In recent commentary, Lo‘au dean Dr Siosiua Lafitani criticised Kaniva News, using the term “cut and paste” — or in Tongan, tuʻusi mo fakapipiki — in a derogatory manner to suggest the outlet lacks originality and journalistic rigour.
His remarks follow earlier criticisms he has made of Kaniva News, which arose after our reporting challenged several misleading claims he made in relation to our reports on Tonga’s democracy, raised concerns about the legality of aspects of his Lo‘au online university, and highlighted student complaints about the way Lo‘au delivered its teaching and courses.
Lafitani and his scholars’ “cut and paste” characterisation is inaccurate and reflects a misunderstanding of how professional journalism and evidence-based reporting operate.
In journalism, what is dismissively labelled as “cut and paste” is in reality the disciplined practice of quoting primary sources — including official statements, interviews, court documents, legislation, and expert analysis — with full and transparent attribution. This approach mirrors accepted academic methodology, where direct quotation is essential for accuracy, credibility, and ethical reporting.
In academia, “cut and paste” is in fact the legitimate practice of quotation, attribution, and source citation — essential tools that ensure accuracy, accountability, and transparency. They allow readers to verify claims, assess the credibility of sources, and distinguish clearly between reported facts, direct statements, and analysis.
Far from indicating laziness or a lack of originality, responsible quotation reflects editorial integrity. It shows that a newsroom prioritises factual accuracy over paraphrasing that may distort meaning. In matters of public interest — particularly politics, governance, and accountability — precise wording is often critical, and quoting directly is the safest and most ethical approach.
Original journalism does not mean inventing facts or rewriting others’ words unnecessarily. It means independently selecting, contextualising, verifying, and presenting information in a way that serves the public interest. Editorial judgement lies in what is reported, why it is reported, how it is framed, and what context is added — not in avoiding quotation.
In both academia and journalism, quotations are used to substantiate an argument, claim, or point by providing direct evidence from a reliable source. A quotation is a precise, word-for-word extract from that source and is presented within quotation marks to ensure accuracy, transparency, and integrity in reporting.
This is particularly important when public figures make contentious statements. Quoting their exact words is often the most responsible approach, as paraphrasing can unintentionally soften, exaggerate, or distort meaning. Direct quotation allows audiences to see exactly what was said, in context, enabling them to form informed opinions based on the speaker’s actual words rather than an interpretation of them.
Kaniva News’ reporting is grounded in these principles. Where statements are quoted, they are quoted to preserve accuracy. Where documents are referenced, they are cited to maintain transparency. Where analysis is offered, it is clearly distinguished from reported fact.
Reducing this professional practice to a dismissive label not only misrepresents the work of journalists but also risks misleading audiences about how credible news is produced. In an era of misinformation, the disciplined use of sources is not a weakness — it is a safeguard.
At its core, journalism exists to inform the public truthfully and responsibly. Quotation and attribution — which Lo‘auan critics have dismissively referred to as “cut and paste” — are not shortcuts; they are professional standards.
