Fiji censorship by 'legal camouflage'

ON World Press Freedom Day's eve in Brisbane, the Australian journalists union - Media, Arts and Entertainment Alliance (MEAA) - threw a party for Aussie hacks and the UNESCO flacks attending the two-day conference at the University of Queensland. A "South Pacific soirée" to be exact. Guest speaker Sean Dorney had to compete with a cacophony of riverside fireworks to be heard. The latest "press freedom" edition of the Walkley Magazine was launched there too. Along with a 13-page report card on the state of media freedom in Australia, the following article on Fiji was also published:

No colonel of truth in Fiji

For a year, journalists in Fiji have had to live with censors posted in the newsroom. Now a new media decree threatens huge fines and and five years in prison for reports against the national interest. It's a dangerous precedent for the entire Pacific region, says David Robie. Cartoon by Peter Nicholson.

When an Indo-Fijian academic and former trade unionist turned up on Fiji’s shores from Hawaii by invitation to conduct a media industry “review” in June 2007, few took him seriously. Whatever Dr James Anthony’s expertise in other fields, news media was certainly not one of his strengths. Also, it had been decades since he had lived in Fiji and he seemed out of touch.

And then there was a niggling question about the legitimacy of his mission. He had been commissioned by then Fiji Human Rights Commission director Dr Shaista Shameem – no friend of Fiji news organisations – to study media freedom and the future of the industry in the Pacific country.

“Negative reactions of the media industry to human rights scrutiny in the public interest are not unique to Fiji,” Shameem said. “Other human rights commissions have faced similar obstacles – such as the South African Human Rights Commission.”

Anthony immediately clashed with local news media companies and the self-regulatory Fiji Media Council and they refused to cooperate with him. He persevered in an atmosphere of hostility and produced a 161-page report branded by his opponents as “racist” – for a sweeping claim that the industry was dominated by eight white expatriates – and “riddled with inaccuracy”.

Ironically titled “Freedom and independence of the media in Fiji”, the report was discredited and appeared to have sunk into oblivion. Yet now Anthony has come back into focus. His recommendations were adopted as the basis of a draconian draft decree widely regarded as a sinister threat to the future of a free press in Fiji and across the South Pacific.

Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum claimed the Media Industry Development Decree 2010 “takes the already established rules of professionalism, of media behaviour – or how they should behave – and gives it teeth”.

Decree 'teeth'
The “teeth” includes rolling Anthony’s primary proposals for a Singapore-inspired Media Development Authority and an “independent” Media Tribunal into this proposed law along with a radical curb on foreign ownership, wide powers of search and seizure and harsh penalties for media groups and journalists breaching the decree.

The authority and tribunal would be empowered to fine news organisations up to F$500,000 and to fine individual journalists and editors up to F$100,000 – or imprison them for up to five years – for violations of vaguely defined codes such as publishing or broadcasting content that is “against public order”, “against national interest” or “creates communal discord”.

Foreign ownership is retrospectively restricted to a 10 percent stake in any media organisation and directorships must only go to Fiji citizens who have been residing in the country for five of the past seven years, and nine of the past 12 months.

Many critics see this as a vindictive section aimed at crippling the Fiji Times, the country’s largest and most influential newspaper and owned by a Murdoch subsidiary, News Limited.
The regime wants to put the newspaper, founded at Levuka in 1869, out of business, or at least effectively seize control and muzzle its independent stance – seen by the military-backed government as “anti-Fiji”.

Two Australian publishers of the Fiji Times have been deported on trumped up grounds since military commander Voreqe Bainimarama staged the country’s fourth coup in December 2006. The High Court also imposed a hefty F$100,000 fine against the Fiji Times in early 2009 for publishing an online letter criticising the court for upholding the legality of the 2006 coup.

While international responses have focused on the serious impact for the Fiji Times group, the terms of the decree will also hit the country’s two other dailies – the struggling Fiji Daily Post (it hasn't been publishing lately), which has 51 per cent Australian ownership, and the Fiji Sun, which has taken a distinctly “pro-Fiji” (that is, pro-regime) stance but also has some expatriate directors.

John Hartigan, chief executive of the Fiji Times' parent company News Limited, warned the decree raised “important commercial issues” for the newspaper. “We have made representations to the Fiji authority to find a way to resolve these issues and are awaiting the outcome,” he said.

Mixed responses
The draft decree follows 12 months of “sulu censors” - so-called because of the traditional Fijian kilt-like garment some officials wear - keeping tabs on newsrooms after the 1997 constitution was abrogated by the regime in April last year and martial law declared.

Responses to the proposed law have been mixed within Fiji, but other media groups have strongly condemned it. Paris-based Reporters Without Borders criticised the regime for tightening its grip on media, noting that Fiji had fallen 73 places in its annual freedom rankings. Fiji is now placed 152nd out of 175 countries.

The Pacific Media Centre branded the draft decree as “draconian and punitive” and the Pacific Freedom Forum said it would “deal a death-blow to freedoms of speech”. The International Federation of Journalists criticised the regime for investing authorities with the power to define the meaning of “fair, balanced and quality” journalism.

Most Fiji journalists were reluctant to speak out publicly with their jobs potentially on the line. But many contributed postings to some of the 72 post-coup blogs about Fiji or shared insights with their Pacific colleagues on cyberspace networks.

Dangerous precedent
Other Pacific journalists see the draft law as a dangerous precedent for the region, one that could be emulated by unscrupulous politicians in other countries as a strategy to control the media.

Already the Suva-based Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and its regional news cooperative Pacnews are facing a dilemma – to stay and risk being compromised, or to leave but have less lobbying influence on the regime. Vice-president John Woods, editor of the Cook Islands News, has called on the organisation to relocate out of Fiji, describing PINA as “dysfunctional” and “kowtowing” to the regime.

One Suva old hand who had been a star reporter at the time of the first two coups in 1987 admitted there were some good aspects to the decree, such as encouraging training and enforcing the codes of ethics: “But it simply continues the censorship – although now in a camouflaged form.”

Dr David Robie is an associate professor in AUT University’s School of Communication Studies, director of the Pacific Media Centre in New Zealand and editor of Pacific Scoop. He was formerly head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji. His media blog is Café Pacific.

• Walkley Foundation

Café Pacific’s New Year honours

A QUICK round-up of some of Café Pacific’s 2008 random media highlights (and lowlights):

Weapons of Mass Delusions Award for media exposes: The disturbing yet highly entertaining book Flat Earth News by Guardian investigative journalist Nick Davies. Not much on the Oceania region (New Zealand, for example, rates merely a page – with a section in the distorted news-from-nowhere basket), but the insights into “churnalism” are global and examples are rampant throughout the Pacific media.

Transparency Pacific Award for media freedom: Fiji’s military backed regime wins this category virtually uncontested for deporting the country’s two most influential publishers on “security” pretexts – Evan Hannah of the Fiji Times in May and the Fiji Sun’s Russell Hunter in February. As the FT summed it up in its review of the year:

“Not only were they denied their rights, they were stolen in the night and deported despite court orders issued that they be produced in court.
“In fact, so desperate were the state officials to rid Australian nationals before being directly served the orders that Mr Hannah was deported to South Korea, where he had no links at all; neither family or friends.
“And, on the same day Mr Hunter – who was the first to be meted this unsavoury fate, was deported, the Immigration Act was amended to bar any court appeals against the Immigration Minister’s decision to deport.”

George Orwell Award for media insights: Dr Jim Anthony and the Fiji Human Rights Commission for a so-called Fiji media review ironically dubbed in newspeak “Freedom and Independence of the Media in Fiji”. It had been widely known in media circles for some time that some sort of overhaul of the Fiji media self-regulatory mechanisms was long overdue. (If for no other reason than to head off the inevitable government clampdown using the law "promulgation"). A sort of updated Thomson Report (1996 - commissioned by the post-Rabuka coups government) has been needed. But the racist invective and malice directed at the media plus the lack of rigorous methodology in the Anthony report made a mockery of this process. The 2007 NZ Press Council review is an example of how such an exercise can be conducted constructively. Hopefully, the recently announced Fiji Media Council review can produce some answers.

Pseudo Events Award for regional j-school publications: Te Waha Nui student newspaper for its Ossie award for best regular publication. This should be something to really celebrate, but as a co-founder of this paper (in 2004 - and I am no longer involved), I cannot truly share the bubbly. Too many flaws for my liking. The recent website revamp isn’t a patch on its newcomer rival NewsWire at Whitireia Journalism School. (An example of this was NewsWire’s vigorous coverage of the NZ general election – TWN started off well and then abandoned coverage two weeks before the actual poll). And recent reflections on gatekeeping at the paper are rather revealing. Incidentally, Pacific uni j-school papers – such as Liklik Diwai, Uni Tavur (deceased) and Wansolwara – have done remarkably well in the Ossies over recent years.

Waigani Ostrich Award for media relations and investigation: Sir Michael Somare’s government for the inept handling of the cash-for-recognition Taiwan affair and stonewalling of the media. The PNG media has an enviable track record for media investigations into corruption and did a fair job in digging over this scandal. But the media-political climate has still had a ticking off from global integrity groups and the industry failed to live up to its achievements with an ugly end-of-year brawl.

• Flat Earth News
• An incredulous year: Expecting the unexpected

Media freedom - by government edict!

FIJI'S regime, albeit "legal" nowadays, is pressing ahead with its controversial media law "promulgation". It will have a draft amalgation of media laws on the table by next month. Naturally, the local news media are back on the warpath. They are trying to broker some consultation before this media law gets too far down the track. Unfortunately, while the media has been quick to use its power, newsprint, airwaves and cyberspace to air its self-interested views, it hasn't done anywhere such a good job about canvassing the views of civil society and those who are so critical. Why are other stakeholders so intent on seeing the media perform better? Perhaps if the media had done something more proactive about getting its house in order - a bit like the NZ Press Council did with its first independent review in 30 years in 2007 - the stand-off wouldn't have got to this stage. A few quick words from Peni Moore, one of the civil society advocates commissioned to review the media (separately from the Jim Anthony fiasco), in her conclusion for the People's Charter:

To say the media was angry [over the Anthony report] is to understate their point of view. Radio, TV, newspapers and magazine editors and executives voiced their indignation, anger and disappointment at the report. Perhaps the Fiji TV best summarised the many media points of view, saying, that the FHRC seems to share the concern of all political parties and leaders that have been at the helm of power to have “controls that will weaken and severely dilute the rights of the media and individuals as enshrined in the 1997 Constitution”.
Fiji TV said that Anthony Report did not provide specifics on how the media have failed to meet their obligations, and said there is a tendency to heap most of the blame for Fiji’s political problem on the media. “This is quite unfair and below the belt”, commenting that media cannot allow themselves to be mouthpieces of
the government, politicians and political parties.
As a panacea or cure or stimulant toward improving media standards, the National Committee for Building a Better Fiji (NCBBF) recommended a number of changes which included the establishing of the Media Tribunal, that legislation to be enacted to ensure the development and regulation of professional standards of journalism and a levy to be raised to cover the costs.

This, surely, is a pointer to where the promulgation is heading. Ironically, just yesterday Fiji Media Council chief Daryl Tarte reckoned that "self-censorship" had been declining in Fiji. Also yesterday, the Fiji Times admitted it was in contempt over publishing a letter chastising the High Court over its controversial ruling about the legality of the regime.

• New media law draft set for December
• Self-censorship 'on decline' in Fiji
• Background to the contempt of court issue on PMW
  
  

Seeking a more balanced media view of Fiji

The Fiji news media gets a lot of ticking off these days. And a major critic remains Interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, who just last month branded the media as "divisive and racist", saying it should be "licensed". He claims the media isn't responsible with the freedom it has been given. This is a familiar theme, of course, and he has filed Fiji's biggest-ever damages claim for defamation.
There were very defensive rumblings from the media in response to the recent discredited Anthony report on the "freedom and independence of the media". And there have been allegations by media of computer hacking. This led to a strong Fiji Times editorial challenging the regime - "put up or shut up"!.
But the flaws of the Anthony report don't change his essential message - there are serious problems in the Fiji media about training/professionalism and credibility and they need to be addressed. If not, then the regime or a future Fiji government is likely to impose something that is draconian and counter-productive.
Yes, the regime is disreputable and civil liberties, press freedom and the rule of law have been trampled on after the military coup. But media reports, such as in New Zealand, giving the impression that Fiji is a "Zimbabwe in the Pacific" (at least prior to the apparent ousting of Mugabe from office), is far from the truth. But, as many media people in Fiji point out, those not on the ground in Fiji and reading the reports would be inclined to be alarmed. The international image of Fiji has taken a battering, resulting in pressure from overseas governments and their refusal to grant any concessions to the regime.
The regime shot itself in the foot also by some misguided actions and is rightly blamed for the state of affairs. But the media is able to question and criticise the regime at will. There is some intimidation but not like in the early days of the coup.
In fact, if the media is put under as much scrutiny as the regime, there are many flaws in the coverage, but the reporting "power" is held by the media. The hysteria over the de-reservation of land that was kicked up and stoked by the media was clumsy and revealed lack of depth in reporting and editorial skills.
A big deal was made about the fact that reporters would no longer be able to call up the interim PM on his cell phone. Somehow this was supposed to be a yardstick for "media freedom". Where else in the world can journalists call up a PM on the phone for interviews?
It has been forgotten that the military ousted a government that was racist, divisive, corrupt and inefficient and consorting with coup-makers. The difference was that the Qarase government was cynically using democracy and existing laws to legalise its racist and illegal policies.
One of Qarase's ministers referred to Indo-Fijians as "weeds taking up too much space" while some senators called reporters "Satan's agents". They were not even reprimanded. In his last days, Qarase, in a desperate bid to cling to power, tried to incite indigenous Fijians to rise against Indo-Fijians by claiming that they supported the military.
So the man was willing to see the shedding of blood to remain in power. It was another example of how callously some leaders use the people for their own benefit. The media, naïve as it is, has made a ruthless politician and a dangerous leader like Qarase, appear "angelical"!
The Qarase government should also share blame for the coup. Had it remained in power, it is quite likely we would have seen some coup-makers in Senate, Parliament, in plum government jobs and holding board memberships. It would have increased consumption tax to 15 per cent to pay for its reckless spending. This would have strangled the poor even further.
If not for the coup, the shenanigans at the Fiji National Provident Fund would not have come to light. The national pension scheme quite likely would have gone down the tubes as the National Bank of Fiji did. Under the Qarase regime, even the workers' pension scheme was not safe or sacred.
Fiji had become a magnet and haven for conmen and carpetbaggers. There is criticism that no "hard evidence" has been uncovered to prove widespread corruption as claimed. Corruption is never easy to prove, more so in a country like Fiji which simply does not have the expertise. But there is enough prima-facie and anecdotal evidence to show there was something very sick in many organisations.
Journalists in countries such as New Zealand need to be prepared do the research, talk to credible people and get a cross-section of views instead of repeatedly using biased sources who are often not even in Fiji. Constantly only talking to those hurt by the military and who have reasons to hate it, inevitably serve up a less than balanced view.
There are many people with an axe to grind against the military, and there is a danger of them using the media to achieve this end. Of course the media will be quick to deny any such possibility but we all saw how easily the media was manipulated during the Speight and Rabuka coups. The media needs to be careful that it doesn't inflame racial feelings and buy into imposed external solutions with a double standard. The struggle for democracy could easily explode into an Timor-Leste style catastrophe.

• Put up or shut up - Fiji Times editorial
• Fiji regime accuses Radio NZ, Michael Field of 'bias' - The Press/Stuff website
• The story of four coups
• Fiji media and ethical deviations
• Alarming reports coming out of Fiji - Audrey Young's blog
• David Robie on the Fiji media on MediaWatch

Fairness and the Fiji media

"Anonymous" has taken me to task by claiming that my recent quickfire criticisms of the James Anthony report (and the Fiji media) were "typical" in that that "the racist part was overemphasized by [me] and the media elite. What is racist about the term 'white'?"
Actually, I would have been just as critical if such a "detached" report was addressed in such extreme emotive terms relating to any race.
"Should fairness in the media also mean proportionate representation?"
We're under no illusions, there is little fairness in the media in Fiji. There never has been as long as I have been writing about Fiji, and I also lived in Fiji for five years. After 40 years in the news media and having lived and worked in some 15 countries, my experience of the Fiji media is that it is the least fair and balanced of any media that I have encountered. Much of this has to do with the lack of basic training and education compared with many other countries. This is being gradually addressed by the two j-schools at USP and FIT but there is also a constant drain of experienced people. Still there are many outstanding journalists in Fiji.
This leads me to the next criticism from the reader:
"Seems you have turned on a dime, comparing your views on the Fiji Times post-2000 coup. I wonder why the media, including you have not commented on the glass ceiling of the Fiji media."
No, Mr Anonymous, I haven't turned at all. My criticisms stand and many others have echoed that analysis. A far fuller and documented case is made in my 306-page book Mekim Nius: South Pacific media, politics and education, published by the University of the South Pacific in 2004. It is available at Amazon.com. But that isn't the point. In my blog posting, I was addressing some of the flaws of the Anthony report.
"Anonymous" makes a few other points too - read them.

A new book about the state of the media in the Pacific today should be out by May. Co-edited by Evangelia Papoutsaki (formerly of the Divine Word University, and now of Unitec, NZ) and a former Fiji journalist, now media academic, Usha Sundar Harris, South Pacific Islands Communication: Regional Perspectives, Local Issues, it is jointly published by the Asian Media, Information and Communication Centre (AMIC) in Singapore, University of the South Pacific and AUT University's Pacific Media Centre. More information about this at the PMC.

• Republic in turmoil with future unclear
• Assault on press stepped up in Fiji

Fiji's 'how to gag the media' report

It is ironic that Jim Anthony's flawed report for the Fiji Human Rights Commission should be dubbed with an Orwellian title "Freedom and Independence of the Media in Fiji". It is far more like a "How to gag and shackle the media" report. It's the sort of report that gives even military-backed regimes bad reputations. A great pity. A constructive, well-researched and useful - but genuinely independent - examination of the Fiji media is long overdue. A 2007 review of the NZ Press Council is an example of the sort of thing that can be done. But the Anthony report doesn't show any interest in "free media" models that work well - he has been seduced by authoritarian straitjackets. Perhaps he isn't even aware of the M*A*S* work of the late Professor Claude-Jean Bertrand, the pioneer of global media accountability systems. A report as racist, provocative and ill-informed as this - with not even elementary referencing or sourcing - is rather embarrassing.
However, much of the media response in Fiji is also extraordinarily defensive and hypocritical, even bordering on hysterical. Why do they even bother to take such a report seriously? Surely the Anthony report deserved to quietly fade into oblivion - hardly worthy of any serious response. Yet some of the over-the-top reactions have ensured the Anthony report has gained far more international attention than it ever warranted. And certainly the spotlight is on foreign influence in media ownership. But the public deserves more than the defensive bleatings from self-interested media and political voices - where are the independent commentators and analysts for balance? The Fiji Times is one of the few to publish the odd independent reaction, such as from the Ecumenical Centre for Research Education and Advocacy (ECREA), which criticised the media for being the 'mouthpiece of the elite' and also for poor journalism standards. We also wonder about the timing of the report's release, given that it was made available hurriedly just three days after the arbitrary deportation of Fiji Times publisher Russell Hunter. Ousted Opposition leader Mick Beddoes described Dr Anthony as "paranoid", saying some of his "accusations and conclusions are not worth the paper they're printed on". A former deputy PM in Mahendra Chaudhry's People's Coalition government deposed by George Speight in 2000, Dr Tupeni Baba, dismissed the report as biased.
Dr Anthony told Radio New Zealand International that media and government relations had broken down, and for years the media had poured venom into Fiji's body politic: "Playing crybaby over this report isn't really going to wash. The media representatives, the media barons, were invited to participate in this report; they chose to boycott the inquiry. In my opinion, that was a fatally flawed decision."
Pictured: Fiji's Interim Minister for Labour and Tourism Bernadette Rounds-Ganilau is interviewed by Dr James Anthony during the media "inquiry". Source: Fiji Human Rights Commission website.
A quick summary of the report's recommendations:

• Expatriate journalists living in Fiji would be banned from working in the country under recommendations by the country's human rights commission.
• A media tribunal would be established independent of government control.
• A Fiji media development authority would be established based on a system in Singapore to monitor media organisations and train journalists.
• A 7 percent tax on media advertising and license fees would be imposed to fund the tribunal and authority.
• New sedition laws would be introduced.

Too many whites in media, says academic - audio - Anthony's defence of his report on Radio Australia's Pacific Beat
Fiji should ban expat journos: report
Media report calls for training authority
A Fiji Times breakdown of the FHRC media report into handy pdf morsels - and a summary of media reactions
The Ecumenical Centre for Research Education and Advocacy (ECREA) response
Report author condemns failure of media to take part
Fiji should ban expat journos: report
Fiji media walks the fine line
Freedom and Independence of the Media in Fiji - The Anthony report (FHRC website)
David Robie on Pacific media freedom under siege

Fiji's 'media cartel' on the mat

What a contrast between the open debate at "OurMedia" summit in New Zealand and the Fiji media. Fiji Media Council Daryl Tarte and his "media cartel", as Laminar Flow likes to brand them, have bunkered down in the face of the Human Rights Commission's inquiry into "media freedom and independence". The commission claimed the media wouldn't take part, a claim then denied by the media quartet - Communications Fiji, Fiji Sun, Fiji Television and the Fiji Times. Not convincing for many among the public. So it remains to be seen how investigator Dr James Anthony, of Hawaii, a onetime political adviser to the first Labour PM, Dr Timoci Bavadra, will get on. It isn't surprising that the local media is so defensive about how it operates. It has always been on the back foot when it comes to discussing media's role in society. And journalists themselves don't have the avenues for "making a noise", as media critic Judy McGregor suggested at OurMedia summit - as they would in New Zealand or many other countries. The first lesson is that freedom of the press is actually on behalf of citizens, not a corporate or business right. But that often isn't the reality. A. J. Liebling summed this up rather well. He once said: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." Many quote him as saying media freedom is "limited" to press owners. However, freedom of the press also means freedom to put the media itself under an uncomfortable spotlight! I remember too well the hamfisted attempts by industry personalities to gag me when I critiqued media coverage in the aftermath of George Speight's 2000 coup. Over time those public record criticisms have been shown to be an accurate account (read the published paper in early 2001). But the real question is: Will an "inquiry" by a commission that has shown itself to be so partisan in support of the regime carry any weight?

Fiji media inquiry hots up - PMW feedback