For nearly half a century, Papua New Guinea has been more than just a home for Laurence “Rocky” Roe — it has been his canvas, his inspiration, and his great love.

A master behind the lens, Rocky has captured the soul of the nation through his photography, preserving moments of history, culture, and progress.

He bid farewell to the country he has called home since 1976 in June 2021 and is now retired and living in Australia. We reflect on the extraordinary journey of a man whose work has become an indelible part of PNG’s visual history.

• WATCH: The Malum Nalu’s full interview with Rocky Roe
• Other Malum Nalu articles

A journey born of adventure
Rocky Roe’s story began in Adelaide, Australia, where he was born in 1947. His adventure in Papua New Guinea started in 1976 when he arrived as a mechanical fitter for Bougainville Copper. But his heart sought more than the structured life of a mining camp.

In 1979, he took a leap of faith, moving to Port Moresby and trading a higher salary for a passion — photography. What he lost in pay, he gained in purpose.

“I wanted to see Papua New Guinea,” Rocky recalls. “And I got an opportunity to get paid to see it.”

Capturing the essence of a nation
From corporate photography to historic events, Rocky’s lens has documented the evolution of Papua New Guinea. He was there when leaders rose to prominence, capturing moments that would later adorn national currency — his photograph of Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare graces the K50 note.

His work went beyond the formal; he ventured deep into the Highlands, the islands, and bustling townships, preserving the heart and spirit of the people.

With each shot, he chronicled the changing landscape of Port Moresby. From a city of well-kept roads and modest housing in the 1970s to its present-day urban sprawl, Rocky witnessed and documented it all.

The evolution of photography
Rocky’s career spanned a transformative era in photography — from the meticulous world of slide film, where exposure errors were unforgiving, to the digital revolution, where technology made photography more accessible.

“Autofocus hadn’t been invented,” he recalls. “Half the world couldn’t focus a camera back then.” Yet, through skill and patience, he mastered the art, adapting as the industry evolved.

His assignments took him to mine sites, oil fields, and remote locations where only helicopters could reach.

“I spent many hours flying with the door off, capturing PNG from above. Looking through the camera made it all feel natural. Without it, I might have been scared.”

The man behind the camera
Despite the grandeur of his work, Rocky remains humble. A storyteller at heart, his greatest joy has been the connections he forged—whether photographing Miss PNG contestants over the years or engaging with young photographers eager to learn.

He speaks fondly of his colleagues, the friendships he built, and the country that embraced him as one of its own.

His time in Papua New Guinea was not without challenges. He encountered moments of danger, faced armed hold-ups, and saw the country grapple with law and order issues. Yet, his love for PNG never wavered.

“It’s the greatest place on earth,” he says, reflecting on his journey.

A fond farewell, but not goodbye
Now, as Rocky returns to Australia to tend to his health, he leaves behind a legacy that will live on in the countless images he captured. Papua New Guinea will always be home to him, and its people, his extended family.

“I may come back if someone brings me back,” he says with a knowing smile.

Papua New Guinea bids farewell to a legend, a visual historian who gave us the gift of memories frozen in time. His photographs are not just images; they are stories, emotions, and a testament to a life well-lived in the pursuit of beauty and truth.

Farewell, Rocky Roe. Your work will continue to inspire generations to come.

Independent Papua New Guinea journalist Malum Nalu first published this article on his blog Happenings in Papua New Guinea as part of a series leading up to PNG’s 50th anniversary this year. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

In the special report, “In Washington, Myanmar democracy advocates push for a Breakthrough,” Amarasinghe captures the efforts of Myanmar’s National Unity Government in Washington, D.C., as Deputy Foreign Minister Moe Zaw Oo and press aide Aye Chan Mon navigate the complexities of international diplomacy.

In “Nyah Mway: The boy who will forever be 13,” he delves into the tragedy of a young refugee from Myanmar who was fatally shot by police in Utica, New York. His photographs reveal the effect the incident has had on Nyah’s family and community, offering insight into broader issues of systemic violence and the experiences of displaced people in the United States.

In “Five Years after a Summer of Protest, Hong Kong Exiles are Still Rebuilding Their Lives,” Amarasinghe chronicles the lives of Hong Kong activists who have resettled in the United States following the 2019 pro-democracy protests.

Through his lens, Amarasinghe provides a comprehensive perspective on resilience and transition. Here are some of his photos:

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

Edited by Jim Snyder.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Paul Nelson and H. Léo Kim for RFA.

In the special report, “In Washington, Myanmar democracy advocates push for a Breakthrough,” Amarasinghe captures the efforts of Myanmar’s National Unity Government in Washington, D.C., as Deputy Foreign Minister Moe Zaw Oo and press aide Aye Chan Mon navigate the complexities of international diplomacy.

In “Nyah Mway: The boy who will forever be 13,” he delves into the tragedy of a young refugee from Myanmar who was fatally shot by police in Utica, New York. His photographs reveal the effect the incident has had on Nyah’s family and community, offering insight into broader issues of systemic violence and the experiences of displaced people in the United States.

In “Five Years after a Summer of Protest, Hong Kong Exiles are Still Rebuilding Their Lives,” Amarasinghe chronicles the lives of Hong Kong activists who have resettled in the United States following the 2019 pro-democracy protests.

Through his lens, Amarasinghe provides a comprehensive perspective on resilience and transition. Here are some of his photos:

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

(Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)

Edited by Jim Snyder.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Paul Nelson and H. Léo Kim for RFA.

For almost six decades photographer John Miller (Ngāpuhi) has been a protest photographer in Aotearoa New Zealand.

From his first photographs of an anti-Vietnam War protest on Auckland’s Albert Street as a high school student in 1967, to Hīkoi mō te Tiriti last week, Miller has focused much of his work on the faces of dissent.

He spoke of his experiences over the years in an interview broadcast today on RNZ’s Culture 101 programme with presenter Susana Lei’ataua.

• LISTEN: Photographer John Miller talks to RNZ’s Culture 101
• Other Hīkoi mō te Tiriti reports

Miller joined Hīkoi mō te Tiriti at Waitangi Park in Pōneke Wellington last Tuesday, November 19, ahead of its final walk to Parliament’s grounds.

“It was quite an incredible occasion, so many people,”  74-year-old Miller says.

“Many more than 1975 and 2004. Also social media has a much more influential part to play in these sorts of events these days, and also drone technology . . .

“I had to avoid one on the corner of Manners and Willis Streets flying around us as the Hīkoi was passing by.

“We ended up running up Wakefield Street which is parallel to Courtenay Place to get ahead of the march and we joined the march at the Taranaki Street Manners Street intersection and we managed to get in front of it.”

Comparing Hīkoi mō te Tiriti with his experience of the 1975 Māori Land March led by Dame Whina Cooper, Miller noted there were a lot more people involved.

“During the 1975 Hīkoi the only flag that was in that march was the actual white land march flag — the Pou Whenua — no other flags at all. And there were no placards, no, nothing like that.”

There were more flags and placards in the Foreshore and Seabed March in 2004.

“Of course, this time it was a veritable absolute forest of Tino Rangatira flags and the 1835 flag and many other flags,” Miller says.

“Te Mana Motuhake o Tuhoe flags were there, even Palestinian flags of course, so it was a much more colourful occasion.”

Miller tried to replicate photos he took in 1975 and 2004: “However this particular time I actually was under a technical disadvantage because one of my lenses stopped working and I had to shoot this whole event in Wellington using just a wide angle lens so that forced me to change my approach.”

Miller and his daughter, Rere, were with the Hīkoi in front of the Beehive.

“I had no idea that there were so many people sort of outside who couldn’t get in and I only realised afterwards when we saw the drone footage.”

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

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The post The Power of the Lens appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Kate Horgan.

An independent photojournalist was shoved and his camera was kicked, breaking the lens, while documenting clashes between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli protesters in Los Angeles, California, on June 23, 2024. At least nine journalists were assaulted while covering the violence that day.

The conflict began after the Southern California chapter of the Palestinian Youth Movement called for demonstrators to meet at noon outside the Adas Torah synagogue in the heavily Jewish Pico-Robertson neighborhood in west LA to protest the alleged sale of occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Multiple journalists told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that scuffles, brawls and exchanges of pepper spray broke out in the streets nearby between the protesters and counterprotesters.

Individuals from both sides — including a rabbi and security volunteers from the Jewish community — attempted to intervene and prevent the violence from escalating. CNN reported that Los Angeles Police Department officers established a perimeter around the synagogue.

The photographer, who asked not to be identified because he fears harassment, told the Tracker that he arrived at the protest with another photojournalist and verbally identified himself to protesters as a journalist, although he didn’t wear a press pass.

As the protest came to an end, he was attacked when someone in the crowd falsely said he worked for Al Jazeera, the Qatari-based international TV news network that the Israeli government has barred from operating in the country amid the Israel-Gaza war. The photographer denied that he worked for the news organization, but said no one could hear him in the chaos.

A large man then walked up to him and, standing chest to chest, pushed the journalist into the street with his torso, he recounted to the Tracker. Another person at the protest pulled the large man away.

The crowd around the photojournalist grew to at least a dozen people, he said. They were walking toward him and he was slowly walking backward.

“I felt my camera get kicked,” he told the Tracker. “It was in my hand. I sort of wrapped my strap around my hand, so it didn’t fly away.”

The lens, a Sigma 20 mm F1.4 Canon mount worth about $900, was broken in the encounter. He said he has since sent the lens to be repaired, which he expects to cost hundreds of dollars.

After the kick, the photographer’s friend and fellow journalist Sean Beckner-Carmitchel got between him and the crowd and told him to get away, which he did, despite several people grabbing at his backpack. Meanwhile, Beckner-Carmitchel and journalist Justin Jun were beaten.

The photojournalist returned to try to help the journalists who were being assaulted, but someone else walked him away. He returned one more time and when Beckner-Carmitchel shouted at him to get away, he did.

After the event, the photojournalist said he was particularly worried about people from the protest tracking him down and so now sleeps with a baseball bat by his bed.

“I still would happily do photojournalism,” he told the Tracker. “I’m just really disheartened that police didn’t even bother to stop any violence that was happening right in front of their eyes.”

He continued: “I’m scared for my safety at protests now. And I’m worried that I’m going to get targeted for no reason other than having a camera.”

The LAPD said in a news release that officers were investigating two reports of battery at the protest and that one individual had been arrested for having a spiked post. A spokesperson for the department told the Tracker via email June 27 that they have no further information.

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

The Gaza Collective Photo Essay project, organized by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), collected work from 14 Palestinian photographers who were each asked to share one image that captured the devastation of the Gaza Strip over the last six months. We speak with Charlotte Cans, head of photography at OCHA, about the project. “It’s one thing to say there’s a war and it’s horrible, and it’s another thing to see an image of a child being pulled out from the rubble. It really hits you differently,” Cans says of the motivation behind the project. “It was really important to elevate the stories coming from Palestinian photojournalists, who are the only window into what is going on in Gaza.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Christopher Nolan’s new biographical thriller film, Oppenheimer, chronicles the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, known as the “father of the atomic bomb.” In Nolan’s typical Hollywood-for-thinking-people style, the film strikes an ambiguous tone, neither triumphal nor admonishing of Oppenheimer and his team’s dubious accomplishment. As we follow Oppenheimer’s life and professional trajectory, we’re presented with the image of a person living through an era of uncertainty. Oppenheimer himself is depicted as conflicted, maybe even tormented, by his pivotal role in creating and developing this weapon of mass murder, while his own government finds Oppenheimer alternately to be an object of worship and suspicion, culminating in his investigation by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

What the film fails to explicitly portray, however, is the profound global effect that Oppenheimer’s personal saga and his work with the Manhattan Project – the secret U.S.-funded research and development program during the Second World War which led to the successful creation of the atomic bomb – still have on the world today. As Danish physicist Neils Henrik David Bohr (played by Kenneth Branagh) warns Oppenheimer in the film, “The power you are about to reveal will forever outlive [World War II], and the world is not prepared.” Even to this day, one can make a strong argument that humanity is still not prepared for the power that Oppenheimer and his team unleashed on the world. Oppenheimer has been largely received as a historical document, and it is, but seen through another lens, it could almost serve as a public service announcement, reminding us of the very real and imminent threat that nuclear weapons still pose.

The arrival of Oppenheimer, during a time of heightened global tensions among the most powerful nuclear powers in the world, brings a feeling of profound portent. In January of this year, the “Doomsday Clock,” which is managed by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, was moved to 90 seconds until midnight, serving as a haunting reminder of the immediate risk of a human-made nuclear catastrophe. This is the closest the clock has been to midnight since its inception in 1947. A cursory look at geopolitical history from 1947 through the present reveals several moments of intense tension between nuclear powers: the first hydrogen bomb test, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the proliferation of nuclear weapons into India and Pakistan. That the Bulletin believes the nuclear risk today exceeds that of these earlier historical moments should fill us all with a deep sense of dread.

Our epoch, too, is marked by a worrisome decline in diplomatic dialogue and cooperation between nuclear powers. In Oppenheimer’s time, there were just one, then two, nuclear powers, bound together by the paradoxical, but compelling, logic of mutually assured destruction. Today, combined, China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, France, Pakistan, the United Kingdom and the U.S. own roughly 12,500 nuclear weapons, many of which are far more powerful than “Little Boy,” the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. An additional six bases in five NATO countries host U.S. nuclear weapons, increasing the physical dispersion of these weapons of mass destruction and death. Recently, Russia’s Vladimir Putin announced he had deployed Russian nukes to neighboring Belarus; this comes after he earlier raised the specter of using nuclear weapons in the Ukraine War. There should be little doubt that the use of a nuclear weapon on the European continent would trigger a full-scale nuclear war and a near-certain global apocalypse.

So, when we go to see Oppenheimer this summer, we can view it for what it is — a Hollywoodified summation of one of the most consequential scientific breakthroughs in world history — but we should also remember that the world that Oppenheimer created remains our reality today. The threat of nuclear weapons is far from a relic of a bygone era, and it remains a contemporary concern. So, long after the theater lights fade, and we are no longer immersed in the theatrics, we should think about the grave implications of this reality — and collectively work to avert the haunting specter of a nuclear calamity.

This first appeared on Progressive Hub.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Hanieh Jodat – Sam Rosenthal.

Christopher Nolan’s new biographical thriller film, Oppenheimer, chronicles the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, known as the “father of the atomic bomb.” In Nolan’s typical Hollywood-for-thinking-people style, the film strikes an ambiguous tone, neither triumphal nor admonishing of Oppenheimer and his team’s dubious accomplishment. As we follow Oppenheimer’s life and professional trajectory, we’re presented with the image of a person living through an era of uncertainty. Oppenheimer himself is depicted as conflicted, maybe even tormented, by his pivotal role in creating and developing this weapon of mass murder, while his own government finds Oppenheimer alternately to be an object of worship and suspicion, culminating in his investigation by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

What the film fails to explicitly portray, however, is the profound global effect that Oppenheimer’s personal saga and his work with the Manhattan Project – the secret U.S.-funded research and development program during the Second World War which led to the successful creation of the atomic bomb – still have on the world today. As Danish physicist Neils Henrik David Bohr (played by Kenneth Branagh) warns Oppenheimer in the film, “The power you are about to reveal will forever outlive [World War II], and the world is not prepared.” Even to this day, one can make a strong argument that humanity is still not prepared for the power that Oppenheimer and his team unleashed on the world. Oppenheimer has been largely received as a historical document, and it is, but seen through another lens, it could almost serve as a public service announcement, reminding us of the very real and imminent threat that nuclear weapons still pose.

The arrival of Oppenheimer, during a time of heightened global tensions among the most powerful nuclear powers in the world, brings a feeling of profound portent. In January of this year, the “Doomsday Clock,” which is managed by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, was moved to 90 seconds until midnight, serving as a haunting reminder of the immediate risk of a human-made nuclear catastrophe. This is the closest the clock has been to midnight since its inception in 1947. A cursory look at geopolitical history from 1947 through the present reveals several moments of intense tension between nuclear powers: the first hydrogen bomb test, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the proliferation of nuclear weapons into India and Pakistan. That the Bulletin believes the nuclear risk today exceeds that of these earlier historical moments should fill us all with a deep sense of dread.

Our epoch, too, is marked by a worrisome decline in diplomatic dialogue and cooperation between nuclear powers. In Oppenheimer’s time, there were just one, then two, nuclear powers, bound together by the paradoxical, but compelling, logic of mutually assured destruction. Today, combined, China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, France, Pakistan, the United Kingdom and the U.S. own roughly 12,500 nuclear weapons, many of which are far more powerful than “Little Boy,” the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. An additional six bases in five NATO countries host U.S. nuclear weapons, increasing the physical dispersion of these weapons of mass destruction and death. Recently, Russia’s Vladimir Putin announced he had deployed Russian nukes to neighboring Belarus; this comes after he earlier raised the specter of using nuclear weapons in the Ukraine War. There should be little doubt that the use of a nuclear weapon on the European continent would trigger a full-scale nuclear war and a near-certain global apocalypse.

So, when we go to see Oppenheimer this summer, we can view it for what it is — a Hollywoodified summation of one of the most consequential scientific breakthroughs in world history — but we should also remember that the world that Oppenheimer created remains our reality today. The threat of nuclear weapons is far from a relic of a bygone era, and it remains a contemporary concern. So, long after the theater lights fade, and we are no longer immersed in the theatrics, we should think about the grave implications of this reality — and collectively work to avert the haunting specter of a nuclear calamity.

This first appeared on Progressive Hub.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Hanieh Jodat – Sam Rosenthal.

Christopher Nolan’s new biographical thriller film, Oppenheimer, chronicles the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, known as the “father of the atomic bomb.” In Nolan’s typical Hollywood-for-thinking-people style, the film strikes an ambiguous tone, neither triumphal nor admonishing of Oppenheimer and his team’s dubious accomplishment. As we follow Oppenheimer’s life and professional trajectory, we’re presented with the image of a person living through an era of uncertainty. Oppenheimer himself is depicted as conflicted, maybe even tormented, by his pivotal role in creating and developing this weapon of mass murder, while his own government finds Oppenheimer alternately to be an object of worship and suspicion, culminating in his investigation by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

What the film fails to explicitly portray, however, is the profound global effect that Oppenheimer’s personal saga and his work with the Manhattan Project – the secret U.S.-funded research and development program during the Second World War which led to the successful creation of the atomic bomb – still have on the world today. As Danish physicist Neils Henrik David Bohr (played by Kenneth Branagh) warns Oppenheimer in the film, “The power you are about to reveal will forever outlive [World War II], and the world is not prepared.” Even to this day, one can make a strong argument that humanity is still not prepared for the power that Oppenheimer and his team unleashed on the world. Oppenheimer has been largely received as a historical document, and it is, but seen through another lens, it could almost serve as a public service announcement, reminding us of the very real and imminent threat that nuclear weapons still pose.

The arrival of Oppenheimer, during a time of heightened global tensions among the most powerful nuclear powers in the world, brings a feeling of profound portent. In January of this year, the “Doomsday Clock,” which is managed by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, was moved to 90 seconds until midnight, serving as a haunting reminder of the immediate risk of a human-made nuclear catastrophe. This is the closest the clock has been to midnight since its inception in 1947. A cursory look at geopolitical history from 1947 through the present reveals several moments of intense tension between nuclear powers: the first hydrogen bomb test, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the proliferation of nuclear weapons into India and Pakistan. That the Bulletin believes the nuclear risk today exceeds that of these earlier historical moments should fill us all with a deep sense of dread.

Our epoch, too, is marked by a worrisome decline in diplomatic dialogue and cooperation between nuclear powers. In Oppenheimer’s time, there were just one, then two, nuclear powers, bound together by the paradoxical, but compelling, logic of mutually assured destruction. Today, combined, China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, France, Pakistan, the United Kingdom and the U.S. own roughly 12,500 nuclear weapons, many of which are far more powerful than “Little Boy,” the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. An additional six bases in five NATO countries host U.S. nuclear weapons, increasing the physical dispersion of these weapons of mass destruction and death. Recently, Russia’s Vladimir Putin announced he had deployed Russian nukes to neighboring Belarus; this comes after he earlier raised the specter of using nuclear weapons in the Ukraine War. There should be little doubt that the use of a nuclear weapon on the European continent would trigger a full-scale nuclear war and a near-certain global apocalypse.

So, when we go to see Oppenheimer this summer, we can view it for what it is — a Hollywoodified summation of one of the most consequential scientific breakthroughs in world history — but we should also remember that the world that Oppenheimer created remains our reality today. The threat of nuclear weapons is far from a relic of a bygone era, and it remains a contemporary concern. So, long after the theater lights fade, and we are no longer immersed in the theatrics, we should think about the grave implications of this reality — and collectively work to avert the haunting specter of a nuclear calamity.

This first appeared on Progressive Hub.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Hanieh Jodat – Sam Rosenthal.

Gender equity continues to be a significant problem in business globally. We all know the story: the gender pay gap is a persistent issue and female-dominated industries tend to be lower paid.

Female representation in senior leadership and board positions remains low in many countries, particularly in Aotearoa New Zealand. Women comprise only 28.5 percent of director positions across all NZX-listed companies and just 23.7 percent at companies outside of the NZX’s top 50.

Change is slow despite the well-established evidence showing the merits of improving gender equity for businesses — including better firm performance — and excellent initiatives such as Mind The Gap.

• READ MORE: CSW: Advancing women’s rights since 1946
• Do women-focused capital funds actually help women, or are they just ‘pinkwashing?’
• Auditing, matching pay and accountability will close the gender pay gap: study

But there is a way to support companies that have made the change towards greater gender equity — and encourage others to do the same: we can invest with a “gender lens”.

The aim of investing with a gender lens is not only to make a financial return but also to improve the lives of women by providing capital to those companies doing well on gender issues.

Gender lens investing goes beyond counting female representation at board level. It encompasses the number of female managers, leaders and employees as well as the existence of policies or products provided by a company to address the gender pay gap and other inequities faced by their female employees.

It also encourages investing in women-owned enterprises.

In essence, investing with a gender lens means identifying and investing in those companies that are empowering their female employees and embracing diversity.

This might seem simple. But there are no investment portfolios or funds investing in companies that do right by women.

One explanation for this gap is that identifying gender-friendly companies is not easy. And this is where rating agencies have a role to play.

U.N. Chief Says World Is ‘300 Years Away’ From Gender Equity And Women’s Rights Are ‘Vanishing Before Our Eyes’ https://t.co/LggXPPy79k

— Patrick F. Herlihy (@herlihy_f) March 7, 2023

The role and power of rating agencies
Over the past three decades there has been a fundamental shift towards investing for not only financial returns but also for social outcomes — so called Responsible Investing (RI).

The growth in RI has spawned an industry dedicated to defining and measuring a company’s non-financial contributions across a range of areas, specifically across the environmental, social and governance (ESG) pillars.

The rating agencies build scores by collecting data on issues within each of the ESG pillars — for instance, the environmental pillar comprises data on carbon emissions, land use and water, among other measures — and then converts this into an overall score.

Fund managers, especially those managing RI funds, use these scores to inform investment decisions. What, then, are the comparable measures for gender lens investing?

While some rating agencies have created measures to identify companies suitable for a gender lens portfolio — for example, Sustainalytics has a gender equality index — others have very little on gender at all.

Some rating agencies seem to base gender equity performance on the number of women on a company’s board or its in-house policies on diversity and discrimination.

In short, there is little-to-no substantive information available to allow investing with a gender lens. And why is that?

A group of New Zealand businesses, including Skycity, Westpac, DB Breweries, Coca Cola, Xero and Kiwibank, have urged the government to address the gender pay gap.https://t.co/5Qv17tL1T4

— RNZ (@radionz) September 21, 2022

Well, rating agency MSCI states it collects information on “financially relevant ESG risks and opportunities”. Sustainalytics requires an issue to have a “substantial impact on the economic value of a company”. These agencies require an issue to affect financial performance.

Under its “social” pillar, for example, MSCI considers water usage, arguing companies in high-water-use industries face operation disruptions, higher regulation and higher costs for water, which can reduce returns and increase risk.

The absence of data related to gender implies women-friendly policies are not viewed as affecting the performance or risk of companies.

A gender lens to the rescue?
But with a bit of a push, rating agencies can help make gender equity transparent. They have the research capability and access to company data that everyday investors do not. This can help investors make informed decisions about what to invest in.

Pressure from investors can also force companies to address equity issues. When that happens, the public metrics of company performance on gender issues become a lever around which companies can be encouraged to change.

Investors themselves may also find great personal satisfaction in being able to make gender-aware decisions if they could easily apply a gender lens when deciding where to invest.

It is time for potential investors to start demanding data be collected. Once that happens, rating agencies will send a message to companies that gender equity matters. As long as investors stay silent, progress will remain slow.

Dr Ayesha Scott, senior lecturer – finance, Auckland University of Technology; Aaron Gilbert, associate professor in finance, Auckland University of Technology, and Candice Harris, professor of management, Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Gender equity continues to be a significant problem in business globally. We all know the story: the gender pay gap is a persistent issue and female-dominated industries tend to be lower paid.

Female representation in senior leadership and board positions remains low in many countries, particularly in Aotearoa New Zealand. Women comprise only 28.5 percent of director positions across all NZX-listed companies and just 23.7 percent at companies outside of the NZX’s top 50.

Change is slow despite the well-established evidence showing the merits of improving gender equity for businesses — including better firm performance — and excellent initiatives such as Mind The Gap.

• READ MORE: CSW: Advancing women’s rights since 1946
• Do women-focused capital funds actually help women, or are they just ‘pinkwashing?’
• Auditing, matching pay and accountability will close the gender pay gap: study

But there is a way to support companies that have made the change towards greater gender equity — and encourage others to do the same: we can invest with a “gender lens”.

The aim of investing with a gender lens is not only to make a financial return but also to improve the lives of women by providing capital to those companies doing well on gender issues.

Gender lens investing goes beyond counting female representation at board level. It encompasses the number of female managers, leaders and employees as well as the existence of policies or products provided by a company to address the gender pay gap and other inequities faced by their female employees.

It also encourages investing in women-owned enterprises.

In essence, investing with a gender lens means identifying and investing in those companies that are empowering their female employees and embracing diversity.

This might seem simple. But there are no investment portfolios or funds investing in companies that do right by women.

One explanation for this gap is that identifying gender-friendly companies is not easy. And this is where rating agencies have a role to play.

U.N. Chief Says World Is ‘300 Years Away’ From Gender Equity And Women’s Rights Are ‘Vanishing Before Our Eyes’ https://t.co/LggXPPy79k

— Patrick F. Herlihy (@herlihy_f) March 7, 2023

The role and power of rating agencies
Over the past three decades there has been a fundamental shift towards investing for not only financial returns but also for social outcomes — so called Responsible Investing (RI).

The growth in RI has spawned an industry dedicated to defining and measuring a company’s non-financial contributions across a range of areas, specifically across the environmental, social and governance (ESG) pillars.

The rating agencies build scores by collecting data on issues within each of the ESG pillars — for instance, the environmental pillar comprises data on carbon emissions, land use and water, among other measures — and then converts this into an overall score.

Fund managers, especially those managing RI funds, use these scores to inform investment decisions. What, then, are the comparable measures for gender lens investing?

While some rating agencies have created measures to identify companies suitable for a gender lens portfolio — for example, Sustainalytics has a gender equality index — others have very little on gender at all.

Some rating agencies seem to base gender equity performance on the number of women on a company’s board or its in-house policies on diversity and discrimination.

In short, there is little-to-no substantive information available to allow investing with a gender lens. And why is that?

A group of New Zealand businesses, including Skycity, Westpac, DB Breweries, Coca Cola, Xero and Kiwibank, have urged the government to address the gender pay gap.https://t.co/5Qv17tL1T4

— RNZ (@radionz) September 21, 2022

Well, rating agency MSCI states it collects information on “financially relevant ESG risks and opportunities”. Sustainalytics requires an issue to have a “substantial impact on the economic value of a company”. These agencies require an issue to affect financial performance.

Under its “social” pillar, for example, MSCI considers water usage, arguing companies in high-water-use industries face operation disruptions, higher regulation and higher costs for water, which can reduce returns and increase risk.

The absence of data related to gender implies women-friendly policies are not viewed as affecting the performance or risk of companies.

A gender lens to the rescue?
But with a bit of a push, rating agencies can help make gender equity transparent. They have the research capability and access to company data that everyday investors do not. This can help investors make informed decisions about what to invest in.

Pressure from investors can also force companies to address equity issues. When that happens, the public metrics of company performance on gender issues become a lever around which companies can be encouraged to change.

Investors themselves may also find great personal satisfaction in being able to make gender-aware decisions if they could easily apply a gender lens when deciding where to invest.

It is time for potential investors to start demanding data be collected. Once that happens, rating agencies will send a message to companies that gender equity matters. As long as investors stay silent, progress will remain slow.

Dr Ayesha Scott, senior lecturer – finance, Auckland University of Technology; Aaron Gilbert, associate professor in finance, Auckland University of Technology, and Candice Harris, professor of management, Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Butler’s recent piece on the Lemon affair was published by Ms. Magazine, and her rejoinder to Lemon in USA Today.
Higdon’s latest op-ed with Huff on Russiagate was published numerous places, including as a Dispatch at Project Censored.

Notes:
Allison Butler teaches in the Department of Communications at the University of Massachusetts, and is Vice President of the Media Freedom Foundation, Project Censored’s parent organization, and co-author of The Media and Me. Nolan Higdon is a lecturer in education at the University of California Santa Cruz campus. He’s also the author of the book The Anatomy of Fake News and other works of media analysis.

Image by Thomas Breher from Pixabay

The post Analyzing Current Events Through a Critical Media Literacy Lens: Don Lemon’s Sexism/Ageism at CNN, the Sackler Dynasty, Russiagate Propaganda, and More appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Project Censored.

Congress leader and MLA Virendra Chaudhary tweeted this picture and wrote, “Who takes a photo like this (with the lens cap on)?”. (Archived link)

Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha member Jawhar Sircar also tweeted this image of PM Modi and wrote, “Keeping the lid on statistics is one thing, but keeping the cover on the camera lens is sheer farsightedness.” (Archived link)

CPI-ML(L) leader and Bihar MLA Sandeep Saurav also tweeted a picture of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, writing, “Camera and fool (pun on the Hindi word for ‘cover’)”. (Archived link)

Similarly, several other social media handles and users, including the Maharashtra Congress Seva Dal, Congress leader Ishita Sedha, Himmat Singh Gurjar of the Kisan Ekta Morcha, amplified the viral photo.

Fact-check

At first glance, this picture appears to be edited, since the angle at which the camera is pointed is different from that of the position of the lens cap. Another noteworthy detail is that this image has been flipped, so the branding of the camera appears to be flipped. Finally, though there is a Nikon camera in the picture, the lens cap is from the brand Canon.

Next, Alt News examined the Government of India website PmIndia(dot)gov(dot)in to investigate whether the image was authentic. This portal contains the latest and updated photos of the prime minister. Here, we found an image gallery on Narendra Modi releasing the cheetahs at the Kuno National Park. We then found the original image. It can be clearly seen that there is no cover on the camera lens in the original version. The image was edited to add the lens cap, and the image has been flipped as well. 

To make these differences easier to see, we have included a side-by-side comparison of the morphed photo and the original version.

To sum it up, many Opposition leaders falsely shared an edited picture of PM Modi taking a photo with a camera with the lens cap on. The photo was morphed.

The post Picture of PM Modi taking photo with lens cap on is morphed appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Abhishek Kumar.

The post In the Amazon, Political Power Grows Out of the Barrel of a Camera Lens appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Ed Rampell.