By Dr Shailendra Bahadur Singh
The following article explores the complex relationship between media narratives, ethnicity, and social cohesion in Fiji, around the following three key questions:
- How have media shaped narratives on ethnicity and what is the impact on social cohesion?
- What is journalism’s role in promoting an inclusive society?
- What strategies would you recommend for a racially harmonious Fiji?
How have media shaped narratives around ethnicity and what is the impact on social cohesion?
Questions about how media have shaped narratives around ethnicity and its impact on social cohesion would need a proper study for a definitive answer. Since no such recent studies exist, we can, at best, make some calculated observations.
For a start, media see themselves as a “mirror of society”. Media would argue that they do not shape narratives, but that their reporting simply reflects society as it stands—including its values, issues, and realities.
Therefore, if Fiji is an ethnically divided society, the news will reflect that. Conversely, if Fiji is a model of harmony, that’s what the news should show. If the media portray anything other than this, they are arguably not reflecting reality as it exists.
But claiming that media just mirror society could be downplaying or underestimating their role. Some argue that beyond simply reflecting society, media also function as a magnifying glass: firstly, because media can amplify or exaggerate situations, and secondly because media’s job isn’t just to reflect society, but also question it, challenge its norms, and push boundaries.
Relevant to this is the fact that media are often drawn to conflict and to powerful individuals—elements which are deemed more newsworthy. This explains why politicians often get the lion’s share of news coverage.
Consequently, how politicians handle race and ethnicity can shape news narratives. For example, the Minister for Defence and Veteran’s Affairs Pio Tikoduadua has frequently spoken out strongly in favour of minority rights, national unity and the rule of law.
But what about the other national leaders? What are they saying in Parliament? Are they promoting unity or are they fueling division? These are crucial questions because much of the media narrative on ethnicity can be shaped by what our leaders say.
Another question then is, do media narratives reflect society as media claim? Or do media preference elite viewpoints, given that politicians dominate news coverage?
What is journalism’s role in promoting an inclusive society?
This is the very question I addressed in my PhD thesis entitled “Rethinking journalism for supporting social cohesion and democracy: Case study of media performance in Fiji”(2014). Based on a review of the literature, I found that historically, media, at times, misrepresented certain issues, which did not help inclusiveness.
These included sensitive topics like land use and population trends, which fostered mistrust. During colonial times, this manipulation was part of deliberate divide-and-rule strategies to drive a wedge between communities. Today, we have a term for such tactics: “disinformation”, which is the intentional spread of false or misleading information to manipulate public perception.
The spread of disinformation didn’t stop completely after Fiji’s independence. For example, during the height of land disputes in 2000, a Fiji Daily Post editorial claimed that landowners would rather see land idle and overgrown, than leased out for economic gain. This was just the editorial writer’s opinion, with no interviews conducted with landowners to seek their views.
In contrast, a study published in the same year did interview landowners. It found many of them wanted to farm their land for profit, and willing to lease surplass land for the right rental, rather than leave it idle. So, this was a clear case of media misrepresentation—based not on facts, but rather a figment of the editorial writer’s imagination.
The problem is that the public is more likely to read newspapers, rather than academic research, meaning that more people would have been exposed to the editorial than to the study.
The lesson here is simple: journalism’s first rule is to be ethical and professional, not condescending, or taking shortcuts. Especially on sensitive issues, the media must be both alert and responsible.
They should educate themselves on key national debates like land, demography, the constitution, and electoral systems.
Which brings us back to the claim that media just reflect reality. As mentioned before, that argument diminishes media’s responsibility.
Media shouldn’t merely mirror society. They should apply a magnifying glass to it by, among other things, interrogating political rhetoric rather than repeating it uncritically under the guise of reporting the facts. Especially concerning issues of race and ethnicity, as they significantly impact national stability, economic development and quality of life in Fiji.
What strategies would you recommend for a racially harmonious Fiji?
It is surprising that until recently, Fiji has never had a proper social cohesion strategy despite the obvious need for one.
Without social cohesion, there’s no real development because whatever progress we make is destroyed by upheavals—military and civilian—with ethnic tensions being a key underlying cause.
However, social cohesion is not just the government’s job. It’s everyone’s responsibility. Every organisation and every sector should get behind it. And it starts at home. A lot of the prejudices that we observe today are learnt at home.
What we need is a coordinated national awareness campaign, with media, the education sector and civil society working together.
Moreover, research in this area is lacking. What are our three universities doing about it? Globally, conflict prevention and peacebuilding are major fields of study—to what extent are our universities supporting this effort?
In addition, Fiji must look beyond its borders for inspiration. Countries like Singapore and Malaysia have invested heavily in reducing economic disparities and building a common national identity—with reasonable success.
Mauritius is another multiethnic country from which Fiji could learn. In the 1970s, Mauritius and Fiji had similar per capita GDPs but by 2023, Mauritius’s GDP had doubled compared with Fiji’s, making it twice as wealthy.
While the contexts are different, could Mauritius’s success hold any lessons for Fiji? We will never know unless we regularly engage with Mauritius in a broader way.
Conclusion
In summary, media can shape social cohesion—for better or worse. Their impact depends on whether they report professionally and ethically. Media must make it their business to better understand sensitive national issues and challenge divisive political narratives.
Furthermore, Fiji must look beyond its borders for ideas and inspiration.
And finally, an inclusive society isn’t just the government’s responsibility but a national effort. However, the government must take the lead and set an example.
This opinion piece is an updated version of the writer’s presentation at the Dialogue Fiji and Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission panel discussion in Suva on March 21. The event was held to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Contributing author: Dr Shailendra Bahadur Singh is an associate professor and head of the journalism program at The University of the South Pacific in Fiji. He has written widely on Pacific media, politics and development. The views in this article are his own and do not reflect the position of The University of the South Pacific.
Support our Journalism
Whether you live in Australia, UK, Canada, the USA or India, you can take a paid subscription by clicking on Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism.