While there appear to be far more democracies in the world than ever before, the CPJ’s executive director Joel Simon says there is a sinister new threat.

And this is in some respects more troublesome than the old style dictatorships. Simon describes this new scourge in a recent book, The New Censorship: Inside the Global Battle for Press Freedom, as the ‘democratators’, those leaders who profess to be democratic but are actually subverting their mirage of open governance. As Simon says:

“What are these differences between dictators and democratators? Dictators rule by force. Democratators rule by manipulation. Dictators impose their will. Democratators govern with the support of the majority. Dictators do not claim to be democrats – at least credibly. Democratators always do. Dictators control information. Democratators manage it.”

Simon points out that democratators win elections yet while they may be free, they are not really fair, meaning they are decided by fraud.

He has a growing list of leaders that fit this label, including Latin American “populists” like Rafael Correa of Equador and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, “European backsliders” like Viktor Orban of Hungary and Viktor Yanukovych, the deposed former president of Ukraine, and African leaders such as Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Jacob Zuma of South Africa.

Also high on Simon’s list of media threats is the way terrorism has impacted on how big media groups currently go about their global news-gathering. Conscious of the ever-present threat of ritualised kidnappings and bombings, journalists are sometimes forced to report from bunkers and are less enthusiastic about meeting uncertain sources in case they might be abducted.

Even the appearance of journalists sometimes makes them look like an extension of the military – with helmets, flak jackets and camouflage fatigues. This accentuates their targeting by fundamentalist groups who regard them as an extension of the ‘state’.

China is the elephant in the room when it comes to freedom of information. While China’s leaders embrace the internet, they believe they can, and ought to, control the web. It is clear that China has the technological means and resources to make internet control a reality.

Chinese authorities use monitoring and filtering to keep a lid on the cyberspace “conversation” to prevent repercussions.

United States responses to the Wikileaks scandal in 2013 and the massive surveillance revelations by Edward Snowden encouraged allegations of hypocrisy from critics pointing out that Washington’s commitment to internet freedom dragged when its own geopolitical interests appeared threatened.

Earlier this month, I had the good fortune to be in Brussels as one of the people giving feedback at a stakeholders meeting for a massive European Union-funded research project on the media reporting on six major violent conflicts around the world, including the Syrian civil war and conflict in Burundi.

While there I happened to pick up a new “Euro” style newspaper called Politico, which steered me to a remarkable media development in Spain with the headline “He brings news of the future”

“Who was he?” asks the subeditor in me when it was always drummed into us to have a name in the headline. (The online version changed the headline).

This was the story of Pedro J. Ramírez, one of the leading editors in Spain, who had been in charge of El Mundo for 24 years. But he was sacked by his newspaper’s owners.

Why? Because under his leadership, El Mundo pursued a robust investigation into corruption implicating the governing Popular Party and the Prime Minister [Mariano Rajoy].

When he was fired, Ramírez used his massive €5.6 million pay-out to help fund a new online newspaper, El Español. His pay-out plus record-breaking crowdfunding doubled what had been previously raised by a new Dutch publishing venture, De Correspondent.

Another interesting success story has been in France, where investigative journalist Edwy Plenel, famous for his Rainbow Warrior bombing investigation in 1985 for Le Monde, founded Mediapart.

He has assembled a team of some 60 journalists and his fearless brand of investigative journalism is shaking up the establishment.

Even in New Zealand, where the mediascape is fairly dire with hundreds of jobs cut in recent years—and a loss of 180 jobs in a recent shake-up at Fairfax New Zealand, the country’s biggest news publisher, there are stunningly innovative things happening.

The main independent New Zealand media group Scoop Media – and we at AUT’s Pacific Media Centre have a partnership project with them, Pacific Scoop – has launched a new crowdfunding business model and established a Scoop Foundation for Public Interest Journalism. The inititiative by Selwyn Manning in launching Evening Report web portal has also been significant.

This brings me to the achievements of the University of the South Pacific and its talented new crop of graduates. Close to 200 USP journalism graduates are now contributing to the Fiji and the Pacific region’s media and related careers.

Through its long-standing award-winning newspaper Wansolwara – now 19 years old, surely a remarkable accomplishment for any journalism school in the Australasian and Pacific arena, the student journalists have played an important role in independent, engaging and truth-seeking journalism.

Personally, I shall always remember with pride my experiences with USP and Wansolwara over the five years I was with the campus – the longest by far of any expatriate educator. Wansolwara was founded by student editor Stan Simpson and lecturer Philip Cass. And Pat Craddock of the USP Media Centre was another key person in building up the programme.

One of the highlights for me was the reporting of the George Speight coup in May 2000 by the courageous USP students. They won many awards for this.

It was thanks to the groundwork and experience that I gained at both USP and previously UPNG as a journalist turned academic that I was able to go to the next level at the Pacific Media Centre.

There I have been able to blend some of the best elements of academic media studies and practical journalism that makes a difference.

A tribute too to Dr Shailendra Singh and his team, Irene Manarae, Eliki Drugunalevu and Dr Olivier Jutel. Shailen was recently the first home-grown academic at USP to gain a PhD in journalism at the University of Queensland with the first major survey of the Fiji mediascape for more than a decade. Congratulations Shailen for a very fine thesis!

My concluding message to graduating student journalists is that no matter what government, political or industry pressure you face, you should hold on strongly to your core values of truth, accuracy, honesty and courage in the public interest.

Our communities deserve the best from their media in these deceitful times. University media are among the few that can still be trusted and they should do their best to contribute to democracy with integrity.

So go for it and change the world to the way it should be!

Caption: Pacific media cover a Pacific Island Forum summit in Vanuatu, 2010. Photo: Ben Bohane/wakaphotos.com

Thus it is also an honour to be sharing the event with Monsieur Michel Djokovic, the Ambassador of France, given how important French aid has been for this programme.

France and the Ecole Supérieure de Journalisme de Lille (ESJ) played a critically important role in helping establish the journalism degree programme at USP in 1994, with the French government funding the inaugural senior lecturer, François Turmel, and providing a substantial media resources grant to lay the foundations.

I arrived in Fiji four years later in 1998 as Head of Journalism from Papua New Guinea and what a pleasure it was working with the French Embassy on a number of journalism projects at that time, including an annual scholarship to France for journalism excellence.

These USP awards this year take place during challenging times for the media industry with fundamental questions confronting us as journalism educators about what careers we are actually educating journalists for.

When I embarked on a journalism career in the 1960s, the future was clear-cut and one tended to specialise in print, radio or television. I had a fairly heady early career being the editor at the age of 24 of an Australian national weekly newspaper, the Sunday Observer, owned by an idealistic billionaire, and we were campaigning against the Vietnam War.

Our chief foreign correspondent then was a famous journalist, Wilfred Burchett, who at the end of the Second World War 70 years ago reported on the Hiroshima nuclear bombing as a “warning to the world”.

By 1970, I was chief subeditor of the Rand Daily Mail in South Africa, the best newspaper I ever worked on and where I learned much about human rights and social justice, which has shaped my journalism and education values ever since.

I travelled overland for a year across Africa as a freelance journalist, working for agencies such as Gemini, and crossed the Sahara Desert in a Kombi van. It was critically risky even then, but doubly dangerous today.

Eventually I ended up with Agence France-Presse as an editor in Paris and worked there for several years. In fact, it was while working with AFP in Europe that I took a “back door” interest in the Pacific and that’s where my career took another trajectory when I joined the Auckland Star and became foreign news editor.

The point of me giving you some brief moments of my career in a nutshell is to stress how portable journalism was as a career in my time. But now it is a huge challenge for you young graduates going out into the marketplace.

You don’t even know whether you’re going to be called a “journalist”, or a “content provider” or a “curator” of news – or something beyond being a “news aggregator” – such is the pace of change with the digital revolution. And the loss of jobs in the media industry continues at a relentless pace.
Fortunately, in Fiji, the global industry rationalisations and pressures haven’t quite hit home locally yet. However, on the other hand you have very real immediate concerns with the Media Industry Development Decree and the “chilling’ impact that it has on the media regardless of the glossy mirage the government spin doctors like to put on it.

We had a very talented young student journalist here in Fiji a few weeks ago, Niklas Pedersen, from Denmark, on internship with local media, thanks to USP and Republika’s support. He remarked about his experience:

“I have previously tried to do stories in Denmark and New Zealand – two countries that are both in the top 10 on the RSF World Press Freedom Index, so I was a bit nervous before travelling to a country that is number 93 and doing stories there ….

“Fiji proved just as big a challenge as I had expected. The first day I reported for duty … I tried to pitch a lot of my story ideas, but almost all of them got shut down with the explanation that it was impossible to get a comment from the government on the issue.

“And therefore the story was never going to be able to get published.

“At first this stunned me, but I soon understood that it was just another challenge faced daily by Fiji journalists.”

This was a nice piece of storytelling on climate change on an issue that barely got covered in New Zealand legacy media.

Australia and New Zealand shouldn’t get too smug about media freedom in relation to Fiji, especially with Australia sliding down the world rankings over asylum seekers for example.

New Zealand also shouldn’t get carried away over its own media freedom situation. Three court cases this year demonstrate the health of the media and freedom of information in this digital era is in a bad way.

• Investigative journalist Jon Stephenson this month finally won undisclosed damages from the NZ Defence Ministry for defamation after trying to gag him over an article he wrote for Metro magazine which implicated the SAS in the US torture rendition regime in Afghanistan.

• Law professor Jane Kelsey at the University of Auckland filed a lawsuit against Trade Minister Tim Groser over secrecy about the controversial Trans Pacific Partnership (the judgment ruled the minister had disregarded the law);

• Investigative journalist Nicky Hager and author of Dirty Politics sought a judicial review after police raided his home last October, seizing documents, computers and other materials. Hager is known in the Pacific for his revelations about NZ spying on its neighbours.

Also, the New Zealand legacy media has consistently failed to report well on two of the biggest issues of our times in the Pacific – climate change and the fate of West Papua.

One of the ironies of the digital revolution is that there is an illusion of growing freedom of expression and information in the world, when in fact the reverse is true.

These are bleak times with growing numbers of journalists being murdered with impunity, from the Philippines to Somalia and Syria.

The world’s worst mass killing of journalists was the so-called Maguindanao, or Ampatuan massacre (named after the town whose dynastic family ordered the killings), when 32 journalists were brutally murdered in the Philippines in November 2009.

But increasingly savage slayings of media workers in the name of terrorism are becoming the norm, such as the outrageous attack on Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in Paris in January. Two masked gunmen assassinated 12 media workers – including five of France’s most talented cartoonists – at the satirical magazine and a responding policeman.

In early August this year, five masked jihadists armed with machetes entered the Dhaka home of a secularist blogger in Bangladesh and hacked off his head and hands while his wife was forced into a nearby room.

According to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists in figures released this year, 506 journalists were killed in the decade between 2002 and 2012, almost double the 390 slain in the previous decade. (Both Reporters Sans Frontières and Freedom House have also reported escalating death tolls and declines in media freedom.)

(To be continued next week…)

Caption: French Ambassador Michel Djokovic (third from left), Head of USP Journalism Dr Shailendra Singh (fourth from left) and Pacific Media Centre director Professor David Robie (fifth from right) with the prizewinners at the University of the South Pacific journalism awards. Image: Lowen Sei/USP

Every week seems to bring a new revelation about un-democratic behavior by its national leadership undermining the rule of law. And despite denials this past week of bribery involving current Nauru government leaders by an Australian company, payoffs to political leaders are hardly a new phenomenon in Nauru, or indeed in the Pacific.

The justification advanced for ordering Digicel, Nauru’s single telecom service, to eliminate access to Facebook is as thin—‘to prevent access to pornography’—as the list of nations that ban Facebook, which includes such notoriously anti-democratic nations as N. Korea, Iran and China.

Should the region shrug this off as something we may not like, but it’s none of our business? After all, Nauru is just 10,000 people on a tiny bit of land in the central Pacific that, save for its now expanding Nauru Airlines, would be one of the most isolated countries in the world. In former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s immortal—if apocryphal—comment about Micronesia, ‘Who gives a damn?’

The Australian and New Zealand governments cared a lot about democracy, or lack thereof, in Fiji by imposing a slew of sanctions after then-Army Chief Frank Bainimarama’s coup in 2006. Many of these remained in effect for eight years until Fiji’s national elections last September. Nauru doesn’t have an army to mount a coup. Still, to date, Nauru’s current government has:

• Arrested and deported Nauru’s Magistrate Peter Law in January 2014 while Law was preparing an inquiry into the death of Justice Minister David Adeang’s wife, who burned to death outside the family home in April 2013. Nauru also cancelled the visa for its Chief Justice Geoffrey Eames to return to work from vacation last year.
• Fired its Australian police commissioner as an investigation into bribery allegations involving Nauru President Baron Waqa and Justice Minister Adeang was in progress.
• Directed Digicel to shut off access to Facebook for the nation and subsequently refused to let the general manager of Digicel back into the country.
• Suspended five opposition senators from the 18-seat parliament chamber over a year ago.
• Revoked the visa of Katy Le Roy, legal counsel to the Nauru parliament and wife of suspended opposition MP Roland Kun, so she cannot enter the country.
• Imposed a non-refundable US$7,000 application fee for any off-island journalist interested to visit Nauru, effectively preventing foreign media from visiting Nauru.

We might well ask, ‘what’s next?’ To date, only the United States government has issued a statement of concern over Nauru’s ban on Facebook.

Why is the Australian government mum on the subject of Nauru? Radio Australia last week quoted Nauru’s former Solicitor General, Australian Steven Bliim, discussing Nauru’s sacking of its previous police commissioner as his investigation into bribery of Nauru leaders by Australian company Getax was advancing. Bliim also briefed Australian government officials after leaving Nauru last year. He was surprised by their lack of interest. “The reaction of the politicians at the time was dismissive, indicating that it was purely an internal Nauruan affair, which seemed at odds with the sort of reaction that was taken, for instance, when the Fiji coups occurred,” Bliim told Radio Australia. “This wasn’t as overt as what happened in Fiji, but the effect of it has been very similar where the country has failed to abide by its own laws and it’s effectively taken steps to make itself not accountable.”

The self-interest of the asylum seekers holding facility on Nauru is clearly the driver of relations between Australia and Nauru now. Nauru is receiving significant funding from Australia for hosting the controversial facility and the Nauru detention center is a key element in Australia’s policy for interdicting refugees aiming for Australia.

The Nauru government has taken to issuing terse statements critical of media reporting as international scrutiny of these issues has expanded. Among these denials includes the assertion this past week that Nauru’s legal system is arguably the most independent, transparent and credible in the Pacific. But this assertion is far from reality. In point of fact, a 2012-2014 governance and transparency assessment of the judiciaries in the 14 independent Pacific nations by the Pacific Judicial Development Programme gives Nauru one of the lowest ratings in the region. The Marshall Islands was at the top in both 2012 and 2014 by meeting all 15 agreed-to indicators for transparency and governance in court operations, and Palau met 14 of these in 2012 and 15 last year. Nauru, however, met only two in 2012 and as of the latest update in April this year, had not filed a report on these indicators for 2014.

A United Nations Special Rapporteur last month raised concerns about recently adopted amendments to Nauru’s Criminal Code, and called on the government to withdraw the legislation restricting freedom of expression. New amendments prohibit use of language that is threatening, abusive or insulting in nature and has the intention to stir up racial, political or religious hatred—which critics say could be used to muzzle political opposition in the lead up to next year’s election.

“Nauru should allow free space for expression without fear of criminal prosecution,” said Special Rapporteur David Kaye. “It should lift all restrictions to access internet and social media, and facilitate access to the media in the country. Nauru should revise its course of action and take measures to fulfill its human rights obligations.”

Unless Nauru’s neighbors, including Australia and New Zealand, get involved in encouraging Nauru to adhere to democratic norms that prevail in this region—including unrestricted debates in parliament, open access to the Internet, and maintaining an independent judiciary—it seems likely the government of Nauru will continue undermining opportunities for its citizens to enjoy freedoms taken for granted in most democracies. This should concern the Pacific Islands Forum, which brings together leaders, governments and island communities over shared goals of democracy, good governance and accountability. Ignoring developments in Nauru undermines the Forum and island leaders’ stated objective of promoting regionalism and raising the quality of life based on the Pacific’s commitment to sustainable development and accountability of governments to their citizens.

The harsh 2010 Media Industry Development Decree is still a spectre. Although Fiji has produced marked improvements over the past year, recognised by global freedom organisations, many challenges lie ahead.

The Multinational Observer Group’s final report on the September 17 election found the poll “credible” – as foreshadowed by its preliminary report in spite of critics’ cries of “fraud”. However, last month’s report also offers a raft of recommendations for improvement, including the news media.

Among these recommendations is a call for an independent watchdog for the Fiji Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA). The authority was spawned by the 2010 decree and played a mixed role during the general election.

Five months after the vote, Fiji was ranked 107th out of 179 countries listed in the 2014 World Press Freedom Index. The index is drawn up by the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders.

Fiji rose 10 places from the previous ranking in 2013. Major reasons for this improvement were the adoption of a new constitution on September 6 2013, widely criticised as it had been over many months, and the “free and fair” elections promised by the end of September 2014.

News media and civil society groups hoped that the election would open the door to a free media climate, which had been lacking since Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama’s military coup in December 2006.

Expanding the bounds of public debate

Public debate has improved markedly over the past few months. News media have been relatively more robust in terms of published political comment and debate, particularly in news columns and in letters to the editor.

But civilian Prime Minister Bainimarama, who retired as rear-admiral last year, retains an autocratic streak. This was on show in a recent tirade against The Fiji Times for “irresponsible journalism” over the reporting of race-based education comments by Opposition Leader Ro Teimumu Kepa.

The Fiji Times strongly defended its editorial freedom.

A major problem previously has been a “divided media” and a professional leadership void left by the now-defunct Fiji Media Council. The council had been accused of “failing to handle ethical lapses and controversies satisfactorily or fast enough”.

Ricardo Morris, editor of Repúblika and president of the revived Fijian Media Association, spoke at the recent 20th anniversary conference of Pacific Journalism Review in Auckland about problems facing the media after the election. According to Morris:

It can be argued that such division was one reason it was easy for the military government to bring into force the Media Industry Development Decree in 2010. The government justified its actions with reference to some of the unscrupulous journalist practices that should rightly be condemned.

Morris also pointed out that the Fiji Media Council’s legacy continued in the form of a code of ethics for media workers embedded in the decree.

We realised a bit too late that we were all in this together despite our personal political views or those of the companies that we worked for. United we stand, divided we fall.

Constitution leaves media exposed

In a joint submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council’s second universal periodic review, the Auckland-based Pacific Media Centre (PMC) and Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) argued that the constitution, described by the Fiji government as “coup proof”, still restricted freedom of the press in four particular areas.

The first criticism was that too much executive power had been placed with the offices of the prime minister and the attorney-general. They controlled nearly all appointments to the judiciary and independent commissions.

Secondly, the chief justice and president of the Court of Appeal would effectively be political appointments. This created a risk of abuse of power.

Thirdly, the Bill of Rights is weakened by “severe limitations on many rights”. In what is known as the “claw-back clause”, governments would simply need to show that a limitation is “reasonable”.

Previously, the state had clamped down on independent journalists, bloggers and netizens. This so-called claw-back clause makes them vulnerable to selective government pressure in the future.

Fourthly, the constitution provides few avenues for citizens to participate and ensure “good and transparent government”.

Signs of self-censorship but also hope

While online commentaries and letters to the editor have featured more vibrant debate in recent months – both in the lead-up to the election and since – a climate of self-censorship continues.

The recent tragic killing of a leading Fiji journalist and gender issues advocate, Losana McGowan, allegedly by her partner, was greeted by surprisingly muted media responses about Pacific-wide domestic violence. Some commentators saw this as reflecting self-censorship. However, some statements on this issue surfaced this week and Bainimarama himself gave a strong speech on the topic when opening the Pacific Women Parliamentary Partnership Forum on Wednesday.

But there are hopeful signs on the horizon. These include the recent buy-out of the regional Islands Business news magazine by a group of feisty local journalists, including former Fiji Times editor-in-chief Netani Rika and current editor Samisoni Pareti.

This should strengthen what is arguably the most influential Pacific publication based in Fiji.

This article was previously published by the Pacific Media Centre on May 3, 2015.

In this particular case, the paper published a front-page correction the very next day, admitting that the writer had published the photos without knowing their actual provenance. The very same cover featured another couple of photos of Asian women with their eyes blacked out, ‘reluctantly supplied’, they said, by one of the sources of their stories on sex workers coming to work in Papua New Guinea.

While the Pacific Freedom Forum welcomed the prompt correction, social media response was less forgiving. A large number of commenters decried the entire week-long series, claiming that it was a transparent ploy to sell papers on the back of public prurience.

The readiness of media professionals throughout the Pacific islands to treat untested sources, hunches and even rumour as reportable is a phenomenon that needs to be recognised and addressed. It’s difficult to measure the civic importance of having reputable news services, but it’s fairly safe to say that fewer Pacific islanders than ever see their media organisations as truly authoritative.

Complaints are rampant in social media and elsewhere about the ability of media services to reliably and objectively report ‘all the news that’s fit to print,’ as one masthead famously stated. State-owned television and radio are determinedly non-confrontational. Even private-sector media are fighting what seems to be a rising tide of political and financial pressure.

It sure doesn’t help that elsewhere in the world there are fewer and fewer examples to hold up for emulation. The Post Courier itself is owned by News Corporation, made infamous by the UK phone hacking scandal, and the rather blasé attitude toward truth shown by some of its properties. Mr Murdoch’s possessions are, of course, hardly alone. Just last week, the Telegraph’s former chief political correspondent publicly accused the tory institution of perpetrating ‘a fraud on its readers’ for its unwillingness to cover the revelations concerning HSBC, one of its largest advertisers.

Mr Oborne lamented the necessity of publicly shaming his former employer, but claimed, ‘It might sound a pompous thing to say, but I believe the newspaper is a significant part of Britain’s civic architecture.’ It is too important, in short, to be permitted to fall, unremarked, so far from its ideals.

Arguably, Pacific societies have no such ‘civic architecture’ – or at least, no significant history of supporting and even fostering gadflies in their midst. Quite the opposite, in fact. So it should come as no surprise, perhaps, that agencies designed to foster ‘responsible media’ end up working more to subvert it than to sustain it.

Fiji’s case provides the most compelling example. The notorious Media Decree of 2010 created what some have wryly called ‘collaborative journalism’, in which the state plays a direct role in policing journalistic activities and –purportedly– ensures positive and harmonious social development. The reality has been something less than that. MIDA’s director, Ashwin Raj has been laughed at for ‘defending the indefensible’ (i.e. the regime’s conduct in controlling the media). When, the biter bitten, he became the victim of the very same arbitrary enforcement of the law he claimed did not exist, few expressed sympathy.

Quoth one commenter:

If that honesty, fair criticism and transparency existed under his MIDA rule, there is little likelihood the police would have tried to get away with the abusive behaviour he alleges occurred to him. But no, he has helped to create that very same culture of impunity in public office about which he now wishes to shriek….

More recently, Mr Raj has come under fire for allegedly circumventing MIDA’s own processes and procedures. Ironically, he was censured for issuing a judgment against a column –which, to be fair, was composed of little more than schoolyard taunts– in the Fiji Sun. This paper has been characterised as the Bainimarama government’s ‘lapdog’. Some hope that these most recent events will finally convince the powers-that-be that a caged media establishment is actually no better than a free one.

To be fair, the fourth estate has always lived on the edge of reputability. It got that name during a period when shameful, downright pornographic libels were being published almost daily against the French queen. The partisan press of 19^th Century America was shamelessly biased, and outright vulgar in its prejudices. At the height of the Hearst empire, the ‘yellow press’ were the rule, not the exception.

The pendulum swings two ways, however, and the excesses of the partisan American press brought about a reaction that, in its heyday, represented the highest ideals of bearing witness to history and speaking fearlessly in defence of justice. Pioneers such as H.L. Mencken built an institution in North America that allowed Cronkite, Murrow and others of their generation actually to shape the course of events.

With the rise of the Murdoch empire, though, western journalism has fallen far from this ideal. Back in 2002, one bitter ex-journo said to me that, ‘the moment the bean counters moved into the head office: that’s when reporting the news became secondary to selling copy.’

History seems doomed to repeat itself.

To be fair, there are a number of shining lights in the Pacific pantheon. This blog has been graced by regular contributions of Kalafi Moala, who has done much to contribute to Tonga’s recent rise in the freedom index. Giff Johnson’s work in the Marshall Islands meets –indeed sets– the highest standard of journalism. Elsewhere, the Solomon Star has managed to maintain its reputability under trying circumstances. Political gadfly Marc Neil Jones, who has been ‘assaulted, deported multiple times and jailed’ since he started his Vanuatu newspaper, will be retiring at the end of this year, but his legacy lives on.

If anything, though, these salutary examples only highlight the problem when, in spite of numerous and serious accusations of journalistic misconduct, writers like Gorethy Kenneth are not only left unscathed, they are promoted to the highest rank.

Here in Vanuatu, a burst of civic fervour and renewed journalistic activity has not led to a concomitant rise in standards. One newborn newspaper recently published an encomium to the ‘late’ West Papuan independence leader Benny Wenda. (He seemed fine when I saw him a week or so later.) So this week’s announcement of the creation of a self-regulating media body seems to me to be a mixed blessing. I worry that while it may stave off external efforts to quench free expression, it will do little to foster it.

Following the most recent criminal assault on Daily Post publisher Marc Neil-Jones, the rival newspaper devoted its front page to a defence of the man ultimately convicted of the crime, and the then-chair of the media association spent more time bloviating about ‘responsibility in media’ than denouncing this clear assault on a free press.

We talk at length of the need to curb corruption, laxity and self-interest in the public sector. It seems to me that we would be well served to take a close look at the reputability of those mandated to create, safeguard and preserve the public record.

Integrity comes at a price. More of us need to be willing to pay it.