For A Free Press

From The Editor’S Desk

This month we have chosen to highlight the media situation in Fiji, not only because we believe it is cause for concern here, but because government intervention in one form or another is a worrying development in most Pacific countries.

The view that governments and their actions are above critical analysis by their electorate has led in many cases to a lack of accountability in the public sector. So much so, that the very reason for the government’s being has been neglected as politicians with their shortsightedness and personal agendas are flourishing - at the expense of the country’s welfare.

This is where a free and independent media can be a voice for the people. This is where pressure can be brought to bear on the government for greater accountability on how public funds are spent. This is how the electorate takes on a more mature role of keeping an eye on the government it elected.

But it also works for the benefit of the government, allowing it to get an assessment of its performance through the feedback in the media.

And in the long run, the whole country can benefit from free and open discussion and debate of critical issues facing a nation. But in our Pacific countries,

steeped in traditions where a questioning of authority is misconstrued as being dis respectful, conditions can be trying for a

free-spirited journalist.

More often than not, senior politicians are chiefs or traditional leaders or have close ties with them, creating a conflict between tradition and contemporary val ues. When the media are owned or con trolled by governments the problem is fur ther compounded as journalists are drawn into this conflict.

Ideally, the media should operate as independent objective forums for the pub lie. We understand this may not always be possible in the region, as the private sector may lack sufficient funds to embark on such ventures. Hence, Pacific media may need to have government support to remain viable. The absence of such sup port could mean there is no other viable alternative.

However, what was disturbing about the Fiji situation was that when there was a viable private media company, a govern ment minister saw fit to call for a relin quishing of majority share holding to local interests. He made the proclamation on the grounds that the company was for eign-owned.

In our region, where populations are

small, where resources and the private sector is minimal and still in stages of development with the help of foreign assistance, his statement not only threat ened the sanctity of the freedom of the media, but also sent shudders down the spine of every foreign investor in the country.

The Prime Minister of Fiji stepped in quickly to smooth over the storm created by the Information Minister, and denied any such move was afoot by his govern ment. He stated the minister had not been speaking on behalf of the government and his stand did not reflect government poli cy.

While there was the initial outcry from the business community, there was an unusual lack of opposition as far as the media industry was concerned. In fact, some journalists saw it as a good move to have controlling interests in the media in ,local.

That appears fine, and in keeping with the current trend where island nations are trying to establish a distinct Pacific identi ty. But the problem arises because the Pacific communities are so small, and per sonalities are so closely associated that maintaining an objective stance becomes difficult.

A foreign-owned media company, aside from its greater resources, is also its ability to have an independent perspective.