The politics of Fiji news media under scrutiny

A MAJOR question about publication of the latest edition of Fijian Studies dealing with “media and democracy” (the cover actually says, incorrectly, development) is why did it take so long to surface in public? It took a year for the November 2008 edition to be published and launched in a Suva restaurant.

Nervousness about how the authoritarian post-coup 4.5 Fiji regime might react? Where does a publication like this fit into the state censorship in Bainimarama’s Fiji?

Perhaps the publisher, Fiji Institute of Technology director and series editor of the Fiji Institute of Applied Studies, Dr Ganesh Chand, considered the political climate had stabilised sufficiently to publish this without too much reaction. Fair enough. There was barely a ripple in media – or state – circles, and hardly any newspapers engaged with this thought-provoking book.

A pity. There is a wealth of valuable information packed into the 297-page volume by more than a score of authors, mostly journalists, media academics and political scientists. Debate about some of the content would have been ideal before the Fiji Media Council independent review in February – and should have been available before the reviewers delivered their report (which unfortunately became redundant after the Easter putsch). It would have even been more useful for the regime too to have had access to this research before donning the newsroom jackboots.

However, a big bouquet for the publishers and editors in having the initiative and courage to go ahead with such an important volume at this time. It will be a very useful resource.

As well as the wide-ranging introduction by the editors themselves - head of journalism Shailendra Singh and economics professor Biman Prasad at the University of the South Pacific - most of the authors have provided important insights into the Fiji media, including the impact of digital media in a strained political environment.

Fiji Times associate editor Sophie Foster, for example, provides a study of the mainstream media and its approach to online publication and she calls for “greater emphasis on preparing journalists and their audiences to better use interactive options”. Hannah Harborow’s “Sites of resistance: Fiji’s untamed media” is an incisive examination of the post-coup blogosphere:

While the internet has the potential to empower citizens and communities in new ways that redefine governance, the susceptibility of bloggers to Fiji’s “coconut wireless” places this potential at risk. Like all media, bloggers tread specific ideological paths and are not necessarily straightforward propagators of the “truth”.

Politics lecturer Dr Rae Nicholl of USP in research on media treatment of women in the 1987, 2000 and 2006 coups found that women were “almost entirely absent from the press following the 1987 coup but their presence increased following the 2000 coup and increased still further following the 2006 coup”.

Susan Naisara Grey and professor of governance Graham Hassall, both also of USP, examined the print media’s coverage of the Office of the Auditor-General and concluded that news organisations are “not tracking issues raised in [auditor] reports, as they are considered – or not considered – by the relevant participating committees”. Only in a few instances, such as relating to the alleged misuse of funds within the Department of Agriculture, did the media provide sustained monitoring of an issue.

In a political economy review of the Fiji media and democracy, Dr Erik Larson, a visiting American academic at USP, found a model of “disengagement”. He concluded:

The dependence of news media on information from official sources also may make reporters more reliant on research and analysis from those outside the media. As a result, news items tend to be reactive and the news media does not perform its watchdog function as effectively.

Café Pacific publisher Dr David Robie contributed two articles, one a research paper around media accountability systems, or M*A*S, and he contrasted the methodologies of the controversial 2007 “review” of the Fiji’s news media industry with a genuinely independent review of the NZ Press Council undertaken during the same time frame. The editors also published his controversial “Press and the putsch” paper from a decade ago for the first time in Fiji (it had previously been published in Australia).

Daryl Tarte, who recently stepped down as chair of the Fiji Media Council after three terms, outlined the council’s role and the increasing challenges it faced. Among his concerns were deteriorating media standards and the lack of investigative journalism:

The coups from 1987 to 2006 have had a serious impact on the media in that journalists have been threatened and incarcerated by military regimes. This has led to the loss overseas of many experienced journalists. Standards have deteriorated for it takes time to train new people and give them the opportunity to gain experience.

While Tarte was given a big tick for his contribution to Pacific media freedom by both the Pacific Freedom Forum and Croz Walsh's Fiji blog, others, including Café Pacific, actually saw him as part of the problem as conflict between governments and media escalated during his term. His long reign at the Fiji Media Council coincided with cosy, self-interested cronyism in the media and a lack of proactive and visionary leadership. For example, the independent council review belatedly commissioned by the industry was more than two years too late to have any impact in derailing the regime from its censorship debacle. The council also short-changed the Fiji public on media responsibility issues. The review, headed by Australian Jack Herman, executive secretary of the Australian Press Council, noted:

[I]n the absence of regular [council] reports, and of the council being as outspoken on the occasional lapse in media responsibility as it is in defence of media freedom, the perception has emerged that the Media Council has not performed up to its own high ideals … This need to better balance the freedom and responsibility aspects of its activities was a constant theme in submissions…

Cartoon: Voreqe Bainimarama and the media, by Malcolm Evans of Pacific Journalism Review.

• Fijian Studies
• The launch of the journal

In defence of Fiji media freedom - and responsibility

AT LAST, a credible and constructive media review in Fiji. After all the rhetoric, grandstanding and manipulative misinformation on both sides in the sordid Jim Anthony affair, we finally have a report that has sliced through the smokescreens and come up with a workable proposal for the immediate future. It won’t please everybody, of course, but it ranks well alongside the very credible New Zealand Press Council review in 2007 – same year as the long-delayed Anthony report.

Full marks to the Fiji Media Council for deciding to commission its own independent review. But it was a bit late – the initiative had been stolen by the regime supporters. Strangely, the mainstream media has remained rather muted about the report since it became public last week. Could it be that the rather mild criticisms are a bit too much for an industry that has prided itself in its self-absorbed “quality”? There are some high moments for the local media, but there are also some embarrassing lows. And the lows have much to do with the the routine “he said/she said” reports, churnalism and the large number of high school leavers who enter newsrooms with minimal education and limited media training.

The review’s report card acknowledges the fine effort “against the odds” in support of media freedom in Fiji, but for the balancing “media responsibility” category and relations with the government, its verdict is effectively: “Must try harder.”

A “proactive” move by the Fiji Media Council to pre-empt the Anthony report would have saved a lot of angst in the first place. In fact, being more proactive is one of the prescriptions offered by the review team – Australian Press Council executive secretary Jack Herman, Suliana Siwatibau, chair of the Pacific Centre for Public Integrity (not actually mentioned in her report biography note) and former chairman of Munro Leys, The Fiji Times legal firm: “This is particularly so in the area of press responsibility.”

The review quite rightly dismisses the Anthony report, commissioned by the Fiji Human Rights Commission, as “chillingly Orwellian in its main theme: he argued that the only way to preserve media freedom and independence was to sacrifice them.” Anthony's Singaporean model “Media Tribunal” would “inevitably become another arm of government control of the Fiji media”. The review also doesn’t agree with the Anthony conclusion that “self-regulation has failed”. But it does go on to raise several suggestions for improving self-regulatory processes in Fiji so that they are more credible.

Panel members looked back to an earlier media industry review (Thomson Foundation, 1996) for some guidance and noted several points raised then which they believe still need to be addressed:

The main concerns are that the council is not of sufficiently high profile, that it has not been active enough in pressing for improvements in media standards, and it has appeared more frequently to be vocal about the need for media freedom, without a concomitant voice of media responsibility.

The main obstacle cited was a lack of funding, with the council relying on the “goodwill” of a voluntary chair and secretary and no professional administration or office. The review complimented inaugural chair Daryl Tarte and secretary Bob Pratt in “seeking to safeguard the freedom and independence of the media in very challenging circumstances” in the wake of four coups over two decades.

But in the absence of regular [council] reports, and of the council being as outspoken on the occasional lapse in media responsibility as it is in defence of media freedom, the perception has emerged that the Media Council has not performed up to its own high ideals … This need to better balance the freedom and responsibility aspects of its activities was a constant theme in submissions…

The review also questioned the media organisations’ commitment to the council. It called on members for stronger observation of “ethics and standards” and to at least double the financial commitment (from the current F$30,000 a year budget).

There is no doubt that the Media Council, to be effective, needs to raise its profile within Fiji society – and to be seen as a body committed equally to press freedom and press responsibility. All sections of the society to whom the review spoke, including government, want to see free media informing the public on matters of public interest and concern. A robust and well-respected Media Council will greatly assist that task: there will be less need for sections of the society to issue calls for a regulatory oversight of the media where a high-profile Media Council is seen as effectively and efficiently carrying out its tasks, and offering a free complaints procedure to the consumers of media.

Recommendations include:

• Appointment of a paid chair and executive secretary to deal with complaints quickly and attentively;
• Offer of face-to-face mediation as an alternative dispute resolution;
• Clarifying the basis of complaints;
• Restructuring the complaints panel to make it more independent of the council
• The complaints panel to be chaired by an independent convenor, not the Media Council chair as at present;
• Complaints hearings to be arranged "without delay";
• Reducing use of the legal waiver to cases where "contemporary legal action is likely";
• Setting a 30-day limit for complaints;
• Supplementing adjudication with a "series of graduated penalties", including censure (as recommended by the NZ Press Council review in 2007); and
• Allowing public members of the council to act as “proactive” media monitors.

Among other recommendations, the review panel called for a “working journalist” to be a representative on a restructured, more streamlined council, The panel also noted in a section about training that the council “might well play a part in improving work conditions – and thereby standards”.

So what now of the media law “promulgation” long promised/threatened by the government? Hopefully, it will be tossed into the regime’s waste bin. Give the Fiji Media Council a chance to get its house in order.

• Fiji media review calls for 'proactive' role on standard - Pacific Media Watch/PMC
  
• Council to work on govt and media relations
• Full text of the 2009 Fiji Media Council independent review report

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
  
  

New book explores crucial role for Pacific media in development

A new book on Pacific media is being launched in Suva, Fiji, on Monday to add to the growing literature on Pacific journalism. With a core of University of the South Pacific contributors and journalists and media analysts around the region, Media and Development will be exploring critical issues facing the Pacific - and what journalists can do about it. No doubt this publication will become a core text at the USP and other journalism schools, at least for postgraduate students. Published by the Fijian Institute of Applied Studies and co-edited by USP journalism head Shailendra Singh and economics professor Biman Prasad, the team of 23 contributors - including me - ought to be congratulated on the effort. After the book launching by Fiji Media Council chairman Daryl Tarte at USP, the co-publisher - Pacific Media Centre - will have another launch in Auckland further down the track.
With growing evidence of low economic growth, poverty, mismanagement, corruption and political instability in the Pacific, the co-editors argue that an unfettered flow of information is vital:
The media has a crucial role to play in facilitating quick and better access to information about issues such as health, education, technology, economy and politics to help to maintain the social and political cohensiveness that is so important for development in small and vulnerable countries.

• Fiji orders
• Australia and NZ orders - Pacific Media Centre publications
• 'Defend Fiji media from state regulation'