Global Press Freedom Watchdog Out of Touch With Realities on the Ground in Their Poor Assessment About Fiji
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) must have had got its blinkers on when it ranked Fiji as the worst place in the Pacific region for journalists.
The global press freedom watchdog’s 2022 World Press Freedom Index released this week is out of touch with the realities on the ground.
It placed Fiji 102 out of 180 countries - receiving an overall score of 56.91 out of 100.
A RADIO NZ report reported the media watchdog said “journalists critical of the government are regularly intimidated and even imprisoned by the indestructible prime minister, Frank Bainimarama, in power since the military coup of 2006”.
It said other countries from the region included Aotearoa New Zealand, which was ranked 11th, Australia - 39, Samoa - 45, Tonga - 49, and Papua New Guinea - 62.
RSF said Aotearoa New Zealand, which received an overall score of 83.54, is a “regional model” for press freedom “by having developed safeguards against political and economic influences” for journalists to conduct their work.
It made sweeping statements without any supportive evidence that journalists were jailed and intimidated.
In fact, for the past 10 years no journalist has been jailed. That’s a fact. It’s not known where RSF got its information from. What is known is that there are anti-Goverment elements in the media who create this misconception that they are being intimidated.
If the RSF or any of its people was in Fiji for one week and read the FIJI SUN and FIJI TIMES or listen to the radio stations or watch television, they would have got a correct and independent assessment.
They would have found out that the media was free to report news, even those that were against the Government.
The Fijian Media Association has used this opportunity to jump on its hobby horse – its criticism of certain aspects of the Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) Act. But it should not be confused with the RSF’s baseless accusations about imprisonment and intimidation.
The FMA reminds the Government to review and remove sections in the MIDA Act that imposes harsh penalties on the media.
It says these breaches include content that is deemed against the public interest or order, is against national interest, or creates communal discord, or even if the media does not include a byline for articles exceeding 50 words.
The fines for any of the above breaches are up to $100,000 for media organisations or in the case of a publisher or editor a fine up to $25,000, or up to two years imprisonment.
It must be noted that the Government has repealed the punishment for breach by individual journalists of $10,000 after representation by senior journalists. That was a significant change.
Maybe it’s time to extend that move to include all media operators.
The way media organisations are operating at the moment indicate that they are doing their due diligence to fulfill their role as the public watchdog.
They understand that media freedom comes with responsibility.
They could be sued for defamation if they malign a person or an organisation without any documentary evidence.
They also know that their reports must be accurate, fair and balanced and in the public interest.
It’s the definition of public interest that is a concern for the FMA and its application in the Act.
But judging by the performance of the local media it appears they are doing a reasonable job.
What probably needs to be addressed, and no doubt the FMA is thinking along this same line, is more resources and training for journalists to tackle the so called hard, sensitive, controversial investigative stories.
In this respect, the RSF is way off the mark.