|
Cooks’ media bill
There are several corrections that need to be made to the article “Freedom Battle on Cooks Front” which appeared in the January issue.
It would have been fair if the reporter had contacted me for comments to include in the ISLANDS BUSINESS article, rather than use a statement from three or so years ago. It raises the questions whether the article was objective, balanced and fair. Why doesn’t PMG (Pitt Media Group) support the formation of a self-regulatory body, which exists everywhere else in the world? Perhaps, the company’s stance is reflective of a statement made by one of its directors, George Pitt, at a regional media meeting that “ethics do not make me any money.”
In 2004, then Prime Minister Robert Woonton met with representatives of the local media industry to discuss media standards in the country and to push for the formation of a Media Council. No one from Pitt Media Group attended that meeting. Local media agreed that a council was needed but expressed concerns that funding would be needed to maintain a Media Council. The original Media Council collapsed as it functioned on a voluntary basis, there was no support office and members were not remunerated for their time dealing with public complaints against the media.
At the same meeting, I was nominated by the media industry as their representative on the Cook Islands Broadcasting Board. The board is now defunct. While operational, the board sought the advice of the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority (NZBSA). Two senior personnel came to Rarotonga to obtain input from the local media and to advise on the setting up of a Media Council. Apart from Jason Brown, the local media failed to contribute any recommendations or input towards the setting up of a Media Council. In the absence of any commitment by the industry towards setting up its own regulatory body, the NZBSA suggested setting up a government-funded commission and drafted the first Media Standards Bill. That bill was widely circulated amongst local and international media. Again, local media feedback only came from Brown.
The board agreed with international media experts that the first Media Standards draft was far too punitive, did not give the commission enough independence and the appointment of members should not be confined to a cabinet minister. Since 2004, the bill has undergone many changes—it is now in its 11th draft, which should indicate how much work has been done on it. I believe it still needs work. The government has indicated that it would prefer the local media industry to set up its own impartial Media Council to deal with public complaints fairly and promptly.
Apart from the Cook Islands News, there has been no indication from the Pitt Media Group that it wants to see an industry formed and led regulatory body that would ensure responsible and fair reporting and an avenue of redress for the public should anyone have a justifiable complaint.
To state that I am pushing the Media Standards Bill is completely wrong. My advice to government has been to proceed slowly, cautiously and to take onboard the concerns of the local media and advice of international organisations. Furthermore, I have recommended that government encourages the local media to instead form their own council to show commitment, accountability and responsibility to acceptable standards of reporting. The bill is not designed to infringe on media freedoms or anyone’s freedom of expression.
Rather, it is to give the public an avenue of redress if they have a valid complaint against a media organisation. It means the public have some measure of protection from being maligned and defamed by newspapers, television, radio or electronic media, as in New Zealand with the Press Council, NZBSA and everywhere else in the developed world. The ordinary Cook Islander cannot afford the costs of defamation suits in court—which average around NZ$14,000 in the Cook Islands with no reassurance that the complainant will win. Ideally, however, the local media should show commitment and set up and fund its own council to carry out these functions.
—Florence Syme-Buchanan
Deputy Prime Minister’s Office
COOK ISLANDS
Pacific gang life
Michael Field’s article “The Growing fear of Pacific gang life” article is problematic for a couple of reasons. Much of the problem lies in his sweeping unsubstantiated claims about the influence of American or New Zealand “gangs” in Pacific nations like Tonga. This article in particular, reflects a serious lack of research. The article exclusively cites the subjective opinions of state officials:
• Lieutenant Teri Sommers of the Salt Lake Gang Project and Manukau Police Pacific coordinator Willie Maea.
• A Tongan professor of education at USP (Dr ‘Ana Taufe’ulungaki).
It is unacceptable that not one alleged “gang member”, deported person or community worker in Tonga was interviewed for this article in order to get a more balanced story.
Field makes grand leaps between Tongan communities in New Zealand and in the United States, glossing over specific contexts in order to whip up a sensational story that is obviously slanted and one-sided. It is this kind of reporting that fuels an already volatile political situation through its language of fear.
—Lea Lani Kinikini
Student, University of Auckland
NEW ZEALAND
Commitment to the region
The media in the South Pacific has provided a unique and valuable independent check on the arbitrary exercise of power by governments.
Assessments of Australian and New Zealand policies are important and can be influential when based on considered analysis, much less so when based on a knee-jerk reaction to kick these two big brothers in the shins whenever they get assertive. Of course their policies will go off the rails from time to time, but their commitment to a prosperous and stable region is unquestionable, as it is to the promotion of democratic processes. Other larger and more distant countries are likely over the years to become more important trade, tourism and investment partners to the South Pacific, but their long-term concern for island welfare is likely to remain minimal.
So it is not just an unhelpful and bloody-minded response from Australia to the wheeling-dealing of the Prime Minister of the Solomons, to the diplomatic spat with PNG, and to Fiji’s new strong man, whose broad objectives may be very laudable, but who treats the democratic process as flawed and disposable. It’s time for some repair work by the Pacific Islands Forum and its member countries.
—John Piper
AUSTRALIA
|
