The discussions on Papua New Guinea’s new draft media development policy will come to the fore today when the media industry presents its response to the government.

It is expected the PNG Media Council, which we are a member of, will present the position of the industry in response to the draft policy and members of the media fraternity, and other concerned institutions will also present their views to the Department of Information that is handling this exercise.

The policy paper outlines the government’s strategies to use the media as a tool for development, however the consultation progresses amidst a growing fear in the industry that legislation is ready to go before Parliament and the consultation process is only an academic exercise.

Included in the proposed policy is the proposal to legislate the PNG Media Council and laws to impose penalties against journalists and media houses that are accused [of] bad reporting.

The industry is of the view that the proposed changes will erode the independence of the media and the journalists and ultimately the freedoms relating to free speech that are enshrined in the national constitution.

One cannot blame the industry and its practitioners for their concern considering the latest version to the policy document 2.1 contains 31 mentions of the word “regulation” in various instances among other things.

In the entire document its transparency on penalties also goes as far as 6 words alone without any more being uttered in its delivery mechanisms.

The PNG Media Council, for the record, is not a journalist organisation. It is an industry body and it functions to protect the interest of the industry.

Today the council is in existence, with its executive members operating from their homes, while the media industry is operating with its newsroom managers dealing daily with challenges like the growing concerns of a country with many issues on top of the self-regulation of unethical journalism, poor presentation and story selections and accountability, among many that are a daily task at hand.

On the other side, the government and its agencies are working in isolation, with no clear, honest and transparent media and communication strategies and allocate a budget to work with the mainstream media.

At Independence, PNG inherited an information and communication apparatus that comprised the Office of Information, the National Broadcasting Commission, the Public Library, the National Archives and the National Museum, all with networks spread throughout the provinces.

These institutions coordinate and disseminate government information to the masses, most of them illiterate at that time.

Today a new generation of people live in PNG, the Department of Communication replaces the Office of Information, the NBC had moved into television, competing with more radio and TV networks, but the public libraries, archives and museums are either run down or closed.

And the communication landscape has changed drastically with the advancement in information technology, including social media.

All state agencies have media and communication units that are operating on ad hoc basis, sending invitations out only for groundbreaking ceremonies, report presentations and a few random press releases, hoping that the mainstream media will “educate, inform and communicate” to the masses and mobilise their support behind the state.

Communication and stakeholder engagement is the least funded activity in government. This is a fact, and yet the government expects the mainstream media to be proactive and promote its work.

How can the media, as an independent industry do that when its role is not encompassed into the entire government planning?

The media is an important pillar of our democracy and is a useful tool for development. We just have to build an honest, transparent and workable partnership for the mutual benefit of everyone. This must happen.

But it cannot work with a stick, sword, or even a gun to the head of any pillar of our governance and society.

We look forward to the discussions today with the proponents of this policy document, and we hope to see more transparency on what is the end game that is mutually beneficial where we have to plot a new course in media-government relationship.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s The National newspaper has welcomed a statement by the Information and Communication Technology Department (DICT) that the government has no wish to control the media to limit freedom of expression.

Editor-in-chief Christine Pakakota said a free media provided oxygen to any country claiming to be democratic, and effectively promoting transparency and accountability.

She was responding to a government statement last week, saying that the proposed national media development policy had “no intention of giving powers to the government to control the media or infringe on the freedom of expression”.

The National submitted its response to the draft policy last Tuesday.

Pakakota said it was obvious that the government’s intention and concern was “to ensure that the people get important and accurate information”.

“We are with any government that wishes to improve the standard of living of the people as well as to develop the country,” she said.

“And when the government says it aims to do so through the promotion of democracy, good governance, human rights and social and economic development, as stated in the covering statement to the draft policy, we will proudly stand beside it.”

‘Long journey’
She regretted that the government had given stakeholders only two weeks “to respond to a matter that would have serious and long-lasting impact on the country’s long journey to becoming a developed nation and take its rightful place in the world”.

“We also believe that the PNG Media Council must be fully independent and adequately funded by the state and/or donors, and run by highly-respected persons,” she said.

“It represents the interests of the media industry in PNG.”

She said the council should also have a complaints committee to judge complaints about press and broadcasting conduct as set out in a Media Code of Ethics and Practice.

“The council should have a chairman and executive secretary selected from the public,” she said.

“Members of the complaints committee (at least five) are also to be picked from the public.”

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Pacific journalism academic has warned proposed amendments to media laws in Papua New Guinea, if “ill-defined”, could mirror the harsh restrictions in Fiji.

Prime Minister James Marape’s government is facing fierce opposition from local and regional journalists for attempting to fasttrack a new media development policy.

The draft law has been described by media freedom advocates as “the thin edge of the web of state control”.

PNG’s Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Department released the Draft Media Development Policy publicly on February 5. It aims “to outline the objectives and strategies for the use of media as a tool for development”.

The department gave stakeholders less than two weeks to make submissions on the 15-page document, but after a backlash the ICT chief extended the consultation period by another week.

“I recognise the sensitivity and importance of this reform exercise,” ICT Minister Timothy Masiu said after giving in to public criticism and extending the consultation period until February 24.

Masiu said he instructed the Information Department to “facilitate a workshop in partnership with key stakeholders”, adding that the Information Ministry “supports and encourages open dialogue” on the matter.

“I reaffirm to the public that the government is committed to ensuring that this draft bill will serve its ultimate purpose,” he said.

The new policy includes provisions on regulating the media industry and raising journalism standards in PNG, which has struggled for years due to lack of investment in the sector.

But media leaders in PNG have expressed concerns, noting that while there are areas where government support is needed, the proposed regulation is not the solution.

“The situation in PNG is a bit worrying if you see what happened in Fiji, even though the PNG Information Department has denied any ulterior motives,” University of the South Pacific head of journalism, Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, told RNZ Pacific.

“There are concerns in PNG. Prominent journalists are worried that the proposed act could be the thin edge of the wedge of state media control, as in Fiji,” Dr Singh said, in reaction to Masiu’s guarantee that the policy is for the benefit of media organisations and journalists.

“If you look at the Fiji situation, the Media Act was implemented in the name of democratising the media, ironically, and also improving professional standards.”

Dr Singh said this is what is also being said by the PNG government but “in Fiji the Media Act has been a disaster for media rights”.

“Various reports blame the Fiji Media Act for a chilling effect on journalism and they also hold the Act responsible for instilling self-censorship in the Fiji media sector,” he said.

“If the PNG media policy provisions are ill-defined, as the Fiji Media Act was, and if it has harsh punitive measures, it could also result in a chilling effect on journalism and this in turn could have major implications for democracy and freedom of speech in PNG.”

The Media Industry Development Act (MIDA) 2010 and its implementation meant that Fiji was ranked 102nd out of 180 countries by Reporters without Borders in 2022.

Earlier this month Fiji’s Attorney-General Siromi Turaga publicly apologised to journalists for the harassment and abuse they endured during the Bainimarama government’s reign.

But Dr Singh said PNG appeared to have been “emboldened” by the Fijian experience.

Media freedom a Pacific-wide issue
He said other Pacific leaders had also threatened to introduce similar legislation and “this is a major concern”.

“Fiji and PNG are the two biggest countries in the Pacific [which] often set trends in the region, for better or for worse. The question that comes to mind is whether countries like Solomon Islands or Vanuatu will follow suit? [Because] over the years and even recently, the leaders of these two countries have also threatened the news media.”

A major study co-authored by the USP academic, which surveyed more than 200 journalists in nine countries and was published in Pacific Journalism Review in 2021, revealed that “Pacific journalists are among the youngest, most inexperienced and least qualified in the world”.

Dr Singh warned the research showed that legislation alone would not result in any significant improvements to journalism standards in Pacific countries, which is why committing money in training and development was crucial.

“Training and development are an important component of the Fiji Media Act. However, our analysis found zero dollars was invested by the Fiji government in training and development,” he said.

“If we are to take any lessons from Fiji, and if the PNG government is serious about standards, it needs to invest at least some of its own money in this venture of improving journalism.”

This is a sentiment shared by Media Council of PNG president, Neville Choi, who said: “If the concern is poor journalism, then the solution is more investment in schools of journalism at tertiary institutions, this will also improve diversity and pluralism in the quality of journalism.

“We need newsrooms with access to training in media ethics and legal protection from harassment,” Choi added.

Dr Singh said that without proper financial backing in the media sector “there is unlikely to be any improvement in standards, [but] just a cowered down or subdued media [which] is not in PNG’s public interest, or the national interest, given the levels of corruption in the country.”

APMN calls for ‘urgent rethink’
The publisher of the Pacific Journalism Review, the Asia Pacific Media Network, has also condemned the move, calling for an “urgent rethink” of the draft media policy.

The group is proposing for the communications ministry to “immediately discard the proposed policy of legislating the PNG Media Council and regulating journalists and media which would seriously undermine media freedom in Papua New Guinea”.

The network also cited the 1999 Melanesian Media Declaration as a guideline for Pacific media councils and said the draft PNG policy was ignoring “established norms” for media freedom.

The statement was co-signed by the APMN chair Dr Heather Devere; deputy chair Dr David Robie, a retired professor of Pacific journalism and author, and founding director of the Pacific Media Centre; and Pacific Journalism Review editor Dr Philip Cass, who was born in PNG and worked on the Times of Papua New Guinea and Wantok newspapers.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz