Media
Proposed Media Bill Stirring Hornet's Nest
But Fiji media is leaving no stone unturned
The Fiji government's proposed Media Bill has stirred a veritable hornet's nest - at least as far as the island nation's vibrant media is concerned.
Ever since the draft of the proposed bill was made public in early May, the Fiji media has left no stone unturned in campaigning against the bill condemning it to be draconian, un-libertarian and a thinly disguised bid by the government to gain control over the basic freedom of expression.
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Editorials, news reports, letters to the editor, radio broadcasts, sound-bytes from opinion leaders and television news spots have been choc-a-block with anti-bill views on a daily basis.
A number of stakeholders consulted by the government's information ministry have vehemently opposed the bill so far. One of the reasons for this sudden avalanche of protests was the government's seeming hurry to present the bill in parliament‹it has afforded just about a month to the stakeholders and the public to lodge submissions.
The information ministry, which launched consultations with stakeholders in early May, began by stating that the draft bill was fashioned out of the recommendations of the Thomson report‹the findings and recommendations of a study commissioned by the Rabuka government in 1996.
The media strongly objected to this statement and the ministry was forced to do a volte-face in a matter of days. It was not actually based on the Thomson Report, it stated later. Then what was it based on? There were no convincing answers coming forth from the ministry.
While the report‹authored by two world-renowned media specialists working under the aegis of the respected Thomson Foundation of the United Kingdom‹recommended several measures to keep the media free of government control advocating self-regulation, it also advised the media organisations to strive to improve the standards of journalism in the country which it found wanting. On the whole, though, it commended the Fiji media with several pluses on the report card.
The industry acted quickly and incorporated the Fiji Media Council with media professionals and public representatives as members. A constitution, a code of conduct and a complaints redressal procedure were all put in place in good time. To date, the council has dealt with 119 cases of which only a small number proceeded to adjudication‹the majority being settled at the council level.
While the media claims complete satisfaction at the functioning of this self-regulating council, the government thinks otherwise.
In a televised discussion-cum-question-and-answer session organised by the Fiji Editors' Forum in early May, the minister of information and media relations, Simione Kaitani, was at a loss to pinpoint what exactly was wrong with the present setup, when the question was popped at him.
Attorney-General Qoriniasi Bale was more vocal saying that the quality of media reporting was poor enough to cause damage to individuals and governments.
Several among the public attending the proceedings voiced their concern at the quality of reporting and general standards of journalism in both broadcast and print media.
But almost none was in favour of handing any kind of control to the government to check this problem. The media itself must take care of the problem, seemed to be the general consensus.
Over the following weeks, the ministry's public consultations, however, seem to have left the public rather indifferent. At the time of writing, only one public representation has been received‹not one that would exactly warm the cockles of the media's hearts: the submission from a lawyer from Labasa advocates some sort of control.
Meanwhile, the information minister and his entourage are visiting several other towns around the islands, telling the public about the government's raison d'etre for the bill.
As the media's protests reached a crescendo, the minister said that this "tearing us apart" was not called for as this was just the consultative stage and the draft was far from final.
Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase also assured the media during and after his trip to Japan that the government would follow through with more consultations and that the draft was just that‹it was not final.
Final or not, the response from the media, opinion leaders and non-government organisations to anything that smacks of reining in the media‹and the freedom of speech‹is a unanimous, resounding no.
So, does Fiji need media legislation? Noted human rights expert Shaista Shameem, speaking at the same forum pointed out that there was enough legislation already in place that could allay whatever fears the government seemed to be hoping to address with the proposed legislation.
The present media council, which the proposed legislation plans to replace with government appointees (the chairman is to be appointed by the minister himself), has within its constitution the wherewithal to deal with complaints against the media.
Besides, it has been accepted by all sections of the media and conducted itself admirably since its inception.
What then is the government looking for? Surely, the poor quality of reporting and what it calls falling standards of journalism alone are certainly not enough motivation for a legislation that has such far reaching implications on egalitarianism and the very principles of democracy.
Surely, the government realises that it is treading a dangerous path with a draft bill that endangers democratic institutions and freedoms. Or is it? A reading of the draft proposals does not make it look like the government spent any time mulling over the points they raise and the serious implications that emanate.
The drafting also betrays shallow knowledge and confusion over the basic definitions of media organisations, personnel and technical terminology.
The many dynamic implications of rapidly evolving technologies that are changing the very foundations of media worldwide are not even considered.
Incidentally, it is on the basis of the very premise of fast-evolving technologies that the Thomson Report says why legislation could prove inadequate.
Without absolutely convincing reasons why it must have this bill, pushing it could well be a public relations nightmare for the government. With the region's attention sharply focused on Fiji‹thanks to the South Pacific Games‹the government's conduct on something as important as the freedom of expression would be the cynosure of all eyes in the Pacific and beyond. This freedom has already been imperilled in the region over the last few months.
Fiji is still seen as a beacon as far as freedom goes. At the recent Fiji Human Rights Commission Media Awards in Suva, which coincided with World Media Freedom Day, Ravi Nair, the executive director of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre referred to Fiji's media as a bright spot on the global horizon. The Fiji media's status too had gone up a notch according to the United States-based media monitoring organisation Freedom House.
It has moved Fiji media from its "partly free" status last year to "free" in this year's report, according to its yardstick of gauging media freedom across the world. Amidst all this, the government seems to be swimming against a current far stronger than it ever seems to have bargained for.
