Fiji's Daily Post: 11 July 1999
MEDIA: FREE PRESS IS A UNIVERSAL VALUE
Fiji's media freedom in general, and the Fiji Media Council, in particular - branded in June as a "toothless tiger" by Assistant Minister Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi, have been facing another hammering by government. A fresh perspective on the flaws of media, press councils and the contrasts between Fiji and Australia and New Zealand.
By DAVID ROBIE in Suva
THE DILEMMA for the press, as Benjamin Franklin put it more than two and a half centuries ago, is: "If all printers were determined not to print anything until they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed."
Today freedom of expression is a universal value. It is enshrined in several international and regional documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Article 19 - and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
But it has taken a long struggle for press freedom to achieve this. And it needs constance vigilance to preserve it.
Evolving media councils in two South Pacific nations, Fiji and Papua New Guinea, have made major contributions to defending freedom of expression and notions of fairness, balance and accountability in the region, and the raising of professional standards.
They have also warded off varying attempts to gag or hinder the news media from carrying out its democratic role in the public interest.
As Fiji Media Council chair Daryl Tarte noted in the 1997 annual report:
"A free media really means a media free from any interference by government or any kind of censorship. A system that allows a newspaper, radio station or television station to criticise and comment on government policies without fear of being closed down.
"In Fiji, editors and news directors have the freedom to express their opinions and to publish information that has leaked from government or commercial sources without fear of recrimination."
Nevertheless, pressures and dilemmas continue in the region, often from a cultural as well as a political perspective. While the media in some countries is refreshingly outspoken and courageous; in others there is a worrying trend towards self-censorship.
Journalism education and training is also of growing importance in the Pacific and an important foundation for media freedom.
Yet media freedom in general, and the Fiji Media Council in particular - branded last month as a "toothless tiger" by Assistant Information Minister Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi, have been facing another hammering.
In extraordinary generalised claims, the minister claimed in Parliament that "arrogant" news media "deny fair and equal coverage to opinions that may be contrary to their agenda, they distort and misrepresent facts to arrive at preconceived conclusions, and they have shown that while quick to criticise others, they drag their feet and are not above refusing to acknowledge their own mistakes."
The minister also talked about his plans for media legislation, presently being dusted off from the draft laws under the previous government.
Having just returned from the World Association of Press Councils Oceania conference in Brisbane, Australia, I would like to add another perspective to the debate.
The Pacific delegation included the chairs of the Fiji Media Council, Daryl Tarte, and the PNG Media Council, Luke Sela.
Two prominent Pacific journalists and publishers who have faced imprisonment or harassment from vindictive governments also spoke - Samoa Observer publisher Savea Sanoa Malifa, winner of last year's Astor Award for Press Freedom, and Tongan Times publisher Kalafi Moala.
Fiji as a model
Moala, who has been harassed by authorities and was jailed in 1996 for contempt of Parliament, called for the establishment of a press council in Tonga.
"We want to be involved in setting up associations such as a press council, and subject ourselves to training which will help us to be more adaptable to a changing government attitude toward the independent press," he said.
"One of our desires is to see a Press Council set up in Tonga, but the formation of such a council needs to be thought through carefully since 90 per cent of media ownership in Tonga is either the government or the church."
Beneath all the recent hype of the debate in Fiji there are fundamental issues at stake about media freedom and democracy.
In a free society open debate must be encouraged, freedom of speech being a central tenet of democracy. But should the news media be given total freedom, and who should watch the watcher?
Ever since 1971, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), the main body representing the world's journalists, has upheld the Munich Charter, a code which declares:
"Every journalist worthy of that name deems it is his/her duty to observe [the charter code of ethics].
"Within the general law of each country, the journalist recognises, in professional matters, the jurisdiction of his/her colleagues only; he/she excludes every kind of interference by governments or others."
This is not just a claim for autonomy and quality journalism against political threats, as the media freedom debate in Fiji has often focused on.
It is also a claim for autonomy against commercial threats. More about that later.
The simple fact is that the Fiji news media is committed to improving professional standards - it has busy programmes of industry training organised by the Pacific Islands News Association, and Fiji also hosts the fast developing University of the South Pacific regional journalism professional diploma and degree programme.
Even so, the Fiji media does a pretty fair job (with some lapses), especially given the limited resources.
Codes of ethics and practice already exist - there is no case for legislation. And the self-regulating Fiji Media Council has been doing a good job on the basis of its handful of adjudications so far.
As case studies develop, it will be even better.
The notion that a statutory "media council" imposed by government legislation is ill-advised, and jeopardises the progress already achieved. Such a body would have little local or international credibility in "watching" the watchdog.
Role of media councils
According to Professor Claude-Jean Bertrand, a Paris University based authority on world media regulations systems: "A press council is a non-governmental association of people who wish to protect the freedom and quality of the news media, mainly by making them accountable to the public.
"And they do this mainly (but not only) by receiving complaints from the public, and giving their opinion on such grievances - with no power to punish except by exposure, or publication."
There are some rare exceptions to this, such as the Swedish press councils which have powers to fine offending publications.
But modern world press council standards have been largely based on the British model between 1963 and 1990.
Most credible contemporary press councils include a tripartite structure - representatives of owners, journalists and the public. And they rely on public censure.
The rationale, as Prof Bertrand says, is simple. It is a question of "ownership":
Almost half the world's press councils are in Europe -15 out of 34 "genuine" councils on a continent with barely 5 per cent of the world's population (Bertrand 1999).
However, if Cyprus and Turkey are also added, this totals 15 councils out of 18 nations in Western Europe.
In the Eastern European countries emerging from totalitarian rule after a half century, only Estonia has one.
Most media councils follow the tripartite, or at least "mixed", system.
Few are "media only" councils, like Britain's old General Council of the Press in the 1950s. Such bodies can do little to address the flaws of modern journalism.
There is also the odd "dead council", such as one Portugal had for 15 years after the 1975 coup and the transition to democracy until it was "terminated" in 1990. It was supposed to make way for a "private" press council.
Among democracies that don't have press councils at all are Ireland, France, Italy, Greece (and Portugal).
The Belgian and Swiss press councils are "journalists only", Austria and Germany have no public members, while Britain's council no longer has rank-and-file journalists - a path unfortunately followed by Fiji.
Foundation of freedoms
"Freedom of expression means the freedom to receive and impart ideas, opinions and information without interference, hindrance and intimidation. It may be exercised by journalists, and by citizens generally, through speaking, writing, publishing and broadcasting or through non-violent physical acts.
"We regard freedom of expression as the primary freedom, as an essential precondition to the exercise of other freedoms. It is the foundation upon which arise other rights and freedoms" (Commonwealth Media and Law Foundation 1997).
This document has some specific recommendations that are particularly useful in a Pacific context (Robie 1999). Referring to journalists as employees, the document says:
"Free expression does not belong to employers and managers. Free expression requires that journalists enjoy substantial independence from their employers. The terms of journalists should respect and reflect this requirement."
Freedom of expression, argues the document, demands the recognition of journalist unions: "Journalists' unions have an essential role to play in protecting journalists and advancing professional values."
Why are there no effective journalists' unions in the Pacific today, like elsewhere in the world? Teachers, academics, nurses and many other people have professional unions in the Pacific. So should journalists to enhance professionalism and working conditions.
While the Commonwealth document rightly says press or media councils are a good idea and need to be strengthened towards self-regulation, it also adds: "We favour the tripartite model, structured around the separate and distinct interests of the public, the journalists, and the owners or managers."
No Pacific media council follows the tripartite model.
The Fiji Media Council contrasts in its composition with the Australian and New Zealand models.
Australia has 10 members representing print news media organisations and 10 public members, including an independent chair, Professor Dennis Pearce, who visited Suva last year. Three of the "public" members are two journalists (currently including a journalism lecturer) and one editor, independent of the media organisations.
The journalists' union, Australian Journalists Association section of the Media Alliance, used to be a member but withdrew in 1987 in protest over the failure of the Press Council to censure the takeover of Melbourne's Herald and Weekly Times group (and its Pacific holdings) by Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd.
The Australian Press Council received 434 complaints last year, adjudicated 76 - and upheld 17 complaints (seven partially). Others are mediated or dealt with in a variety of ways. A comprehensive survey in 1994 underlined the need for the council.
In New Zealand, the Press Council has recently increased its membership to 11 - six public members, including the independent chair, former justice Sir John Jeffries; and three news media representatives (Newspaper Publishers Association, 2; Magazine Publishers Association, 1), and two representing the journalists union - PPMU. It received 85 complaints in 1998, adjudicated 39 - and upheld four (two partially).
The Fiji Media Council's membership is eight public, including the independent chair, Daryl Tarte, and seven representing constituent news media organisations. But there are no independent journalists.
It received 29 complaints last year and adjudicated three, upholding three (one partially).
Papua New Guinea's Media Council is currently a "media only" group, chaired by PNG Post-Courier administrative manager Luke Sela (the paper's former editor). But it is in the process of setting up public membership and an independent complaints tribunal.
However, both Fiji and PNG have an advantage over their Australian and NZ press equivalents in that they also include broadcasting.
As Sir John Jeffries explains the role of a media council: "The words that best explain the council's mandate are ethical conduct in publishing.
"The council wants to play its part in honest, interesting, fair, entertaining, accurate journalism. Barking and threatening by a press council are not as successful as reason, persuasion and argument based on fact" (Jeffries 1998).
Commonwealth Media and Law Foundation (1997), Freedom of Expression: A Statement of Principles to Inform Legal Systems in the Commonweath.
Jeffries, Sir John (1998), foreword to the 1998 NZ Press Council annual report, "The Press and the Public".
Robie, David (1999), "South Pacific media overview: Fairness, balance and the cultural imperative", paper presented at the World Association of Press Councils Oceania region conference, Brisbane, June 21-23.
Both Malifa and Moala look to Fiji's council as a possible model for their countries.
What is a press, or media, council? And why should there not be legislation enshrining one, as the government would like?
The Fiji law drafters could do well to note a recent draft document, Freedom of Expression: A Statement of Principles to Inform Legal Systems in the Commonweath. Few would argue with its primary declaration:
References:
Bertrand, Claude-Jean (1999), "About Press Councils in Europe," paper presented at the UK Press Complaints Commission conference, Promoting Self-Regulation, London, June 10.