Oh! For Fair and Informed Reporting on Fiji

pn352

I have no gripes about Gavin Ellis. His media reputation is well deserved. Nor do I have any gripes about Asia Pacific Report that published his report  "Don’t be fooled by Fiji PM’s apology over arrests – media freedom is dire". 

But I do take exception to the heading that implies Bainimarama's apology for the arrest of three NZ journalists investigating environmental damage on Malolo Island, and their subsequent release, was insincere. Surely, the Fiji Government's withdrawal of the Chinese company's licence soon afterwards is proof enough of the sincerity of his apology. 

I was also concerned that he used this incident to regurgitate what he thinks is wrong about the media situation in Fiji. Firstly, because it was not relevant to the Malolo incident, and secondly because his interpretation of the 2006 Coup, what he considers repressive legislation (the Media Industry Development Act 2010),  and legislation he thinks could be abused (the  Online Safety Act 2018),  takes no account of the Fiji context. 

He joined the queue of NZ journalists who assume that what is good for NZ should be good enough for other countries even though their history, culture and political situations may be quite different, as is the case with Fiji. 

My position is well known to readers. I recognize restrictions on media freedom could be excessive (though the Court has overturned the worst cases) and know that "self -censorship" by journalists occurs.  More than once I have defended the Fiji Times, questioned the biases of the pro-government Fiji Sun, and urged the Fiji government to be more open to constructive criticism. But for the present and immediate future, Bainimarama's government is the best of any realistic alternatives.

From my perspective the 2006 Coup was the only way to restrict the powers of Taukei chiefs and urban elite who were more often concerned about their own privileges than the wellbeing of ordinary Taukei. 

The Coup was the only way to get rid of an electoral system that guaranteed their ongoing privileges, and it was the only way to ensure Indo-Fijians and other races were treated fairly and equally. 

Under the pre-coup government Taukei landowners were urged not to renew the land leases of Indo-Fijians. Taukei youths intimidated the leaseholders and burnt some of their houses. A mass exodus to refugee camps and urban squatter areas followed. The NZ press said nothing.    

The coup did not overthrow a democratic government; it deposed a  racist regime. Further, as The Fiji Times reported, corruption was rife, and was one of the reasons given for the coup.

Media restrictions were necessary in that delicately poised political situation. A counter-coup  by elements of the military led by Ratu Tevita Mara was possible. Death threats were made against Bainimarama and there was a bomb scare. There were even calls for a NZ-Australian invasion to restore the pre-coup government. 

As further evidence of his claim about the lack of media freedom Ellis refers to Fiji's banning of NZ journalists Michael Field and Barbara Dreaver  But both of them were guilty of constantly misreporting the situation in Fiji. 

One instance was Field's exaggerated claim of a typhoid outbreak purportedly threatening a major tourist area in Viti Levu and Dreaver's unintended but false claim of a recent outbreak in Vanua Levu. These reports threatened Fiji's largest industry, tourism. 

Nothing appeared in the "free" NZ media about my exposure of these claims. 

The blog has never been cited in the mainstream media, and my appearance on radio was very brief.  This is what Prof David Robie had to say about that: 

WHAT ON earth has happened to Radio New Zealand? Or rather, Nights host Bryan Crump? He has apparently dumped professor adjunct Crosbie Walsh, the most informed New Zealand-based blogger and commentator on Fiji affairs (naturally you would expect this calibre as former and founding director of the development studies programme at the University of the South Pacific). Walsh is such a tonic after the plethora of one-eyed and sensationalist anti-Fiji blogs that clutter cyberspace.

As our government considers how to control social media in the wake of the Christchurch killings, Ellis cites unnamed journalists who speculate that Fiji’s Online Safety Act could be a “trojan horse” against its media. Of course it (and similar acts in other countries) have this potential, but he should read Facebook to see what some anti-government writers are saying! They call for the assassination of Bainimarama, make racist statements and hate speech about Indo-Fijians and Fiji's Muslims, give  vivid descriptions of what they will do to them when they get back into power, write heaps of false news and give only one-eyed interpretations. This is why the Act is necessary. 

Ellis is usually a fair and informed commentator but if he has more to say about Fiji, he needs to doff  his journalism cap, and look at the Fiji situation through the other end of his binoculars. There is much more to protect in Fiji than journalism.

--ACW