The daily newspapers are the Fiji Times, the Fiji Sun and the Daily Post.  The Fiji Times is part of the Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation with a daily circulation of about 45,000.  Its publisher Evan Hannah was deported as a prohibited Immigrant on May 1st 2008 because of alleged breaches of national security.
 
The Daily Post started as a weekly and was locally owned.  It became a daily newspaper in 1991.  In those days it was regarded by many as pro-government newspaper.  Circulation at its highest in the late 1990s was 15,000.  Today it is about 5,000..

During the period of the SDL government, the Daily Post was regarded by some as a pro Government.  It was strongly partisan and critical of the RFMF in its public disputation with the SDL Government during its period in power.  After the removal of the SDL Government in December 2006, the Daily Post continued for a while as a strong critic of the Interim Government until the Managing Editor, Mesake Koroi, was compelled to resign.  Later the Daily Post, under Robert Wolfgramm, became less critical and more open to publishing the post coup government information decisions and views.

The Fiji Sun is the newest Daily Paper and it started in 1997.  It is mainly owned by C.J Patel Ltd and Fijian Holdings Ltd and has superseded the Daily Post as the second most important daily newspaper in Fiji.  Its publisher, Russell Hunter was deported in February, 2008 for the same reasons as Evan Hannah.

Since 1987, there have been two Reports by the Fiji Government agencies that have examined the role the media in Fiji and recommended legislation to better define and regulate the roles of the media in Fiji.  The First was the Thomson Foundation Report:  “Future Media Legislation and Regulation for the Republic of the Fiji Islands 1996”.   
In examining the Fiji political context, The Thomson Report quoted from “As It Seemed To Me”, the Memoir of John Cole, a former Political Editor of the BBC on his view of the relationship of British politicians and the media in the mid 1990s:

“Politicians and the media seemed to be on a course of mutual injury, if not destruction. Institutionally all was not well. The words of matrimonial law, here was a relationship danger of having “irretrievably broken down”.

The Thomson Report recommended the establishment of the Fiji Media Council. The consultants were persuaded that the preservation of the independence and freedom of the media was best ensured through a voluntary and independent Media Council responsible for a common code of practice and ethics that would be applied consistently throughout the industry when breaches occurred. 

The Thomson Report noted that a former “Press Council” had been ineffective as a self-regulatory body.  However, it was impressed by its successor, with Daryl Tarte as its Chairman and two other members. It recommended that the Fiji Media Council build on the foundations of the previous council.

A Complaints Committee of the Council was recommended with established powers to enforce “the media member’s commitment to the Council’s Code of Practice and to require an offending media outlet to publish its judgment in full in a special forum.

The Fiji Times regularly publishes Notices about the Fiji Media Council’s complaints procedure.

The second Report on the Media in Fiji was commissioned by the Fiji Human Rights Commission (FHRC) in 2007 and published in February 2008.  The Report Freedom and Independence of the Media in Fiji was written by Dr James Anthony, a former citizen of Fiji now living in Hawaii for the last 35 years. 

Dr Shaista Shameem, then FHRC Director said “the FHRC found significant gaps in the available materials on the media industry, especially on the extent of media independence and freedom existed in Fiji”.  She said the political upheavals of 2000 and 2006 had raised the question of whether the right of the public “to accurate and balanced information was adequately protected”. 

The Fiji Media Council wrote to the FHRC expressing surprise about the Inquiry decision saying that they  thought because safeguarding the freedom and independence of the media was one of its fundamental objectives, the FHRC should have consulted the Council  “in the planning stage of the project” to avoid the suspicion of the media.  The Council thought the enquiry was unwise at a time of political and social instability and advised for a deferment of the project.  The Chief Executives of the Fiji Times, Communications Fiji Ltd, Fiji Television Ltd and Fiji (Sun) Ltd in a joint letter to the FHRC Director also criticized the Inquiry term of reference, expressed “doubt about the purpose of the inquiry” and said they believed “the inquiry represents the incursion of a biased FHRC into areas where it could improperly invoke human rights causes to control the media”.

Nevertheless the inquiry by Dr. James Anthony went ahead.  Recommendations from his report including: the establishment of a Media Tribunal of five persons  funded by a 7% tax; all existing work permits in the media industry not to be renewed and no further work permits to be issued.

The Media Tribunal was also seen as an organization to train qualified local personnel for editorial, sub-editorial and publisher positions; to provide a wide diversity of local programmes for television media and to develop community radio and community Television through the 7% Media tax.

To say the media was angry is to understate their point of view. Radio, TV, newspapers and magazine editors and executives voiced their indignation, anger and disappointment at the report.  Perhaps the Fiji TV best summarized the many media points of view, saying, that the FHRC seems to share the concern of all political parties and leaders that have been at the helm of power to have “controls that will weaken and severely dilute the rights of the media and individuals as enshrined in the 1997 Constitution”.

Fiji TV said that Anthony Report did not provide specifics on how the media have failed to meet their obligations, and said there is a tendency to heap most of the blame for Fiji’s political problem on the media “This is quite unfair and below the belt” commenting that media cannot allow themselves to be mouthpieces of the government, politicians and political parties.

As a panacea or cure or stimulant toward improving media standards the NCBBF recommended a number of changes which included the establishing of the media Tribunal, that legislation to be enacted to ensure the development and regulation of professional standards of journalism and a levy to be raised to cover the costs.