Singapore-style press control? Not in Fiji

My article comparing press control systems in Fiji and Singapore has now been published online by Sage and will be forthcoming in the April issue of the A-ranked journal International Communication Gazette, which is published out of the Netherlands. It is a revised version of a paper I presented at the 2011 Fiji Literary Festival. Here's the abstract:

Constraints imposed on the press in Fiji under the 2010 Media Decree have been compared with the system of press control in Singapore. The two systems are, however, quite different. The type of hegemonic control that has been achieved in Singapore is unlikely to be replicated in Fiji. The press in Singapore was brought to heel over a period of decades through regulation, including licensing, and legal intimidation in a sophisticated system that utilizes corporate control to ensure that journalists exercise self-censorship. A military dictatorship in place in Fiji since 2006 instead criminalized journalism ethics in the Media Decree and has engaged in repression and censorship of journalists. Fiji’s press system, and the regime’s attempts to control it, were the subject of intense scrutiny in advance of elections planned for September 2014.

The thrust of the article is that those who liken the crude system of press control introduced by the 2010 Fiji Media Decree to the subtle and insidious system in Singapore are greatly mistaken. The government in Singapore has developed and continually tightened its grip on that country's press over the past 40 years or so. Newspaper companies are required by the 1974 Newspaper and Printing Presses Act to trade shares on the stock exchange. A number of management shares are required to be held by the government, which as a result is entitled to appoint directors to the company's board. The resulting top-down control has brought self-censorship which has been called 'Singapore's shame'. The foreign press has been brought to heel by a series of economic disincentives to criticise the Singapore regime, including huge damage awards for libel awarded by a captive judiciary and the banning or limiting of circulation for offending publications.

Fiji, on the other hand, has simply criminalised the former code of ethics of the defunct Media Council, threatening fines and even jail sentences in the Media Decree for what were once ethical violations. Foreign journalists who dare to report critically on the regime, such as Michael Field and Sean Dorney, are simply banned from the country, which of course doesn't prevent them from reporting critically. Censorship imposed under the Public Emergency Regulation has conditioned journalists to refrain from criticising the regime, and media outlets that do dare to question dictator Frank Bainimarama are dealt with harshly. Recent examples of that include the Fiji Times being hit with a $300,000 fine for reprinting a soccer story from New Zealand that included a comment from a FIFA official questioning the independence of Fiji's judiciary, and Fiji TV being put on a series of six-month broadcasting licences (as opposed to the usually 12-years) under the TV Decree, which was imposed shortly after it aired interviews with two former prime ministers who questioned the need for a new constitution.

So how did the misconception arise that Fiji's Media Decree was patterned after Singapore's repressive press model? It likely began with the controversial 2008 Anthony Report, which urged that 'wise restraints . . . be culled from the Singapore legislation on the establishment of a Media Development Authority.' The dictator then called on the media to be more like the Singapore media, 'not pro this Government or any government but pro-Fiji nation.' Many thus assumed that the resulting Media Decree was patterned after Singapore's system, and the myth was perpetuated by a Radio Australia interview. A comparison of the Media Decree with Singapore legislation published in the Pacific Journalism Review concluded that 'many of the sections were copied word-for-word' from Singapore's 2003 Media Development Act. The comparison, which was authored by a prominent Fiji public relations executive while he was a graduate student at Bond University in Australia, was correct as far as it went. It failed to apprehend, however, that Singapore's Media Development Act regulated only broadcasting and online media. Newspapers were regulated by the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. How did that gaffe slip through the peer-review process? No wonder PJR is a B-ranked journal.

Regime propagandists throw in the towel

The silence from Grubby has been deafening these past few months, and now Croz has announced that he’s decided to “put the blog on hold for a few months.” This can only mean that these two shameless propagandists have outlived their usefulness to the regime. Frank Bainimarama’s military junta has imposed its preferred constitution on the country, one which continues to limit human rights as if the nation was still under martial law. It has silenced dissenting voices inside the country with its intimidation tactics against the Fiji Times and Fiji TV. It has obviously given up on trying to convince the rest of the world of the rightness of its actions because it must know by now that there will be no putting lipstick on this pig. 

The Old Whore From Horowhenua

Just as they did with Time magazine in August, the junta leaders refused to speak with a visiting American reporter recently. “Bainimarama declined an interview with The Associated Press, as did his right-hand man, Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum,” noted AP journalist Nick Perry in a feature article that went out to thousands of media outlets worldwide last week. “Qorvis, whose clients also include Sri Lanka and Equatorial Guinea, did not respond to interview requests.” The junta is obviously gun-shy after its Al Jazeera experience last April, in which correspondent Andrew Thomas scored a sit-down, on-camera interview with Bainimarama, only to hit him with this zinger: “Are you confident that you will win next year’s election and is that because you’ve essentially rigged the constitution to make sure you do get elected?” The dictator’s spluttering response was a classic, and worth watching over and over just for amusement. “You don’t rig constitution,” protested Bainimarama as the camera rolled. “The constitution is for the people of the Fiji. You think I did all this just to rig the constitution?” Um, yes?

Perry’s 1,200-word feature, which went out to the AP’s 1,700 member newspapers and more than 5,000 radio and TV stations in the U.S., plus thousands of other subscribers, included interviews that simply could not be published or broadcast in Fiji given the repressive media environment there currently. “He’s committed treason, and he must account for it,” said UFDF leader Mick Beddoes of Bainimarama. Perry even managed to get a few words from Yash Ghai, the former head of the Constitution Commission who has rarely been heard from since his ungraceful exit from the country almost a year ago. “They didn't particularly want an independent process,” Ghai said of the sham that ended with the ceremonial torching of his commission’s draft constitution, which proposed to restore human rights limited by the junta in innumerable decrees. “Having agreed to it, they changed their minds.”

Perry’s dissection of the junta’s malefactions, which a rudimentary Google search shows was published on more than 7,000 websites, including those of Business Week and Yahoo, left no doubt that the junta is steering a course closer to that of certain authoritarian regimes than to anything that might be described as democratic.

Bainimarama has since worked to improve ties with countries including Russia, North Korea, Turkey and, most importantly, China. Fiji announced this year that 300 senior government and agency officials would be trained in leadership skills in China.

Meanwhile, the regime continues what I call its “mushroom” strategy with Fijians – keep them in the dark and feed them B.S. A classic example of the latter which brought gales of laughter the other day was when Bainimarama told the A-G’s conference that his Media Decree allows for investigative reporting and “especially journalists holding public office holders more accountable.” Puh-lease! How stupid do they think Fijians are? Wait, don’t answer that.

“We look to our journalists to assist in the process of introducing a genuine democracy," he said. "The Media Authority doesn't exist to wield a big stick and inhibit public discourse. It exists to remind the media of its ultimate obligation to report with scrupulous fairness and balance in the interests of every Fijian."

So perhaps it’s no wonder that Grubby and Croz should bow out of this Bizarro World spectacle. Grubby has hardly been heard from since August, when he went after Bruce Hill of ABC so unfairly that I had to challenge him on Facebook. It was nothing short of Grubbygeddon. He has obviously found out the hard way that if he wants to be a self-respecting journalist in Australia, he can’t be a propagandist for a Third World dictatorship at the same time.

As for Croz, he is obviously tired of butting his head against the brick wall that is Bainimarama’s stupidity. The Old Whore From Horowhenua, as Fiji Democracy Now splendidly dubbed him, says he has “run out of new things to write about.” It’s more likely that he’s finally come to realize that nobody’s listening.

There was a time when I immodestly thought the blog  had a role to play in modifying opinions. Then, slowly, reality checked in. The New Zealand media and government are not interested in different perspectives. They have their minds made up. The opponents to the Bainimarama government likewise. And I doubt any senior member of the Fiji government even reads the blog.

It seems my work here is done. But don’t worry. If either of these creeps starts with the propaganda again, I’ll be right there to shine a light on it. Bula vinaka, Fiji!

Frank stiffs Time – and pays the price

Perhaps Fiji’s dictator forgot for a moment (again) that his omnipotence over news media doesn’t extend beyond the country’s fringing reefs and that he can’t fine or jail or bash overseas journalists who speak ill of his regime. Maybe he was so taken with his new media strategy of silence – which has served to muzzle Fiji’s domestic journalists because of his Media Decree’s requirement for “balance” – that he thought he could use it effectively on one of the world’s great magazines. Once again he has learned to his chagrin that real journalists are not so easily cowed.

The latest example of Frank Bainimarama’s stupidity – or more likely that of his media dominatrix Shazzer Smith-Johns – has now snapped back in his face all over the pages of Time magazine. (Hat tip to the ever vigilant Bubu for unearthing this little gem.) The magazine has used the dictator’s own intransigence against him in posting the most scathing indictment yet of the junta’s media strategy, not to mention laying bare the damage the military regime has been doing to Fiji’s economy for the past few years.

Time correspondent Ian Lloyd Neubauer was tipped off to the appalling situation with foreign investment in Fiji by his DJ buddy Bar’el Wachtel, who told him about what happened last week at the Cloud 9 resort near Nadi, which opened in June. Wachtel recently came from the Maldives to spin tunes at the resort’s floating Club 9, which is moored less than a kilometre from the Cloudbreak reef legendary with surfers. As is often the case in Fiji, the idyllic image presented to tourists was soon shattered by the reality of the country’s tribal lawlessness. The floating restaurant/bar, as was well reported by Fiji media, was briefly cut adrift from its moorings last Wednesday by machete-wielding thugs in a brazen daylight raid. Neubauer traveled to Fiji from Australia to investigate, and he soon learned of other such disturbing attacks on tourist facilities. The raid on Cloud 9, he reported, was “but one in a long line of clashes between indigenous landowners and investors in Fiji.” The halting of a multimillion-dollar expansion project at Vuda Marina earlier this year and the severing of costly zip-line cables last month in the Sabeto Valley were other examples he uncovered. Neubauer used a cutting quote in his report from the owner of the zip lines, which were in a new jungle-adventure park where locals also “pointlessly” poisoned hundreds of fish.

“They still eat people in Fiji,” says the park’s American owner, Kevin Purser, in reference to the unsavory past of what were once known as the Cannibal Isles. “Only now they do it in a different way.”

Ouch! Neubauer followed that comment with one from the junta’s least favorite overseas academic. (Although surely I must be pushing hard for that honour.)

“People take the law into their own hands because that is [the] way things are done in Fiji,” adds Brij Lal, Fiji expert and professor at Australian National University. “There is no real guidance on what people should and should not do.”

The regime will be reeling from that one-two combination, but Neubauer was only just getting warmed up. He followed that salvo with his own damning indictment that put the quotes into context and for a finishing blow added a coup de grace from Lal.

It’s comments like these that put a spotlight on business stability in a country that has seen foreign investment plummet from $450 million in 2009 to a paltry $16 million last year. . . . Says Lal: “Investor confidence will only increase when there is proper rule of law and clarity over ownership.”

Like any good journalist would, Neubauer attempted to balance his story with comment from the interim government. He dutifully submitted his request for an interview with Bainimarama. “But after spending 10 days in hotel rooms while my request was passed backward and forward to members of his inner circle, the interview was denied.” Unlike journalists in Fiji, who are forced to labour under the Media Decree, that didn’t stop him from telling his story. After all, as well-trained journalists realise, you don’t HAVE to get comment from all sides to fulfill the requirement for balance. You only have to give them the opportunity to comment. If they don't want to give their side of the story, you can report that, too. And so not only did Bainimarama’s refusal to comment get reported in Time magazine, but so did the reasons behind it.

Fiji’s military government has refused to comment on the raid at Cloud 9 or the security of tourists and investors in the country. That doesn’t come as a big surprise given its vexed relationship with the media. Fiji’s once-dynamic press has been reduced to a docile government mouthpiece since the army seized power in a 2006 coup, while foreign reporters who rock the boat face deportation.

So again the dictator has egg all over his face, as does the country. Neubauer aptly concluded his article by quoting from his DJ buddy, who might also have expressed the sentiments of many Fiji journalists. “I expected doing business in Fiji would be hard,” Wachtel says, “though not this hard.” 

Case studies in self-censorship #1: FLP calls for caretaker government

Vijay Narayan denies that self-censorship is a problem in Fiji journalism and took me to task last year for telling Radio Australia it was. He demanded to know what study I had conducted to prove my contention. Legend FM and its sister stations ran news items on consecutive days lambasting me for speaking without proof. They even conducted a poll of Fiji journalists (four in total), all of whom denied practising self censorship, as if any would admit to the shameful practice.

Forget for a moment that others actually did offer empirical evidence that self-censorship is endemic in Fiji under the current reign of terror. Never mind that self-censorship is difficult to "prove" in a business as subjective as news, where story selection is largely a matter of opinion. But those who consume Fiji media daily and also pay attention to overseas media and the freedom blogs know that some stories simply aren't covered in Fiji. Many are given a regime-friendly spin, always putting the dictatorship's response first. Self-censorship, according to the latest research, is still a "severe" problem in Fiji. Unless that changes in the next year, planned elections cannot be free and fair because of the advantage it would give dictator Frank Bainimarma, who plans to stand for election as prime minister.

But while statistical proof of self-censorship might be difficult to assemble, circumstantial evidence can be gathered to provide evidence sufficient for an informed opinion, at least. This can be done using the "case" method, in which case studies are presented. By examining what stories were covered by whom and how, conclusions can be drawn. So let's pick a recent story and see how it was covered. How about the Fiji Labour Party's annual Delegates Conference, which was held in Lautoka last weekend? Political party conventions, after all, are a staple of political journalism in democracies around the world. Media coverage of these events is important because it provides voters with information about the party's platform that helps them to make informed voting decisions. In the U.S. and Canada, they are usually telecast live, with journalists providing breathless running commentary. So what kind of coverage did the FLP conference get?

• Fiji Live was the only media outlet to run a story on Saturday. The article by Reginald Chandar focused on the FLP's call for a caretaker government to "take charge of the process of restoring Fiji to democratic and constitutional rule." The online-only publication has proved fairly fearless in covering national politics. In my search last January for any published criticism of the regime's rejection of the Ghai Draft, Fiji Live was the only domestic media outlet to have run any. 

• Government-controlled FBC ran a story the next day and included at the end of it a comment from Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, whose brother Riyaz is CEO of FBC.  The comment, which was the only one in the story, left no doubt that the regime would ignore the FLP's call for a caretaker government, which the Ghai Draft also identified as essential for free and fair elections. "The Prime Minister has already set out a roadmap to the lead-up of the elections of September, 2014, and that has been the position that government has always adhered to." 

• Radio New Zealand International also ran a story on Sunday. It also focused on the FLP's call for a caretaker government, but it did not include any comments.

• The Fiji Sun didn't run a story until Monday, but it was a substantial 763 words and listed five of the resolutions passed at the conference in addition to the call for a caretaker government. Instead of leading with the FLP's insistence that the Bainimarama regime step down prior to elections, however, the article by Rosi Doviverata led with the A-G's insistence that it would not happen, lifting his comments straight off FBC's story, which it credited. In fact, the Sun story's first 200 words were devoted to that angle, after which a hard news lede curiously appeared, focusing on the FLP call and quoting party leader Mahendra Chaudhry. As if to explain why it led with the reaction, the story refered to "another" and "the latest" FLP call for a caretaker government. This suggests that Sun editors considered the story old news, which is arguably true.

• The Fiji Times also ran a story on Monday under the byline of Maciu Malo, but it was only 150 words long. Instead of focusing on the FLP's call for a caretaker government, it led with its resolution calling for the Great Council of Chiefs to be reinstated. While it listed numerous other resolutions that were passed, it did not mention the call for a caretaker government.

So who's missing? There are several notable media outlets that didn't appear to cover the story at all. 

• While the string of radio stations under Narayan's news direction provide probably the most comprehensive news coverage in the country, I could find no story on the FLP conference listed on CFL's website Fiji Village.

• Fiji TV also does not seem to have run a story. At least, I couldn't find one listed on their newscasts. Neither was the FLP conference the subject of its Sunday public affairs programme Close Up.

• ABC's Pacific Beat, which normally covers Fiji politics like a glove, does not appear to have run a story.

The omissions are glaring, but not wholly inexplicable. Fiji TV has been operating under six month licences for the past year after coming under government fire for airing interviews with two former prime ministers who criticised the constitutional review process. The regime then passed the TV Decree, which allows it to yank the licence of any TV station that violates the Media Decree. It recently appointed a news manager straight from the army who is said to be the regime's inside "censor." Pacific Beat came in for withering criticism recently by regime propagandist Grubby Davis for ignoring a speech that was favorable to the dictatorship, then aired a story on it several days after the fact when Davis filed a formal complaint. Could the esteemed ABC have been intimidated by Davis into ignoring the FLP conference? The paltry coverage by the Fiji Times, which totally ignored the call for a caretaker government, is also possibly the product of regime intimidation. The newspaper already has two strikes against it for contempt of court, the most recent of which cost it $300,000. (In baseball, for those not familiar with the game, a third strike puts you "out.") I am told that the regime has threatened in no uncertain terms to put the Times "out of business." Another misstep could prove a serious existential threat. Under the circumstances, it would be understandable if the Times were to look the other way on stories unfavorable to the regime.

But what about CFL? It's possible that a story ran on one or more of its radio stations without making it onto the Fiji Village website, but it is unlikely. For a media outlet that covers Fiji news as thoroughly as it normally does, to ignore the FLP conference is a glaring omission. Hey, Vijay! You guys don't self-censor to suit the regime, do you?

Grubby goes down . . . and withdraws

Illustration by Bubu: "Suicide Bomber vs Scribe Bomber"

Grubby takes to Facebook

Today the brief of a modern Qorvis online operative is social media. Blogging is sooo . . . 2000s. Facebook is the latest thing. One can almost imagine the MINFO confab that blue-skied the latest media strategy. (Sounds like a good topic for Truncated Lounge, our favorite fabulist, who seems to have given up letter writing in favor of digital video.) 

Dissenting voices, which are not allowed in Fiji and are actively suppressed by MINFO, had been detected. Transcripts of Facebook discussion group conversations had doubtless been copied to Shazzer by spies. Perhaps she was even monitoring them herself in real time. Online discussions, after all, are hardly confidential given the cybersurveillance capabilities of the modern state. Apparently that Chinese satellite ship at the Suva wharf can pick almost anything online. 

Just as it had been with MINFO’s blogging strategy a few years ago – injecting regime voices (Grubby, Croz) into an alternative media that had grown up in opposition to the government line – so it would be with Facebook. The campaign would be led, it was decided, by the regime mouthpiece Fiji Sun. The pretense of complaint (Fiji has a complaint-based culture) would be that some criticism of regime propaganda heavyweight Grubby Davis had been heard in the discussions of a group that called itself Friends of Fiji MEDIA. An item was arranged in the Sun’s gossip column Coconut Wireless, which typically serves as the first warning shot to regime critics. It carped that Davis had been denied entry to this group and thus could not defend himself from “attacks” from certain *blush* regime critics. Under the heading “UNFRIENDLY FB LOT,” replacement hitperson Jyoti Pratibha (Leone must be off) officially made the Sun’s – and thus the regime’s – complaint to the impudent journo group.

Seems those so busy attacking our columnist Graham Davis on a closed Facebook forum called Friends of the Fiji Media are refusing to let him in to respond. Scared of their views coming under scrutiny from the vastly more experienced Mr Davis are they? Surely not.

An immediate odor emanated from my laptop as I sniffed that something was up. I argued as best I could against allowing Grubby to infiltrate our group, but its members decided to err on the side of openness, even if it meant opening the door of the chicken coop to the most stentorian propaganda scold in the South Pacific. The Sun approved of the decision, of course, deeming it GOOD SENSE FOR FRIENDS. 

Good to see wiser heads intervene and prevail at that online media forum. Our columnist Graham Davis has been accepted as a member after some intense discussion. Which is what this forum is intended to promote. Right, let’s all now take a deep breath and move on with the constructive discussion.

An agreement of confidentiality prevents me from revealing our subsequent discussions, and I endeavour to honour such agreements whatever the provocation. It has been, needless to say, delightful fun the past few days. Just like old times, eh Grubby? (Sorry, I lapsed into some Canadian there. Take off, eh?) The question is, how long will Grubby abide by his promise of confidentiality? After all, we’re talking about a man who has no compunction about publishing people’s private email exchanges without their permission in aid of his smear campaigns against them. It’s one of his favorite tactics. He did it to me over and over and over.

Now that he has his prized access to Friends of Fiji MEDIA, Grubby can better earn his salary from Qorvis. His blog, after all, has degenerated into the same old circle of tired, predictable voices singing the same old regime refrain. He has kicked off his new online assignment in fine form. In typical underhanded fashion, he has used his new-found access to Friends of Fiji MEDIA group members on Facebook to further smear his latest target, Radio Australia journalist Bruce Hill. Grubby has charged again and again that Hill and ABC are biased against Fiji’s lovable dictator, King Bananarama. This time his bleatings seem to have gained some traction with ABC execs, who after Grubby’s latest complaint obviously ordered a story broadcast first thing Thursday morning on a speech that was given on Monday.  

But his long-held position as Chief Bias Shrew is not where Grubby is now able to show his true worth to Qorvis and the Future of Fiji. With his infiltration of a Facebook group that includes some influential potential critics and opinion leaders, Grubby is now able to do a bit of what they call "data mining" in online lingo. As a new member of our group, Grubby was able to access Hill’s timeline posts and pounced on one that he has now used as further evidence of his bias against Fiji's benevolent dictator. “Could one of my Fiji friends kindly mail me the two pages of today’s edition of the Sun dedicated to having a go at me?” Hill posted on his timeline. “I’m keen to laminate it and put it on my wall. Message me and I will send you my address.” Grubby may well have been clueless, but doubtless Qorvis – and perhaps even Shazzer herself – saw the danger inherent in the notation that “19 people like this.” Levity in particular must be nipped in the bud, according to the regime. Grubby has thus now dragged several of Hill’s unsuspecting Facebook friends into his vendetta by reprinting their coments on his Grubsheet blog.

Gary McMurray Wow 2 pages! you must’ve hit the nail on the head…
Friday at 5:12pm · 1
Murray Hill Well we’ve always known you were a typical leftie drone.
Friday at 5:13pm · 1
Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson yay! congrats… what an honor! I want to read the story asap
Friday at 5:28pm · 1
Lice Movono Rova Send me ur address!
Friday at 5:32pm via mobile · 1

Some of the comments are hilarious, so much so that one suspects Grubby is totally oblivious to the damage he may have done by reprinting them. “Two pages!” oozed Kate Schuetze. “You must be doing a good job then.” James Morrow seemed out of the loop. “What the hell’d you do?” Murray Hill must be Bruce’s brother, as he had an insight into his insolence. “Didn’t say what he was told to of course.” Journalist Barbara Dreaver saw the upside. “Surely that’s worth a ban?” Bruce Hill seemed to almost welcome the idea. “You would have thought so, wouldn’t you? Maybe it’s in the mail.” Dreaver obviously owns a sense of humor, adding: “Fabulous accommodation at Queen Elizabeth barracks.”

So once again Grubby has demonstrated that there are no depths to which he will not descend in waging his “battle of ideas” of behalf of Frankly Bananas and his planned multiracial paradise. If members of Friends of Fiji MEDIA were not nervous enough about letting him into their midst before, they should be now. For his part, Bruce Hill has had enough. You’ll no longer find him listed among the group's members, so Grubby will no longer be able to grab comments off his timeline. Unless . . . nah. Well, maybe it's not that crazy. Perhaps Grubby should send Hill a "friend" request.

Grubby's hypocrisy laid bare [updated twice]

You could practically see the smoke coming out of Grubby’s ears as he spluttered out a protest on his blog today over Radio Australia having “suppressed” – according to him – news favorable to Fiji’s dictatorship. 

He accused RA journalist Bruce Hill of bias and Radio Australia not only of engaging in propaganda, but of a “blatant attempt to manipulate the news agenda.” Apparently the rank hypocrisy inherent in him making such claims simply doesn’t register with Grubby, who admitted last year to being on the payroll of Washington-based Qorvis Communications in its efforts to help polish the image of Fiji’s dictatorship. It needs a lot of polishing, too, after the events of the past eight months, which have seen the junta spike a draft constitution drawn up by a panel of experts and a video circulate on the Internet showing the brutal beating of two escaped prisoners. The latest public relations disaster to befall the regime has seen political parties forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars to the regime mouthpiece Fiji Sun to advertise the assets and income of their candidates while junta honchos continue to refuse to do the same. 

No wonder the regime has seized on any nugget of hope it can find. Grubby’s latest rant on behalf of the junta concerns a speech given earlier this week by Julie Bishop, the Deputy Leader of the Australian Opposition and Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Speaking to the Australia Fiji Business Forum, Bishop promised to work toward restoring Fiji to its previous place in the world if her party is elected in the upcoming vote. “It is now time to rebuild the bridges,” she said. “Should a Coalition Government be elected at some stage this year I commit to ensuring that normalising relations between Australia and Fiji is a priority of an incoming government.” According to Grubby, this position is now “official” Australian government policy. He uses the word twice in one paragraph to reinforce the fact. Worse, Radio Australia failed to pick up on the significance of this sea change in official Australian policy toward Fiji.

Here was the first significant change in official Australian attitudes towards Fiji in the six and a half years since Voreqe Bainimarama’s takeover. . . . By conventional news standards the world over, it signaled a dramatic change in Australian official attitude and deserved to receive the widest coverage. But Radio Australia chose to ignore it.

Australian taxpayers, spluttered Grubby, are entitled to know "by whose authority Hill, and the rest of the Radio Australia editorial team, chose to overlook a major shift in Australian attitude.” The incident, he continued, “raises grave questions about the editorial independence of Radio Australia,” and is “especially egregious in that it involves the overt censorship of an important speech.” Grubby admits that he “has long alleged a campaign of wilful and sustained bias against Fiji by Radio Australia,” but he insists that “previous instances pale into insignificance beside evidence that Radio Australia is willing to subvert the political process in Australia and deny a voice to the alternative government."

It is more than a grave editorial lapse. It is also contrary to law. On the available evidence, it’s a case of the publicly funded broadcaster taking a partisan position in a manner that contravenes every aspect of the ABC’s Charter. This legally requires it – under an act of Parliament – to report without fear or favour in the interests of every Australian.

So let’s take a look at just how newsworthy this story might be, according to accepted principles of news. There is some theory involved here, but suffice it to point out that the word “new” is the root of the word “news.”  This suggests that something old is not necessarily news, and Bishop’s position on working toward normalizing relations with Fiji is hardly new. A cursory web search shows that she articulated it in 2010 and again last year. Plus, as Grubby himself notes, Radio Australia’s Pacific Beat programme already had two items of “new” news on Fiji that day. I'm sure Grubby would admit that Pacific Beat has whole ocean of other countries to cover, and less newsworthy stories occasionally fall by the wayside. Plus, this was a speech by an Opposition politician, and Grubby has made his view perfectly clear that this species deserve very wary news coverage indeed, lest they actually be *shudder* playing politics.

There were other newsworthy bits in Bishop’s speech which Grubby and his regime masters . . . er, mistress might be less enthusiastic about. Like the part about just what the Fiji junta will have to deliver in order to bring free and fair elections next year and thus be welcomed back into the international community. She pointed out three in particular that are not likely to go over well with the regime.

1. It is essential that oppositions and politicians have the freedom to hold the government to account.
2. It is essential that an independent judiciary exists to adjudicate disputes and to interpret the law.
3. A free and unfettered media might be a complete pain in the neck for politicians but it is essential to hold all the sides of politics to account on behalf of the people.

So don’t go getting your hopes up, Grubby. There is little likelihood of any of those three conditions being met any time soon. Even if the Coalition wins the election, Frank and Aiyaz have little chance of getting back into Australia’s “official” good graces anytime soon, the way they are going.

UPDATE: The sun has come up in Melbourne, and apparently the heat from Grubby's blast has been felt. Radio Australia has now reported on Bishop’s speech, despite the fact it was delivered on Monday and is hardly fresh, no doubt due to the complaint from our favorite propagandist. You can cash your cheque knowing you have done your job well, Graham.

UPDATE: This has brought the requisite crowing from Grubby, who chronicles the prompt response to his email to senior ABC executive, Alan Sunderland, who handles formal complaints on behalf of the news division. Hardly satisfied, of course, Grubby is demanding nothing less than an inquiry. "The whole episode demands an explanation," he fulminates, no doubt preening. "There should be an inquiry into why Radio Australia chose not to broadcast a tape that was in its possession for nearly three days."