Contact
Newsagent
LoginRNZ’s exclusion of Walsh’s analysis concerns Pacific media educator
Has an anti-regime line caused an imbalance in Radio New Zealand's editorial policy, stacking its commentators to favour a sympathetic New Zealand Government line, that excludes all others? (Photo-composition by PMC news desk).
AUT University media academic and Pacific affairs commentator Dr David Robie has questioned Radio New Zealand’s apparent exclusion of fellow academic Crosbie Walsh from speaking on Fiji on its Nights programme. On his Café Pacific blog Dr Robie critiques Radio New Zealand’s coverage of Fiji affairs and compares it to worrying trends set by Radio Australia. The following opinion-piece is courtesy of Café Pacific.
Pacific Scoop:
Opinion – By Dr David Robie.
WHAT ON earth has happened to Radio New Zealand? Or rather, Nights host Bryan Crump? He has apparently dumped professor adjunct Crosbie Walsh, the most informed New Zealand-based blogger and commentator on Fiji affairs (naturally you would expect this calibre as former and founding director of the development studies programme at the University of the South Pacific). Walsh is such a tonic after the plethora of one-eyed and sensationalist anti-Fiji blogs that clutter cyberspace.
According to Walsh, Crump rang him last night, saying he didn’t want the blogger/commentator on any more on Nights programmes. Why? Apparently because Walsh “feels too strongly” on Fiji issues (why not? … he lived there for more than eight years) and he “borders on the emotional” for this programme.
Crump added: “It’s not what a lot of my colleagues want to hear.” Take this as you wish. Three more planned programmes on Nights for Walsh for June, September and November have been canned.
Crump reckons the Nights spot works best with “commentators” and Crosbie is seen as an “advocate”. In fact, Walsh goes to great lengths to get some sort of balance in his blog commentaries, something sorely missing with many media commentators on Fiji. To be fair to Crump, he did invite Walsh to a symposium on Fiji later this year and, according to Walsh, was keen to interview him early next year.
From all reports, Walsh had an enthusiastic response to previous Nights programmes. This has got Café Pacific wondering, especially when it is considered how unbalanced both Radio New Zealand and Radio Australia frequently are on Fiji commentaries. Opponents of the regime regularly have a field day, but many commentators who try to provide a bit more depth into explaining the Fiji “revolution”, as Auckland University’s Centre for Pacific Studies political sociologist Dr Steven Ratuva described it last week, or are not sufficiently PC or are too “soft” on the regime, are sidelined.
A good example of this was a “stacked” Radio Australia feature by Bruce Hill marking the anniversary of the abrogation of the Fiji constitution one year on – four interviewees with a vested interest against the regime: Deported Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter – an Australian now living in Apia with an editorial production/management role with the Samoa Observer; an Australian judge, Ian Lloyd, who ruled against the regime; Australian National University professor Brij Lal – one of the three architects of the abrogated 1997 constitution; and Fiji Law Society president Dorsami Naidu versus Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum. Where was the independent commentator to balance this line-up?
Dr David Robie is an associate professor in AUT University’s School of Communication Studies and director of the Pacific Media Centre. He is a former head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific.
Read David Robie’s Café Pacific blog for more on this issue.
Pacific Media Centre: YouTube channel's latest videos
most informed?..good call crump..walsh is a binamarama boot-licker..usp – a regional institution – should sack his coup-apologizing butte
After reading David Robie’s editorial, and in particular his comments about a “Stacked” Radio Australia feature presented by Bruce Hill, I would like to enquire if David actually listened to it, before deciding he wanted to attack it?
To paraphrase David’s piece, the feature involved:
“four interviewees with a vested interest against the regime: Deported Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter; an Australian judge, Ian Lloyd, who ruled against the regime; Australian National University professor Brij Lal; and Fiji Law Society president Dorsami Naidu, versus Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum.”
At the end of this David asks
” Where was the independent commentator to balance this line-up?”
You can read it in its entirety above. But in publishing it you are misrepresenting what was actually aired, and have denigrated the work of Bruce Hill.
The radio piece referred to is 24 minutes long and aired on Radio Australia on Good Friday. It starts with around four minutes of archival material. This uses interviews recorded in April 2009, when Fiji’s constitution was scrapped, featuring the comments made at that time by Russell Hunter, Ian Lloyd and Dorsami Naidu. At the end of that “archival audio” used to set the scene of what happened a year previously, Brij Lal and Aiyaz Sayded-Khaiyum took part in a debate on what is happening in Fiji. It rand for around 20 minutes, and they were the only two taking part, with Bruce Hill moderating.
Can David Robie please explain how two people, on separate sides of an argument, taking part in a moderated debate is a “stacked” feature? If David is unhappy that the archival piece was included, or with the makeup of who was in it, then that should be explained in his criticism. but his piece does not make that clarification.
I ask again, did he actually listen to the Radio Australia piece before deciding it would be included in his criticism? The online audio linked to in his piece is clearly a debate involving two people, not four against one as he alleges.
If a media analyst wishes to criticise a news organisation, and in particular a reporter, then I do not think it is to much to ask that they get their facts correct.
Campbell Cooney.
Radio Australia’s Pacific Correspondent
Campbell Cooney misses my point. This item republished from my blog Cafe Pacific was not an “attack” on Bruce Hill’s feature marking the anniversary of the Easter putsch per se. While Bruce’s programme and archival component were good for what they were, my item used this merely as a quick example of a general pattern that has apparently emerged with both main radio public broadcasters on both sides of the Tasman – considerable play for all the mainstream opponents of the Bainimarama “revolution”, as Dr Steven Ratuva calls it, and considerably less exposure for other marginalised commentators who might actually make some sense of this far-reaching political and social upheaval which is in the process of radically reconfiguring the Pacific region.
Another example was this week’s In The Loop (October 12) dealing with Fiji and the decree when two ABC presenters treated a perfectly valid and constructive explanation of what “development journalism” in the post-coup state might actually mean in practice with disdain. There are many more examples.
Nothing in Campbell Cooney’s 12 sentences to reply to my three advances any argument to deflect from my fundamental questions over institutional balance. And I am quite sure this will be borne out with content analysis research in the future.
My updates on this issue along with Bruce Hill’s comments can be visited on Cafe Pacific:
http://cafepacific.blogspot.com/2010/04/media-independence-and-fiji-pc-brigade.html
David Robie
Cafe Pacific
David, your piece describes Bruce’s package as “stacked”. Putting four against one, without balance.
My point then, as now, is tha doing that is a misrepresentation. If you want to use examples to enforce your concerns over Public Broadcasters, then get your facts straight. In this instance your facts were wrong. If you wish to point the finger at the working media for displaying imbalance. Then use a correct example. If not you are doing exactly the same thing you accuse others of.
That said, I appreciate that you have included Bruce Hill’s challenge and reply in your personal blog.
Campbell Cooney
Radio Australia’s Pacific Correspondent
All the rhetoric from the mainstream media aside, it is a common fact that Radio New Zealand and Radio Australia, both have been prepared to sacrifice their balance and neutrality by deliberately sidelining those commentators who tend to shed some clearer light on Fiji contrary to the beliefs of NZ and Australian Government and their mainstream media, which are birds of the same feather when it comes to reporting on Fiji situation, hence they flock together.
What I said in simpler English is that I fully agree with David Robie and his comparison to show that Radio Australia deliberately chooses commentators who will sing from their (Radio Australia’s) and the Australian government’s song sheet on Fiji situation. Perhaps I need to remind Campbell Cooney on the Julian Moti saga where the Australian mainstream media compromised its journalistic principles, to ensure it sang from Australian Government and its International Police’s song sheet. And dear Cooney, that included Radio Australia.
So I think you need to stop showing your holier than though attitude. Pacific people have become very sceptical of Radio Australia in particular and their mainstream media in general. It has failed to properly understand and appreciate the Pacific.
Good on ya, David, continue with your honest analysis. As far as Fiji issue is concerned, Cafe Pacific, the Pacific Scoop, Croz Walsh’s site and the Pacific Media Centre hold more credibility than publicly-funded Radio Australia and Radio New Zealand put together, because these government- funded media agencies fail to appreciate and refuse to see the other side of Fiji.
Remember, watchdogs do not bite their owners!
They also appear to be reluctant to allow free commentary on any alternative solution other than the election and Westminster model of democracy which have failed Fiji more than once! Please David, keep up the pressure so that these watchdogs can be persuaded to balance their barks.
Wow!!
According to Liu Muri, I, now referred to as dear Cooney, am “holier than thou” in pointing out a misrepresentation.
In reply dear Muri let me say again, if anyone wants to point the finger at a public broadcaster, then use a correct example. The example used in the original piece by David Robie, was incorrect in saying it was four people opposed to Fiji’s interim Government against one. It was, as was pointed out by me, and also Bruce Hill, two people, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum speaking on behalf of the interim government and Professor Brij Lal, on the other side of the argument, with their debate moderated by Bruce.
That is the only point that has been made by me and Bruce, and I should point out that David has published Bruce’s response to his post, and pointed readers towards it.
If that makes me, dear Cooney, “holier than thou”. I will accept that as a compliment. So thank you.
But dear Muri I think you show as much bias in what you have said here, as you alleged has been shown by myself, my employers, my country and also New Zealand. But thanks for giving me a good laugh. I always get amused when a commentator decides to attack us by saying they speak for all the Pacific.
Meanwhile I will keep doing my job, and listen to the advice of people who know what they are talking about. Be assured dear Muri, you are not one of them.
Campbell Cooney
Radio Australia’s Pacific Correspondent.
I’m sorry David, but while you write about a debate here in all the freedom that you have to do so, what you have forgotten is that Bainimarama with his ever EXTENDING PER, and soon to be implemented media decree is denying my fellow Fijians and I at home the RIGHT TO SPEAK or even show our OPPOSITION to his forceful dictatorship IN PUBLIC!
How is that fair to you?
While you David and Croz Walsh, very highly educated and intelligent men, write and froth about what is good for and by Bainimarama and his military regime, you have forgotten that there are other Fijians who suffer. Bainimarama gets to use our families in the villagers as excuses, you should know if you say you know us Fijians, especially in the vilages, we live very simple lives and with that simplicity, comes the blissful ignorance of what is happening in the outside world because we DON’t KNOW OTHERWISE. And in our simplicity, we are just grateful and thankful to live to see a new day.
But it takes those of us Fijians, who have left our villages and left Fiji to work and travel elsewhere overseas, still having Fiji’s interest at heart, who know that what Voreqe did was WRONG, IS Wrong and continue to be WRONG!
So, in your debate of what is being reported in the media oversea, just bear in mind that the PER DENIES US FIJIANS THAT RIGHT BACK IN OUR HOMELAND!