Weekly Media Update 38

MMPZ is concerned about revelations in the private media that government planned to stalk 15 Zimbabwean journalists from the private media, which it accuses of working with “hostile anti-Zimbabwean Western governments”. Studio 7 (21/9) and The Zimbabwean and ZimOnline (27/9) reported that the journalists –from The Financial Gazette, Zimbabwe Independent, The Zimbabwean, The Standard and South Africa-based ZimOnline – included Bill Saidi, Wilf Mbanga, Abel Mutsakani, Vincent Kahiya and Njabulo Ncube. Citing “a leaked (government) document” titled “2008 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections”, they said that the 15 journalists were to be placed under “strict surveillance” and then picked up “on the various dates set” for unspecified action.

 

Although ZimOnline cited Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu dismissing the “so-called hit-list as fake” and “meant to discredit government”, it reported the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists (ZUJ) as having alerted the International Federation of Journalists on the matter. It reported the union noting that freelance cameraman Edward Chikomba had been “murdered a few months ago after being abducted by suspected CIO members”. In addition, these media reported ZUJ and other international media organizations condemning the move, saying the authorities should guarantee safety of the listed journalists as independent journalism was essential in ensuring that the voting processes in the 2008 elections were fair and democratic.

The government media ignored the development.

 

In a related development, local media watchdog MISA reported the opening in the trial of Bright Chibvuri, editor of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions’ magazine, The Worker, accused of practising journalism without a licence. Reportedly, the trial opened with the state applying to change Chibvuri’s alleged offence, initially “charged with contravening Section 83 (1) as read with Section 80 (2) of AIPPA”, since section 80 (2) “is non-existent”. According to MISA, Chibvuri – who was arrested during a ZCTU seminar in Plumtree last March and spent two nights in police custody – now faces charges under Section 83 (3) of AIPPA as read with Section 83(1). Section 83 (1) creates the offence of practising journalism without accreditation while Section 83 (3) is a penalty clause.

 

Meanwhile, the private media continued exposing the on-going rights abuses against a cross-section of Zimbabweans, particularly MDC members, by state security agents and ruling party activists. This week they recorded 15 fresh incidents, which included arrests, harassment and beatings. In one incident, The Zimbabwean reported Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri as having banned all police officers from “reading or carrying private newspapers while in uniform”. The paper quoted a police “internal communication signal BM170/2007” as ordering “police station, district and provincial commanders” to bar police details from bringing independent papers to police stations, adding that “most” members of the force “get carried away with what they read in these newspapers, as exemplified by comments that have been made by some junior officers”. Police spokesman Oliver Mandipaka reportedly refused to comment on the matter.

This week the government media reduced proceedings at the 62^nd United Nations General Assembly in the US into political mudslinging between President Robert Mugabe and US President George Bush. As a result, there was barely information regarding the agenda of the meeting, the deliberations that took place and any resolutions passed. Similarly, there were no useful follow-ups on the exact causes of the differences in world opinion over President Mugabe’s possible attendance of the EU-Africa summit in Portugal later this year. These professional shortcomings were reflected in the 88 reports the official media carried on the topic. Of these, 47 appeared on ZBC and 41 in the government papers.

 

The government media did not provide a sober examination of US President George Bush’s critical remarks on poor governance in Zimbabwe during his UN opening speech or coherently reconcile it with President Mugabe’s acidic response at the same meeting.

The Herald and Chronicle (26/9) and ZTV (26/9, 8pm) even blacked out the US President’s speech, in which he allegedly said Zimbabweans were suffering under “a tyrannical regime” resulting in millions of them fleeing the country. They only covered it in the context of government’s responses to it.

The two official dailies, for example, quoted Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu accusing Bush of “abusing” the UN platform to peddle “lies on Zimbabwe as part of a neo-colonial campaign to demonise the…country over its land reform programme”.

 

ZBC also failed to give informed coverage of the speech. Rather, its reporter, Judith Makwanya, seemed to only take delight in the possible response of Mugabe, saying: “A lot of fireworks are expected in (Mugabe’s speech) following the provocation by George Bush…” (ZTV 26/9, 8pm). Notably, the context and relevance of the US president’s observations was ignored. It was hardly surprising therefore that Mugabe’s eventual response to Bush was given positive prominence, with The Herald and Chronicle (28/9) even reproducing the full text of the speech. Moreover, the government papers also amplified the speech in praise editorials such as ‘President: Beacon of hope for the oppressed’ (The Herald 29/9) and ‘Bush should heed President’s advice’ and ‘UN assembly: Zim story told’ (The Sunday Mail 30/9).

 

Spot FM (29/9, 8am) presented Mugabe’s attack on Bush as having received widespread as reflected by the way Malawian President, Bingu waMutharika and his Zambian counterpart, Levy Mwanawasa “shook his hands” after the address. The government media’s preoccupation with presenting Mugabe as having triumphed over his ‘detractors’ resulted in them failing to give a holistic picture of what transpired between him and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on the sidelines of the meeting.

ZTV (28/9, 8pm) just reported that Mugabe had “warned” Ki-moon “not to allow the West to abuse his office”. No comments were sought from the UN.  

 

Similarly, there was no examination of the principles governing the EU-Africa summit regarding President’s Mugabe attendance; the exact reasons behind British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s boycott threats if Mugabe was invited or the wisdom of his decision. As a result, none of the government media sought official clarifications from the British authorities on what Brown meant when he claimed Mugabe’s presence at the Lisbon Summit would turn the meeting into a circus and “divert attention from important issues”, (The Herald and Chronicle 26/9).

 

Earlier, The Herald (25/9) speculated that Brown was “fearful” of the “sitting arrangements and handshakes” with Mugabe at the summit. In addition, the editorial also considered the British premier’s boycott threats as “premised on land reform”, saying the British government was “failing to come to terms with the irreversible…programme”. Similarly,ZTV (27/9, 8pm) used the boycott threat to vindicate official claims that Britain was “involving other countries in its diplomatic row” with Zimbabwe. The government media’s narrow presentation of the subject was mirrored by its sparse use of alternative voices to examine government pronouncements (Figs 1 and 2). Notably, most of the comments from the foreign diplomats were reported in the context of offering solidarity to the country.

 

 

Although the private media fairly reported on Bush and Mugabe’s speeches, they failed to give a holistic picture of proceedings at the UN summit. However, contrary to government assertions, Studio 7 (27/9) reported that Ki-Moon had actually tasked President Mugabe over the Zimbabwe crisis and “rejected his contention that UN assistance was not necessary” because the matter was “in the hands of SADC”.

The private media made attempts to critically assess the prudence of Brown’s decision to boycott the EU-Africa summit.

For example, The Zimbabwe Times (27/9), carried an opinion piece from Geoff Nyarota, which criticised Brown’s threats to boycott the summit. Nyarota argued, among other issues, that the British Prime Minister’s stance had the effect of reducing the summit to a “bilateral issue” between his country and its former colony. Citing a recent International Crisis Group report on Zimbabwe, Nyarota contended that such actions gave Mugabe “legitimacy to claim that he is a victim of neo-colonial ambitions”. The reports were part of the 34 reports the private media (private electronic media [19] and private Press [15]) carried on the subject. Figs 3 and 4 show voice distribution in the private media.

 

 

The government media failed to adequately inform their audiences on important national developments during the week. These included the passing in Parliament of the Indigenisation and Empowerment Bill, the continued economic slide and labour unrest in the country. The government media’s 38 reports on the matter (ZBC [32] and government papers [6]) either censored or downplayed the impact of these developments. Only the private media tried to critically examine these issues in the 49 stories they devoted to the subject: private electronic media (31) and private Press (18).  

 

The government media carried six passive Parliamentary reports on the Bill’s passage. Notably, no effort was made to assess the impact of the proposed law on the fundamental issue of property rights and investor confidence in the country. For example, The Herald and Chronicle (27/9) simply announced that the Bill had “sailed” through the House without amendments. However, while The Herald and Chronicle (27/9) captured some of the “heated exchanges” between ruling and opposition MPs over contentious provisions of the Bill, such as its definition of “indigenous people”, they did not seek alternative views on the matter.

The government dailies, for example, simply reported Indigenisation and Empowerment Minister, Paul Mangwana, dismissing opposition concerns that the definition was “racist” as it excluded white Zimbabweans from benefiting on the basis that the wording of the Bill “deliberately avoided the use of the word ‘black’ and ‘white’” but “‘indigenous Zimbabweans’”. It was only the private media that shed light on the implications of the Bill.

 

Apart from highlighting its racist nature, these media reported analysts and businesses expressing alarm at the Bill’s provisions, which they argued would scare away potential investors and force the few remaining companies to leave the country. It was against this backdrop that The Financial Gazette (27/9) reported SA Reserve Bank Governor Tito Mboweni putting the matter into perspective by observing that “the removal of property rights in Zimbabwe has been a source of the country’s problems”. The paper revealed how government had ignored advice from businesses to settle for a moderate Bill that would, among others, reduce local ownership threshold to 30 percent from the proposed 51 percent. However, the paper and Zimbabwe Independent (28/9) reported Mangwana saying those foreign-owned businesses not happy with the proposed law “can simply go”. Zimdaily (27/9) claimed government had started compiling lists of companies to be taken over but did not substantiate its allegations.

The government media blacked out labour unrest in the country, characterised by a go-slow by teachers and health service workers. The closest they came to reporting on the matter was when ZTV (25/9, 6pm) reported Health Deputy Minister Edwin Muguti and Education Permanent Secretary Stephen Mahere calling on government to “come up with attractive packages” and improve “conditions of service to stem the brain drain”. Only the private media highlighted the extent of the labour discontent and its negative effects. For example, Studio 7 (24/9), SW Radio Africa and ZimOnline (27/9) and The Standard (30/9) reported on the outbreak of a strike by teachers and non-academic staff over poor working conditions at various council, mission and government schools, which they claimed could be one of the most crippling strikes in the education sector since independence.

 

There was little valuable information in the government media on the country’s economic meltdown. This week The Herald even inexplicably removed its front-page regular Price Watch Column, used to update its readers on government’s gazetted prices of goods and services since the authorities embarked on a price freeze campaign last June.

The Herald’s decision coincided with government’s relaxation of its price slash campaign that has resulted in the spiralling of commodity prices and the massive fall of the Zimbabwe dollar on the black market, but which the paper turned a blind eye to.

Only The Sunday Mail (30/9) took stock of this development in its lead story: “Price madness back again”. However, the paper merely reported the increases in isolation of government’s new price increase regime.

 

The government also failed to examine the causes of persistent water and electricity shortages and their impact on industry and households. Instead, they passively rehashed official assurances that the problems would be solved. For instance, ZTV (25/9, 8pm) quoted Finance Minister Samuel Mumbengegwi and Reserve Bank Governor Gideon Gono assuring residents in Harare and its satellite towns that the water situation was going to improve. They did not say how and when.

 

There was equally no clarity as to the causes of the worsened power cuts, especially as they came in the wake of government announcements that the shortages would ease after Mozambique reportedly doubled electricity supplies to Zimbabwe. The private media also failed to give informed coverage on the new spate of price increases. However, they carried several stories highlighting indicators of economic decline, which projected government as having lost control of the economy. In one such story, the Independent reported an unnamed “senior British diplomatic source” as alleging that government’s efforts to control prices had “not only backfired” but “completely fractured the supply and production chains behind the retail sector”.

 

Earlier, Studio 7 (25/9) and SW Radio Africa (26/9) attributed price increase to the drastic drop in the value of the Zimbabwe dollar, which they said, “fell ten times since May”. The difference in the way the government and private media reported on the issues is exemplified by the sourcing patterns of the government papers and the private electronic media. See Figs 5 and 6.