The Media Update 2007-36

MMPZ welcomes government plans to set up rural information centres and mobile van units, presumably to address the information gap and communication needs of the people. The Herald (14/9) reported Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu telling people at the launch of the national Information Communication Technology policy framework by President Mugabe that taking the information and communication systems to rural areas would “enhance development and bridge the urban-rural digital divide”. We hope the empowerment of the rural folks that government envisages includes offering them essential information on electoral, human rights and other pertinent developmental issues. At the same time, the authorities should resist the temptation to turn these multi-media into instruments of propaganda in the same way that they, and their colonial predecessors, reduced the public media into their mouthpieces. Such a decision to confer more information opportunities to the rural people carries the particular responsibility of lending next-year’s elections greater credibility, only if it is made in plenty of time and in a non-partisan manner.

 

However, it remains to be seen whether government possesses the political will to allow a professional use of these multimedia, particularly in view of other developments that seem to cast doubt over the real intentions of the information facilities. For example, the government plan coincided with revelations by the Zimbabwe Independent (14/9) that the ruling party had stepped up its “propaganda blitz” by roping in media publications in the region “to spruce up the government’s image and counter an array of Western-based websites perceived to be pushing for regime change”. The plan, it reported, had already been taken to Malawi, where eight journalists from the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation, TVM and the Information department were said to have been invited to record programmes on the ‘Zimbabwe situation’. Citing “sources privy to the initiatives”, the paper reported them as saying government “was on a drive to invite as many ‘friendly’ countries as possible to promote positive coverage of its policies”.

 

Reportedly, it is not the first time government had been “struggling to counter what it terms ‘negative publicity’ by Western media”. The latest plan, noted the Independent, was merely part of a “cocktail” of counter strategies that included the setting up in Gweru of a shortwave propaganda radio station, Voice of Zimbabwe, and the splurging of over US$1 million in an “image-making campaign” with the British-based New African magazine. But while the government pontificated on bridging the information gap between the urban and rural people, the media it controls were ignoring continued human rights abuses perpetrated against perceived government opponents chiefly by state security agents and ruling party activists. Only the private media gave publicity to these. This week they recorded eight new incidents of harassment, beatings, arrests and detention of workers, students, ordinary members of the public, church leaders and civic and opposition activists.

 

Although the government media carried 78 reports on international relations (ZBC [52] and government papers [26]), none of them honestly discussed the causes of Harare’s frosty relations with some members of the international community. Most of the stories just portrayed President Mugabe’s embattled government as enjoying huge support from the international community but failed to gauge benefits to the country of this purported solidarity. It was in this light that the official media even deliberately misconstrued support for the country as meaning support for government’s under-fire political and economic policies. The misrepresentation also applied to the way they reported on the targeted Western sanctions against the ruling elite and their cronies, which they continued to depict as blanket retribution against the people of Zimbabwe.

 

The government media’ determination to twist issues and peddle the narrow perception of a popular Mugabe government – even among its alleged Western detractors – was exemplified by Spot FM (12/9, 8pm) and The Herald (13/9). They gave the impression that Commonwealth Secretary General Don McKinnon had called President Mugabe a “hero” although there was nothing in their reports that remotely suggested that.  In the same vein, they oversimplified McKinnon’s observations that “some African countries he (McKinnon) had visited” still regarded Mugabe as “very much a hero” to mean that he had “admitted that Mugabe is a hero in Africa”.  In addition, the official media just gave the simplistic notion that, apart from Britain’s objection to Mugabe’s participation at the summit, it was almost inevitable that he would be invited.

 

The official media glossed over the causes of Zimbabwe’s expulsion from the Commonwealth or of its unease relations with the West. Spot FM (12/9,8pm) just attributed it to Zimbabwe’s “bold decision to give land to the majority”. The government media portrayed the ruling elite as prevailing over isolation and its Western opponents. This reached almost ridiculous levels when they presented the Zimbabwe cricket team’s win against Australia as a diplomatic victory for Zimbabwe without coherently explaining how. For example, The Herald (14/9) editorial; Zim win: A kick in Howard’s face, attacked John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, for alleged political malice against Zimbabwe.  In addition, the same issue of the paper carried a cartoon depicting the “famous” cricket victory as retribution against the recent deportation from Australia of the eight children of top government officials as part of Canberra’s intensified smart sanctions against the ruling elite. Earlier, The Herald (13/9) skirted the true reasons behind Australia’s failure to fulfil its previous fixture with Zimbabwe by citing an unnamed commentator implying it was due to fear of defeat: “Now everyone knew why the Australian national side was banned by its government from coming to Zimbabwe for a one day international series this month.”

 

The official media used the authorities’ exchanges of diplomatic etiquettes with their Cuban, Libyan, Kuwait and Mozambican counterparts as proof that the country was enjoying good relations with the rest of the world. For example, while ZBC’s morning bulletins (11/9) and The Herald (11/9) reported Mozambique as having boosted power supply to Zimbabwe, increasing it by 100 percent from 150 megawatts daily to 300, it did not clarify under what conditions it was made. They passively quoted the authorities attributing the concession to “good working relationship” despite the “existing debt…of close to US$20 million” to Hidroelectrica de Cahora Bassa of Mozambique. No comment was sought from the Mozambicans. The lack of in-depth coverage of the topic by the government media was mirrored by their heavy reliance on official comments without balancing them with alternative opinions. See Figs 1 and 2.

 

 

Most of the diplomatic voices were reported in the context of giving support to the authorities’ claims of a Zimbabwean government at peace with the world despite Western machinations to isolate it.

 

 

Only the private media exposed the gravity of Zimbabwe’s strained relations with the international community. Its 20 stories on the matter (private electronic media [8] and private papers [12]) showed that even in Africa, support for Mugabe was not as unanimous as the government media projected it.  For example, the Zimbabwe Independent (14/9) revealed that Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa had “clashed” with Mugabe after he tried to table for discussion the Zimbabwe crisis during a closed-door session at the recent SADC Summit in Zambia. Reportedly, Mugabe walked out of the meeting in “protest” despite attempts by fellow presidents, such as South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki, to stop him from leaving.Earlier, Zimdaily (13/9) claimed that Mugabe was considering withdrawing Zimbabwe from SADC if the region continued to press him to resign.

It quoted unnamed ZANU PF Politburo sources as saying the president had already tasked ZANU-PF’s legal team led by Patrick Chinamasa and Emmerson Mnangagwa to look into the matter. However, the report lacked substantiation. The Financial Gazette (13/9) also exposed cracks in Zimbabwe’s relationship with China, the lynchpin of government’s ‘Look East’ policy. It reported Liu Joe, a trade attaché at the Chinese embassy, revealing that the support and solidarity that Zimbabwe was receiving from his country had yielded very little due to Zimbabwe’s incapacity to raise both the foreign and local currency to back the projects.

 

New Zimbabwe and Studio 7(12/9) and The Financial Gazette (13/9) reported on the growing tension over Mugabe possible presence at the EU-AU summit, saying already Britain and Germany had threatened to boycott it if he was invited. SW Radio Africa (12/9) cited UK-based MDC official Hebson Makuvise and a former British government minister, Malcolm Rifkind, advising against Mugabe’s invitation. It quoted Makuvise saying inviting Mugabe would “send wrong signals to repressive regimes in Africa” while Rifkind argued that it would “validate the Harare government while humiliating Europe.”

 

The critical manner in which the private media tackled the topic was reflected in their use of alternative comments to test official pronouncements. See Figs 3 and 4. 

 

 

 

 

Almost all the 71 stories the government media carried highlighting economic decline did not give a comprehensive picture of the crisis. Of these, 43 appeared on ZBC and the rest (28) in the government papers. The reports neither measured the impact of the economic problems on the people nor explained how and when the authorities would deal with them. Instead, they just regurgitated official rhetoric promising action or blaming those outside government for the crisis. For example, Spot FM (16/9, 1pm) quoted Price Monitoring and Stabilisation Taskforce deputy chairman Elliot Manyika blaming manufactures for “starving the market” of goods by “diverting” them to the black market or exporting them without linking the shortages to government’s price slash exercise.  No comment was sought from business.

 

Such docility also characterised the station’s earlier coverage of commodity shortages in Gutu (11/9, 1pm). It reported on empty shelves in the area in isolation of government’s price blitz on business. Despite depicting an economy in turmoil, the government media projected government as in control of the situation. For example, The Herald (10/9) quoted Information Deputy Minister Bright Matonga claiming government was “aware and doing its best to avert the current transport problems and food shortages” without asking how it was doing that.  Similarly, there was no attempt to examine government’s financial and management capacity to introduce “people shops” nationwide “to make it easy for communities, particularly rural folks, to access goods”, especially in light of their well-documented failure to run the many companies under it (The Herald 12/9)

 

The government media also dodged linking the root causes of the economic malaise to government’s poor policies such as its fast-tracked land reforms. It was against this backdrop that The Herald (12/9) merely reported that stock-feed concern Agrifoods was operating at a very low capacity over the past two years due to raw materials shortage.

Equally, there was no informed coverage on current and planned job boycotts against the galloping cost of living. The Chronicle (13/9), for instance, did not provide logistics on the strike by workers at the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra) except that they were demanding a 5 000 percent pay rise. Further, it did not explain when the strike started or measured how it had affected the country’s border posts.  And instead of proactively reporting on the planned strikes by teachers and the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), the Chronicle carried reaction stories dismissing such action. These included: “Workers must kick out ZCTU leaders” (12/9) and “ZCTU blasted over strike call” (14/9). Notably, ZBC totally ignored the issues.

 

The voice distribution of the government media are shown in Figs 5 and 6.

 

 

 

While the official media masked the catastrophic effects of the economic freefall and its root causes, the private media candidly exposed these in 63 stories they carried on the topic: private electronic media (20) and private papers (43). They also highlighted increased labour disquiet over some of government’s economic policies. These included a strike by Zimra workers and planned protests by teachers and the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions against government’s wage freeze. In fact, The Zimbabwean (13/9) reported that the army and police had been put on alert ahead of the proposed industrial actions, coupled with war veterans’ agitation for “massive” pay hikes.

In addition, The Financial Gazette reported on the chaos at border posts caused by the Zimra strike, saying the job boycott could have cost the parastatal $1 trillion in revenue alone on the first day while New Zimbabwe.com (12/9) alleged that more than hundred workers had quit ZBC in the past nine months alone due to poor pay. The Zimbabwe Times (13/9) reported discontent in the police over the same poor working conditions.

 

The private media continued to highlight the negative effects of government’s prize blitz. The Zimbabwe Independent (14/9), for example, reported that Edgars stores was closing down 19 of its 55 branches due to viability problems “directly” linked to the blitz, throwing 220 workers out of employment. Earlier, The Zimbabwe Times (13/9) cited Finance Minister Samuel Mumbengegwi admitting that government’s price control exercise was “chaotic”.

 

Figs 7 and 8 show voice distribution of the private media.