There is a growing debate in Samoa about the role of the media and particularly the Samoa Observer. The Government and some of its supporters have become increasingly critical of the newspaper’s coverage of the Prime Minister and the government, describing it as relentlessly negative and increasingly, as “anti-government”.
It is a criticism that deserves to be considered but also one that deserves some perspective.
The Samoa Observer is not perfect. No newspaper is and trust me, journalists can make mistakes, stories can sometimes lack context and editorial positions can be strongly expressed.
The newspaper should be open to criticism and should be held accountable when it gets things wrong. However, there is a significant difference between criticising the journalism of a newspaper and dismissing it as anti-government simply because it is critical of those in power.
I grew up in Samoa and I can tell you now that we as a country has been this before.
During the long years of the Human Rights Protection Party rule, the Samoa Observer was one of the strongest and most persistent critics of the Government of Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi.
Its editorials regularly challenged the Prime Minister while it’s reporting closely followed controversies within Government and the ruling party.
At the time, many HRPP supporters accused the newspaper of being unfair and politically motivated.
Yet the same people who welcomed that criticism when HRPP was in power now appear uncomfortable when the same newspaper turns its attention to FAST.
That is perhaps one of the unavoidable contradictions of politics. A critical newspaper can look like a defender of democracy when it is criticising the other side but suddenly look like an enemy when the criticism is directed at one’s own Government.
The principle however, should remain the same. One of the clearest examples was the controversy surrounding the three major bills introduced in 2020 – the Land and Titles Bill, the Judicature Bill and the Constitution Amendment Bill. The proposed changes to Samoa’s judicial and constitutional arrangements generated serious concern and debate.
The Samoa Observer covered the issue extensively and took a strongly critical editorial position.
It published the concerns of lawyers and other critics, questioned the proposed changes and kept returning to the issue and believe me, many were saying that the Samoa Observer was campaigning against HRPP.
Another way of looking at it is that the newspaper was doing exactly what a free press should do when a Government proposes fundamental changes to the country’s constitutional and judicial arrangements- ask questions, investigate and make sure the public understands what is at stake.
It would have been far more worrying if the media had simply remained silent.
The three bills became a major issue in the political environment leading into the 2021 election but it would be wrong to suggest that the Samoa Observer defeated HRPP because it did not, the people of Samoa did.
The change of Government was the result of many factors – divisions within HRPP, the departure of prominent political figures, the rise of FAST, public concerns about the proposed legislation, the election campaign itself and the extraordinary constitutional events that followed and guess what, the media was one part of that story.
It helped keep issues in the public eye, provided a platform for critics and questioned those in power.
It contributed to public debate.
That is influence but it is not the same as controlling an election.
This is why the current criticism of the Observer needs to be approached carefully.
If the newspaper publishes something inaccurate, Government should challenge it. If an allegation is false, provide the evidence.
If the newspaper fails to give the Government an opportunity to respond, that should be pointed out. The Government has every right to defend itself but being criticised is not the same as being persecuted.
A free press will sometimes be persistent. It may return to the same issue because it believes the public has not received an adequate answer. It may ask uncomfortable questions and continue asking them when the first answer does not satisfy the public interest and that is frustrating for any Government but frustration is not necessarily evidence of bias.
A confident Government should be able to answer difficult questions. If the Observer says a policy is wrong, Government can explain why it is right. If a report is inaccurate, correct it. If criticism is unfair, demonstrate why.
The strongest response to a newspaper is not simply to call it anti-government. It is to answer its arguments.
At the same time, the Samoa Observer has responsibilities of its own. Independence does not mean being above criticism.
The newspaper must make sure its facts are right, allegations are properly supported and the distinction between news and opinion remains clear but perhaps the greatest danger would be for Samoa to reach a point where every strong criticism of Government is automatically treated as evidence that the journalist or newspaper is an enemy.
The media is not supposed to make Government comfortable.
It is supposed to make Government accountable and that responsibility does not change simply because the Government has changed.
If the Observer was entitled to question HRPP, it must be entitled to question FAST. If HRPP supporters were entitled to criticise the Observer, FAST supporters have the same right but the principle must work both ways.
The Observer should not be above scrutiny, and Government should not be above scrutiny.
Samoa does not need a media that is automatically pro-government but neither does it need one that is automatically anti-government.
It needs a media that is willing to investigate whoever holds power and to ask questions that the public deserves answers to.
The Samoa Observer played an important role in the political conversation that eventually led to the change from HRPP to FAST. Its coverage of the three controversial bills and other issues helped ensure that difficult questions remained in the public discussion.
The media played its part, political leaders played theirs, the courts played theirs. Ultimately, the voters made the decision.
Now that the political tables have turned, the same principle should apply.
The Samoa Observer does not have to be liked by Government. Government does not have to agree with the Samoa Observer.
The newspaper can criticise Government and Government can criticise the newspaper but somewhere between those competing voices is the Samoan public and that is who both should ultimately serve.
Government must govern, the media must question, the opposition must challenge and the people must decide.
That is democracy.
This article was originally published by MerMada Pacific Media/Mai News.
