Chapter 13: The Fiji coup six months on: The role of the media

In the lead up to the coup, relations between the elected government of Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) had been stormy at best. We know that because the news media in Fiji had chronicled, in a rather spectacular fashion, the up and down, love/hate relationship between the two, played out in large part by Mr Qarase himself and the commander of the RFMF, Commodore Frank Bainimarama.

Look back at past issues of the newspapers, as far back as 2001 after the SDL government assumed power, and you will see how bad blood, distrust, disrespect, and the lack of confidence was built up, especially by the military, against the government of Prime Minister Qarase.

Journalists covered this love/hate relationship like any other ‘normal’ story. If Commodore Bainimarama said something nasty about the SDL government, it hit the front page the next day. Then, when Qarase or his minister for home affairs or even the PM’s chief adviser responded, it received prominent coverage the day following. You could be forgiven if you wondered whether the news media was being used by the two parties to out-bid and out-smart each other. This of course raises the question – of course with the benefit of hindsight – as to whether or not the news media in Fiji could have done their job better, been smarter.

To be fair, there are some of us in the industry who, amidst the daily pressure of meeting deadlines and pleasing our editors, did (and do) ponder the way we do our work. Should we, as a rule of thumb, stick to our traditional role of reporting society as we see it, day in day out? We are, after all, the mirror of society. A house is burning in the neighbourhood and that is exactly what you are going to hear in your next radio or television bulletin. You might even have a colour image in the morning newspaper the next day, flames leaping high to the sky from the roof of the burning house.

Thanks to democracy, there is no shortage of critics of this traditional approach to journalism. One such critic is none other than Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki, whom the military regime forcefully sent on leave and then suspended after the 2006 coup. In a paper he had presented to the Attorney-General’s conference in December 2001, he had this to say:

Interestingly, Fatiaki’s last question on balancing ‘bad news’ reports with ‘good news’ was put to a panel of journalists at a seminar held recently at the University of the South Pacific. My response to it was simple; everyone loves a good story and there are many waiting to be told. But if a house is burning, what do you expect me as a reporter to do? Report about how nice the flames looked from where I stood?

I recall one day in 2006, around the middle of the year, wrestling with this very issue over coffee with a colleague who holds a senior position in the newsroom of a daily newspaper. I asked her: Why can’t all media organizations in Fiji decide not to publish or broadcast any story relating to the military/government row? Her response was swift. She didn’t think her own editor would agree to such an idea, as it is a fact that when Bainimarama appears on page one of the newspaper, it sells. Back in the office about an hour later, I received a telephone call from this same friend of mine. She said, ‘Guess what. I related your question to my editor and his response caught me by surprise. He said he would support such a proposition’.^[2] Sadly, that is where the story ended and where such an idea died. Neither my friend nor I are managers or editors, and neither of us were members of the Fiji Media Council, so our powers to influence matters within the industry are virtually nil.

We all know that the news media of any country is not the panacea of all our ills. It can be a force for good, yes, but not all the time. I am one who subscribes to the view that by simply headlining the stormy relationship between Bainimarama and Qarase day in, day out, one cannot expect the two to set aside their widening differences, to simply kiss and make up. I guess in another world, this could have happened. Bainimarama or Qarase, or both, might have woken up one morning, read The Fiji Times’ headline, realized they had overstepped the mark, and resigned.

But we do not live in that world. I wonder, though, what would have happened if the media in Fiji – as one – had decided to impose a ban on any coverage of the Bainimarama/Qarase love/hate relationship? Would it have convinced the two men to get to the negotiating table? I am sceptical that this would have happened. But there would have been no harm in trying. Everybody would have been the winner had this boycott of coverage of the military/government saga worked. On the other hand, if it had not worked, the only losers would have been the two antagonists themselves. They would have missed a great opportunity to resolve their disturbing and very unsettling public row, thereby allowing the nation to fall yet again into the vicious and painful coup cycle the nation had been trying to break away from.

So what was the role of the Fiji news media in the lead up to the coup? It was the traditional role of reporting the deteriorating relationship between the Fiji military and the government it helped install after the 2000 coup.

Did we make a good job of it? Perhaps. Although I believe we could have done the job better by being critical of how we do our work. The ability to think outside the box and look at the bigger picture – the role of the news media in a developing, emerging democracy like Fiji – would have assisted our work greatly.

But what about the belief that it was the media that fuelled the stand-off between Bainimarama and Qarase? I used to hold this belief. Now I am not sure whether or not either man, particularly Bainimarama, would have changed his mind or the course he had decided to take, even if the media had slapped a ban on covering his fight with the other.

Was profit – as argued by Fatiaki way back in 2001 – the driving force in the news media’s coverage of the military/government nasty row? Maybe.

Was it the hope of the news media that, by their coverage of the row, the two institutions and the two men who led them, would meet and resolve to set aside their differences for the sake of the nation? I hope so.

Or would it have been better for the news media if it had taken a less reactive approach – either through a news blackout or through other means – in order to seriously and genuinely assist the attempt of others, such as former Vice-President Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, to get Bainimarama and Qarase to reconcile and get on with the job of nation-building? I certainly wish it had done so.

I know what some will say. That this is not the role of the news media. You are the mirror, you reflect society, not try to engineer it. But my point is, who set that role? And who said that this traditional role of the media can not be changed or adjusted to meet the peculiar needs of a young democracy like ours? Of course I am not for a moment proposing that we turn the news media into a fully fledged lobbying movement. We have plenty of those around.

Think about it; the news media in Fiji has in the past taken on such a role. Until the general election of May 2006, the Fiji Media Council had organized national and healthy debates through its editors’ forum.^[3] Its ‘adopt-a-flag initiative’ is another good example.^[4] The same is true when you look further afield. The media of our good neighbours in Papua New Guinea, through their own media council, has been a key player in the fight for greater transparency in that country.^[5] Some of its senior journalists have also joined the movement against illegal arms smuggling.^[6]

We reflect society, yes, but we can also influence society for the common good. The end justifies the means. If taking a principled stand had meant avoiding the coup, then we would have achieved our objective. That, I think, is what responsible journalism should be about.