Pacific from November 1, on Australia Network.

It will broadcast in Fiji beginning this Sunday at 9.20pm (Sky Pacific and Fiji One later).

More Pasifika Media Collaboration

MOALA CALLS FOR MORE PASIFIKA MEDIA COLLABORATION
www.pmc.aut.ac.nz/specialreports/081007_kalafi.shtml

By Josephine Latu, Pacific Media Watch

AUCKLAND (PMW/AUT/Pacific Media Watch): Calls for more collaboration among Pasifika practitioners and a stronger “Pacific perspective” in the media are part of the buzz as the Pacific Islands Media Association (PIMA) gears up for its annual conference at AUT University this Friday.

Kalafi Moala, publisher of the Taimi ‘o Tonga, says the future of Pacific Islands media depends on reform that will allow Islanders to tell their stories from their own perspective.

“So far our stories in media have been told for us by others who do not understand our socio-cultural environment and history, and present day reality,” says Moala.

Moala, a former chairman of PIMA, will be speaking as part of a panel on the future directions of Pasifika media at the conference.

He believes the future of Pacific Islands media lies in serving the public through multiple modes of communication, and a democratic “people-based” approach that is free from the constraints of having to follow a conventional perspective that may misrepresent Pacific experiences.

It also depends on organisations such as PIMA that link practitioners in a “sense of camaraderie”, and a united voice for issues such as press freedom and other Pacific concerns.

PIMA deputy chairman Chris Lakatani says that while Pasifika faces in mainstream media are vital to recognising Pacific Islanders in New Zealand, a “mathematical” representation does not automatically mean a stronger media role.

For Lakatani, the key issue is more cooperation among Pacific Island practitioners to share knowledge, including business tactics and administrative skills.

“As a business owner or journalist, we don’t often get to talk to one another about things like distribution channels,” he says.

PIMA’s role becomes central in bringing media workers together to share tips about specific strategies for media business or journalism practice.

“Sometimes we work in isolation, yet culturally we are a communal people. As practitioners, we can get a lot more when we get together and share,” he says.