 |
 |
 |
  |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
I just want to, under the instructions of the Prime Minister, make it public that I had a meeting with the Publisher of Fiji Times, Mr Evan Hannah. I had asked for a meeting with him to discuss matters regarding the Fiji Times. Mr Hannah came to the meeting with his lawyer Mr Jon Apted and I raised with him a number of issues as we had raised with him and his Editor Mr Netani Rika some weeks ago in respect of our concerns about the publications by Fiji Times. The Prime Minister’s office received yesterday a couple of articles from within Fiji Times that apparently was going to be printed as an opinion piece. It was called “Exposing the lie”. This article had a number of, we believe, factual inaccuracies and was very highly emotive and in fact matters that were before the courts. I raised this with Mr Hannah and said that we were very concerned about the fact, based on the information we were given, that such an article would be printed. He asked me what we were saying to him, whether we were telling him not to print it. I said no, what the Prime Minister’s concern was that as the publisher he should be mindful of the fact when you have such opinion columns then they need to be factually correct. In particular when it is going to be highly emotive, when it is going to attack, if not undermine the various institutions of the State. Just before coming into this room, I received a text message from Mr Hannah who said that the article was not in their database and so they weren’t going to print it, so it is not going to be printed. In any case, what we raised with him and it is important for the rest of the media organisations and public know about it that we have raised concerns, our concerns with FT. In particular the Minister for Information, the Prime Minister is concerned regarding the slant FT has taken over a period of time. These include letters to the Editor, we have received from a number of people complaints that they have continuously written letters to the Editor in Fiji Times but they do not get printed simply because they may be writing letters that could be positive about the Government, not necessarily always about the entire machinery of the Government but certain aspects of Government that don’t get printed, we have had some examples, previously and this time too. For example, you have a person called James Vulavucu who writes nearly every second or third day from Wales or UK. We have been reliably informed that there is no such person from Wales or UK but it is somebody from Tamavua. Now these sorts of verification needs to take place in particular when the FT says that it has high standards as far as the vetting of the letters are concerned. What we have also raised with the FT is also that we believe when there are any negative stories about the Government or about Fiji as a whole or the economy it gets front page but when there is something positive it does not get mentioned or it gets a column story. A classic point in example recently is when the PM made a statement on the economy which is backed by facts it was only given a column story but when someone talks about the downturn of the economy then it is given front page. These are the matter that were discussed with the FT and like I said it had been discussed some weeks with Mr Hannah and Netani Rika and today this was discussed with Mr Hannah and Mr Jon Apted who was there as the legal representative for the FT. So it was the Prime Minister’s wish that this be made known to all the other media organisations so there is no misrepresentation of the conversations that took place between Government and FT. Question session 1. What was the response from FT? Oh, sorry, I should have said that. Mr Hannah said that there was a clear demarcation between his role as the Publisher and the Editor. However, he said he would talk to the Editor about it. I also pointed out to him, let me state, that for example there was an article in the FT regarding the appointment of Mr Bruce Cowley to the head of the inquiry team and my alleged association with him. The FT misquoted me, which changed the entire meaning of what I was trying to convey. I think if you read Wednesday’s newspaper, they took out the word “then” which completely changed the meaning. I saw it fairly late, on Tuesday’s paper it was. I rang FT and spoke to the person who had the by-line and she did say she had put the word then but then somehow or the other it got dropped out. I rang up Mr Hannah. Prior to that he was not available but he did return my call and I raised my concerns with him. Then I rang up Netani Rika, he was not available. Mr Hannah did tell me that he was going to talk to Netani Rika but he did not return my call, he told me he was in Tailevu because after that I spoke to him in the evening. He wanted a copy of my statement again which I sent. To date, no correction, no apology has been made by FT, not withstanding the fact it was quite a blatant omission, deliberate or otherwise. So these are the sorts of issues we are concerned about and I did say that we do not want to go through the legal path, I want the matter resolved amicably when this correction was asked for a couple of days ago, and I told Mr Hannah to date nothing has been received in that respect. So that is the gist of what we have discussed. It was important for us that the rest of the media organisation, the public know, that we have had a conversation. 2. Is it just the FT or other media organisations on the coverage they are giving to the IG? Well, no. Last year for example there was a meeting with the Editors of other media outlets too. There are a number of issues that have been taking place, I for example get a lot of journalists calling me up and saying, “look we don’t want to ask you that question but we have been told to ask you these questions, if I do not ask you these questions my story will get cut or they will edit my story”. These are the sorts of comments we are getting. So obviously it is not only a question of the independence of the media from the government or the rest of the public but obviously the journalists are concerned about their very own independence. It is very, very worrying when a journalist calls you up and says, “look I don’t want to ask you this but I have been told to ask you this”. And so we are obviously concerned about that. So from that perspective and given what we believe is a pattern that has been in existence with FT we raised the concern with them and hope it is amicably resolved. We do not want the media organisations to be pro-anybody, they need to be balanced. If a media organisation wants to be pro a political party, wants to be pro a political point of view that’s their prerogative but they need to tell public that that’s their position. A few weeks ago Daryl Tarte from the Media Council said that it is not uncommon for a media outlet to have a particular political stand, a particular political view and that was quoted in the FT but what he forgot to mention and if he went to the lecture delivered by the chairperson of TI, Madam Labelle, she said that it is incumbent for media organisations that if they do support a particular political view that they make it public. There is nothing wrong with supporting a particular political party or political view but the media organisation must declare its interest. It is imperative that the media organisation declare its interest. So as you have it at the FT it says “Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama upholds media freedom or guarantees media freedom”. If a newspaper, or TV outlet or radio outlet is supporting a particular view they must declare it always that that’s the particular political stance, if they not then their stories should be balanced. It is now not uncommon to find a number of media organisations in Fiji who will give only a particular person supporting a particular political view lot more airtime, a lot more space to air their views as opposed to the Government wants to. All we are saying, to maintain the integrity of the media outlet and to say that you truly are independent, you must be balanced. Q. Will the interim government make it a practice to call in media outlets who have printed something they find offensive? I hardly think you can call one or two meetings a practice. It is not a new event if you like, it has happened in previous governments so I don’t think it should be given as much prominence as one may like to make it out to be. It has happened in the past. And like I said, we are here to ensure that the matter gets resolved amicably. Q. Are we looking at the media decree that will control the media if this matter is not resolved amicably? Look, like we have maintained from the beginning on all sorts of issues, we believe in dialogue and we believe common sense should prevail. If you read the Constitution there are certain restrictions placed on the media. Most rights are not absolute except perhaps the right to life and torture. Most other rights have certain provisions (?) to them and I suggest that everybody read the Constitution. It is in the same way as saying that, when somebody says they are going to have a rally so they go and have a rally. We have had laws in place since the 1950’s that says that in order to have a public rally you need to get a permit but the way the media presents it now, if someone says they are going to have a rally and the police says well, you need a permit, you say “oh, it’s a police state”. It’s not a police state, this has been practised since the colonial days. If you want to march through the streets you need a permit. It’s very simple. You go to any country, that’s what they want you to do. So again the media is trying to over state these issues. If you read the Constitution, you read the Public Order Act its all there and these provisions have been in existence for decades. ------------ |
|
|
 |
     |
