Time to end this noose around the Fiji media’s neck

Professor Biman Prasad ... advocate for Fiji press freedom. Photo: Repúblika

PROFESSOR BIMAN PRASAD has long been outspoken about the state of the media in Fiji. He had a simple but staunch line throughout the election campaign about the Media Decree: It had to go.

Back in 2008, two years after the Bainimarama military coup, he teamed up with University of the South Pacific journalism academic Shailendra Singh, to produce a courageous book pulling together a collection of papers about democracy and the media in Fiji.

So it was no surprise that would he would test the decree by tabling a motion in the Fiji Parliament last week to remove or modify the invidious and misguided legislation.

And although it was defeated,  24-17, it was interesting to see the number of absentions (9 on the government side). The motion wasn’t defeated as heavily as it might have been.

Worth another shot soon.

Fiji needs independent watchdog to watch MIDA for future elections

WHILE the Multinational Observer Group’s final report on the first post-coup Fiji general election since 2006 last week found the poll “credible” - as expected based on its preliminary report in spite of the cries of "fraud" by critics - it has offered a raft of recommendations for improvement, including with the news media.

Among these recommendations is a call for an independent watchdog for the controversial Fiji Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA), which had a mixed role during the elections.

Arguing that should MIDA continue its role in future elections, the final MOG report said there was a need for “an independent institution to adjudicate complaints about its actions”.

Citing the 2013 Constitution’s section 17 providing for freedom of “speech, expression and publication”, MOG was in general complimentary about the Fiji news media, saying they “made good efforts to cover the election”.

And thus political parties were “to varying degrees” able to communicate to the public.

How the Pacific Murdoch times are changing

APART from a banner headline in The Fiji Times, “Motibhai buys Times,” on a front page story bylined by a local reporter but based on a News Ltd handout, the enforced sale of the country’s oldest newspaper has been remarkably under reported.

No serious analysis, no editorials and certainly no backgrounder. Another sign of the times post-censorship. Even the Fiji Times itself did not remark editorially about the sale of the 141-year-old paper.

Australia-based News Ltd is bailing out completely. Once the regulatory niceties have been done by September 22, it will be goodbye Rupert Murdoch in Fiji. Speculation by the Fiji Sun that the company’s valuable downtown Suva real estate holdings had not been sold has proved wrong.

Fiji Times managing editor Anne Fussell had a letter published in the Sun at the weekend saying a statement by the newspaper that Fussell had told senior Times staff that “real estate is not included in the sale” was a “complete fabrication”.

“The inevitable result of writing a story which has written this untruth is that the headline is also a misleading untruth,” Fussell wrote.

“In fact, the real estate is included in the sale.”

The Fiji Sun replied with an editor’s note saying the report (not published in the online edition) was “based on information provided by Fiji Times staff following a meeting there”. The paper also pointed out that it had since reported that Motibhai had bought all the property, “including the executive house occupied by Ms Fussell”.

Stack of letters
The Fiji Times ran a stack of letters congratulating the Motibhai group for “keeping it in the family” and buying out the FT. (All media companies were forced by the regime to divest at least 90 percent of the shareholding to local owners by September 28, or face being deregistered under the new Media Industry Development Decree. The Fiji Times group, the only completely foreign owned media company in Fiji, is selling up completely).

One letter praised Motibhai’s “courageous step” and saving “a couple of thousand jobs”.

“With modern technology, a lot of print news companies in the USA are on the brink of closing down and becoming history.

“To name a few newspapers that are fighting for their survival – The New York Times, Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.

“The newspapers have been around for ages and during their peak were read not only in the US, but also abroad.”

Another letter said: “The Motibhai Group [has] a proven track record of how they’re able to transform businesses they acquire into household brand names and I know they will do the same with our oldest daily, The Fiji Times.”

But there was no debate – amid the censorship climate – of the implications of both Fiji’s two national daily newspapers being owned by rival Gujerati business chains. Or any discussion about the future of the editor, outspoken regime critic Netani Rika and senior editorial staff. For 141 years until now, The Fiji Times, for all its flaws, has been owned by dedicated newspaper publishing interests. News Ltd bought the Fiji Times and the (now closed) Pacific Islands Monthly from the Herald and Weekly Times group, which had in turn bought the publications from the Wilke Group.

Market slump
It is easy to see how the Fiji Times has slumped from its once totally dominant market share: Starved of Fiji government advertising, the weekend Fiji Times only totaled 80 pages. But its regime-fawning competitor, Fiji Sun, had 128 pages plus a 30-page glossy Showtime/Garam Masala magazine liftout.

Already, the Malaysian-owned National in Papua New Guinea had long ago taken over from the mostly Australian-owned newspaper Post-Courier - now the only Murdoch outpost in the islands - as the leading circulation daily.

Australian newspaper publishers have been knocked off their perch in the Pacific. How times are changing.

Pictured: The Fiji Times publishing stable; editor-in-chief Netani Rika; and staff celebrating at the 140th birthday party in Suva. Photo: Brisbane Times.

• Motibhai wins race for the Fiji Times
• Motibhai buys Times
• It's official - Motibhai group buys out the Fiji Times

Has Rupert Murdoch declared war on Fiji?

By Michael Hartsell

The four-year battle between the Fiji Times and Fiji's military backed government will soon come to a head as new media laws will force the sale of the 141-year-old paper that is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Limited.

The Media Industry Development Decree, passed in late June, stipulates that 90 percent of ownership of Fiji's media companies must be made up of Fiji citizens. While Rupert Murdoch declared US citizenship in the mid-1980s to get around foreign media ownership rules in that country, there has been no talk of the Australian-born media mogul becoming a Fiji citizen.

Thursday, August 26, marked the deadline interested parties could make bids to purchase the Fiji Times. This comes at the height of a months-long war-of-words between various Australian publications — mostly owned by Murdoch's companies — and Fiji's government. “News Limited, which owns the Fiji Times, continues to wage a hostile media campaign against Fiji, this time directly targeting the nation’s tourism industry and economy,” Fiji's Permanent Secretary for information, Sharon Smith-Johns told Radio Australia's Pacific Beat programme.

Smith-Johns specifically referred to an article by former Fiji Times editor-in-chief Rory Gibson, writing in the Murdoch-owned Brisbane Courier-Mail, comparing Fiji's present government to a “military dictatorship little better than any apartheid regime operating in South Africa's dark ages.”

Smith-Johns wondered aloud if the Australian government was behind some of the bad publicity Fiji's government has received:

Questions have been asked here, is the Australian government behind it? The Australian Government has turned around and said that it will not penalise Fiji, but obviously now News Limited certainly is. It's attacking our economy and it's attacking our tourists. It's a concerted campaign. It's not just one story, it's several stories that have been run in quite a few different papers.

Bloggers who cover Fiji (and their commentors) wonder whether Fiji's military government will weather the poor public relations storm by forcing the sale of such a well-known newspaper.

A comment from FRE in the Fiji Today blog:

Imagine the adverse publicity that will occur if the dictatorship actually does force the Fiji Times to close. There would be headlines in all the newspapers in both Australia and New Zealand. The credibility of the dictatorship would be severely damaged. Can the dictatorship actually afford that damage? Is the dictatorship so blind as to be unaware of the consequences?

The battle between government and media behemoth also spurs a debate on the often inflamed coverage of Fiji in the mainstream press around the Pacific. The Fiji Democracy Now blog complains that Smith-John's words are also inflamatory:

But we cannot let the latest public pronouncement get away, which asks us to believe that, somehow, Rupert Murdoch’s vast media empire, News Ltd, has become a “tool” of the Australian government. The mouthpiece states: “It begs the question that most in Fiji are asking. Is the Australian government using News Limited as a tool to punish Fiji and cripple our economy?” Wow! Has anyone told Rupert that his multi-billion dollar company is actually the PR lackey of the Aussie government?

A commenter to the blog Fiji: The Way It Was, Is and Can Be defends Smith-Johns, but points out that objective reporting and Fiji's future is more important than the current tussle:

[Smith-Johns is] saying the articles are deeply biased and could impact negatively on tourism which employs many thousands of Fiji citizens. One looks to the mainstream media for information, balance and objectivity but with almost all News Ltd articles (and indeed most other foreign media reports) on Fiji, this has generally not been the case. Rory's piece is hyperbole, not journalism as I know it. This is not about whether you or I support or oppose the 2006; it's about trying to understand the situation and help it move forward for the benefit of all Fiji citizens.

- 7018 Pacific Media Watch

Michael Hartsell is a regular contributor on Fiji issues to Global Voices. Link to his original GV article here.

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

Fiji regime stands firm over draft media decree

By Shailendra Singh in Suva

Fiji’s draft media decree continues to be criticised from within and outside the country, but the government is showing no signs of backing down or softening any of its provisions.

Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has described international coverage of the draft decree as unbalanced and bordering on the hysterical. He told Radio Fiji recently: "(Again), I would suggest very strongly that most of these sorts of comments are not objective but
actually political in nature."

"I would also attribute some of this hysteria to some local media organisations that are probably whipping up this frenzy and trying to portray an image of Fiji that is far from the truth," he added.

Breach of content regulation or disclosure provisions of the proposed law could lead to a maximum fine of $F500,000 (about US$258,000 ) for the media company concerned, and a maximum fine of F$100,000 (about US$52,000) or a maximum jail term of five years, or both, for publishers, editors and reporters.

Critics of the government say that it has no one to blame but itself for any negative perceptions about Fiji or the draft decree.

After all, it was only last year that then President Ratu Josefa Iloilo abrogated the country’s charter, formed an interim government that is to remain in power until 2014, and then reappointed as prime minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, who has ruled Fiji since staging a coup in 2006.

Freedom of expression and of the press have also been under heavy strain under the Public Emergency Regulations (PER) that, said the Suva-based Citizens’ Constitutional Forum, would only be replaced in name by the proposed Media Industry Development Decree 2010.

Censorship continues
According to the forum’s executive director, Rev Akuila Yabaki, the draft decree only "allows strict media censorship to continue in Fiji".

"PER and censorship must be lifted so that citizens of Fiji can enjoy the right to receive and impart information and diverse opinions," Yabaki said.

The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), for its part, said that the draft decree invests all power of interpretation over the meaning of fair, balanced and quality
journalism to officers and authorities appointed by the Bainimarama regime.

"This decree is clearly focused on the regime retaining control and entrenching its highly oppressive restrictions, not only on the media but (also) on members of the public who might wish to express dissenting views," the IFJ said in a statement.

At the same time, IFJ general secretary Aidan White said it "strictly limits the ability of Fiji’s media to regain its role as a critical watchdog on the accountability of power-holders, and must be substantially rewritten or withdrawn".

Among other things, the draft decree calls for the formation of a Media Development Authority whose powers would include compelling media outfits to disclose the documentation they performed for their stories. The body would also be exempt from legal proceedings unless it can be shown that it acted in bad faith or without care.

Offences outlined in the decree meanwhile include publishing or broadcasting material that is against public interest or order, offends good taste or decency, or creates communal discord.

Wide-ranging powers
The draft decree’s miscellaneous provisions also hand the minister concerned wide-ranging powers to stop broadcast or publication in an emergency. Precisely what constitutes an "emergency," however, is not defined.

The same minister gets to appoint, as well as dismiss, the director of the Media Development Authority.

According to Prime Minister Bainimarama, the proposed decree will set a better relationship with the media.

But the draft law was already clouded in controversy even before it was tabled on April 7, withmedia organisations and interested parties complaining that they were not given enough time to scrutinise the 49-page document.

Those who registered for the consultations were asked to collect copies of the draft at 8 a.m. or 90 minutes before the consultations began at the Holiday Inn Hotel in Suva.

They were also not allowed to make copies of the document, which they all had to return afterward.

The international media monitor Reporters Without Borders, however, apparently read enough to issue a statement on April 8 that said the draft decree is an "authoritarian imposition by a regime with no democratic legitimacy".

Grip tightened
"Nowhere is press freedom mentioned in this proposed decree, which appears to be designed to enable the military government to tighten its grip on the media – control of media ownership, control of content, and control of the dissemination of news within the country," the organisation said.

The draft decree is reportedly modeled after Singapore’s media laws – which has not exactly provided any comfort to the local and international media.

In the 2009 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index, Singapore was ranked 133rd out of 175 countries.

Then again, it still bested Fiji, which fell 73 places from its position the previous year and landed on the 152nd spot in the index.

It remains to be seen whether the draft decree would improve or worsen that ranking.

What looks certain, however, is the draft becoming law. Although Attorney-General Khaiyum has not given any timeframe or date for its promulgation, he has said that it would be implemented in due course.

Shailendra Singh is head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific. This article was originally published with the Inter Press Service. Cartoon: Malcolm Evans, Pacific Journalism Review.

Fiji Times 'buy out' - who are the jackals?

THE jackals are circling around the great Fiji Times carve-up, but no serious contenders have so far emerged. The Australian news group, wholly owned by News Limited, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's US-based News Corp, is still hoping for a reprieve. Although the military-backed regime is insistent that the newspaper must be ready to divest 90 percent of its shareholding to local Fiji interests when the draft media decree becomes law, Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum says there is no need for the country's largest and most influential newspaper to "close down".

Sections of the draft Fiji Media Industry Development Decree 2010 relating to media ownership include:

s36(1): In every media organisation -

(a) in the case of a company, all the directors and in the case of any other legal entity, partnership, joint venture and of an individual, any person or persons holding analogous powers shall respectively be citizens of Fiji permanently residing in Fiji;

(b) up to 10 percent of the beneficial ownership of any share or shares in a company or any interest in the nature of ownership, partial or total, of any other person holding any interest in a media organisation may be owned by foreign persons, but at least 90 percent of the beneficial ownership of any shares or shares in a company or any interest in the nature of ownership, partial or total, of any person holding any interest in a media organisation must be owned by citizens of Fiji permanently residing in Fiji, whether any such interests subsist at the present time or are sought with a view to future ownership.

A key Fiji entrepreneur, Mahendra Patel, has scoffed at rumours linking him to a buy-out of the Fiji Times:

A prominent businessman has denied rumours that his company is interested in leading a buyout of Fiji Times shares. Mahendra Patel, of Motibhai & Co Limited, laughed off rumours that the company was interested in the newspaper.

Speaking from his Nadi office yesterday, Mr Patel said the rumours were news to them.

“We did not even know that Fiji Times was on sale,” he said when queried about the rumours.

“We are not interested and there have been no negotiations whatsoever.”

Australian newspaper company News Limited owns the Fiji Times.

However, under the draft of the Media Industry Development Decree, 90 per cent of such ownership must be held by local interests.

Meanwhile, the Fiji Sun, which editorially takes an opposing view to the Fiji Times and is seen as being more pragmatic and accommodating to the regime, has condemned the Samoan prime minister, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, over an "erratic" attack on regime leader Voreqe Bainimarama.

A message should be sent to Tuilaepa not to waste his time commenting on issues about Fiji...

Tuilaepa talks about democracy. Yet he ruthlessly presides over the closest thing in the Pacific Islands to a one-party state.

It takes a brave person in Samoa to take on Tuilaepa’s party machine. Tuilaepa talks about media freedom.

Yet he shamelessly presides over some of the most draconian media laws in the Pacific Islands.

They constantly threaten freedom of expression in Samoa.

In fact, Tuilaepa still has much to learn, especially about leadership in the region.

Tuilaepa would do well to learn from prime ministers like Papua New Guinea’s Sir Michael Somare, Vanuatu’s Edward Natapei and the Solomon Islands’ Dr Derek Sikua ...

• The Fiji Sun editorial in full
  
• Samoan PM's comments on Pacific Scoop
• Earlier Cafe Pacific posting
  

Whale Oil highlights NZ hypocrisy over Fiji

WHILE the New Zealand Herald has published an editorial declaring the "emasculating" media and amnesty decrees in Fiji mean that NZ must "stand firm", Fiji-born blogger Whale Oil has reminded the country about government hypocrisy over press freedom and human rights. His blog points out while NZ "waves the finger" at the military-backed Fiji regime in the Pacific, it quite happily engages in treaties with other authoritarian countries and those that have a repressive track record in media freedoms and human rights. When New Zealand has much to gain from trade, it remains curiously silent and pragmatic. Whale Oil writes:

There has been a great deal of angst over Com­modore Bainimarama’s draft Media Indus­try Devel­op­ment Decree 2010 which fea­tures harsh penal­ties for jour­nal­ists and news organ­i­sa­tions which breach vaguely worded con­tent reg­u­la­tions. Being a free­dom of speech kind a guy, I can see too why this isn’t a good thing. How­ever, Fiji isn’t New Zealand and each coun­try has its own solu­tions to par­tic­u­lar issues of the time.

It is extremely hyp­o­crit­i­cal of us to wave the fin­ger at Fiji over press free­doms while at the same time hav­ing free trade agree­ments with other, far more author­i­tar­ian regimes. Cur­rently we have:

New Zealand-Hong Kong, China Closer Eco­nomic Part­ner­ship (NZ-HK CEP was signed on 29 March 2010 but not yet entered into force)
New Zealand-Malaysia Free Trade Agree­ment (MNZFTA was signed on 26 Octo­ber 2009 but not yet entered into force)
ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agree­ment (AANZFTA) – 2010 New Zealand-China Free Trade Agree­ment (NZ-China FTA) – 2008 Trans-Pacific Strate­gic Eco­nomic Part­ner­ship (TransPac) – 2005
New Zealand-Thailand Closer Eco­nomic Part­ner­ship (NZTCEP) – 2005
New Zealand-Singapore Closer Eco­nomic Part­ner­ship (NZSCEP) – 2001
Australia-New Zealand Closer Eco­nomic Rela­tion­ship (CER) – 1983

Of those, only Aus­tralia has true free­dom of the press. The Asean Nations (Indone­sia, Malaysia, the Philip­pines, Sin­ga­pore and Thai­land, Brunei, Burma, Cam­bo­dia, Laos, and Viet­nam) with the sole excep­tion of the Philip­pines, and even that is mar­ginal, re true demo­c­ra­tic coun­tries, the rest, includ­ing Sin­ga­pore, Malaysia and Thai­land are author­i­tar­ian.

If you don’t think Thai­land is, then try and write some­thing in the press against the King of Thai­land and see where that gets you. There are no free­doms that we take for granted in Hong Kong and China yet we have deemed it desir­able to have a FTA and also to not com­ment on their inter­nal politics.

So why is Fiji dif­fer­ent. is it because gov­ern­ment was formed at the point of a gun? Yes? Then what about China? Their gov­ern­ment was formed at the point of a gun when the Com­mu­nists over­threw the legit­i­mate Kuom­intang gov­ern­ment in 1949.

At the moment we are also busily nego­ti­at­ing anti free­dom treaties like the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agree­ment (ACTA), a law and treaty at the behest of big busi­ness, but I don’t notice Keith Locke or Labour rail­ing against that. We are also nego­ti­at­ing an FTA with coun­tries from the Gulf States, (Bahrain, Saudi Ara­bia, the sul­tanate of Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emi­rates.). Autoc­ra­cies the lot of them with­out exception.

And so I come to Fiji again. For some rea­son New Zealand has a fix­a­tion, mostly for the neg­a­tive for Fiji. As I have demon­strated we want and have FTA’s with coun­tries with far worse polit­i­cal sit­u­a­tions, far worse human right records, and yet we impose sanc­tions upon Fiji and travel bans. The lat­est out­cry has been over press free­doms yet in our own coun­try of New Zealand we have gov­ern­ment organ­i­sa­tions cur­tail­ing free­doms with a self imposed censorship.

These are media organ­i­sa­tions that con­tinue to spread rumour, innu­endo and straight out lies about the sit­u­a­tion in Fiji and Radio New Zealand, in par­tic­u­lar, has taken a line of shut­ting down any dis­sent­ing voice from the polit­i­cal group think about how “we” are sup­posed to think about Fiji.

The other half of Whale Oil's column picks up on Café Pacific's recent posting about Radio NZ's Nights programme host Bryan Crump "dumping" one of the better informed Fiji analysts, Crosbie Walsh, formerly director of development studies at the University of the South Pacific. A case of silencing one of the dissenting voices that don't fit the politically correct view of Fiji?

• Media independence and the Fiji PC brigade

Media7 spotlight on reporting of Pacific issues

MEDIA7 turned to the Pacific for a change this week and profiled coverage of the region in the wake of the unveiling of the draft media freedom decree in Fiji. The controversial Barbara Dreaver report on Samoa's "gangs, guns and drugs" also got an airing - with some tart criticisms of the Broadcasting Standards Authority from the panel. Here is Media7's blurb on the programme (running four times over this weekend on digital TVNZ7). Watch it on YouTube - Part 1 and Part 2 - or on TVNZ on demand:

New Zealand television viewers were this week served up the first instalment of the $200-million dollar drama series, The Pacific.

But what about the real life dramas that are being played out in the Oceanic region and the millions of New Zealand dollars and other nations' foreign aid money that is spent to prop up various Pacific nations?

The reporting is patchy at best, given the shrinking budgets of mainstream media and the difficulties inherent in reporting from this sensitive region.

News organisations are finding it hard to report Pacific issues and hold regional governments to account in the face of increasing media censorship and repression.

Some of the problems can be put down to a clash of cultures. But journalists and editors face a daunting task when reporting on the actions of a military dictatorship, a semi-feudal monarchy and a group of emerging nations where tribal and clan loyalties are often at odds with basic democratic rights.

The Royal Commission into the sinking of the Tongan ferry, Princess Ashika, has opened up an unsavoury can of worms and the latest "media rules" about to be imposed by the Fijian regime will further stifle debate in that country.

Media7 this week surveys the media landscape in the Pacific with David Robie, Barbara Dreaver and Tim Pankhurst joining Russell Brown in the studio.

Dr Robie is director of the Pacific Media Centre and convenor of Pacific Media Watch. Dreaver is a seasoned Pacific affairs reporter who has experienced the heavy hand of a Pacific Island politician on many occasions.

Pankhurst, former Dominion Post editor and now chief executive of the Newspaper Publishers' Association, is a fierce advocate of media freedom in the face of threats and intimidation, such as we are seeing in Fiji.

• Media7 is recorded in front of a live audience in the TVNZ Auckland Television Centre on Wednesday evenings at 6pm.
  
  
• Also, hear David Robie commenting on the Fiji media and the proposed draft decree on Radio NZ's Mediawatch, hosted by Colin Peacock and Jeremy Rose.
  

Draft Fiji media decree in profile on 95bFM

LINK to Pacific Scoop to hear Café Pacific's David Robie, director of the Pacific Media Centre, talking about the controversial Media Industry Development Decree being ushered in by the military-backed regime. 95bFM’s Will Pollard interviews Dr Robie on the implications for the future in Fiji - and also around the Pacific region.

Coup 4.5 reports on what it says are casualties of the decree climate:

Two senior journalists at Fiji TV have been moved to lesser roles under claims they were biased against the Frank Bainimarama government.

It is believed Merana Kitione and Anish Chand were sidelined because of their links to the National Federation Party. Kitione, Fiji TV's manager news current affairs and sport, is married to former Fiji Times journalist and administrative officer for the National Federation Party, Kamal Iyer.

She is now acting training and development manager. Another senior journalist, and close colleague, has been moved with her - desk editor and team leader news, Anish Chand, who is now in production.

Chand has friends in the National Federation Party. Kitione's old job has been filled by Tukaha Mua, who used to manage the programmes and distribution section, while Chand's position has been filled by Emily Moli.

The Australian's Asia-Pacific editor Rowan Callick has filed a comprehensive article about the decree and the implications for the The Fiji Times, a subsidiary of the News Ltd media stable.

• David Robie on 95bFM
• Barbara Dreaver's interview with David Robie - TVNZ video
  

'Camouflaged censorship' in Fiji and PINA's silence

THE SILENCE is deafening from the Suva-based Pacific Islands News Association - once the undisputed champion of media freedom in the region. Not a beep over the implications of the draconian Media Industry Development Decree in Fiji. Behind the scenes, there are many disgruntled Pacific journalists who are bitterly disappointed at the donor-funded body's failure to show leadership. For many, the refusal of the PINA to relocate from Suva to another Pacific capital has seriously compromised the regional organisation.

While Global Voices Online has compiled another good overview of cyberspace responses and the Pacific Media Centre condemned the 'draconian and punitive' draft decree, media report that PINA is still adopting a wait-and-see approach. The decree will impose tight restrictions on foreign media ownership which will hit the Rupert Murdoch News Ltd-owned Fiji Times hard - and perhaps even lead to the demise of the country's oldest and most influential newspaper. But it will also impact on the Fiji Sun (expatriate directors) and the Daily Post (majority Australian shareholding). Ten percent foreign ownership of "beneficial" shares is the limit.

But it is also not clear what will happen to the PINA whose Suva-based news service Pacnews is not Fiji-owned. Suva-based manager Matai Akauola, who recently admitted being hampered by censorship, says it is too early to adopt a strong position. He told Radio New Zealand International:

PINA would like to try to meet with its members, like Fiji TV, Fiji Times, Fiji Sun before we could come to a conclusion on how we see this media decree. You could just gather from the meeting that they have their own point of view, so it would be good to sit down one-on-one with the various organisations.

Last week, PINA vice-president, John Woods, broke ranks and called for the organisation to relocate. He also strongly criticised PINA for "kowtowing to the Fiji censors", saying this was contrary to what the organisation stood for - freedom of expression.

A SWOT analysis of PINA staying in Suva, compiled by by outspoken Avaiki Nius editor Jason Brown, reads:

Strengths: strong familiarity with regional centre and diplomatic community in Suva

Weaknesses: extensive evidence of regional positions going mainly to Fiji residents, leading to a failure in transparency and accountability to those members outside Fiji

Opportunities: playing a significant and enduring role in helping Fiji return to normalcy, facilitating effective regionalism

Threats: continued censorship and Fiji-centric approach to regionalism, possible ouster due to law changes

But the most insightful comments come from a colleague on the ground in Suva:

The draft Fiji Media Decree adds further fuel, I believe, to the PINA debate. While PINA is a professional organisation, the Pacnews service is a news (media) service which admittedly, is regional in focus and regional in ownership (through PINA). It is, nevertheless, a media service.

How will Pacnews be viewed by the interim regime - as a "foreign-owned" entity? Given the decree's requirement that Fiji-based media organisations/entities be 90 percent Fiji-owned and that all directors be resident Fiji nationals there are indeed questions PINA will, sadly, now have to address with regards to Pacnews' future.

If, the interim regime makes an exception for PINA/Pacnews - again, sadly, this will only further fuel the accusations that PINA is "accommodating" towards the interim government. Some interesting times ahead with some difficult decisions to be made!!!

It will definitely be interesting to see which way the Fiji Times goes - toe the line and accept the 10 percent shareholding; sell their Fiji flagship (maybe to Fiji Sun?); or close down and have all their equipment shipped abroad to expand/improve one of News Corp's other newspapers? (What are the chances that the interim-regime will back down and accept a 49 percent foreign ownership?? Any one for bets??)

It's also interesting to see Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum arguing the Fourth Estate debate in favour of media organistaions when his own interim regime and most other governments tend to dismiss the media's "fourth estate" role. It is also a great pity that most of his arguments about the Fiji Times ownership is to do with the fact that the newspaper has not given the interim regime the recognition/legitimacy it feels it deserves. Media organisations are business entities - just like other commercial organisations.

If you are going to argue loyalty to a country (more so to an unelected government in this case) where do you draw the line? What about other foreign owned companies in Fiji? Already, we have the Reserve Bank of Fiji leaning on Fiji-based but mostly foreign-owned banks to be "culturally conscious" of the needs of Fiji's people. What next, - demand that Fiji-based but foreign-owned companies declare their loyalty to the government of the day?

Interesting that mention is made of plagiarism but there is no acknowledgement in the draft that the Code of Ethics is an almost complete "lift-out" from the Fiji Media Council!! In all this, there are some good aspects to the decree but by and large, it simply continues (although in camouflaged form) the censorship the interim regime has put in place.

To media freedom.....

• Draconian draft Fiji media law triggers news group protests
• Fiji media digests tough crackdown - TVNZ video
• Fiji draft media decree draconian and punitive
  

Ruthlessly chilling decree no way to improve Fiji media

SO Jim Anthony has had the last laugh. And at least two critical components from his discredited 2007 "Freedom and independence of the media in Fiji" report have found their way into the draft Media Industry Development Decree 2010. No surprise, of course. All the signs have been there for the past couple of years. It was a sure bet that the regime would adopt a Singapore-inspired Media Development Authority and a Media Tribunal with draconian powers (see p. 6 of Anthony's executive summary). But at least his crazy idea of a 7 percent development tax was ditched.

The tragedy of the Anthony report and the public slanging match with the media that ensued is that neither should have never taken place. Had the Fiji news media got their act together and improved things on their own accord, rather that persevering with the "toothless tiger" Fiji Media Council with all its overdue faults, this draconian draft might have been headed off. The independent Media Council review in February 2009 was a job well done - but it was more than three years too late to have any impact.

Now we have a ruthlessly chilling climate of self-censorship being imposed in post-coup Fiji. A year of censorship since the 1997 constitution was abrogated on April 10 is taking its toll. Soon we will have a generation of journalists (average age in Fiji is less than 25)that will barely know what it was like to work in a genuinely free press.

The regime is systematically destroying what had been traditionally one of the strongest media industries in the Pacific.

Media improvements were needed, true. Especially over "fairness and balance". But government authorities have ignored the commonsense independent Media Council review recommendations last year and instead been influenced too heavily by the harsh proposals of the discredited 2007 Anthony report.

Ironically, one "success" of the council is to have its code of ethics adopted in the decree - "lifted word for word", as Fiji Broadcasting Corporation's news director Stanley Simpson points out. Summing up today's media "consultation", he said:

Among the major sticking points during today's discussions was the make up and independence of the Media Development Authority, the imposition of fines for breaching certain provisions under the decree, and the ability of the media to appeal or seek redress from the courts if the Media Tribunal ruled and imposed fines against them.

Limits on foreign ownership of media organisations in Fiji also featured, with the proposed decree set to take out Australia’s News Ltd’s ownership of the Fiji Times.

Actually, the foreign ownership limitation would gain widespread sympathy. Many believe that Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd and the Fiji Times have not been "in tune" with Fiji for many years. Nevertheless, a 10 percent limit is to punitive. Perhaps 49 percent and a reasonable adjustment window to divest shares would have been more realistic - and fairer.

Café Pacific's colleagues at the media consultation provided this feedback:

S4(1): The Authority shall consist of a director appointed by the Minister.

Response: This is putting too much power in the hands of the minister. It could open the door to political appointments, and jeopardise the independence of the authority. The person appointed as director should be one who enjoys the confidence of all the stakeholders, not just that of the minister or the government of the day. There needs be more consultation; it's too risky to leave such a crucial appointment in the hands of one person or one party.

4(3): Director must be remunerated in a manner and at rates subject to terms and conditions determined by the Minister.

The civil service and statutory bodies have clear and transparent salary structures based on academic qualifications and experience. These guidelines should be used to determine the salary of the director, which should be made public. This will instill confidence in the process and the
authority, and it will protect the integrity of the minister also.

5(1) & (2): The authority appoints its own officers and servants and will determine its own salaries and conditions with the Minister as the approving authority.
Appointments and salaries and conditions should be determined independently and in accordance with clearly stipulated procedures to avoid compromising the process, and to instill confidence in the authority.

Terms of office (p. 7)
6(2): The Minister may remove the Director of the Authority at any time from office if the Minister considers it appropriate in the public interest.

The sole authority to remove the Director (coupled with the sole authority to appoint and remunerate) gives the Minister almost sweeping powers over this body which is cause for unease.

Part 4: Content regulation (p. 12)
Offences relating to content regulation

23. The fines and jail terms stipulated (F$100,000 to $500,000; or imprisonment for five years or both) for breaches of content regulation are too draconian. It will have a chilling effect and stop the media from reporting issues of national interest. It is a disincentive for new entrepreneurs wanting to enter the sector. It will also scare away people who may want to join the profession.

Part 5: Enforcement of media standards (p. 12)
25. Power to require documents for information

This is the authority duplicating what the courts are already empowered to carry out. This is outdated, and contrary to whistleblower protection legislation being mooted nowadays as a safeguard against corruption. This is not something that will encourage investigative reporting, which is something this government claims it is keen to promote.

26. Power to enter premises and search, seize under warrant

This is the authority duplicating police work.

27. Offences relating to enforcement (p. 15)
Any person who fails to disclose documents faces maximum fines of $100,000 and jail terms of up to five years, which are quite harsh. This will put an end not only to the whistleblowing culture, but media disclosure of confidential documents in the public interest.

63. Power of the Tribunal on hearing of complaint (p. 28)

The tribunal can order the media organisation or any employee to pay monetary compensation to aggrieved complainants. We already have defamation and other laws for compensatory damages. Why duplicate this function and waste resources? This is something best left to the courts.

Summing up: The decree gives too many sweeping powers to the minister which can be dangerous. There is duplication of the work that courts have been set up to do, which is an unnecessary waste of resources.

The fines and jail terms stipulated are extremely harsh. The media has been denied the freedom it needs to inform the public and to act in its interest.

Pictured: Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and ministry officials at the media consultation. Photo: FBC

• Full text of draft Fiji Media Industry Development Decree 2010
• Coverage of the issue on Pacific Scoop
• How the regime's censorship contradicts the People's Charter
• Draft Fiji media decree draconian and punitive