The Intel

Journalism is a noble profession, but in any country, you’d be dreaming if you expected newsrooms – with three reporters and barely enough cash to keep the lights on – to bear the brunt of holding their nation’s elite to account.

In the fraying colonial constructs that still ‘underpin’ the uneasy status quo of most Pacific societies, accountability can’t be achieved by one actor alone. Real accountability – with long lasting consequences for organisations and individuals – has rarely flowed from even the bravest of investigative journalism reports.

Unlike their Western counterparts, Pasifika journalists astutely navigate a complex cultural context of reciprocal relationships daily. This is before they start to deal with the growing onslaught of disinformation by certain foreign players as well as a tsunami of home grown misinformation spawned by social media.

Donors and their implementing partners should redouble their efforts to support the under-resourced media houses of the Pacific to lift their game and crucially, to build their viability to survive; the best future proofing for reporting that is without fear or favour.

But we also need to be on the lookout for those rare champions in civil society – occasionally also found within a state’s own accountability institutions – who have the intellectual and moral fortitude to speak truth to power. Be they individuals or organisations, when we find these champions, we must work with them. We need to be prepared to wholeheartedly follow their lead in building the demand for transparency and accountability on their terms, in their way.

Across the world, and the Pacific, media outlets are tasked with shining a light on issues, from political scandals to corporate wrongdoing. In theory, this exposure should lead to public outrage, regulatory action, and corrective measures. Yet, the reality is more complex. While investigative journalism has indeed uncovered significant scandals, the effectiveness of this "disinfectant" often falters due to several factors.

First, the sheer volume of information can overwhelm the public. In an age of information saturation, distinguishing between credible reporting and sensationalism becomes challenging. As a result, critical issues can get lost in the noise, or even misrepresented, diluting their impact.

Second, media consolidation and bias can skew the nature of sunlight itself. Many media organizations have partisan or financial interests, which can affect how and what they report. This can lead to selective exposure, where only certain aspects of an issue are highlighted, or where certain perspectives are marginalized.

Lastly but most importantly, the public's engagement with the media plays a crucial role. When individuals are disengaged or apathetic, even the most compelling stories may not drive meaningful action or reform.

So whilst sunlight—metaphorically representing transparency—remains a vital tool in exposing wrongdoing, its effectiveness as a disinfectant depends heavily on the integrity of the media, the quality of the information presented, and the public's engagement with the issues.

In the case of the Pacific, it is also the lack of funds and manpower that severely hinders the media from doing investigative stories. And Western countries who have diplomatic ties with the Pacific should be in the forefront assisting the media to enable them by providing story grants and mentoring. This would be a vital help line for Pacific media.

In short, no.

While the media plays an important role in revealing corruption scandals, building transparency and accountability in the Pacific means focusing on three key reform areas. First, we need to address the broader social, cultural and economic drivers of corruption.  As recent research has shown, across the region, reciprocal obligations between communities and elites undermines good governance. Yet, in the Pacific, fulfilling social and cultural obligations is oftentimes the only way to access the support and resources needed to survive, even if this means engaging in corruption.

Second, we need to improve the quality of and opportunities for formal education across the region. Similar to findings elsewhere, research conducted in Papua New Guinea shows that citizens with higher levels of formal education are more likely to report corruption. Investing in schools and teachers is thus an important, though overlooked way to ensure citizens respond to scandals reported by the media.

Third, integrity agencies need much greater support. As I and my colleagues have shown, many integrity agencies across the region are poorly resourced and/or have not received promised funding allocations. In Papua New Guinea in particular, key integrity institutions such as the police are woefully under-resourced. The region’s integrity agencies also need to be insulated from the political pressures that can undermine independence and credibility.

Don’t get me wrong. The media plays an important role in addressing corruption in the Pacific. But let’s not forget that governance is shaped by social, economic and political forces beyond its remit.