This thesis examines conflict reporting in Fiji, an ethnically and politically divided Pacific island country debilitated by four socially and economically devastating coups between 1987 and 2006.

There have been significant changes in journalistic practices in various countries over the years. Yet little is known about the nature of changes in journalism in transitional developing countries following military rule. Drawing on email surveys of journalists in Nigeria and Fiji, two countries with recent histories of military dictatorship that are rarely examined in the research literature, this comparative study investigates journalistic practices in the two countries. Results show that in Nigeria, the transition from military rule to democratic system of government in May 1999 and the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act in 2011 have ushered in significant changes in the way journalism is practised. However, there remains an adversarial relationship between the government and journalists. In Fiji, the 2006 coup, the fourth in the country’s history, led to a more restrictive environment for journalists, despite democratic elections in 2014. Under pressure, journalists are rethinking their roles, with some now considering ‘development journalism’ as a legitimate journalistic genre. These findings contribute to our understanding of journalistic practices in non-Western cultures following transition from military rule to democracy.

This article examines the cultural, political, ethnic and economic forces that have shaped the evolution of media legislation in Fiji and the evident impacts on journalism and society. The article argues that despite Fiji’s British colonial heritage and its smooth transition to democracy after Independence in 1970, the spectre of stricter legislation has been a constant threat. This threat finally materialised in the post-2006 coup period, when media-related laws underwent a major overhaul, including the promulgation of the punitive Media Industry Development Decree 2010, which was later ‘preserved’ under the 2013 Constitution despite being labelled ‘undemocratic’. The 2006 coup leader Voreqe Bainimarama, who was decisively voted back into power as Prime Minister in the 2014 General Election, justified the media reforms in the name of social stability and progress. This research uses document review to examine the genesis, nature and efficacy of Fiji’s media-related laws, from the colonial to postcolonial periods, and beyond.

This case study on the state of the media in Fiji in 2016 highlights some problems of development journalism in the practical, applied sense. The case study looks at the changing nature of journalism in post-coup Fiji, reputed to have the South Pacific’s toughest media law. The analysis is conducted through a review of the media sector in 2016. Major issues pertaining to the sector were documented over the year and analysed to assess the impact of the 2006 coup and the punitive 2010 Media Industry Development Decree. Using 2016 as the case year allowed for the situation to be examined over a prolonged 12-month period. The review reveals a cornered media weaned on the Anglo-American watchdog tradition under constant pressure to produce development journalism, resulting in a possible identity crisis within the national journalist corps. The review concludes that normative discussions notwithstanding, achieving a compromise between the watchdog and developmental journalism models are harder to achieve in reality.

This article advances discussions on media freedom and media development in Melanesia through the introduction of an ‘external’ and ‘internal’ threats analytical framework. Singling out the challenges and categorising them into these two main groups provides a clearer picture of the issues at stake, the links between them, and the need to address the situation holistically. External threats emanating from outside the media sector are often seen as more serious, and they often overshadow internal threats, which come from within the media sector. This article argues that both sets of threats have serious impacts on media and journalism in their own ways, and that both should be regarded equally. Furthermore, the linkages between these threats mean that one cannot be properly addressed without addressing the other. A key outcome of this discussion is a clearer understanding of how little control the media have over both external and internal threats, and how stakeholder support is needed to overcome some of the issues.  Because good journalism benefits the public, this article argues for increased public support for high-quality journalism that delivers a public benefit.