OPINION: The form, function and ethos of news media in Fiji and the Pacific are coming under increasing scrutiny.
Questions about the role of media in nation building and development are not new.
But debate about the suitability of western-style reporting in a fragile, multi-ethnic societies is gaining momentum.
This workshop on peace journalism at the Media, Investigative Journalism and Technology Conference (MIJT 2010) in December is an example.
So was a recent workshop in Suva organised by Citizens' Constitution Forum and conducted by Professor Jake Lynch of the University of Sydney, and a symposium on ‘Media for Democracy, Social Cohesion and Peace’ organised by USP Journalism. Both events were held in Suva.
The mainstream media might retort social cohesion, and peace building, is not our job. Our job is to report the news fairly, accurately, and objectively.
Or, the media might have a rethink about whether it can continue to do things the same way it has been doing when so much has changed.
In terms of Fiji’s media environment, such discussions are starting to happen.
Sign of progress
This is a sign of progress.
It’s a healthy development, and we must keep the momentum going.
Just like government, media needs to be scrutinised and challenged.
Media needs a Devil’s Advocate to keep it on its toes, and in touch with the people.
Given our watchdog role, we are constantly looking out for, and picking faults, in others.
Because of this, we sometimes tend to develop a condition whereby we think we are always right.
We start believing our way alone is the correct, and we start thinking that we have a monopoly on the truth.
We assume the moral high ground, and become averse to change and criticism.
Own worst enemy
In this way we become our own worst enemy, and we fail the society we are supposed to serve.
I will argue, with some trepidation, that we have seen shades of this in the Fiji media landscape.
We have a set way of doing things, and we cling to it, regardless of changing times and circumstances.
For instance, since independence, Fiji has become increasingly unstable. But we are still stuck in the rut of 1970s-style reporting.
The reporting model we follow was inherited from British and other European models.
But our country, and our society, is quite different from England.
Misreporting, hyping up, or sensationalising conflict may not result in a coup or riots in well-entrenched democracies, or homogenous societies.
But it can devastate fragile, multiethnic societies such as Fiji. And, we have seen some terrible examples of this in some African countries.
Defining moment
The May 2000 coup was a defining moment for the media in Fiji.
While the coup provided us with a lot of copy, it also gave rise to an unprecedented level of public and academic scrutiny into the inner workings of the media.
The Fiji media found itself under the microscope like never before.
Many papers and commentaries were written on media coverage of the Chaudhry Government’s one-year rule, its forced removal, and the ensuing hostage drama.
The Fiji media was forced to defend itself against allegations of inflammatory reporting that allegedly emboldened Fijian hardliners, and created the conditions for the Speight coup.
Speight’s skills with the media showed how "prominence" and "conflict" — two conventional news values — can be exploited for personal gain:
One, by reporters to publish headline news (in order to make a name or get a promotion); and two, by extremist newsmakers (such as Speight) to capture headlines.
Such a "symbiotic relationship" between the media and Speight was obvious during the coup, and highlighted by many researchers.
While the media denied any culpability in the Chaudhry overthrow, the paranoia had already set in.
Spooked by events
Subsequent governments which came into power intensified efforts to rein in the media because they were spooked by the events of 2000.
Qoriniasi Bale, Attorney-General in the Qarase government, said at the time that the quality of reporting in Fiji was poor enough to cause damage to governments.
Do not get me wrong — traditional news reporting has strengths in exposing corruption, promoting human rights and equality and holding leaders accountable.
But there are perceived weaknesses in this model when applied in unstable, multiethnic societies given the great emphasis placed on conflict as a key element of news.
That’s why in Fiji, the media is paradoxically seen as both a champion of democracy and a security threat.
Conflict, In other words, has become a highly commercialized news value or commodity.
I will now turn to a news report about Fiji in The Australian broadsheet newspaper, citing an unnamed foreign affairs official saying:
“The people may have no choice but to stand up to Bainimarama and his thugs”.
Dangerous remarks
Flippant remarks by people with little knowledge about, or regard for, our situation can be dangerous.
Especially when parroted and propagated by an ignorant or uncaring media.
The propensity for unrest and violence in Fiji is still underestimated, even after four economically devastating coups and a deadly mutiny in the army.
A rebellion is the last thing Fiji needs. Citizens would only be exposed to more violence and suffering.
If people living in Australia do not understand this, local media should.
Recently Radio Australia reported that there was a general decline in journalistic standards in Fiji, and media was running “dog and cat stories”.
I described the report as “superficial” in a media interview.
I said overseas journalists full of “idealism”, but out of touch with the ground realities in Fiji, were painting an inaccurate picture of the country.
It’s naïve to judge journalism in Fiji through the Australia and New Zealand prism because the situation here is starkly different.
We have had a coup, and we have a punitive media law in place.
Martyrdom not enough
In the media interview, I posed the question: “What kind of journalism should we practise?
“Is it the kind that will lead to the closure of news companies?”
We have to be realistic, strategic, pragmatic and operate best as we can in the tough environment we are working in.
As a colleague of mine said: "Martyrdom is great, but you do not live to fight the next day."
So survival is important as we wait for better days.
There was a cynical reference in the ABC report about Fiji media reduced to running “cat and dog” stories.
This gave the impression that there was no serious reporting being done.
Granted that many things that should be reported are not being reported.
But there is a stark choice before us — report some things, or report nothing.
The "cat and dog" reference is a revealing one. It shows up what is wrong with journalism today in Fiji and elsewhere.
'Real reporting'
Unless you are reporting politics, scandals, celebrities or calamities, you are not doing real reporting.
My reaction is that news is not only about politics or government.
Actually, there are people in Fiji fed-up with the media fixation on race and politics, day-in-day-out.
This is illustrated by this letter that appeared in Fiji Daily Post in 2007:
“Day in day out, the front pages of our newspapers are filled with tit-for-tat battles between politicians. Can’t the media cover more important stories, such as how communities of different people are living in harmony? What about school children in rural areas who experience severe water problems, and civil servants working hard to promote development despite the limited resources available to them?”
Back to cats and dogs, their situation in Fiji is shameful and unconscionable. We should all be having sleepless nights over it.
Media is doing a wonderful job highlighting such stories only to get ridiculed for it.
Silver lining
So while our situation is not ideal, we need to make the best of it, and look for the silver lining.
For example, political rhetoric by leaders who love to grandstand used to draw journalists like moths to flame, and crowd out some other important news.
This is no longer the case.
Recently, we have been reading some really inspiring stories on social issues, such as sacrifices by poor parents to put their children through school and university.
The fact that media has been covering and celebrating excellence and achievement in education is wonderful.
Fiji is a poor country. For us education can be a great liberator.
We need to promote education.
What is happening in the Fiji media landscape is very interesting. We are redefining notions of "what is news".
We are challenging long-held beliefs and practices such as: "Bad news is good news" and ‘If it bleeds, it leads".
Not all doom and gloom
So it is not all doom and gloom in the Fiji media landscape, even though it is a pity that we have been forced into looking at alternative definitions of news.
Turning to journalism, education, USP Journalism has been in existence for over 20 years.
All this time, much of our training has been focused on the practice of journalism.
We need to also pay attention on postgraduate studies because we have to groom people who can analyse and comment on the media — people trained to carry on discussions and debate such as this one because such dialogue has to be ongoing.
Still on the media landscape, there is a lot of discussion about journalistic standards.
My view is any such discussion should be contextualised and compared with standards in other sectors, services and professions in Fiji.
What is the standard of doctors and lawyers in Fiji?
How about the quality of our politicians, or the quality of governance?
How well has our civil service served the country?
Comparative study
It is best to leave lawyers out of this discussion, but if you do a comparative study, you will find that journalists, who do not charge fees or use taxpayers’ money, have not done too badly.
But we can hardly rest on our laurels.
Fiji has great needs. More than 40 percent of the population lives in poverty.
People are paid a pittance for their labour, and generations remain caught in the poverty trap.
The Fiji media needs to carefully consider its priorities. Journalists need to take their jobs seriously.
Fiji not only needs a free media, but also a socially responsible media.
A media less besotted with prominence and conflict, and more committed and devoted to the needs of its people.
Fiji needs a media free of political influence and manipulation.
This commentary is based on a talk by University of the South Pacific journalism head Shailendra Singh in the peace journalism workshop held at the Media, Investigative Journalism and Technology Conference (MIJT 2010) hosted by the Pacific Media Centre at AUT University in Auckland, New Zealand, on 4/5 December 2010.
Pacific Media Centre
