A complaint to the Media Authority

25 September 2012

Professor Subramani

Media Tribunal

Media Industry Development Authority

Suva, Fiji

BY EMAIL

Dear Professor Subramani,

I wish to make a complaint under the Media Industry Development Decree 2010 against Communications Fiji Limited, its reporter Dhanjay Deo, and its News Director Vijay Narayan. The Media Code of Ethics and Practice contained in Schedule 1 of the Decree sets out guidelines for interviewing and for what information journalists may and may not report.

Section 5, “Subterfuge” states: 

Media must use straightforward means to obtain information. . . .  Use of subterfuge, false identity, or covert recording to do so can be justified only in rare circumstances where the material sought ought to be published in the public interest and could not be obtained in any other way.

Section 23, “Interviews” states: 

Interviews for print, electronic media, radio and television must be arranged, conducted, and edited fairly and honestly. Potential interviewees are entitled to know in advance the format, subject, and purpose of their interview. . . .

I wish to complain that Communications Fiji Limited and its reporter Dhanjay Deo used subterfuge in that he did not use straightforward means to obtain information. He also did not arrange an interview with me fairly and honestly, as he did not reveal the true purpose of the interview. In fact, he deceived me as to the true purpose of the interview. I also wish to complain that Communications Fiji Limited and Vijay Narayan published, by broadcasting it on CFL’s radio stations including Legend FM and FM96, and by reporting it on its website Fijivillage.com, information that was obtained by means that were not straightforward, fair or honest. Specifically, they published comments that I made not in an interview but which I instead made in a complaint to Mr Narayan about my interview with Mr Deo. The facts are as follows.

I received a phone call on 11 September from Legend FM reporter Dhanjay Deo, who asked if I would grant him an interview about the symposium on Media and Democracy in the South Pacific we had held at USP the previous week. I thought that was a bit odd because the symposium had ended five days earlier, but I was happy to oblige. It didn’t take long before I realized that Mr Deo was not interested in talking about our symposium at all, but instead was upset about an interview I had given to Radio Australia the day before. In it, I said that despite the lifting in January of censorship under the Public Emergency Regulation, it was apparent that journalists in Fiji are practicing self-censorship in advance of the first rulings from your Tribunal. Mr Deo thus used subterfuge to obtain an interview with me on a subject other than what he told me he would be interviewing me about.

Mr Deo complained during our interview that my comments had gone out internationally. Had I done any research to back up my claim of self-censorship? What proof did I have for this? No, I told him, I hadn’t done a scientific study on this, but I hoped to do so soon because it seems to be a big problem here. I have spoken with a number of Fiji journalists, I assured him, and from what I could tell there is a climate of fear and uncertainty in the country’s news media currently. Now that they are subject to possible fines and even prison sentences if they take a wrong step in their line of work, there seems to be a natural reluctance on the part of journalists to question authority. It’s not what you see in the Fiji media, I told him, it’s what you don’t see. He kept browbeating me and interrupting me. Where was my proof? Where was my study? I asked him to let me answer his questions, but he kept interrupting me, so I ended the interview. He called me back. I told him I would not speak to him again until he apologized for his rude behavior. He called back again, and again. Each time I refused to talk to him. I then sent an email of complaint to CFL News Director Vijay Narayan.

I soon received a telephone call from Mr Narayan. I told him I have never been treated so rudely by an interviewer in decades of giving media interviews, but he seemed to have no problem with the way his reporter treated me. Where did they get their lessons in interviewing, I asked him, from watching BBC Hardtalk? Suffice it to say I didn’t get very far in my complaint to Mr Narayan. I then noticed that CFL had posted a story on its website Fijivillage.com, headlined: “Claims made but no proper survey done.” (Attached) It criticised me for having no evidence to back up my claim that self-censorship was widespread among Fiji journalists. The story also played on CFL radio stations, including FM 96 and Legend FM. I felt that this was unfair “gotcha” journalism, and that I had been lied to about the purpose of my interview with Mr Deo.

Mr Narayan then compounded the unethical behaviour by CFL. I noticed in looking at the story online later on 11 September that it had been updated at 5:15 that afternoon. It added this line:

He also said that we were rude and thinks that we are running a newsroom like BBC Hardtalk.

I never said that to Mr Deo in my interview with him. I said that to Mr Narayan in complaining about his reporter’s rudeness. Can a news director add to a reporter’s story something said to him by an interview subject in a complaint about the interviewer? Not under my reading of the Media Code of Ethics and Practice contained in Schedule 1 of the Media Decree. I asked Mr Narayan to preserve the audio of my interview with Mr Deo, as it would prove that a published comment was made not in an interview with his reporter but instead in a telephone call of complaint to him. Mr Narayan informed me that the audio had been erased. He admitted what he did, however, in an email to me of 12 September, a copy of which is attached.

After addressing your complaint about Dhanjay, I resumed the original line of questions that Dhanjay had been unable to complete in his interview with you.

The problem with that explanation is that he did not inform me he was interviewing me. I was obviously, from what Mr Narayan quoted me as saying, not addressing the subject of the original interview. Instead I was complaining about his reporter’s conduct. I would never have agreed to another interview due to the agitated state I was in as a result of what I had just been through. Mr Narayan is thus guilty of unethical behavior for not arranging and conducting an interview openly and fairly and/or for failing to inform me in advance of the format, subject, and purpose of their interview, or even that I was being interviewed for publication and/or broadcast.

As if to confirm that they were conducting a vendetta against me, Communications Fiji Limited, Mr Deo, and Mr Narayan published another story the following day, a copy of which is also attached. It purported to show that self-censorship was not being practiced by journalists in Fiji by interviewing several journalists who denied the practice. It again named me and reported that the managers of several media outlets denied that I had ever spoken to any of their journalists. This subsequent story arguably amounts to deceiving the public in an attempt to further smear me. Journalists could hardly be expected to admit to such a shameful practice self-censorship. Their denying it hardly disproves its existence. Self-censorship among Fiji journalists has been loudly complained of by numerous stakeholders recently. For CFL and its staff to attack me on this issue is cowardly in the extreme.

I believe that what Mr Deo did on 11 September contravened Section 5, “Subterfuge” and/or Section 23, “Interviews” of the Media Code of Ethics and Practice contained in Schedule 1 of the Media Industry Development Decree 2010. I believe that what Mr Narayan did on 11 September also contravened Section 5 and/or Section 23 of the Media Code of Ethics and Practice. I trust that you will impose appropriate penalties on them and on their employer, Communications Fiji Limited. I hope that this would include the broadcast and publishing online of a sincere apology to myself for the unethical treatment to which I have been subject. The broadcast should be given the same prominence and frequency that the original story was given across all of CFL’s stations on which it was broadcast.

The standards of journalism in Fiji badly need improving. My understanding is that this is the intent of the statutory regulations enshrined in the Media Code of Ethics and Practice contained in Schedule 1 of the Media Industry Development Decree 2010. People need to be protected from the type of unethical and now illegal “gutter” journalism practiced by Communications Fiji Limited and at least some of its staff.

I would ask you to require your deputy, Matai Akauola, to recuse himself from dealing with this complaint in any way due to the enmity he has displayed to me in the past.

I look forward to receiving from you a confirmation that this complaint has been received and that it will be given due consideration.

Sincerely,

Marc Edge, PhD

Co-ordinator, Discipline of Journalism

University of the South Pacific

Grubby blogger opens up a can of worms on himself

Blowhard blogger Graham Davis, an Australian who likes to describe himself as an “international award-winning journalist,” has gone too far this time. Not only am I starting to fight back (watch out, Fiji Sun), but others are joining the fray as well. Some are objecting to his gutter attacks on me. They point out that the ongoing jihad against me by Davis and others is a case of history repeating itself, with the same types of attacks having been made a decade ago on the head of journalism at USP by some of the very same people.

But the most delicious part of it all is that Davis has left himself wide open to criticism after blowing his own cover by adding a disclaimer to the bottom of his latest blog entry: “Graham Davis is now a part-time advisor to Qorvis Communications.” Perhaps he felt that was something to be proud of, but U.S.-based Qorvis, which advises the military . . . er, interim government in Fiji on public relations matters, has a nasty reputation worldwide. Much of the work Qorvis does on behalf of repressive regimes apparently consists of manipulating social media content, including sending out false information on Twitter, Facebook, and . . . well, blogs.

Some commenters on the Grubsheet blog are saying they knew it all along. “For too long those in the journalism world suspected you were attached to Qorvis,” remarked a reader using the handle Media Consultant. “Graham has outed himself,” crowed Shoepolish. “I find it sad that a once respected journalist has fallen so low,” wrote Bye Bye Aiyarse. Others demanded details of the financial arrangements. “How much are you pocketting every month from the poor of Fiji,” asked Review Commentator. But the poster who got in the most cutting jibes was doubtless the aptly-named Graham is a sell out, who began by insulting Davis with irony. “Congratulations on your new job! It is about time you get paid for your loyal support for Bainimarama and Khaiyum. It is pleasing to see in this new meritocracy that hard work and arse licking is being rewarded.” The poster soon got down to brass tacks, excoriating Davis: “You are a hypocrite of the worst kind.”

To think you once worked for the BBC world service which has a proud tradition of delivering unbiased news to the repressed people of the world. What would your fellow journalists from the BBC have to say about one of their former colleagues being paid to peddle propaganda for a dictator. You have sold out. You are a Judas and you can no longer call yourself a journalist.

To give Davis credit, he allows readers their say, and then gives it back in spades. “There is a strange notion of some kind of conspiracy here,” he replied, insisting: “There is none.” Graham is a sell out saw an opening and pounced. “His career is over as a serious journalist because no longer is he seeking out the truth for his readers,” the poster declared. “He is now paid to manipulate the truth to help keep a dictator in power.”

Understand that every word written from Davis on Fiji from now on will be written to a brief from Qorvis and the Ministry of Information. Every word will now be approved by them. This is nothing new for Davis as he has been working for them unpaid for a number of months in order to get the contract.

Davis protested the purity of his intentions. “It is my opinion that I peddle, not propaganda for the regime, Qorvis or anyone else. My views are genuinely held and heartfelt.” Others then interrupted with side issues what was getting to be a very watchable catfight, and it was almost 24 hours before Graham is a sell out resumed the assault, this time with telling effect.

Graham is a sell out: Can you give me another example of an award winning journalist being paid by a dictator’s PR firm who writes independently and objectively on the dictatorship?

Graham Davis: Were I to have embraced my opinions as a direct result of my relationship with Qorvis, you would have a point. But my support for the multiracial agenda of the Bainimarama government is long-standing and pre-dates the relationship by many years. Nice try, though.

Graham is a sell out: You claim your views have not been changed by payment so let me re-word my question. Can you think of any other award winning journalist who shared exactly the same views and opinions as human rights abusing dictator?

Graham Davis: I will not be interrogated by an anonymous, faceless nobody. I have given you an answer. This is merely rude and gratuitous. Bugger off.

This from the man who took me to task for telling him to “drop dead” when he accused me of hubris. Graham is a sell out was obviously cutting Davis to the quick. I could almost see his porcine visage reddening as he composed his profane reply, with spittle forming at the corners of his mouth. Graham is a sell out kept up the assault, baiting Davis.

Graham is a sell out: I have been taken to the camp for expressing my views and so I wish to remain anonymous.. Though I am a bit of a showoff and I would love to speak openly so I will tell you what. You start exposing the Human Rights abuses of this regime and do some investigative journalism on Fiji, instead of your regime puff pieces, and I will post on grubsheet under my real name.

Graham Davis: Honestly, aren’t we Mr Goody Two Shoes personified. Human rights abuses? What about the abuse of the human rights of 40 per cent of the population by the Qarase Government? You choose to cast me as a spin doctor for the dictator. Fine. But what are you doing to assist Fiji back to democratic rule? Hide behind a mask and spruik self-indulgent, self-righteous cant. Again. Bugger off.

Graham is a sell out had carefully baited the line, providing just enough clues to keep Davis wondering who this was. Now the anonymous commenter deftly dropped the bomb and reeled the grubby one in, hook, line, and stinker.

Graham is a sell out: Maybe the next time I meet you at Dilip’s, I will let slip my true feelings and we can have a debate. Sorry not going to happen because now you are a fully paid up informer of the regime.

Graham Davis: So you are in my social circle but you still haven’t got the guts to reveal yourself. How pathetic is that? . . . Citing a friend of mine like you have is a complete disgrace. My opinions are mine, not his. And to drag him into this shows what a low-life you are.

Graham is a sell out: I know his opinions are not yours. As for me being a low life. That may be true. But I have not sold my principles and my credibility for a few lousy bucks.

Dilip is no doubt Suva lawyer Dilip Jamnadas, who is said to be one of Grubsheet’s prime sources of information. Graham is a sell out must have really struck a nerve with Grubby, because Davis never once again engaged his newfound bête noire on subsequent comments he made on the blog entry that was meant to excoriate me. Instead it seems to have blown up in Grubby’s face in more ways than one. Thanks, I really enjoyed that, Graham is a sell out. But you didn’t have to go to all that trouble. No one seems to have noticed that Davis indicted himself in the very first reply he made to a comment on that blog post. In tut-tutting with my foe Thakur Ranjit Singh, Davis let it slip that he has been paid for some time to launch online attacks against me. “I have nothing personal against Marc Edge,” he started to argue before likely realizing no one would buy that line of twaddle.

No, that’s not true. I am annoyed that he has attacked me publicly for doing my job, and especially for raising the legitimate public interest issue of whether he used his position as a senior USP academic to gain a personal benefit from a commercial entity.

Davis was referring, of course, to the Fiji Times “advertorial” I appeared in touting the Suva Point Apartments, which he claimed was unethical for a journalism educator. He demanded to know if I had received anything in return for my endorsement of the new apartment complex on Fletcher Road in Vatuwaqa, where I was the first tenant to move in and which I highly reccomend to anyone. I pointedly ignored his demand until he threatened to take it up with the USP hierarchy and to launch a complaint against the Times with the Media Authority. To save those busy people from being bothered by Grubby, I happily denied taking anything from the Times. He and others have ever since been demanding to know if I received anything from my landlord in exchange for appearing in the article, which I have again ignored, but which I will be happy to deny now.

But it was last May when Graham attacked me for this and other things. He claims his blog is just a “hobby.” But he now admits he has been annoyed with me for some time for fighting back against his blog attacks, or as he puts it, “for doing my job.” Well, a job is something you get paid for, right? It seems the Qorvis quid pro quo has been going on for awhile. Gotcha again, Graham.

Journalists themselves admit there is no self-censorship

Well, I guess that settles that. There is no self-censorship in the Fiji news media, according to CFL. At least that’s the conclusion they have come to after interviewing several of their fellow journalists. This is great news. A lot of needless concern will now be alleviated. Personally, I am greatly relieved that this is settled because, frankly, I was getting worried.

I don't know how I could have been so wrong. And not just me, of course, but others. Like Permanent Secretary for Information Sharon Smith-Johns. Why else would she have urged Fiji journalists to “report fully and without fear or favour” and to not use the Media Decree “as an excuse not to do their jobs.” And apparently other folks have also had their facts backwards, too. Like Matilda Bogner, the United Nations Human Rights representative for the Pacific. She actually DID do a study on this subject for World Press Freedom Day in May. Here's what she said.

It appears that a culture of self-censorship continues to exist for journalists in Fiji. A preliminary media content analysis conducted recently by my office, comparing Fiji’s two main daily newspapers, the Fiji Times and the Fiji Sun, before and after the lifting of the PER, suggests that there has been no distinguishable change in the level of criticism of the Fiji Government observed in either newspaper.

Then there are the women's rights groups in Fiji that say they had newspaper advertisements rejected that highlighted issues concerning the ongoing constitutional review process. Shamima Ali of the Fiji's Women's Crisis Centre said two weeks ago that both daily newspapers in Fiji told them to tone down the language in the ads.

"One of them wanted to have a meeting to tone down the ad, which we refused to do, and a spokesperson from there said 'I hope you understand'," she said. "The other said 'sorry we can't', after deliberating on it for nearly two and a half days."

Talk about a climate of fear. They're even reportedly turning down advertising, which newspapers rarely do. And just yesterday, the Fiji Labour Party demonstrated that it, too, was labouring under an illusion in its submission to the Contitutional Commission hearings. "The media in Fiji continues to operate as though it is still under strict censorship," it said. "Indeed, the environment is still quite substantially coercive and threatening." It cited the Television (Amendment) Decree 52, under which the licence of any television station that contravenes the 2010 Media Decree can be revoked by the minister responsible without appeal, as an example of press intimidation. "We do not have an independent, free, liberated media in Fiji. The fines for incurring the wrath of the regime are so excessive that no media organization would dare fall foul of it."

The repercussions of such a cowed media are fatal for the success of a “free and open” consultation process. Articles, opinions or comments that question the regime or oppose its views are rarely, if ever, run. For instance, not a single mention was made in the news pages of the Fiji Times of the Constitution Commission’s media conference held on 19 July 2012. The Fiji Times ran a feature article two days later buried in the inside pages of its publication. How many people would have read the strong criticism voiced by Commission Chair Professor Yash Ghai, particularly of Decrees 57 and 58?

At our symposium last week, the topic of self-censorship became a bit of a sore point. CFL news director Vijay Narayan, who never responded to my attempts to recruit him to sit on a panel on this topic at our symposium, appeared anyway in his role as a journalist and made a speech from the front row. "Everyone who is commenting on claims that there is widespread self-censorship in the country are making comments without any proper surveys conducted with journalists and media outlets,” he said. To which Fiji Times lawyer Richard Naidu deliciously retorted: “To suggest that the media is not operating under a set of self-censorship rules means that one of us is on the wrong planet.” Watch the video here. In reporting on this controversy today, Alex Perrottet interviewed Fiji TV's legal manager, Tanya Waqanika, who said that Fiji journalists are still afraid to ask tough questions because of the penalties contained in the Media Decree. “The journalists, they see the penalties,” she told Perrottet. "If you were in that situation, and there’s a court case currently against the Fiji Times, for any person, it freaks them out. No one wants to be fined.” Perrottet, who is researching his Master's thesis on this topic at Auckland University of Technology, even gave us a preview of his research on AUT's website Pacific Media Centre.

There is extensive evidence that due to censorship, the print media in Fiji is suffering from self-censorship, as they are not sure where the line will be drawn by the government.

So I don't know why CFL is shooting at me every day. I'm not even the messenger. I'm only an educator. And I obviously have a lot of work to do.

Well, it didn’t take long to answer THAT question!

The day after I posted my last blog entry, I got a phone call from Legend FM reporter Dhanjay Deo, who asked if I would grant him an interview about our symposium on Media and Democracy in the South Pacific last week. I thought that was a bit odd, because it had ended five days earlier, but I was happy to oblige. I am always happy to help journalists in Fiji do their jobs. It didn’t take long before I realized that Mr. Deo was not interested in talking about our symposium, which was a huge success, but instead had a bee in his bonnet about an interview I had given to Bruce Hill of Radio Australia the day before. (Bruce gets me into so much trouble. It’s a wonder I still talk to him.) Deo complained that my comments about media self-censorship in Fiji had gone out internationally. Had I done any research to back up this claim? What proof did I have for this? No, I told him, I hadn’t done a scientific study on this, but I hoped to soon because this seems to be a big problem here. I have spoken with a number of Fiji journalists, I assured him, and from what I can tell, there is a tremendous climate of fear and uncertainty in the country’s news media after the lifting of censorship in January. Now that they are instead subject to provisions of the 2010 Media Decree, which provides fines and even prison sentences for reporters who take a wrong step in their line of work, there seems to be a natural reluctance to question authority. It’s not what you see in the Fiji media, I told him, it's what you don’t see. You don’t see any hard-hitting journalism. Well, I guess he decided to prove me wrong. He kept browbeating me and interrupting me. Where was my proof? Where was my scientific study? I asked him to let me answer his questions, but he had become like a mad dog by then, so I had to hang up. He called me back. I told him I would not speak to him again until he apologized for his rude behavior. He called back again, and again. Each time I refused to talk to him. I then fired off an email of complaint to his boss, Communication Fiji Limited news director Vijay Narayan.

Soon my phone rang again. I fully expected it to be Dhanjay Deo, given that he had called me back a half dozen times or so by then. Instead it was Vijay Narayan. I told him I have never been treated so rudely by an interviewer in decades of giving media interviews, but he seemed to have no problem with the way his reporter treated me. Where did they get their lessons in interviewing, I asked him, from watching BBC Hardtalk? Suffice it to say I didn’t get very far with Mr. Narayan. Then I saw that CFL had posted the story on its website, headlining it “Claims made but no proper survey done.” It basically skewered me for having no evidence to back up my contention that self-censorship was rampant among Fiji journalists. The story also played on the various CFL radio stations, including FM 96, in addition to Legend FM. That’s OK. I can take a bit of “gotcha” journalism. They’re sore at me for criticizing the news media. They’ve taken a lot of heat. Let ’em get it out of their system. I can take it.

But then Vijay Narayan went too far. I noticed in looking at the story online later that it had been updated at 5:15 that afternoon. It added this line:

He also said that we were rude and thinks that we are running a newsroom like BBC Hardtalk.

There’s only one small problem with that. I never said that to Dhanjay Deo. I said that to Vijay Narayan in complaining about his reporter’s rudeness. Can a news director add to a story something said to him by an interview subject in a complaint about the interviewer? Not under my reading of the Media Decree, which sets out some strict guidelines for what journalists can report. Under Section 5, “Subterfuge,” it states: 

Media must use straightforward means to obtain information. . . .  Use of subterfuge, false identity, or covert recording to do so can be justified only in rare circumstances where the material sought ought to be published in the public interest and could not be obtained in any other way.

Publishing comments made in a complaint by a disgruntled interview subject hardly seems like a straightforward means of obtaining information. But wait, it gets better . . .er, worse for Vijay Narayan. Take a look at Section 23, “Interviews.”

Interviews for print, electronic media, radio and television must be arranged, conducted, and edited fairly and honestly. Potential interviewees are entitled to know in advance the format, subject, and purpose of their interview. . . .

Vijay Narayan freely admits what he did. “After addressing your complaint about Dhanjay, I resumed the original line of questions that Dhanjay had been unable to complete in his interview with you,” he told me in an email. The problem with that, of course, is that he didn’t inform me he was interviewing me. I was obviously, from what Narayan quoted me as saying, still complaining about his reporter's conduct and not addressing the subject of the original interview. I would never have agreed to another interview after what I had just been through. So while Dhanjay Deo was guilty of merely being rude and overly aggressive, Vijay Narayan may be guilty of something much worse – an offence under the Media Decree. The matter is now in the hands of CFL Managing Director William Parkinson. If he can get his staff straightened out, and if a suitable apology is issued – and broadcast – that will be the end of it. If not, it will become a matter for the Media Authority. By great good coincidence, we just happen to be studying the Media Decree in my Media Law class soon. This promises to be better than Defamation Week.

Do journalism standards in Fiji need raising?

One of the points of contention that emerged from our symposium on Media and Democracy in the South Pacific at USP last week was whether the standards of journalism in Fiji need raising or not. As usual, the topic became one of bitter disagreement. My understanding when I was hired as Head of Journalism at USP a little more than a year ago was that I was here to help bring standards of journalism instruction at USP up to an international level and thus help to improve journalism in Fiji and across the South Pacific. Having been a journalist in Canada for 20 years, holding a PhD in the subject, and having taught journalism since 1998 at universities in four countries, I am well-qualified to do so. I believe that the need for higher standards in journalism here is USP's official position, as articulated by Deputy Vice-Chancellor Esther Williams in opening the conference. David Robie, a Professor of Journalism at Auckland University of Technology and a former Head of Journalism at USP, disagreed with this contention, however. Then he read a Fiji Times article that covered a paper he had presented. Suddenly Fiji journalism standards didn’t seem too good, as he complained in a letter to the editor.

Your reporter has given no insights into what it is actually about. My interview with your reporter has been reduced to two selective sentences in your newspaper, which is hardly fair and balanced journalism. “Why” is a fundamental tenet of news reporting yet your story does not provide this critical component of any good news story -- context.

The need for Fiji journalism to improve was even stressed by Sharon Smith-Johns, Fiji's Permanent Secretary for Information, who until earlier this year acted as the country's chief censor under the Public Emergency Regulation, which imposed martial law on the country in 2009. In what was undoubtedly the most important message to come out of the symposium, she urged journalists in Fiji to not let the past three years of censorship be an excuse for failing to fully inform Fijians. 

You will hear a lot about self censorship, the notion that journalists in Fiji are too afraid to report fully and without fear or favour. Such fears are understandable in the transition from censorship to freedom. But I urge journalists not to use this as an excuse not to do their jobs. . . . I know some of you have a jaundiced view about the Fiji government's attitude to media freedom. As a country, we are a work in progress. But huge progress has been in achieving genuine democracy.

The naysayers, of course, blame the news media for fomenting the political instability that led to the 2000 coup and advocate tight controls such as contained in the 2010 Media Decree. It provides fines for what were once ethical lapses and even prison sentences for journalists found to have reported something contrary to the national interest, whatever that is. Australian blogger Graham Davis dubbed last week's symposium "Edgefest" and attacked me online and in the Fiji Sun for advocating "total freedom for the local media at a time of intense discussion over the appropriate model for developing countries such as Fiji." He contrasted that with the views of my predecessor as Head of Journalism at USP, Shailendra Singh, who "has advocated more social responsibility."

What Davis does, of course, is hardly journalism. He is, instead, an attack dog devoted to hounding anyone who questions any actions of the Interim Government in Fiji. To suggest that I am not in favour of social responsibility in journalism is a  distortion of the truth. Instead I teach students the need to balance press freedom with responsibility. As an object lesson of the need for social responsibility, I use the example of Yellow Journalism that railroaded the U.S. government into the Spanish-American War in 1898. I often mention how history repeated itself when the U.S. press didn't do its job well enough in the run-up to that country's invasion of Iraq in 2003. I also use the example of press freedom in my country, where it is not absolute as under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but instead is balanced against the rights of others in society not to be subject to hate speech.

If you want to see for yourself some of the discussion that went on at our symposium, as well as interviews with our Chief Guest, Professor Robert Hackett from Canada, and myself, I would suggest watching Fiji TV's excellent "Close Up" programme from Sunday, which can be viewed online here, here, and here.