The recent deportation of Fiji Sun's publisher, Russell Hunter was covered in a posting in David Robie's blog Cafe Pacific.
A prequel to the media's relationship with the state was summed up in a factual expose published by RMIT's 'The Fifth Estate' written by Crystal Ja.
Entrenched pundits have labeled this as a crackdown on media freedom. However, a previous SiFM posting "Fiji Media and Ethical Deviations" identifies a similar track record of slantness.
David Robie's take on the Fiji Time's role in pre-2000 coup had said
"The Fiji Times, [...] raged a relentless campaign against the Chaudhry government not long after its election in 1999. In spite of its claims to the contrary, that [Fiji Times] treated all governments of the day similarly, the newspaper was blatantly agnostic," Robie claimed, adding that the "newspaper's reporting was spearheaded by a journalist with close ties with opposition indigenous nationalists."
The journalist identified by Robie, as spearheading the 'agnostic' perception could be no one other than former Fiji Times Editor, Samisoni Kakaivalu; who now is employed by Fiji Sun.
It certainly not surprising that Fiji Sun's publisher, Russell Hunter had re-united with Kakaivalu at Fiji Sun (both formerly employed by Fiji Times) and coalesced their ulterior motives into syndicated opinions, the corner stone of
"drive-by journalism". Fiji Sun with the dubious duo at the helm had released the tax records of Interim Finance Minster, Mahendra Chaudhry according to an
article published by "The Australian". Both Hunter and Kakaivalu had conspired in a similar scenario demonstrated in the Fiji Times coverage of Chaudhry soon after his water-shed election win in 1999.
"The Fiji Times, the country's largest daily newspaper and the only foreign-owned one, has apologised over a business "fat cats" story in its long-running dispute with Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry over media accuracy and professionalism. "
Fiji Media Council's Chairman, Daryl Tarte defended the media and stated in a Fiji Times article that "The media's task in any society is to reflect the opinion of the people of the nation, said Fiji Media Council chairman Daryl Tarte".
Indeed, Tarte's defense of the media cartel was predictable, however the comments begged the question of whether the opinion of the nation was accurately documented and also does that opinion come before or after the media's reflection. In a nutshell, which comes first "the media reflection" or "the nation's opinion"?
Despite the Fiji Times editorial of Weds. Feb 27th 2008, which deplored the deportation of Fiji Sun's publisher, Russell Hunter; was the Fiji Times equally, less or more deplored when the Fiji TV news studio was ransacked in post 2000 coup, covered by an
article by International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX)website.
The excerpt of the FT editorial:
We are no threat
FT EDITORIAL COMMENT
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
THE deportation of Fiji Sun Publisher Russel Hunter as a security risk to this nation is deplorable.
And his treatment as a human being was reprehensible. Taken from his home under the cover of darkness, he was driven to Nadi without being given time to change or say a word of farewell to his wife Martha and their daughters.
His cell phone removed, Mr Hunter was placed on a flight to Australia with but $20 in his pocket. To add salt to the wound, he was made to stand with his face to the wall in the Nadi International Airport, watched by officials who claimed to be Immigration Department officers. Of course, hundreds of tourists and airport staff witnessed this indignation. Even convicted fraudster Peter Foster was treated better than Mr Hunter.
Is this how low we have stooped as a nation, that someone accused of committing a crime against the State is not even treated with basic dignity?
And has justice been removed to the extent that officials refused to acknowledge a High Court injunction stopping the Immigration Department from deporting the Australian national?
Since when have our citizens or indeed visitors to this country been bundled away at night without the right to defend themselves before a magistrate or judge.
In removing the publisher of a newspaper, and given the tone of the interim Prime Minister in his attack on the press corps on Sunday, it is safe to assume this is an act of intimidation.
The Police Commissioner joined the fray on Monday, warning those who continued to speak out against the regime could face charges of incitement. These statements contradict Commodore Bainimaramas reassurances in the past, and again yesterday, that his administration will uphold media freedom.
A truly democratic Fiji can only come about by allowing the people to make their views known through a free, vibrant media. By stifling debate, no government will ever have a true reading of the political temperature of the nation.
The media raises the concerns of the people and points the government towards their concerns and the issues they want addressed.
Neither this newspaper, nor any media organisation in this country wants to run the nation. We merely have the nation at heart and bring together the beliefs of the government, its supporters and detractors, for all to see.
Today, we echo the words of Kenyan publisher George Githii: For governments which fear newspapers, there is one consolation: We have known many instances when governments have taken over newspapers, but we have not known a single newspaper which has taken over a government.
Although, Fiji Times Editorial hides behind the veneer of Githii's words "[...]we have not known a single newspaper which has taken over a government" which is correct in the literal context. However, a newspaper may facilitate over taking a government by preying on stimuli that can agitate a population, as seen in the recent
Fiji Times coverage of the Krishnamurthi proposal for de-reserving native land.
Fiji Times coverage of Mahendra Chaudhary after his 1999 election, has been far from from impartial or objective according to
Pacific Media Watch (PMW)article.
The excerpt of PMW article:
#
SUVA, Fiji Islands (PMW): The Fiji Times, the country's oldest and major daily newspaper, has accused the Government of "conducting a vendetta" against it following a bitter personal attack in Parliament against its acting editor and two journalists.
On 24 November 1999, a parliamentary backbencher from the ruling Fiji Labour Party, Muthu Swamy, made allegations in the House of Representatives over the personal and professional integrity of the three journalists.
"The Fiji Times often talks about the conduct of politicians and civil servants but not about its own staff," Swamy said, according to the newspaper's full page coverage of the affair on Nov 25.
Taking advantage of parliamentary privilege, Swamy took a long-running Government attack on the Fiji news media to a new level by citing the three local journalists:
# Political reporter Margaret Wise - who has been previously accused by Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry of anti-government bias in her reporting - for being "charged with [being] drunk and disorderly and locked up in a police cell for 11 and a half hours".
# Reporter Matelita Ragogo for being "arrested and charged by police for drunk and disorderly behaviour".
# Acting editor Netani Rika - known for a trenchant weekly satirical column about politics and politicians - for alleged "involvement in the embezzlement of funds" at a local branch of an international bank.
Swamy also showed pictures in Parliament of Wise sleeping in a shared hotel room with a male colleague at a media convention in Vanuatu in 1996. A separate news story in the Fiji Times reported allegations that the photographs had been stolen from the flat of Hemant Vimal Sharma, editor of Shanti Dut, a Hindi-language sister newspaper to the Times.
Sharma's flatmate, Assistant Information Minister Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi, reportedly also denied possession of the photographs.
Another daily, the Fiji Sun, in an editorial on Nov 25 condemned the use of Parliament as a "battle ground" instead of a debating chamber in the attack on individual journalists.
"The Government and the media have been at loggerheads for some time now," the paper said.
"Both sides are invoking privileges - the Government its parliamentary right and the media its freedom of speech licence.
"It is a question of rights. Is it not also a question of responsibilities and duties?"
Alan Robinson, publisher of the Fiji Times, owned by the Rupert Murdoch News Ltd group, was quoted by his newspaper as describing the remarks in Parliament as a disgrace to the House and to Fiji.
Robinson challenged Swamy to repeat his claims outside Parliament where he did not have legal protection from prosecution. "We can stand his attack on the Fiji Times, baseless though it is. But when he uses his position to attack individuals, it is time to draw the line," [Robinson] said.
"We challenge Mr Swamy to repeat his disgusting attack without hiding behind the skirts of parliamentary privilege. It should now be clear to all that the Government, its ministers and backbenchers are conducting a vendetta against the Fiji Times. We'd like to know why."
In an editorial headlined "Only a coward will hide", the Fiji Times claimed Swamy had "savagely abused the ancient (and very necessary) privilege of Parliament to attack three individual journalists".
The paper confirmed that reporter Ragogo had been charged with being drunk and disorderly, but said the charge had been withdrawn; political reporter Wise "after being harassed by a taxi driver" had been charged with damage of his vehicle not with being drunk and disorderly; and added that Swamy "cannot support [the embezzlement] allegation" against Rika.
"This newspaper will continue to cover the news as best it can - without hiding behind the protection of any legal privileges," the Fiji Times said.
"As for Mr Swamy and his faceless manipulators, we now publicly challenge them to repeat those allegations outside Parliament and face the consequences - or withdraw and apologise. To do otherwise will be the act of a coward."
+++niuswire
A second
article published in 2000 by PMW regarding the Fiji Times slanted coverage.
The excerpt:
SUVA, Fiji Islands (PMW): The Fiji Times, the country's largest daily newspaper and the only foreign-owned one, has apologised over a business "fat cats" story in its long-running dispute with Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry over media accuracy and professionalism.
In a report on 18 January 2000, the newspaper cited the front page story published the previous day headlined Share wealth, PM warns businesses", which quoted Chaudhry as saying: "The fat cats must learn to share".
Commenting in an editorial headlined "Why Robin Hood won't do", the Fiji Times attacked the prime minister over the corpulent fat cats statement, saying:
"Mr Chaudhry appears to view the problem in terms of profit versus poverty. It's a 1950s view of the world that has in the past spawned government policies in many countries that aimed to alleviate poverty.
"All of them ultimately failed. Hammering the private sector will not assist the poor."
But on Jan 18, the newspaper admitted that Chaudhry did not use those words: "The fat cats must learn to share".
"The phrase was intended to sum up his overall message and the quotation marks were mistakenly added during the sub-editing process," the paper explained.
"The Fiji Times regrets and apologises for the error."
In its news report, the Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd-owned newspaper said: "The Government has hit out at the Fiji Times report of Prime Minister Chaudhry's speech to the business community last week.
"The Ministry for Information said the Fiji Times front page report quoting the prime minister as describing the businessmen as fat cats who must learn to share was a fabrication.
"'This is the sort of irresponsible journalism that the Government has been complaining about. Mr Chaudhry did not make a generalised statement accusing the business community of wallowing in wealth.'
"The statement said that this was part of what Mr Chaudhry actually said:
"'I want to underscore [World Bank director] Mr [James] Wolfensohn's social message to those in the business sector who decry every move to help the poor, to help more people earn a decent livelihood for themselves.
"'These are people who already have plenty, they are wallowing in wealth and yet they begrudge a slight decline in their projects so others may live decent lives and eat two meals a day."'
In Chaudhry's original speech, he highlighted that more than 70 per cent of the national wealth in the Fiji Islands was concentrated in the hands of just 10 per cent of the population.
In recent months, the Fiji Times and the Government have been engaged in a war of words. Prime Minister Chaudhry and some ministers have accused the newspaper of lack of professionalism and of being biased against the Fiji Labour Party-led coalition Government while the newspaper has in turn accused the government of waging a vendetta against it.
The Fiji Times is currently seeking a judicial review of a Government decision to bar renewal of the work permit of the paper's editor-in-chief Russell Hunter, a Scottish-born career journalist in the Murdoch publishing group.
# In a letter to Pacific Media Watch (Jan 21), Fiji Times editor-in-chief Russell Hunter said he was "baffled" over the PMW report over the "fat cats" quote affair. His letter said:
Firstly The Fiji Times absolutely did not apologise for the "fat cats" story. We apologised for presenting a paraphrased report as a direct quote. We have no intention of apologising for the story and haven't been asked to.
Secondly, our editorial did not attack the PM over any "corpulent fats cats story" as you report. It did not do so for the very simple reason that the editorial was written in the full knowledge that Mr Chaudhry did not use those words. As was publicly explained, the quote marks were added in error.
In fact, the editorial stated that even the most corpulent of fat cats would agree with the PM's position.
Secondly (sic), you proceed to give great space to the Ministry of Information's statement without revealing to your readers that we published it, or that we published the apology and correction without being asked to.
Your highly selective quotation from our editorial gives, to put it mildly, a distorted view of what was actually said, while quoting (almost) in full the ministry's response.
That's a pity as many people outside the region depend on PMW for a balanced view of what's going on. They certainly didn't get that from this story.
Lastly, if being a News Ltd employee for six years of my 31 in this industry makes me "a career journalist in the Murdoch publishing group" that's fine by me. Others might differ.
# Pacific Media Watch's reply:
We are quite satisfied that this is a balanced and accurate report, and has indeed been parallelled by other news sources quite independently (see Prime Minister gets apology and other links above).
Our report made it clear that the apology was over the phrase referring to "fat cats" and we quoted extensively from the Fiji Times newspaper's own two reports (page 3, Jan 18) as indicated in the sourcing and attribution. The Fiji Times' error was fundamental to the original front page story on Jan 17. We identified the Ministry of Information statement as such and stated that it was being quoted by the Fiji Times. What we published of the statement was in the context of the ongoing media controversy in Fiji.
Also, the Fiji Times' own website, maintained by Fiji Village, did not publish the denial by the Fiji government, or the paper's apology, in its Jan 18 online edition (as had been published in the print edition), even though the original "fat cats" report was published on line the previous day. An unfortunate omission.
# On January 30, Fiji's Sunday Post reported that Chaudhry was suing Fiji Times publisher Alan Robinson, editor Samisoni Kakaivalu and reporter Seema Sharma for alleged defamation over the "fat cats" story.
+++niuswire
30 January 2000
Social Bookmarking
