Fiji Media Council: 27 June 2001

The following is an adjudication on a complaint by University of the South Pacific journalism coordinator David Robie over an unbalanced and distorted Islands Business [now merged as Pacific Magazine] item in its July 2000 edition Whispers column about the University of the South Pacific's award-winning journalism website. Robie regards the adjudication as prejudiced and procedurally flawed. Read the independent critique by media lawyer Richard Naidu exposing this adjudication and the chronology.

DECISION

Complaint:
On 19 October 2000 Mr David Robie submitted two complaints that Islands Business had breached Cause 1 (a) and Clause 2 of the Media Code of Ethics and Practice, by publishing a letter headed, "a dear Mr Robie letter', in its July 2000 issue without giving him a fair opportunity of prior comment or reply. He claimed that Islands Business had stated in the preamble to the letter that while he published letters on his website about other people he had not published a letter that was critical of him. He said that the letter from the [then] Vice-Chancellor of the University of the South Pacific was not a document that he could properly publish on his web site and, in publishing it, Islands Business had presented only one side of a controversy.

Response:
Islands Business responded that before publishing the letter, the editor-in-chief [Peter Lomas] had tried to contact Mr Robie for comment and had left two unanswered messages at his office. Following receipt of a complaint from Mr Robie on August 7 they offered to meet and discuss the complaint. Nothing happened. On August 28 they invited Mr Robie to submit a letter putting his side of the controversy. They said they would publish this letter. This was ignored. They claimed they had made other unsuccessful attempts to meet Mr Robie but he had not responded to any of their overtures.

Decision:
Complaint No 1:
Clause 1 (a) of the Code of Ethics states, inter alia:

"Newspapers and magazines ... should take care not to publish material which is innacurate, misleading or distorted by wrong or improper emphasis or any other factor."

In his submission, Mr Robie states that the letter from the Vice-Chancellor was "internal correspondence on an administrative matter". He said it would have been a breach of confidence by him to put the letter on the website.

The Committee has no intention of entering into the debate over the closure of the USP website. However, while it accepts Mr Robie's comment that it would have been improper for him to put the letter on his website, it points out that the controversy over the closure of the site had previously been given publicity and was of "public interest'. As Head of the USP School of Journalism, Mr Robie is a media public figure. He is newsworthy. When the letter from the Vice-Chancellor was received by Islands Business from a "USP source", it became part of the news story. Accordingly the Committee does not consider the letter "inaccurate, misleading or distorted" and upholds the right of Islands Business to publish the letter.

However, the Committee draws attention to the other wording of Clause 1 (a) "wrong or improper emphasis or other factor". It considers that the wording of the preamble by Islands Business was unnecessarily provocative, and, because of the strained relationship between Mr Robie and Islands Business, was, perhaps, designed to denigrate him. Such personalised journalism is unnecessary.

Complaint No 2:
Clause 2 states:

"Every press or broadcasting organisation has an obligation to give a fair opportunity to reply to any individual or organisation which the newspaper or broadcasting organisation itself attacks editorially."

The Committee has no hesitation in dismissing the second complaint that Mr Robie was not given a "fair opportunity to reply". It accepts the statement by Islands Business that its editor-in-chief twice tried to contact Mr Robie before publication and, that he was invited to submit a letter to the magazine stating his position. The invitation to submit a reply was made in August 28 but it was not until December 13 that Mr Robie declined the invitation, saying it was then too late. It also accepts the statements by Islands Business that a number of unsuccessful attempts were made to meet Mr Robie and settle the matter by dialogue.

General Comment:
The Committee is of the opinion that this complaint should not have gone to adjudication. It should have been settled by dialogue between the parties for they are respected members of the Fiji media scene. It was incumbent on them to make every effort to resolve their differences. However, it is clear from the correspondence and submissions that rather than make this effort, dialogue was avoided, and the premature use of the complaints process was sought. Even when the Secretary of the Fiji Media Council tried to arrange meetings it proved impossible to fix a time that was convenient to both. Mr Robie maintained that he was entitled to a written response to his complaint. However, though media organisations normally do respond in writing to a complainant, the procedural arrangements of the Council simply call call for a response. Accordingly, the request by Islands Business to meet, was sufficient response.

The Committee takes this opportunity to comment on the strained relationship that has existed for some time between Mr Robie, as Head of the USP School of Journalism, and some heads of media organisations in Fiji. This, more than anything, has given rise to the complaint under consideration and the protracted nature of the resolution. The Committee expresses the hope that these long-standing differences can be reconciled.

D. V. Tarte
Chairman
27 June 2001