Shame on you, Channel 10
p. 13 · Read in the full issue
IN THE recent storm over a television report on Australia s net work Ten, Fiji’s Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, said he had been blatantly misrepresented by re porter Jacqueline Wilcox on a number of issues including the constitution and Indians in Fiji.
He slammed the report as “mis chievous and grossly innaccurate”.
They are claims we have heard before from politicians unhappy with media coverage.
But in this case the remarks are no overstatement.
PIM has obtained a full copy of the original Channel Ten interview and it clearly shows ‘Life Under the Rabuka Regime’ the story that went to air on the Inside Edition program misrepresented Rabuka’s comments.
The report was unfairly edited and in places simply incorrect.
The segment which caused the greatest storm was this.
Rabuka: This is the real me talking, that was the television me.
We want a constitution which has ... that’s totally Fijian-oriented.
Journalist: You do?
Rabuka: We still want that.
Journalist: Why so?
Rabuka: Because this is Fiji.
Journalist: Would it be better then if the Indians just went back to India?
Rabuka: Yes.
For this edited segment the comment about “the real me” was brought forward from much later in the original interview when Rabuka believed the camera was turned off.
The unedited segment of the interview gave a much different view of Rabuka’s views on the role of the Indian community.
Rabuka: We want a constitution which has ... that’s totally Fijian oriented.
Journalist: You do?
Rabuka: We still want that.
Journalist: Why so?
Rabuka: Because this is Fiji Journalist: No place for Indians?
Rabuka: Not that we’re saying that but its now that we’ve taken on the responsibility of running this country, we will have to treat them as our guests.
Journalist: What does that mean?
Rabuka: Consider their views and listen to them and we want this country to be one where they can ... one which they can call home and we’ll welcome it.
Journalist: Would it be better then if the Indians just went back to India?
Rabuka: Yes, but that’s not what we’re driving for.
On the question of the constitution journalist Jacqueline Wilcox suggested Rabuka had blatantly conned the Fiji Labour Party and the people of Fiji in his agreement with Labour through which he clinched his appointment as prime minister after Fiji’s first post-coup election in May.
The report said Rabuka’s “written commitment to the Labour Party in exchange for their support agrees to
Change The Consti
Tution Immediately”.
That is incorrect. If fact Ra buka agree to “take action” to “immediately INITIATE A
Process Of Review And
CHANGE”. NO timetable was given for changes and at the time even the Labour Party admitted changes would not happen over
night.
The other major gaffe by Channel Ten was over Rabuka’s comments on the poor in which he said, “Are they really poor? I think they are lazy, very lazy”.
He also suggested it was “the biggest sin to be poor” and said, “I don’t think there should be any social welfare system any where in the world.”
Strong comments to be sure.
Again these comments have been edited together to strengthen their impact and the context of the comments has been omitted.
In the full interview Rabuka admitted some people had
“genuine” problems.
On poverty and social welfare he made it clear he thought social welfare attracted people to the city from the villages where they might be able to give their children a better life and on the issue of the poor Indians, in the city, admitted he did not think they were lazy.
Not only that, but these comments were clearly made after the formal interview was over and when Rabuka believed the camera was no longer rolling.
In the trade these sorts of discussions are termed ‘off-the record’.
They are an important tool which adds to the accuracy and depth of reporting especially when dealing with complex and sensitive material which must be produced under the pressure of strict deadlines. ‘Off-the-record’ discussions enable journalists to obtain briefings on still confidential government initiatives so that when the decision is announced they will immediately be able to put it in perspective.
They are also a means of gaining an insight into the thinking of key figures in an environment in which that figure does not have to watch the nuances of every word as he or she would in a formal interview.
In this case ‘off-the-record’ was used by Prime Minister Rabuka to elaborate on comments in the formal interview and to talk generally about conditions in Fiji.
While opposition politicians in Fiji may argue it is in the public interest to know Rakuka’s view on poverty, the principle of honesty on the part of journalists is more important.
Breaching the principle of‘off-the-record’ risks an end to the new openness which has revealed far more of significance than one small discussion with an inexperienced journalist and which, for Fiji, has meant a higher and more positive
profile overseas.
Now the flaws in the Channel Ten report have been revealed the network should apologise. □