 Thank you everyone for training into IDA International's webinar series. This is series number five on democratic development in the Melanesia webinar series. And the critical question for this webinar is about to what extent are their diversity measures in the critical media and PG. And we have an esteemed panel collection of panelists, ranging from Dr. Steve Sharp, who is an international media expert and trainer and based in Sydney. We also have Stanley Simpson, who is the director of my TV and has had a journalism experience in the region for a very long time. And we're hoping Dr. Shalendra, who is a scholar at ESP, is able to also join us if his internet is helping. So with further ado, let's move on to why we gathered here and I'd like to just point out to everybody that this session is being recorded. We'll allow the speakers to present themselves for at least eight to 10 minutes and then we will finally close off with a Q&A session later on. So that's going to be the format of it. Next slide, slide please. So this webinar series is based on the conceptual framework of the global state of democracy and how PG has been performing. In the last webinar, International IDA had introduced the global state of democracy indices, which for the first time had included PG and the Solomon Islands in a study with PNG and Melanesian region. What we kept is that on the framework, the global state of democracy indices depict that democratic trends at the country, regional and global levels across 29 aspects of democracy from the year 1975 to 2020, which is updated annually. The indices measure democratic performance for 165 countries around the world. They help policymakers, analysts, scholars, journalists and civil society to assess and compare the quality of democracy. The indices can also be used to monitor progress of the SDGs and the statistical data that provides the basis of the report of the state global state of democracy indices. These have been developed based on International IDA's definition of democracy, which see democracy as a based on two broad principles which are popular control over decision making and political equality in the exercise of that control. These principles have been translated into five co-acributes of democracy, which are the large circles that you see on the PowerPoint, and which IDA believes are key elements of healthy democracy. Now the representative government which focuses on free and fair elections and free political parties, the fundamental rights, informal and formal checks on governments, in partial administration, which includes absence of corruption, and the fifth one being participatory engagement, which focuses on central participation through civil society engagements, and in national and local elections. Each attribute is assigned a score from zero to one, with one being the highest performance. For the purpose of our webinar, we will be focusing on the sub attribute of media integrity, which falls under the checks on governments attributes. Next slide please. The graph on the screen shows the trend of media integrity with Fiji being the blue line. The graph also shows our other melanogen countries which are Solomon Islands and PNG. Through the webinar, International IDA hopes the panelists could unpack the reality behind the data or refuted. And the speakers we asked to prepare the presentations based on the following questions, which are, number one, do the major print and broadcast media represent a wide range of political perspectives. The second question was, is criticism of government and government officials, a common and normal part of the political dialogue in the mediated public sphere. Third one is, are citizens allowed to freely express themselves through media forums, like let's do the editor as it's seen as a tool for the citizens to express themselves. The fourth one is do major print and broadcast media exercise self-sensoring around the reporting. Do the journalist self-sense unused to avoid intimidations and threats. And finally, in regards to the indices graph on media integrity for Fiji, there has been significant increase in the ratings after 2013 till date. However, it is still among the lowest in the region. What could be the reasons behind this and how can Fiji perform better in the upcoming years. So without further ado, I will introduce to you the first speaker who is Dr. Sharp. Dr. Sharp is an international media expert and trainer and has 30 years experience as a journalist, as an investigative reporter and media trainer with multimedia producer and publishing. He has a university general lecturer as well as an author and most of his three decades have been spent on supporting media development in the Pacific Islands. Steve is a qualified journalism educator with an MA and a PhD in journalism. And the latter is based on his research and media reporting of ethno-religious violence in Indonesia. Thank you, Steve. Thank you, Jasmine. And I want to first thank ID International for the invitation. Firstly, because it brought me in contact with your website and I was very impressed. I haven't previously seen the data that you had collected and it's a very systematic and comprehensive set of data which I'm looking into more closely since I received your invitation. So thank you for that. Looking at the question of media integrity, if I can, you know, in say five minutes, I might actually have a look at it from the perspective of not so much what the Fiji media is doing. So I'm going to focus more on what the Fiji media is not doing and some of the points that I make I hope also will be relevant to Pacific media generally. I'm currently involved in a training program through the Solomon Islands Media Association, looking at reporting of national security issues. I've been in consultation with the senior editors and trainers in the Solomon Islands and I think some of the issues that come up in other Melanesian countries are certainly relevant to Fiji. But just focusing on Fiji, I did have the privilege of teaching at the University of the South Pacific for three years, some time back. And I've always kept a keen interest in the media scene in Fiji, even though I haven't returned there for quite some time. I want to approach the issue of media integrity by giving you an example, a concrete example of news reporting in Fiji, which occurred before the pandemic in February 2019. This was a story that broke on a New Zealand website and it involved a hotel casino development on Malolo Island in the Mamanusa. The story was that a Chinese developer had in fact been damaging the foreshores around the island and had been doing so in breach of various national regulations. And it also was reported that they'd ignored a number of stock work meetings and even some court orders had been ignored by the company. And so the New Zealand journalists reported on this in February 2019 and told the story of environmental laws breached non enforcement of official orders. And subsequently in April of that year, the same reporters returned to Fiji, but this time with a camera crew. And they had the experience of being detained by the Fiji police and then subsequently released when they were in Suva. So I want to give this as an example, I guess of a story that was reported by a foreign news agency. And I want to raise the question of why were local reporters in Fiji, not there on the ground to bring this matter to the attention of their Fiji audiences. Why was it that a New Zealand news agency was the first to break this story? And also I'd like to just raise the issue of the timing of this report. The report broke on the New Zealand website in February 2019. There was quite a bit of information in the public domain prior to this time, including drone footage of the damage that had been done to the reef. And there were a number of government agencies who had been aware of this issue for some time. I suppose the question to our panelists and perhaps to the wider participants is if in fact the Fiji media had reported this story when it first came to light in late 2018. Would that have made a difference, for example, to the election, which was held in December of that year. The reporting by the Fiji media have led directly to government action. Would the developer have been prosecuted. What are the factors that would influence the outcome of this story, if in fact it was the Fiji media, rather than the Kiwis that had had broke this story for not just in Fiji but for the wider region. That's something, some questions I'd like to put up for discussion. I'd also just like to in my minute or so remaining, simply make the point that the Fiji media and the regional media are operating in a very disrupted environment. It's not a good place at the moment for journalists. And we look at what's happened in Southeast Asia, the direct attacks, the online attacks against journalists in Southeast Asia, which incidentally have led directly to physical attacks. This has been well documented in a report by the International Federation of Journalists in Southeast Asia. I think we need to be very wary that these kind of trends that have been operating in places like the Philippines, Indonesia, Myanmar. We need to be very aware of the fact that these same trends might in fact seek their way into the Pacific Islands. And I think we need to be very vigilant about that. The other point I would make is that, you know, journalists deal with facts, yeah, we deal in facts. So the media discourse and the various conflicting and confusing narratives that are circulating amongst the digital media channels. There's not a lot of focus on which facts are correct. Yeah. So I think the trend worldwide and certainly in the Pacific going forward is that the contest within media narratives is not so much a contest over which interpretation of the facts are correct. The context I think is now shifted to the wearing down and the erosion of faith in institutions. So what we found looking even to the United States and the recent election, the voter suppression and so forth, we've seen attempts to discredit institutions and to erode public trust in them. That's quite bad news for Democratic countries because it's corroding Democratic institutions. And I post the question of in relation to media integrity, where will the Fiji media, the Fiji media as an institution, where will they stand in trying to stem the tide of these very worrying trends which are undermining the basis of our Democratic institutions. Thank you, Jasmine. Thank you Steve. We will reserve questions for later. Our second speaker is Stanley Simpson, who is the director of my TV and media production houses and business media and it is also currently the editor of the monthly magazine 50 plus. He is an award-winning journalist with over 20, 20 years of experience in Fiji and the region. I don't think you have to read all that. Okay, thank you. Yes, thanks. I also like to say that I'm also the general secretary of the Fiji Media Association and I'll be happy to respond to some of the questions raised by Dr. Schaap later but thank you Jasmine for your moderating and my appreciation to idea for organizing. This webinar to discuss this very topical issue. I have made, I had made some comments about some of these issues we discussed today that was plastered on the front page of the Fiji Times. Yesterday on the role of the media in democracy and I actually received a phone call from the Attorney General, who called to ask about the comments I made about the role of the media he of course expressed strong views about the areas he felt the media was lacking in. Around six weeks ago, we had a Fijian Media Association workshop on the 2021-2022 national budget. The leaders of the opposition party, Siddhartha and NFP, which is Honorable Milga Vodka and Bhima Prasad also spoke and they also both expressed strong views on the areas they felt the media was lacking in. And I've been in the media industry in Fiji for over two decades. I cannot recall hearing anyone ever say there are times that they were happy with the state of the media in Fiji. There's always been some areas we've been lacking in or not living up to everyone's expectations. And generally, I would like to make the point with some exceptions here and there. Whenever I hear an opposition member complain about the media. I can safely conclude that they are either talking about the Fiji Sun or FBC. And whenever I hear a government member complain about the media generally conclude that they are primarily complaining about the Fiji times. And that's the situation obviously I have heard people say they love the media coverage one day. And the very next day they say they're unhappy with the media coverage. So the media in Fiji so used to becoming a hero one day and a villain the next day. And this is the cycle that repeats itself day after day if I was to write a book about the media in Fiji. I think I'd call it heroes and villains. Heroes and villains because the story, you know, is my story the story of many in the media in Fiji. For instance, I was recently criticized attack called names on Facebook when I sort of like defended the Fiji Sun's front page report on the alleged personal life of a government minister we did spark national outreach. But then with the Fiji Bimes front page yesterday, which is seen as an attack on the attorney general. A lot of people who had called me a cowardly Fiji first two weeks ago. Now praise me for my courage. The story of the journalist in Fiji that's a story of Fijian media. And every editor can tell you that on any given day they could be a hero or villain in someone's eyes that they will either be seen as part of the solution, or be seen as part of the problem. And the media in Fiji, you know, conclude know that no matter how they may try. They'll never be able to make everyone happy. They'll always be criticism that they were either over sensationalizing or not doing enough not covering an important issue adequately or not covering it at all. I think it's important to for the media to acknowledge and try to respond to this feedback and the criticisms, because they are often general. It's more important for the media is abiding by the code of ethics by being fair and balanced and accurate and clearly stating what's opinion what's feature and trying to improve the reporting and coverage. It comes down to perspective for instance a media organization, say Fiji Times could report eight or nine stories, positive stories about what the government is doing in a day. But one report that is seen as negative towards the government and our government will target that story as the Fiji Times being anti government. The government can publish about 50 to 100 stories a day, but just one negative story could attract attention and generate criticism and upgrades that the media is being biased or not doing that job or you know not covering an issue adequately. So I think it's important to keep things in perspective, in terms of the resources of the, what we have in the media Fiji. Look, some of the criticism that are being made about the quality of the media in Fiji are valid. The media is aware of it. There needs to be more investigative stories and reporters. There needs to be more or better analysis of the issues and more in depth pieces to try and uncover the truth or the facts to the story. There needs to be more training and development. There needs to be more resources put in. I want to state here that before I move on to answer the questions that have been raised by for the speakers is that these things take time and don't just happen overnight. And the media Fiji has suffered many severe disruptions I mean the course of 87 of 2000 of 2006. We have estimated the sections of the Fijian media media organizations closed down and operate again, senior generalists left the country or the industry altogether to follow other pursuits are best and brightest gets snapped up into communications and public relations positions that weigh higher salaries. We had censorship in 2009 2010, followed by the media industry development authority, draconian laws that had laws that had draconian and severe fines up to $100,000. Some media in Fiji, including the Fiji Times and do it lengthy costly painful. Got battles that are brought upon them by the government. So, you know, just, we need to note some of these things when looking at the state of the media but I do note that the graph that you've put up shows that they've been significantly increasing the ratings since 2013. I think that's a fair reflection of where we're heading, given everything the cars that the media has had to endure over the years. Now to answer some of the questions that are supposed to the speakers to what extent is there critical and diverse media in Fiji. In your view does the major print and broadcast media represent a wide range of political perspectives. The common general theme and answer most people in Fiji will give is that no. But my answer is yes, because too often people read or watch only one media organization. Say the Fiji son or the Fiji times, and they make the conclusion I'm expecting generalizations that the media in Fiji is not giving or offering up a wide range of political perspectives. If you could read or listen to the full range of Fiji media on offer every day. I am confident you will get a wide comprehensive perspective, all the views and news that's happening in the country. You know I would equate it to a buffet. That's available out there the Fijian media, the Fijian public is spoiled for choice. But it seems that instead of enjoying the full range of buffet. A lot of people like to go to their own that very particular dish. It will be the one they love or the one they hate and they like write hate reviews day after day of that, that particular dish. Say Fiji son is someone like I see people when they have to date to complain about the Fiji son, when there are other media available providing that diversity. So I urge the media people to enjoy the range that available Fiji times FBC Fiji son, Fiji TV Fiji village FF 96 my TV Fiji live. That's about quite a good range of organizations media organizations covering the news in Fiji don't be just stuck on one or two, and then make your view of the Fijian media based on that one experience. So today we're going to Ming Palace and having dollar and curry chicken dollar and curry chicken dollar and curry chicken day after day. And then complaining about the dollar and curry chicken when there's beef chop sweet roast pork, you know, seafood fried rice other dishes that are available as enjoying enjoying the variety and all the flavors, the different flavors. So the media and Fiji in my view offers that diversity. It offers different varieties for the Fijian public every day. The second question is often quite sensitive it says in your view does the major print and broadcast media exercise self censorship around reporting. And different editors will give you different answers and different perspectives on it but I'd like to echo the fellow views of a fellow editor stated, you have to live in Fiji to understand the scenarios that exist around the media. Because every decision that an editor or media organization makes, they have to be mindful of the implications, particularly our political history, and how certain words or reports or certain issues can trigger things. You have to be mindful of the implications you have to be also mindful of the repercussions. Of course, million needs to hold government and the people in power accountable, but at the same time, you know what some of the media says what's the use of holding people into power if the business collapses. If you do something and the positive be shut you down or take it to court. I think we, the Fijian media has had to look at different ways to skin this cat to skin the cat so to speak. In 2010 or 2011 at a media conference in Tonga when everyone was accusing them Fijian media of not doing enough to confront the Fijian government. And I always tell the stories of the journeys I had at the time. At the time, you know she came to work at four in the morning covered the vernacular new services covered the deed about a 70 different new stories a day. She paid less than $12,000 per year 15 to $15,000 per year. And every time if I sent out to do a story, I would ask myself would this story put her put her in jeopardy. And I would make those considerations, as much as I'm making the consideration about media freedom and about holding the government to account. There are some realities on the ground that editors have to deal with. In my view the Fijian media. You can call it what you want, but in my view, they are courageous they've been very smart and they've been very strategic. Given the circumstances that surround our work in this country. People can say what they want about it but they are not dealing with what the media is dealing with the real threats of intimidation and pressure from all sides that journalists live through. I mean, I'll move on. There is also, you know, I won't touch on this, I'll just move on because time's coming up. I mean, the other issue that the Fijian media too has to contend with that I think is a key issue before round off is the Media Industry Development Act, MIDA, which is amended in 2014. Now the content, section 22 of that content, the one that really makes the media that I'll tell people that the media has to be mindful of every day. It says the content of any media services must not include material which A is against the public interest to order. B is against the national interest. C creates communal discord. So tell me which article, which story or which thing is against or not in the interest in the interest of public interest or national interest and who decides that. I mean the straw. Almost everything published by the media broadcast by the media is in the either in the national interest or can be seen as then against the public interest and could even bring about be seen as bringing about communal discord. So these are the things that the editors have to deal with every day. And if they contribute it, the fines are set out on section 24 of that of the degree of the act. It says a breach of any of the provisions in or under the sections 22 or 23. This includes whether the media put in a byline for every story. Shall constitute an offense that the media organizations will be liable on summary conviction to a fine. Not exceeding $100,000 or in the case of an editor $25,000. So, the media is faced with these realities every day and dealing with realities every day. And despite all that, I will say that the media continues to ensure that there's criticism of government and government officials, as well as criticism of the performance of opposition elected members of parliament. This is a common and normal part of the political dialogue in the mediated public sphere. Of course, some of the media organizations are not as big as the major international media organization so the resources they have to be able to send people around, you know, cover stories. But we provide that space and that platform and citizens are allowed to freely express themselves through the media forums that you export like that is to the editor and the other columns that are available. But of course, I will just end and state. It's all within the limits and the laws and the considerations and the circumstances that I've mentioned above. Thank you. Thank you Stanley for such a thorough presentation as well as introducing the sections that actually affect journalism in PG, and our final speaker for today is Dr. Shalendra Singh who is an associate professor with the head of and head of journalism at USP and has been widely writing about Pacific media politics and development, both as a journalist, as well as an academic. He graduated with a PhD from the University of Queensland in 2015. And before an academic career Dr. Shalendra also was the editor of the award winning PG news and business magazine, the review the Pacific business magazine, the content editor of PG live. Thank you for joining me today. Yes, we can hear you. Okay, wonderful. Okay, so thank you chair. Thank you panelists and also thank you idea for organizing such an important discussion and inviting me to be part of it. My presentation will hopefully contribute to what the panelists have already said the two panelists, and also provide additional contacts. So I'll start out just quickly I'll just start addressing the questions straight away. First question. Do the news media represent a wide range of political perspectives. Okay, so we are talking about the scope and the nature of political coverage in the country. My answer is this is only my opinion of course, not always. Of course it would be impossible to provide it and every perspective. And also because media coverage is discriminatory by nature. Even by necessity, I would argue. There are resource and logistical constraints to deal with besides capacity issues. This is in addition to media's commercial priorities. This is also affected in in political coverage, and even media's political affiliation of biases. There's no such thing as 100% objectivity. Most institutions if not every institution, every individual is biased in some way. All this factor in your political reporting in one way or another. There's so many variables to contend with. Okay, what research has shown so far in Fiji and also abroad. There's a consistent message in the research, and that is that political elites get far more coverage than anyone else when it comes to political reporting. Reason being they are deemed more important and more sellable. So there's a commercial there's a very strong or reasonably strong commercial aspect to political reporting that we should be mindful of. Of course, commercial is not everything in political reporting, but it is a strong element of it. Okay, so we did some research one of my ma students did some research. And that research indicates that women are among the disadvantage groups consigned to the margins of political coverage. So women and young people. They don't get as much coverage as the political elites. Then there's the question of political parties. All political parties treated equal right the fact of the matter is to use that phrase, the governing party regularly. What you will find is that the dominant parties, usually the dominant party or the government party that might get the most covers the party with the most resources. And so, and it's in the descending order, most of the time. And in Fiji you find the governing party regularly accusers some media of being anti government. So even it's not just the amount of coverage is also the nature of the coverage in Fiji got the government or the governing party. They are quite unhappy with some of the coverage they receive. And then you have the opposition party. They also have complaints. And what they are saying is that they are not only ignored, but attacked by pro government media. Including the state media. So I don't know whether that balances out the coverage or not, but this is the state of affairs in Fiji, as far as political general recordings concern. Okay, the thing is what a lot of people maybe don't understand they think that the media has to be objective per se. Not so much the media can take a political stance. The media can advocate for an issue. There's nothing in our media ethics that says you cannot do this, but there's a major caveat. You can take a political stance provided any such leanings are confined to the opinion sections. The new section must remain objective, unbiased, untainted by opinion. So there should be a clear demarcation between news and opinions. Unfortunately, the line is getting increasingly blurred. Right, this is an unfortunate trend in my opinion. You see that in overseas coverage, Australia, New Zealand in our neighboring countries, neighboring countries, and you also see that in Fiji. There can even be pro government media can support government policies, but they still must provide comparatively equal and fair coverage, especially state media because state media is taxpayer funded. Okay, the state media is government funded. I like to emphasize the state, sorry, state media is taxpayer funded. That denotes that the state media should not give the government favorable treatment. They should treat every media equally, sorry, every political party, every political candidate should be treated comparatively equally. The surest way to know if media represent wide political perspectives is research. What we are doing now is mostly sort of maybe speculating and using anecdotal evidence. The best way to know the nature of political coverage is through research. A friend of mine, Dialogue Fiji Executive Director Nilesh Lal, and I are looking at some 2018 election coverage data. There are clear bias on the part of all media in Fiji. Some media are far more biased than others, but there is a bias and this is not necessarily unexpected or negative. Moses, I was saying before there's bound to be some biasness. Okay, so the Fiji media do have their favorites. I cannot say any more until the research is published, but I should add something and that is that analyzing bias can be complex. The reason is because bias can be intentional and also unintentional. For example, if a politician refuses a media interview request, then the bias is self inflicted. You can hardly blame the media. Okay, the bottom line is, in my opinion, the Fiji public by now, they know their media stances, and they have the choice to not consume any media they do not trust. That might already be happening in Fiji. Okay, the second question is, do Fiji media exercise self censorship? It's obvious that media do exercise a greater level of self censorship since the 2006 school and the 2010 media act. Just Google and you will find various reports on this. The indices indicate Fiji media are bolder since 2013. Yes, but they will not cross a certain line. And this is because the fines in jail terms are not worth the risk. I'm talking about the media act here. The risk is high for the Fiji media because as Stanley Simpson was saying, the lettering of the media act is quite broad. There is no charge to date under the act. It's like an act that can fall on your neck at any time. The authority can impose, you know, a charge any time it wants. As Stanley was saying, there are so many ways in which you can be against the national interest in your reporting. In 2015, the Fiji government removed fines in jail terms for journalists from the media act. Is it impactful in reducing self censorship? My answer is not really because the editors and publishers penalties were retained. The editor and to some extent the publisher are the newsroom gatekeepers. And they would put a leash on their journalists to protect themselves and their investment because the fines in jail terms are quite stiff. They are trying to live with the act and operate around its parameters. Rather than take big risks, they are taking calculated risks, such as a degree of self censorship, so that they can live and fight another day. And I agree with Stanley Simpson that under the circumstances, this is not too bad an approach. The next question is criticism of government common. My answer is yes, but my answer is both yes and no criticism is common with some media, not all media. There is not as much criticism as before the media act, but still a fair amount of criticism under the circumstances. The Fiji Times stands out for its critical reporting, as well as Fiji Village recently. The BBC and Fiji Sun are on the record saying they are pro-government policies. So these two media organizations, they support government policies. The good thing is they have come out openly about it. So they're not pretending to be objective. They tell us exactly where they stay. And it is for you, the news consumer to take it or leave it. The news being pro-government policy would not mean turning a blind eye to the government's force or endlessly singing government's praises. Now some people complain that Fiji media in general are not critical enough. In my opinion, such people do not fully understand the context that the media are operating in. What do they appreciate the risks media take on a daily basis? The government accuses some media of being anti-government, especially the Fiji Times. Okay, under normal circumstances, the government criticism, it comes with the territory. But because of the media act, the government criticism is menacing. So given the context I don't buy fully, that media are not critical enough. Okay, so could there be more criticism? Should there be more criticism? My answer to both is yes. But criticism should be measured and it needs to be fair and balanced as well. In the last idea session, University of Hawaii professor Taas Sisias, Kambutawlaka stated that the quality of media reporting is part of media freedom. And I agree with him totally. The two simply cannot be separated. Just as a phoning biased media is bad for democracy, so is the negative overly critical media. And there's plenty of literature on this. Okay, Fiji's media integrity graph has improved since 2013, but it's still among the lowest in the region. Why? Fiji has the lowest ranking in the region simply because it has the toughest media law in the region. There was some improvement because of the 2013 Constitution and the 2014 elections. Compared to military rule, these signal a return to a form of democratic order. But as long as the media act is in place, the media are government regulated. In a full democracy, the media are self-regulated as Fiji's media used to be. How can Fiji improve? For one, the media act has not been reviewed in over 10 years. And the media act was imposed on the media. So we've got two major problems. The act was imposed in the media to begin with. And then secondly, it has not been reviewed at all for 10 long years. So what I would suggest is a round table of all the stakeholders to review and update the act. This is long overdue. The government, the media and other interested parties need to get together to find common ground and apply it in the media act. But in my opinion, again, this is just my opinion. We don't need the media act anyway. Because if the media step out of line and commit a crime, there are adequate laws in place already. And a good example is the defamation law. The act has a law that requires stories to be balanced, which I think is quite unreasonable. I mean, I don't have time to explain why. But if a story is unbalanced, and if it steps out of line, and if it sort of is defamatory, then the laws are there in place to deal with it. So you can see this is just one example as to how the media act is redundant. I think my 10 minutes is up. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Shalene. And thank you to all the speakers for bringing such expertise into this subject. And I'd like to also point out that all the questions posed to the panelists was a question that was based on the global state of democracy framework and it was standard questions that were given to everybody. And while we are accepting questions from our viewers, I'll start off with Dr. Steve. Do you think the media in PG is polarized? And is it something that is common within small countries like PG? Well, yes, yes, I do think it is polarized. But the newsrooms themselves are in a position to deal with this. It's not like that polarization is inevitable. The newsrooms and their staff can actually act to make their coverage more balanced, not just by explicitly complying with the Code of Ethics, both national standards and international standards. But they can also look at new ways of framing their stories. And in so doing, increase their readership, increase their audiences. So if polarization is seen as a problem and it certainly is, and I think it will be more of a problem come election time, individual media companies can actually act to assert themselves in a way that builds faith amongst their audiences. And this, as Stanley and Shalendra have demonstrated, this is a very tricky act. It's a high wire act. But there are strategies. You know, PG is not the only place in the world that has repressive media laws. There's a great deal of international experience driven by journalists as a profession in ways in matters of countering this polarization actually asserting their own independence and in some doing building credibility with their audiences and keeping faith with those who are ensuring their commercial success. So I think there's, there's a strategic aspect to this. And there's also a business aspect to this, because independent news and independent journalism needs to cut through the noisy digital media landscape. It needs to cut through and establish media need to brand themselves so that audiences see what they are publishing as independent and by virtue of doing that, build their brand name and also ensure their own commercial success. Thank you, Dr sharp. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to pose a question. I have a question for Dr Shalendra. Are student journalists well equipped to tackle political issues in the news. And do you think there are enough training provided for them to do this. Yeah, okay, I'm sorry I cannot switch on my camera because of connectivity issues. I hope you can hear me. Yes. Okay, excellent. Okay, see the student journalist at USP journalism. We provide them all the training possible. So that as soon as they join the media organizations they're able to hit the ground running. And they do real live reporting at USP as well, meaning they produce a newspaper they produce radio programs, as well as TV programs. And there's a lot of debate and discussion and their assignments and all the lectures are all geared towards journalism practices as well as of course some theoretical thinking. Some of it also depends on the kind of guidance they receive in newsrooms once they join a newsroom. What kind of leadership is available at the newsroom. What are the newsroom's priorities. And, you know, how does the newsroom conduct itself. So all these are all these have to be taken into account as well. But by and large, I would say that the student journalists are as well equipped as any journalism student anywhere to, you know, get on the job as soon as they join a media organization. Of course, they will need some guidance initially. But most we are looking at the track record of our students who are still in news media organizations in Fiji and the region. And by and by and large, they have done pretty well. And some of them hold very senior positions. And a good example is Stanley seems and himself. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Shalene. Now in your presentations, both for Stanley and yourself, Dr. Shalene, I've heard a lot about the legislative framework around which the journalist in Fiji have to be working on. And Stanley, can you please unpack the section 22 for us a little bit more so that our listeners are well versed with what the reality on the ground is for journalists in Fiji. Thank you. So I'm just bringing it up. I mean, the, the reality, I think the key thing that the concern for me, you know, apart from everything that's been discussed about, you know, we, we trading on nothing ice. The other thing that we don't fall is that there are times now where it's not the editors that's coming in to make the decisions as the lawyers. That's my concern. That, you know, with the publishers with the media owners. So someone's media organization starting to get concerned about, you know, falling into the act. My concern is that legal entities, the going to be could be the ones deciding what goes in the papers, you know what what can meet the meet the court challenge so to speak. Obviously, there's always been part of the consideration but those considerations are made for the gender by made by the editors. And I think increasingly, I think for some media organizations, since this act came into place where there's been more of the lawyers that have have taken over but I think it's, as has been mentioned, it's very broad and the content of any media services must not include material which is a against the public interest to order. So, like, if I'm attacking the government or writing about, you know, chaos at the hospital or something to that effect is that against the public interest order. Is against the national interest. So these things needs to be defined and who defines and who specifies what is or against the public interest what is against the national interest credit communal discord I think that's, you know, pretty clear. I think pretty clear but you know, a few times got caught in that with that letters to the editor in the vernacular newspaper and faced as I said a painful, painful court case. I know and created a lot of uncertainty with the some of the editors in general is actually facing really jail time as much as the fines. So, that is, you know, all issues that all need to be taken account by lines you know it's a simple thing on number 23. Any print media which is in excess of 50 words must include a byline and wherever practical the content of any other media services must include a byline. So, I mean you can tell some editors and editors going through every night just checking to ensure that you know that they, they, they, there's, that's a, that's a byline. And, while no one has, no one has been ever charged under the MITA act. And I would say that they know there's one here gets a communal discord. The government itself did not use the MITA act in taking the 50 times the task for what they perceived was that reported cost. Could have cost communal discord through the ethnic 10 reporting, but they use the court process for that. So, bylines I mean, even though no one's recharge and you don't expect to ever be charged but it's there, it's in the law. So, you know, the, and you don't ever be caught out by something like this. So, you know, these are some of the things that some, some editors have to contend with daily. Now this is a question from our audience and the person wishes to remain anonymous and the question goes to anybody and the panelists. What are the potential implications of increased geopolitical activity in the region on the media. And is this worth looking at. I could comment on that Jasmine, if you if you wish. Please go ahead. Yeah, look, I think the implications are enormous. And I think Stanley have given us a very good overview of the difficulties that face by me that PG. I think one of the strategies that they may already have thought of is to really regionalize their profession and start to build contact with their colleagues in other parts of the Pacific. I mean we have a regional architecture for for for Pacific Island States and that's the Pacific Islands forum. Why don't we have on-sided a form of media regionalism to strengthen the media sectors of the Pacific against these kinds of kinds of repressive laws and also against the disruption and the information solution that is is flooding into our media spheres, strengthen numbers, and also the added advantage through collaboration with our colleagues in different parts of the Pacific. The opportunity to tell more complex stories in more compelling ways, because in my view on the question of increased geopolitical activity, I think the job of the journalist is becoming more difficult and more demanding certainly in terms of the intellectual skills that are required and the degree of complexity that journalists need to convey in their stories so that so their audiences are informed. So there's an opportunity there for collaboration with colleagues, but that infrastructure is yet to be built. And I think there needs to be a plan, perhaps on the lines Shalindra mentioned around table well perhaps that round table can be can also be at the regional level, because I think in the coming years in the next five to 10 years, it's going to be, it's going to be a very rocky road for Pacific media in keeping pace with and telling coherent and compelling stories to their various publics and if they fail at this, then I think this increases the potential for conflict within states and also between states, and I'd also mentioned to that it's very important also to recognize that the regional framework has laid down by the Pacific Islands forum through the the boy declaration this expanded concept of security in all the documentation that I've looked at in relation to the boy declaration including the action. There is no mention of media's role. And I think that's something that that is missing, because in order to realize the vision of the boy declaration collective security of so forth and the broader sense of security in terms of human security, food security, combating transnational prime and the like. There will need to be collaboration and cooperation between media leaders, including our two guests at this meeting cooperation and collaboration between Pacific media leaders, alongside the political cooperation for which the Pacific Island forum exists. Thank you. Yeah, just can I just quickly to what Steve has said. Yes, Shalim, please go ahead quickly. Okay geopolitics in the region is affecting the media in different ways. Besides what Steve has said, I want to talk about very quickly about what China is doing in the region with the regional media. I won't say whether I'll reserve comment about whether it's a negative or positive development, but the Chinese government is offering scholarships and fellowships to regional journalists. To go and study the Chinese brand of media abroad that's one secondly, there's a lot of content free content available to regional media from the Chinese state media. And then the Chinese are also entering into financial arrangements and partnerships and join collaborations with the media in the Pacific. So the thing about the media in the Pacific is this, they are small struggling financially this is in general, and they are ripe for capture. And, you know, once the media is gone, I see the media as the last bastion. I mean, for example, if the governments are captured if the corrupt government is captured. If the business sector is captured. And then if the media is also captured then you know I would say everything is gone. Who is there to keep an eye on corrupt government or corrupt business, if the media itself becomes an hour. Or, you know, jojo joins them. So I think this is something that we should also keep an eye on Chinese overtures on regional media or a regional and local media. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Shaleen. Now we have another question from the audience and this is aimed at Stanley and yourself, Dr. Shaleen. And it's based on the pretty media ownership. The question is how does media ownership affects diversity of media in PG. Yeah, let's stand and go first. I'm standing on mute. Sorry. Yes, it affects, it affects the diversity. Obviously, the owners appoint the kind of editors. They, you know, they make decisions on who the editors as much as they try and give the editorial stance. Obviously, FBC is state state owned, and they've always been coming under fleck. You know, there's some influence of government. To a certain extent. I used to be a news editor at FBC. That was during the times when there was censorship. And, you know, as a professional journalist, I'm sure that I can say that I did my work freely. I mean, I've been doing things myself inside that newsroom. But you know, there's always the, the, the pressures there's also there's always the considerations that you gave as a state broadcaster into some of the stories in covering some of the government issues but essentially the FBC newsroom. You know, we have from the 80s 90s after 2000, you know, it's produced some of the best the journalist that has moved on to other and you know, some is only pirate the Imra sick by Marana kitchen name. The oldest range a lot of the cities all started at FBC and, and it's thriving and obviously it's always faced its own challenges given the ownership by the by the government. And I also own, you know, my organization, my TV. So, as I said, I have my views on how things should be run how the media should be run. I'm sure the other media organizations owners also have their views. But generally, I think a lot of I would say that a lot of the media in Fiji operate through editorial independent system. Although the reality is that the owners do step in from time to time to protect their interest. That's just the reality on the ground. Yeah, okay. Yeah, the media ownership issue in Fiji is really, really interesting. Media reforms were implemented under the media act. And the aim was to make the media sector in Fiji more diversified at least that's what we heard. And the irony of it is that the media reforms in some respects might have actually had the opposite impact. For example, if you look at the print media, one of the owners the owners of the Fiji Times was News Limited based in Australia. And they did not have any other business interest in Fiji except the newspaper business. But they were forced out under the 10%, sorry, under the 90% local ownership rule. What happened after that was that the print media, both print media fell into the hands of local conglomerates Moribhai and CJ Patel. Both these businesses, they have vast investments in the Fiji economy. They have other business interests aside from the news media. And these other vast business interests are in some ways at the mercy of government policies. Okay, we did not have this problem with the previous owners of the Fiji Times at least the Fiji Times was independent in a way. So the question is, will the owners of the Fiji Times and the Fiji Sun, not just you, we are not only asking this question for the present, we are also looking in the future. So maybe at present, the owners of the newspapers are not telling the media to moderate coverage of government, at least not the Fiji Times. But there is a risk that they might tell their newsroom, their editor, their publisher. Please moderate the coverage because if we make the government angry, they might pass policies that might hurt our other business investments. So there's this risk that was not there with the previous owners of the Fiji Times. So there's one disadvantage of the media, media ownership situation in Fiji. There is this risk. It's not happening now with the Fiji Times at least. The Fiji Times is very robust in its coverage, but we can't tell in the future. We can't tell what will happen in the future. So there's the print media sector, the broadcast media sector. Apart from the state-owned broadcaster, all other broadcasters are not allowed to have cross media ownership, meaning they cannot run. They either run a radio station or a television station. They cannot have both except for the state media. So what they have done, it has made the broadcast media market very uneven in favor of the FBC. Among many advantages, the FBC can cross promote its programs on both television and radio and get a bigger audience. And I think that's already happening. Fiji TV you see is already struggling, although Fiji TV is struggling a bit because of this huge advantage the FBC has. And besides that advantage, the FBC is also flushed with funds because it has easy access to government grants and loans being the state broadcaster. Okay, because it is flushed with funds, it is able to attract the best talent. So our broadcast media sector is also quite uneven. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Shalene. We have one more question and it's based on gender balance and it's also something that you quite touched on in your presentation Dr. Shalene and it was one on blurred lines. Do you think there is a gender balance in terms of news reporting, especially in terms of either it be political or issue based. Do you feel there is a gender balance achieved. And this question is for anybody on the panel. Okay, I'll give a very quick answer. In general, generally you would need research to really get a concrete answer but generally speaking, the media gravitate towards important and prominent people, because they are seen as credible sources and they will attract readership and sell and so forth. Most prominent people, most important people, most people in positions of power are male. So they are the prime sources for hard news stories. So they get by default they get most of the coverage and research has shown this to be the case worldwide. Okay, so yeah so there's quite an imbalance it would seem that disadvantage females in news coverage. Maybe I could add something to that Jasmine. Yes, please. Yes, look, Shalene has mentioned the coverage of issues. I'd also make a note of the composition of the profession the media profession. That would include both journalism and also public relations. My experience is that the profession is very heavily feminized. And this is true. I'm not just, you know, a year ago when I taught at University of South Pacific but in other places, we certainly worked in the Maldives. 80% of people going into the university courses there are women. So I think in due course, the, I'm not suggesting for a moment that that indicates that those graduates will necessarily rise to the top of their organizations but it is becoming a heavy feminized sector. I think there will certainly be and be effects down the line. I'm not quite sure what they are that's something that maybe could be researched, but I think that that's, that's a development we need to be mindful of. Thank you Dr sharp Stanley would you like to end. So I know I think it's been adequately touched by Dr Shalene I have the same use. Before we wrap up this webinar, are there any final thoughts or any of the panelists would like to share. If I could add a couple of points. Jasmine. Yes, please go ahead. Look, I would make draw attention to some comments that were made a couple of years ago this is just pre pre pandemic. In 2019, a Melanesian media freedom forum event was was held in Brisbane, and they released a declaration and in their declaration. These were Melanesian editors, people like Stanley, not sure if Stanley if Stanley attended that event but it was mixed of editors from the Melanesian countries. So I made the point in their declaration I'll just quote from them. The media is ready to work with all parties that want to improve the social media landscape. There is an urgent need for the media to assert its role as a source of accurate and impartial information, and to play a role in building social media literacy and public understanding of how to identify credible sources of information. The comment made back in November 2019. Now that we're in a different era. I think is even more relevant than it was when it was first released. And the point to make about that also is that the challenges that the Fiji media and other specific media are facing are quite daunting. The power of social media channels and the way they've been used in a manipulative and inauthentic way. A recent report that came out of a think tank here in Australia detailed the development the of an economy of cheap digital labor based in some Southeast Asian countries like the Philippines, whereby web based content is being produced for hire, essentially, clients are paying for web based content to be produced and disseminated widely widely through various social media channels the report was called influence for hire. It's a very worrying development. And it may well be that that economy couldn't, you know, could establish itself in the Pacific Islands and possibly even in Fiji. It will undermine the ethical basis of what we do as journalists. And it will also muddy the water in relation to the ability of our audiences our citizen audiences to differentiate between accurate and impartial information and and manipulative or inauthentic content. So that's, I think, a development to to watch, including the one that Shalene mentioned in relation to activities by foreign governments, moving into establishing relationships with with the media in the Pacific. Thanks for that. Please go ahead. Oh, sorry. Thank you very much. I thought Dr. Shalene was going because he was on mute. Okay, no problem. No, I think, look, this is going to be as I've always been said it's, it's going to be working progress. I think from the Fijian Media Association. One of our key focuses training and development. Because the link, one of the key issues that we're facing at the moment is keeping our good people in the industry. And the media in Fiji is very young. It's a very young journalistic journalism, journalistic poor. I'd say most of our journeys are under 30. 60, 70, probably even 80%. And we, we see training and development is a key, key issue that needs to be undertaken from within the industry and working with the journalism schools to to ensure that you know we have a quality as you know as Dr. Shalene said the quality is important for me is important for media freedom. And we have to, we know we have to respond to some of them in developing critical analysis. Working into the things that need more attention in depth journalism and getting the required resources that's that's that's needed to, to establish quality, quality media services. And of course there's also the challenges of social media, and a lot of the media organizations are adapting to it. During this pandemic, you know a lot of people were turning. If you're beginning on where you stood. A lot of people are turning to social media for for the news, but I actually saw that a lot of people actually get kept coming back to check the mainstream media and what was the credible news. You know, after things that circulated for a day or two, they would come in check the mainstream media to check if the news news was credible. It was accurate. So the credibility is important for the media. The elections are 2322 elections coming up. And that's going to be a challenging experience I look forward to seeing the report by Shalendra and Nilesh. That'll be interesting to see, because, as I said, for the media, it's always working progress it's always developing. It always have to be adjusting it has to be dynamic and responding to, to all the challenges this face but I can sense that there's a great. You know there's more boldness in the media now in terms of how they're coming up. It's going to take a while for some obviously there's some still some things hanging over the heads. But that will be something you know we need to work on together on this journey to you know to have real good media services for the people of the country. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to very quickly to what I said I think these are the major problems affecting media not only in Fiji, but the region if you look at social media for example there's a lot of abuse or social media region wide. What's happening is I've written about this governments are passing legislation to contain social media mainstream media is getting caught in the crossfire, even though mainstream media is not part of the abuse. Governments are either being opportunistic and they are roping in mainstream media as well in an effort to control mainstream media, or it's just happening by, by chance. So mainstream media is a bit of a victim of what's happening in the social media sphere. The other things Stanley mentioned, I think there's the biggest problem journalists journalism faces in the region. There's the high turnover rate. We have one of the least qualified, most under trained and youngest journalistic force in the world in the Pacific region. And this is because the media organizations, they are not competitive in terms of salary. I'm not saying media organizations are not paying good salaries. They are not paying. They are not able to compete. So there's this huge turnover rate. This is not a new problem. This problem has been with us for a very long time. And this I think one of the most difficult problems for us to solve, because the media organizations will they ever be able to compete in terms of salary in order to retain staff and build capacity. So you know when people criticize the standard journalism in the Pacific, they need to factor in all these challenges that media in the region face. And that way I think the feedback will be more will be more fair. Thank you. Thank you Dr Shalane and Dr Steve as well as Stanley for sharing your expertise on the subject. And unfortunately we have run out of time to continue this conversation but some of the things that were key coming out from everyone's presentation was the fact that PG is perhaps not a good place for journalists because there are existing legislative frameworks that disable investigative journalism and is something that needs to be worked on as a country and perhaps really look at the legislative frameworks and acts that surround the media. Before we close off. There's a request from the organizers, if we can all go on to video to take a group shot, because unfortunately we haven't been able to gather. The pandemic and we had to do this which really can please all come on video so we can take a group shot please. Hi everyone. Give your best smile. I'll take another one. One, two. Thank you, Roger. And thank you everybody for joining us tuning in from wherever you were. And with limited internet that we still had good viewership and great questions coming in. And we look forward to having you on another set of webinars with the international idea. Thank you. Thank you.