By Takura Zhangazha*
Over a fortnight ago the Information and Media Panel of Inquiry (IMPI) presented its report on the state of the
media in Zimbabwe to the Ministry of Media, Information and Broadcasting
Services. The report is also available
to the public. It has however not been
the subject of broader debate let alone serialized by the mainstream media
whose key challenges it seeks to address.
The reasons for this rather muted reception from the media
is a reflection of the possibility that
the media probably does not feel it owns the report let alone regard it with
what should be a requisite seriousness. Or
as the Chairman of IMPI, Mr. Geoffrey Nyarota implies in the introductory statement of the report, the initial disagreements of panelists and negative perceptions may
have made its final product less popular with the media.
It is however government that is now the key player in
making the report important even though it has no legal obligation to accept
the recommendations that are being proffered.
What is also apparent is that the IMPI report is not
groundbreaking. The issues it identifies
have been known for a while now by media stakeholders. Other reports/surveys have also been conducted on the media on a nationwide scale. These would include that done by the then Media
and Information Commission at least a decade ago.
The difference with this report is that it
has an array of themes that are at times crosscutting but less about the
state/government control of the media and more about the media itself.
There are seven thematic areas that were covered by
IMPI. These are, Media as Business
(including new media); Information Platforms and Content of Media Products; Polarisation, Perception
and Interference; Media Training, Capacity and Ethics; Gender Advocacy and
Marginalised Groups; Employment Opportunities and Conditions of Service; Media
Law Reform and Access to Information.
Each
of these themes are narrated in relation to some theoretical grounding, outlines of feedback
from members of the public, quantitative assessments, regional examples and finally each thematic committee’s recommendations.
The final chapter is perhaps the most important in that it
consolidates all of these recommendations. Key among these is changing the training
curriculum for journalists to include the requirement of a first degree for one
to be enrolled at a proposed school of journalism.
Furthermore, it is
proposed that there be a legal code of conduct for journalists over and above
the current voluntary one but with non-criminal consequences. This recommendation is further augmented by
the proposition that the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
(AIPPA) be repealed.
In relation to the broadcasting, the consolidated
recommendations are that there should be
at least legal convergence with the regulation of telecommunications and that
there be established a national film board to increase content production capacity.
There are other recommendations that relate to the creation
of a national employment council for journalists, working towards 50-50 gender
representation in newsrooms and eliminating gender discrimination, acquiring tax
concessions and loans for media houses, defining community radio stations much
more clearly at law, amending cyber laws and expanding the reach of mobile telephony among other recommendations.
These are however not new issues to be raised by media stakeholders. They have been expressed via many media organizations
over prolonged periods of time. The reasons
why they have not been achieved/implemented is due to one common denominator, the
intransigence of government, a point that IMPI does not directly mention as a key cause
for the stagnation of the media.
The reality is that for all its controversies and claim at
success, the IMPI report will rely on the benevolence of government for its
recommendations to be made practical. That
the Zimbabwe Media Commission was not directly involved in this process may
prove this latter point to be salient.
Unless of course it is arm-twisted, by government, into accepting the findings of IMPI. Either way, the future of the media is in the
hands of government than it is in its own.
And this is a worrying development.
Zimbabwe’s media must establish its own way forward in a
much more holistic fashion than that of IMPI.
Waiting on government to act helps but in the case of as important an
aspect as the media, it will not be adequate. If anything the media needs to act much more
concertedly to safeguard its independence and to prevent government from using
this controversial and now muted IMPI process to seek greater control of how
the media functions in our society.
No comments:
Post a Comment